Was literature directed at a different audience?

[Kyriakos]

When i read some classic work of the 19th century, which along with the ancient era is my favourite period of literature, i often think that back then literature seemed to have a different, more refined audience.
The working class possibly did not read, both out of actual lack of ability to do so, but also lack of time, and, finally, it was just something a working class person was not supposed to do.
So literature appears to have been adressed to the middle class, which was a lot smaller than the one of today.

Same would go for art in general.

Nowdays it seems that art is targeted literally at everyone, at least if it is actually something that tries to be worthy. But also a vast number of lesser art (movies for example) have a very base level of an audience, although they can appeal to more refined people as well.
Does this shift in audience create a chasm between the quality of 19th century art, and particularly literature, and that of today?

I had more to write, but i didnt want to make the opening post too long. Hopefully we can have a discussion about this :)

[spookymulder93]

What do you mean by refined?

Everyone should be able to enjoy art. It's just not for rich people.

19th century had Wagner, 20th century had Pink Floyd. In my opinion Pink Floyd is high quality art.

[PeterL]

Literature was, and is, directed at the people who read. That population has changed over the centuries. If you look at English literature from before 1700 the relatively low literacy rate cut out the peasantry, but by 1800 the literacy rate in English speaking countries was more than 75%, so that made little difference.

Your question seems rather poorly defined. If you were more specific, then it might be easier to find a relevant answer.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

The dregs of the 21st century won't survive posterity either. Time separates chaff from wheat. It was Hootie, not Springstein, who so voluminously asked Time "why you punish me?"

[stlukesguild]

Art has always been targeted at an "elite" audience of one sort or another. For most of history this meant an "elite" of wealth and power... for only they had the leisure time needed to seriously study art and develop the "refined" tastes needed to begin to appreciate Japanese flower arrangement, Italian opera, the string quartet, or a Petrarchan sonnet cycle. To an extent, this remains as true now as it ever was. The paintings of Jackson Pollack or Robert Rauschenberg, the poetry of Anne Carson or Geoffrey Hill, the music of Arvo Part or Osvaldo Golijov are not something generally appreciated by (or aimed at) the larger masses.

What has changed... at least in the wealthier Western cultures... is that the population as a whole is far wealthier... and has a leisure time unknown to earlier times... or to the vast majority of the human beings on this planet. They no longer struggle simply to survive. As a result, there is a far greater potential audience for art... for paintings, novels, poetry, films, music, etc... The "elite" now consists of those of an elective affinity... those that choose that literature, or poetry or theater or opera or painting or the ballet or film or architecture or Japanese flower arrangement are worth the effort demanded to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation. One makes the choice that contemporary poetry or the blues or film noir or modern dance are something that is worth the effort... that affords a degree of pleasure far greater than the challenge and trouble it entails... or not. By the same token, one comes to the realization that those who have put forth such effort and as such who have the greater investment in a given discipline or art are also the ones who also have the greater understanding, insight, and ability to judge the same.

[Alexander III]

I personally believe that great art, or attempts at great art, then again I suppose no one begins with the intention of creating mediocre art, but I digress, Art does not seek an audience per se, it is nonchalant and indifferent to targeting a certain class or audience, rather, in literatures case, it seeks to enter the great debate hall that is literature, and to speak its voice amongst the bellows of past greats, to build on past arguments, redefine them, discredit them, or try to form new ones on the ashes of past ones.

[JCamilo]

What do you mean by refined?

Everyone should be able to enjoy art. It's just not for rich people.

19th century had Wagner, 20th century had Pink Floyd. In my opinion Pink Floyd is high quality art.


To refine something is to select. Yes, Literature was produced for a more refined audience before. The few who could read or cared for it until the burgoise take over were usually people who could dedicate themselves to it, philosophers, males, etc. It does not means art could be only enjoyed by them, it means that only them had access to literature. Democracy changed everything, and of course, if you write for billions instead for just the philosophers of enlightment you will have to write something that can be understood by everyone, no matter the educational level. That is one of the reasons why poems lost room for prose, specially novels.

It does not means all art was like that: popular art existed all the time, drama was accessible, dance, oral storytelling, etc.


I personally believe that great art, or attempts at great art, then again I suppose no one begins with the intention of creating mediocre art, but I digress, Art does not seek an audience per se, it is nonchalant and indifferent to targeting a certain class or audience, rather, in literatures case, it seeks to enter the great debate hall that is literature, and to speak its voice amongst the bellows of past greats, to build on past arguments, redefine them, discredit them, or try to form new ones on the ashes of past ones.

Ok, Artists do seek their own audience. They belong to their timeline, society and seek to strive there. They receive money for their work from their clients (and for example, when painting was more exclusive than today, the audience was even more specific). Many of the great writers worked for the monarchs of europe or aimed to this. Dante had a exactly notion of who would read his work. Even someone as Emily Dickinson had her limited audience as a target. Obviously, we can imagine them hoping for something else, but they start with their surroundings. Obviously, the great art is exactly this one, who goes beyond either the artists aimed or not.
An example, so we do not need to snob, is Tolkien grump complains about the hippie community embrace to the elvish society and all. He did not wanted but no matter how much he complained, it did not matter at all.

[stlukesguild]

Everyone should be able to enjoy art. It's just not for rich people.

19th century had Wagner, 20th century had Pink Floyd. In my opinion Pink Floyd is high quality art.

This insinuation... at least that what I get from your post and earlier posts... is that those who don't recognize the aesthetic genius of Pink Floyd or Charles Bukowski or Jim Morrison are simply snobs looking down upon what they feel is low-class. Such an argument is an old and by now rather tired one. Art no longer is reserved for the rich. It is there for any having the time and willing to put forth the effort. I would presume that your opinion of Pink Floyd is based upon comparison with other examples of pop music that you have experienced. I quite like them myself... but I'd be loathe to place them along side of Wagner... not because they are pop music... but rather because I have listened to enough music from the middle ages through the present that based upon my experiences Pink Floyd is no where near Wagner. Now the Rolling Stones on the other hand...:biggrinjester:

I personally believe that great art, or attempts at great art, then again I suppose no one begins with the intention of creating mediocre art, but I digress, Art does not seek an audience per se, it is nonchalant and indifferent to targeting a certain class or audience, rather, in literatures case, it seeks to enter the great debate hall that is literature, and to speak its voice amongst the bellows of past greats, to build on past arguments, redefine them, discredit them, or try to form new ones on the ashes of past ones.

Been reading Harold Bloom... or T.S. Eliot?

[PeterL]

It appears that this topic suggests that the world is going to the dogs. That may be true, and people have been saying things like that for several millennia, but things continue to crawl along.

[JCamilo]

It is good to notice, I know a story that Ariosto was once attacked by bandits, all illiterate. When they heard his city's origem, they asked if he knew Ariosto. He said it was himself and the bandits started to recite they favorite parts of Orlando Furioso and gave back to him all they took.

Obviously, Ariosto did not wrote for people who could not read, but obviously art (vague, as it means also religious dramas performed during medieval times inside churches or the music, the arquiterure of the chapels, the iconography, etc) finds its way. We certainly can not get pop musicians (or rock roll musicians inside USA or Britain XX century) and demand them the same art as Wagner, we can of course talk about their quality, but an artist belongs to his time. If it is getting worst, maybe. It is possible. We have to assume we may be worst writers than past writers. But this also means future writers can be better than us. Who cares, you do not need to be like the artist, the public can pick his timeline.

[David Lurie]

Does this shift in audience create a chasm between the quality of 19th century art, and particularly literature, and that of today?

Popular entertainment and refined entertainment - and infinite shades of "pop" and "ref" between them - have always been part of the scenery and I'd say that the existing chasm between pop and ref is of lesser extension today than it was in the 19th century. This is particularly evident in the new art forms: TV-series like The Sopranos or Lost are undeniably "pop" but they are undeniably refined products. At the same time "pop" continues to produce the vulgar products that represented its core production in the past centuries, a good example of this from the past was how opera was performed in Italy until WWII when first films and then television erased its tradition: opera was performed everywhere, even small towns had theaters and places too small to have one hosted traveling companies, in my hometown the theater was right in front of our house but my family never went to that theater, they preferred to go to Teatro San Carlo in Napoli once a month rather than to cross the street whenever they wanted because in the small towns - and even in certain theaters of the big ones - opera needed to be vulgarized to full the house so: the soprano needed more tits than voice, the storyline needed to be simplified and made to be comic - no matter what the libretto said - the slow parts of the music needed to be replaced with lively ones. Let's face it: popular entertainment before the modern era was pure ****.
Let's turn to the refined audience of the 19th century: some time ago I listened to an interview of the American conductor Marin Alsop who was talking about her recording of the symphonies of Brahms and the change of perspective of the audience from the time of Brahms and our time and she said that in the 19th century the third symphony - the more refined of the four according to Alsop - was the one the audience loved most while nowadays it is the more neglected one, Alsop explained this change of reception and found the culprit in the lesser musical education of today's audience. Of course Alsop wasn't talking about the audience of the theater in front of my grandparents' house but I think Alsop is right, as a regular concertgoer I can attest that in the foyer I have listened to the more blatant examples of musical ignorance I have ever heard in my life. At the same time Alsop is wrong since she is comparing the elite audience of the 19th century with the fake elite of our time, fake elite are the guys who listen to Brahms and run away from the theater if the conductor menaces to play Schoenberg, the elite audience of our time not only is more refined than the audience of the 19th century, it's even more numerous. This was about music and I think the same goes on with literature, todays' elite readers - the ones interested into the extremest shades of refined entertainment - are much better prepared and refined than their 19th century counterparts because they have assimilated the classics and all the crazy novelties of the 20th century; everything is better now than it was in the 19th century, I have no doubt about it, furthermore: why should I ever like an era when I wasn't alive? :ciappa:

[spookymulder93]

Everyone should be able to enjoy art. It's just not for rich people.

19th century had Wagner, 20th century had Pink Floyd. In my opinion Pink Floyd is high quality art.

This insinuation... at least that what I get from your post and earlier posts... is that those who don't recognize the aesthetic genius of Pink Floyd or Charles Bukowski or Jim Morrison are simply snobs looking down upon what they feel is low-class. Such an argument is an old and by now rather tired one. Art no longer is reserved for the rich. It is there for any having the time and willing to put forth the effort. I would presume that your opinion of Pink Floyd is based upon comparison with other examples of pop music that you have experienced. I quite like them myself... but I'd be loathe to place them along side of Wagner... not because they are pop music... but rather because I have listened to enough music from the middle ages through the present that based upon my experiences Pink Floyd is no where near Wagner. Now the Rolling Stones on the other hand...:biggrinjester:

I'm not saying that their on the same level as Wagner, I'm just saying that they're a great band that just isn't for a select group of people, their for anyone who wants to listen. The difference between the high art available back then and now.

I only know a little about classical music, but I'm sure without the compositions that artist like Wagner put together, Pink Floyd probably would not exist.

I'm surprised you like Pink Floyd. You didn't strike me as the Rock type. There's more to you than meets the eye, but if you like The Stones better than Floyd then I think it was destined for me and you never to agree.:cornut:

[Desolation]

Aw, Mulder, you were my favorite poster on this site until that last bit...Come on, Floyd doesn't have anything on the Stones.

To the topic at hand, I'd say that my favorite literature from the 19th Century is the kind that doesn't deal with the upper class, or insults them heavily. Tolstoy is unarguably one of the greatest writers of all time, but his books are hard for me to read because, despite how much I love and admire his story-telling abilities, I just don't care about the problems of rich Russians in the 19th century. Art today is certainly aimed more squarely at the everyman, and I think that there's good and bad to that situation. "Refined" art tends to be boring, but art that leans too heavily towards the "rabble" tends to be garbage. I'm honestly not really sure what point I'm trying to make here...I'll just make it simple by saying that art is always going to change with the zeitgeist. My recommendation would be that if you're not a fan of the zeitgeist, you should be happy that you still have access to works from the 19th century that you find more enjoyable.

[Alexander III]

"To the topic at hand, I'd say that my favorite literature from the 19th Century is the kind that doesn't deal with the upper class, or insults them heavily. Tolstoy is unarguably one of the greatest writers of all time, but his books are hard for me to read because, despite how much I love and admire his story-telling abilities, I just don't care about the problems of rich Russians in the 19th century. Art today is certainly aimed more squarely at the everyman, and I think that there's good and bad to that situation. "Refined" art tends to be boring, but art that leans too heavily towards the "rabble" tends to be garbage. I'm honestly not really sure what point I'm trying to make here...I'll just make it simple by saying that art is always going to change with the zeitgeist. My recommendation would be that if you're not a fan of the zeitgeist, you should be happy that you still have access to works from the 19th century that you find more enjoyable."

I think the point you made is a very valid one, extremism in art leads to bad art.


"Been reading Harold Bloom... or T.S. Eliot?"

Actually no, Eliot is on my to do list, that was of the top of my head, but I have been reading so much lately that its probably a bunch of ideas which have mingled and procreated in my mind to form that little paragraph.


Oh and sorry Spooky, but no way is Pink Floyd better than the stones :D

[stlukesguild]

I'm not saying that their on the same level as Wagner, I'm just saying that they're a great band that just isn't for a select group of people, their for anyone who wants to listen. The difference between the high art available back then and now.

I only know a little about classical music, but I'm sure without the compositions that artist like Wagner put together, Pink Floyd probably would not exist.

I don't buy the notion that the best of popular art is necessarily less accessible than the best of "high art". The difference is simply exposure. You grew up exposed to certain music because the mass media... the TV and radio and films and advertising bombarded you with this. In a sense its rather Pavlovian. Why, for example, do you prefer Pink Floyd to the Rolling Stones (and quite likely to Elvis, Duke Ellington, or Benny Goodman)? Is it because Elvis and Ellington are less accessible... or is it rather because Elvis and Ellington are far more outdated according to the mass media and your peers? The popular accessible art of one culture may seem no less foreign and inaccessible than the most complex work of "high art". The reality is that some works of "high art" are far more demanding than others. Some are no less accessible than the best examples of popular art. The best art in every genre always makes certain demands upon the audience... other wise it would leave us bored... disinterested in one more example of the same old tired cliche.

I'm surprised you like Pink Floyd. You didn't strike me as the Rock type. There's more to you than meets the eye, but if you like The Stones better than Floyd then I think it was destined for me and you never to agree.

Aw, Mulder, you were my favorite poster on this site until that last bit...Come on, Floyd doesn't have anything on the Stones.

Indeed!

"Refined" art tends to be boring, but art that leans too heavily towards the "rabble" tends to be garbage. I'm honestly not really sure what point I'm trying to make here...I'll just make it simple by saying that art is always going to change with the zeitgeist. My recommendation would be that if you're not a fan of the zeitgeist, you should be happy that you still have access to works from the 19th century that you find more enjoyable.

Perhaps the strength of writers such as Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, etc... comes from the fact that they can be equally at home engaging in the most esoteric theology and the most refined and elegant poetic language... and they hang out with the peasants slugging back some beers, ogling the women and making rude comments, engaging in brawls or bursting out with laughter. The problem that I see here, is an assumption by some that great art is some sort of elite and effete endeavor certain to bore the individual.

[Mr.lucifer]

"Refined" art tends to be boring, but art that leans too heavily towards the "rabble" tends to be garbage. I'm honestly not really sure what point I'm trying to make here...I'll just make it simple by saying that art is always going to change with the zeitgeist. My recommendation would be that if you're not a fan of the zeitgeist, you should be happy that you still have access to works from the 19th century that you find more enjoyable.

Perhaps the strength of writers such as Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, etc... comes from the fact that they can be equally at home engaging in the most esoteric theology and the most refined and elegant poetic language... and they hang out with the peasants slugging back some beers, ogling the women and making rude comments, engaging in brawls or bursting out with laughter. The problem that I see here, is an assumption by some that great art is some sort of elite and effete endeavor certain to bore the individual.
Did I ever tell how much I freaking love you?

[JCamilo]

"Refined" art tends to be boring, but art that leans too heavily towards the "rabble" tends to be garbage. I'm honestly not really sure what point I'm trying to make here...I'll just make it simple by saying that art is always going to change with the zeitgeist. My recommendation would be that if you're not a fan of the zeitgeist, you should be happy that you still have access to works from the 19th century that you find more enjoyable.

Perhaps the strength of writers such as Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, etc... comes from the fact that they can be equally at home engaging in the most esoteric theology and the most refined and elegant poetic language... and they hang out with the peasants slugging back some beers, ogling the women and making rude comments, engaging in brawls or bursting out with laughter. The problem that I see here, is an assumption by some that great art is some sort of elite and effete endeavor certain to bore the individual.

Ok, Shakespeare and rabble fine, Cervantes and rabble, fine. Dante and rabble? Elite, elite, elite.
I think we must assume elite has a positive meaning. Nobody talk Phelps belongs to an elite, yet he does. I demand to be accused of elitism.

[stlukesguild]

Ok, Shakespeare and rabble fine, Cervantes and rabble, fine. Dante and rabble? Elite, elite, elite.

C'mon JCamilo... Dante shifts his language into the vulgar quite often in his responses to and descriptions of the damned. Indeed, one might point out that his very use of the "vulgar" tongue and his defense of it in De vulgari eloquentia leads to a more accessible art. Undoubtedly, he is a brilliantly educated individual able to travel through the highest spheres of society and talk upon history, politics, literary history, and theology... but I don't see this as being inherently incompatible with also being able to empathize or relate to the "rabble". Of course what we know of him historically is rather limited... and skewed by biographers who idolized him (such as Boccaccio) and would never have shown the less than ideal side that we today might be more appreciative of.

[JCamilo]

But you saw his justification? I have eaten in the better tables for long, now I got the crumbles and it is time to share with less fortunate peopel.
Everything elite, even fake modesty...
Nothing better than writing a treatise about how great literature is written than presenting a short poem just written by himsel for this purpose...

[Evaril]

Wait? Films are a lesser form of art? It may be less rich and less advanced than literature, but that's just a matter of time. It's like those people back then who used to say that novels were inferior to poetry and drama...

[blazeofglory]

Literature in the past was centered around the elite few and now it is getting across the mass. Let literature be written in such a way that every reader can enjoy it. Literature, classical and full of big and weighty words I find loathing. Earlier books were written a few highly educated persons in focus and they are like textbooks and at times we cannot understand without professors of literature helping with interpretations. When I read Milton's paradise lost it was pretty difficult. I did not think what they did was justice to the majority

[mal4mac]

Art has always been targeted at an "elite" audience of one sort or another. For most of history this meant an "elite" of wealth and power... for only they had the leisure time needed to seriously study art and develop the "refined" tastes needed to begin to appreciate Japanese flower arrangement, Italian opera, the string quartet...


I don't think you need refined tastes to *begin* to appreciate these things. Most football supporters appreciate Italian Opera snippets presented by the three tenors. I appreciated certain string quartets without needing to go through a phase of refinement. Doesn't everyone like a nice flower arrangement? Then again, I agree with the basic thrust of your argument, I certainly needed experience before I could begin to appreciate many things. And sometimes, amazingly, that initial enjoyment deepens... like with the three tenors... unlike with football.



19th century had Wagner, 20th century had Pink Floyd. In my opinion Pink Floyd is high quality art.

This insinuation ... those who don't recognize the aesthetic genius of Pink Floyd ... are simply snobs looking down upon what they feel is low-class ... I would presume that your opinion of Pink Floyd is based upon comparison with other examples of pop music that you have experienced. I quite like them myself... but I'd be loathe to place them along side of Wagner... not because they are pop music... but rather because I have listened to enough music from the middle ages through the present that based upon my experiences Pink Floyd is no where near Wagner. Now the Rolling Stones on the other hand...



Pink Floyd were top of my list in my mid-teen years, but having "listened to enough music from the middle ages through the present", based upon my experiences, for me, Pink Floyd is now nowhere near Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, or a hundred other composers. But I have problems with Wagner! I'd still rather listen to Pink Floyd complete than the Ring Cycle... although both experiences would involve pain... I admit it might be my lack of refinement, but given that I *do* appreciate a hundred other composers without hardly any pain, then I'm not sure I want to struggle to gain that particular refinement.

So to get away from Pink Floyd I wouldn't recommend Wagner - maybe start with Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works? They are like Shakespeare, a little effort and there you go! And most top critics think they are the best. Best of both worlds - loved by plebs and elites alike. Wagner is more like James Joyce - good in a very few small parts, but, overall, feel the pain...


Ok, Shakespeare and rabble fine, Cervantes and rabble, fine. Dante and rabble? Elite, elite, elite.

C'mon JCamilo... Dante shifts his language into the vulgar quite often in his responses to and descriptions of the damned. Indeed, one might point out that his very use of the "vulgar" tongue and his defense of it in De vulgari eloquentia leads to a more accessible art. Undoubtedly, he is a brilliantly educated individual able to travel through the highest spheres of society and talk upon history, politics, literary history, and theology... but I don't see this as being inherently incompatible with also being able to empathize or relate to the "rabble".

I agree with stluke here. I made it thorough the Divine Comedy (Mandelbaum traslation) without much pain, and a lot of pleasure - including the more philosophical passages in "Paradise", not just the vulgar passages in "Hell". So that proves the rabble can appreciate it! It's a lot easier to appreciate than Joyce's Ulysses, Proust, or The Bible - I never made it very far through those. So if you want to be elite, read them!

[Alexander III]

Literature in the past was centered around the elite few and now it is getting across the mass. Let literature be written in such a way that every reader can enjoy it. Literature, classical and full of big and weighty words I find loathing. Earlier books were written a few highly educated persons in focus and they are like textbooks and at times we cannot understand without professors of literature helping with interpretations. When I read Milton's paradise lost it was pretty difficult. I did not think what they did was justice to the majority

Im sorry to say this Blaze, but the majority, the masses, tend to be idiots. I am not sating this out of a sort of snobbish superiority, simply through historical and social fact, the masses tend to be idiots.

To make an analogy to film, the masses when given the choice would rather watch Paul Blart: Mall Cop than Schindler's List.

So by that dangerous reasoning all art should attempt to be Mall Cop not Schindler's List.

[dicer]

I think it's also worth considering that Literature likely served a different purpose to that which it serves today. During the 19th century, Literature primarily acts as a means of moral instruction; and, particularly as faith in God was shaken, some even turned to Literature as the instrument which could instil that moral order necessitated by a society. I suppose you might see this quite easily in Dickens, in that it's not purely entertainment - like many books today - but quite often the text is interrupted by heavy-handed moralising or social commentary.

I don't read modern literature so very often, but I'm inclined to think that today's literature holds a less sure position, has not the same root expanse. Literature is more recreational than instructional. I remember reading in Thoreau that every word should be read as deliberately as it was originally written, but then I think a lot of texts today are more easily consumed and don't really weigh up to this idea. This might be a little far out, but life has picked up a lot of speed since 'back then', and it can't be too surprising to think that Literature would reflect this, also, in that it now has to compete with numerous other art forms - prominently cinema - that can perhaps please faster than it. I think this is also a problem in the visual arts, with the majority of art schools focusing on the abstract, with little thought for the necessary technical skills that act as foundation. They might argue that realism is 'dead', but then anyone can see the life in Rembrandt's paintings; and he worked to get there.

I don't really know if Literature has a sound 'purpose' anymore, but it would probably benefit if it could find one; just like an artist would benefit from learning the fundamentals, regardless of the sort of projects they intend to embark upon afterward. I suppose this would all be linked to a broadening audiences, but then I think it's mostly to do with a shift in what people look for in books.

[spookymulder93]

Schindler's list is as depressing as ROOTS. I'd probably rather watch Paul Blart the mall cop too.

I understand the point you're making though.

What do you guys think about movies like The Dark Knight and Lord of the Rings. They have high critical acclaim and they were directed at the masses.

[JCamilo]

Literature in the past was centered around the elite few and now it is getting across the mass. Let literature be written in such a way that every reader can enjoy it. Literature, classical and full of big and weighty words I find loathing. Earlier books were written a few highly educated persons in focus and they are like textbooks and at times we cannot understand without professors of literature helping with interpretations. When I read Milton's paradise lost it was pretty difficult. I did not think what they did was justice to the majority

Milton is pretty difficulty just like Thomas Pynchon or Faulkner were. It is a matter of style, not audience. Shakespeare can pretty straightfoward on his contact with the pulbic, high literature included Boccaccio who was without doubt "vulgar", in the very original sense of the word.

Classics are not filled with big words at all, some classics are exemplary of minimalism and economy of language and drunk a lot from popular sources.

And it is irrealistic, even today, Stephen King to pick a obvious mass writer, is unable to write a text that every reader will enjoy. It is impossible, the same person may enjoy a book and 10 years after dislike it.

[JCamilo]

I agree with stluke here. I made it thorough the Divine Comedy (Mandelbaum traslation) without much pain, and a lot of pleasure - including the more philosophical passages in "Paradise", not just the vulgar passages in "Hell". So that proves the rabble can appreciate it! It's a lot easier to appreciate than Joyce's Ulysses, Proust, or The Bible - I never made it very far through those. So if you want to be elite, read them!

hehe, Joyce like Wagner, I am sure Stluke may write a handfull of blog entries just to break this link :D

Anyways, I do not think Stlukes tirade about Dante drinking beer with the rabble like us meant that he is not elite or that the appreciation of a artwork is not something individual. Many elite did not liked Dante, for some years he got in a vaccum, not with the same cannonical status as now. Dante is simple hard, not hard to read - reading is quite easy, reading Joyce is easy - but deeply understanding it or even making the Comedy your "pillow book" is something else. I would say it is the most difficulty work of all literature, but I would not mind if someone told me it is Dom Quixote.

We must keep in mind that watever powers Dante may had, his work was turned Divine by his readers. It went beyond him. So even if the rabble reads it - we are rabble after all - Dante still the elite of literature. But I am sure some works - French literature has a tradition of vulgar for example with Moliere, Rabelais, Voltaire, Sade, etc, we have Swift, with Shakespeare we can see exactly when he was working to please the crowd which was not always Queen Elizabeth, Cervantes and his Quixote, Camoes etc - had elements of "vulgarity" albeit being written for the elite. Because in the end, the elite is piggish, lives with vugarity as well and those author had the notion of how to allow a literal reading.

Another thing, we talk about the elite, but the economic elite is not like intelectual elite. Those authors were considerable more "wise" than their kings.

As the movies, Lord of The Rings is just a bad movie in what seems to be Hollywood losing hand how to produce mega-epic movies like they did in the past. Dark Knight is good, specially if you a batman fan, but his main quality is that the director did not went with special effects, slow motion fighting scenes, etc that controls Hollywood thrillers in the last years. He had a story and worked with the timing of it, exactly like hollywood used to do when not all directors had the oddly ambition to shoot a thrailler and also be Stanley Kubrick at sametime.

[Kyriakos]

My own view is that Literature nowdays seems to have become a lot simpler, much like abstract painting which anyone can do. Definately things are being published which wouldnt have been published if one had to familiarise himself with a small circle of intellectuals (again this word has taken a negative connotation, which is fair, given the analogous demise of intellectialism) who also wrote, and were highly critical of one's work.
I tried sometimes to read books created after ww2. Time and time again i gave up. I think that the only post ww2 book in my collection is one with three plays by Ionesco, but i am not particularly fond of them either.
As a writer, and one who has been published last year, when i was 30, i have a very concrete view of what i like, but also conscious reasons for liking it, although i realise that ultimatelly (like anything else in thought) the reasons break up to sub-reasons, and one can only chase them so far into his deeper realms of thought. But i can very well understand when a piece of writing has no style, no direction, poor language, is sensationalist without having the weight to cause a sensation (another word that became negative).

I do listen to modern music though. I like a few "pop" songs (i dont mean the genre, but music with modern instruments and simple composition). But i absolutely love some other classically oriented, but contemporary, pieces of music, and particularly the music of some computer games, like the Castlevania series, Legend of Zelda, and others (gave up on playing games years ago, but i still listen to their music).
So it is not some extreme sense of dissaproval of all things modern that makes me dislike (what i have read of it) contemporary literature of other people. :)

[JCamilo]

Anyone can do an abstract painting, not anyone can do a great abstract painting.
The same goes for literature, in the XIX century Coleridge already complained about anyone being able to write a romance. Many did. But few like Flaubert or Tolstoy. I am sure anyone who could write (because not anyone has access to the material for abstract painting, and even abstractism demmands the domain of a certain technical basis) tried to write poems in XVI century. Shakespeare was not the only playwriter. Actually, Sophocles, Euripedes etc werent either (there was some short of competitive festival where they presentend their plays, so there is others also, now forgotten).

Old things have the merit of being forgotten. Not a luxury that we have. But in 2 centuries people will look the XX century and only talk about Joyce, Nabokov, Eliot, Yeats, Borges, Neruda, Faulkner, Rosa,etc and it will seem like they were the only guys writting and how good it was.

[Desolation]

Schindler's list is as depressing as ROOTS. I'd probably rather watch Paul Blart the mall cop too.

I understand the point you're making though.

What do you guys think about movies like The Dark Knight and Lord of the Rings. They have high critical acclaim and they were directed at the masses.
Schindler's List wasn't THAT depressing...I watched it and Downfall in the same day, and I thought that Downfall was quite a bit more depressing. Schindler's List was kind of hopeful, all about the good in humanity and the ray of light in overwhelming darkness.

I thought that Lord of the Rings was great. As for The Dark Knight, it elevated an entire genre to a new level. I think that Christopher Nolan's going to go down in history as one of the great film-makers and story-tellers of the 21st Century, although his Batman films, which he's most famous for, are definitely the worst movies in his filmography (and that's saying a lot).

[Mr.lucifer]

When it comes to literature, some people don't like difficult literature not because its demanding, but because they want instant immersion. Its more of a lack of patience than a lack of intelligence. Diffiuclt literature is too annoying for a lot of people. For example, ulysses is just too annoying to take the time to understand for a lot of people.

People want to be immersed as quickly as possible. For them, literautre that doesn't click as soon as possible is a waste of them for them. Its not they don't want something demanding because its too hard, but because difficultity is too annoying because it takes time to get into.

Most people aren't taught to expect challenges out of literature, its just something they've been taught to expect instant immersion out of. This does not mean literature that isn't difficult is low quality trash either. People just haven't learn to take time to struggle with literature.

Plus, difficulity can frustrating a lot of times. Its like when you're a casual game playing a really hard video game and you quit playing because it pisses you off.

[stlukesguild]

mal4mac- I don't think you need refined tastes to *begin* to appreciate these things. Most football supporters appreciate Italian Opera snippets presented by the three tenors. I appreciated certain string quartets without needing to go through a phase of refinement. Doesn't everyone like a nice flower arrangement? Then again, I agree with the basic thrust of your argument, I certainly needed experience before I could begin to appreciate many things. And sometimes, amazingly, that initial enjoyment deepens... like with the three tenors... unlike with football.

I take the word "appreciation" as meaning something more than "like". It also presumes an admiration based upon understanding. I agree that anyone can like a snippet... a catchy tune... from a given opera. It takes experience and some effort to come to develop the deeper appreciation... the understanding of the narrative, the formal structure, the aesthetic innovations, the manner in which the work builds off prior works. Anyone may like a lovely tune from Mozart... but a deeper appreciation... a sense of where he fits in history, his importance, how he compares with others. I have just begun to seriously explore medieval music in some depth. I certainly like the sound of much of it... but I can't give much of an in-depth comparison between composers or national styles, nor do I fully grasp the structures that they are working with and how one composer may be far far more innovative or daring than another. This will take time and effort.

Pink Floyd were top of my list in my mid-teen years, but having "listened to enough music from the middle ages through the present", based upon my experiences, for me, Pink Floyd is now nowhere near Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, or a hundred other composers. But I have problems with Wagner! I'd still rather listen to Pink Floyd complete than the Ring Cycle... although both experiences would involve pain... I admit it might be my lack of refinement, but given that I *do* appreciate a hundred other composers without hardly any pain, then I'm not sure I want to struggle to gain that particular refinement.

For whatever reason, Wagner immediately resonated with me. Outside of the fragment here or there (The Ride of the Walkure, the Wedding March, etc...) I first heard Wagner on LP in the form of Herbert von Karajan's recordings of Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal. I was enthralled from the very first. Coming to Wagner after experiencing and coming to appreciate the traditional operas of Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, etc... can be quite difficult. It is hard to wrap you mind around the concept of this non-stop musical drama. He is perhaps more accessible moving back from Puccini, Richard Strauss, Delius, Debussy, etc... You might also wish to shatter your notion of traditional opera by exploring Monteverdi, Rameau, Handel, Shostakovitch, Benjamin Britten, early Strauss (Elektra and Salome), Janacek, Martinu... and maybe even Philip Glass. Wagner may make far more sense and seem far more traditional in comparison.

So to get away from Pink Floyd I wouldn't recommend Wagner - maybe start with Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works? They are like Shakespeare, a little effort and there you go! And most top critics think they are the best. Best of both worlds - loved by plebs and elites alike. Wagner is more like James Joyce - good in a very few small parts, but, overall, feel the pain...

I would never recommend Wagner's operas as a first move into the realm of classical music. Mozart? Certainly. I'd start with his last symphonies, the clarinet quintet and concerto, and the late piano concertos. Beethoven? Of course. Listen to the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 9th symphonies and the great piano sonatas (Pathetique, Moonlight, Appassionata, Tempest, etc). I'd also recommend the Baroque for the simple reason that the steady beat (often based upon the dance) is something it shares with popular music. Begin with Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Handel's Water Music and Royal Fireworks Music. But also explore Chopin (nocturnes and waltzes), Orff's Carmina Burana, Holst's Planets, Rossini's (and even Wagner's) overtures, etc... I'm definitely not sure of the comparison between James Joyce and Wagner. Wagner is actually a larger figure within the course of music than Joyce withing literature. He is incredibly innovative... equal to or surpassing Joyce on this account... but he does not so fragment or shatter the tradition as does Joyce. Schoenberg might be closer to Joyce on that account. Perhaps rather he is like someone like Proust with his lush epic or Balzac and his superhuman collection of novels. Wherever he falls... I don't think he is anywhere near as difficult as Joyce or the Modernist composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Penderecki, etc...

Literature in the past was centered around the elite few and now it is getting across the mass. Let literature be written in such a way that every reader can enjoy it. Literature, classical and full of big and weighty words I find loathing. Earlier books were written a few highly educated persons in focus and they are like textbooks and at times we cannot understand without professors of literature helping with interpretations. When I read Milton's paradise lost it was pretty difficult. I did not think what they did was justice to the majority

You are making two gross assumptions:

1. All art is for everyone.
2. The connection between the audience and the artist is solely the responsibility of the artist.

In case you haven't learned this yet, allow me to inform you that all art is not for everybody. Chinese opera just ain't for me. Neither are most works of conceptual installation art. Most artists create with an audience not unlike themselves in mind. I doubt that Bach could have lowered himself to writing songs for Britney Spears nor Dante to writing sequels to the Twilight saga. By the same token, its not likely that Dan Brown or Stephenie Meyer is going to engage a reader who loves Dante, Shakespeare, J.L. Borges, Kafka, and Tolstoy. The writer who churns out pulp fiction, chick-lit, and other less-than-classic attempts at writing is no more successful at reaching the whole reading audience than is the highly esoteric and difficult writer like Geoffrey Hill.

Your expectation that the writer should make every effort to reach the widest possible audience (at the price of losing the interest of the more experienced and demanding readers) is nothing more than a reverse snobbism... an anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires a certain level of intellect, or achieves a high standard. You might wish to question the assumption that it is the responsibility of the writer to do everything in his or her power (including dumbing-down the vocabulary and avoiding challenging concepts) to reach the largest possible audience. What do you want of literature... nothing more than entertainment for morons? Or is it possible that the audience should be expected to be willing to put forth some effort as well?

Very few writers use big words or complex forms or challenging concepts in order to simply impress or to leave a certain aspect of the audience in the dark. They write a given way because they feel that such means are necessary to their work... and because that is the way they think and talk. This is no different than the fact that educated persons... or experts in a given field... will employ a language... a vocabulary... which is quite removed from that used by the laborer in the bar. It is not intended to impress... but rather to communicate with persons of like interests and abilities. Or perhaps you expect the educated writer who has read Dante and Shakespeare and Milton... or the surgeon or astrophysicist will talk just like any drunken laborer watching the football game in the pub? If you so loathe literature that employs a rich vocabulary, well-thought-out formal structures, the use of symbols and metaphors, the unexpected turn of narrative, the complicated character portrayal, etc... the very elements that makes literature engaging to the well-read audience... you might wish to ask yourself whether literature at all is really something that you value at all. Or is it simply a means to an end... a way of getting across a given social/political cant?

Schindler's list is as depressing as ROOTS. I'd probably rather watch Paul Blart the mall cop too.

I wouldn't expect less of you.:goof::biggrinjester:

Anyways, I do not think Stlukes tirade about Dante drinking beer with the rabble like us meant that he is not elite or that the appreciation of a artwork is not something individual. Many elite did not liked Dante, for some years he got in a vaccum, not with the same cannonical status as now. Dante is simple hard, not hard to read - reading is quite easy, reading Joyce is easy - but deeply understanding it or even making the Comedy your "pillow book" is something else. I would say it is the most difficulty work of all literature, but I would not mind if someone told me it is Dom Quixote.

I'm not suggesting that Dante was a beer-swilling buffoon... who just happened to be able to comment on the most esoteric points of international politics, history, and theology. What I am saying is that there are elements in the Comedia which show a side of humanity (and subsequently of the writer) that goes beyond the world of a sanitized, effete aristocracy. Like Shakespeare's plays or Don Quixote or Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, the Comedia contains the entire world... the good, the bad, and the ugly... or at least as much as any other writer ever succeeded in putting within his or her work.

[JCamilo]

Because of course, Dante was a wine swilling buffoon :D

[blazeofglory]

Im sorry to say this Blaze, but the majority, the masses, tend to be idiots. I am not sating this out of a sort of snobbish superiority, simply through historical and social fact, the masses tend to be idiots.

To make an analogy to film, the masses when given the choice would rather watch Paul Blart: Mall Cop than Schindler's List.

So by that dangerous reasoning all art should attempt to be Mall Cop not Schindler's List.

You are right, Alexander, the majority are idiots and but they can be instructed and entertained by a good piece of literature. Maxim Gorky wrote the Mother that could entertain the vast majority or the working class as well. To put it totally differently, the masses are considered idiots because in our eyes they are too simple, unconditioned, free, unprejudiced and un-preoccupied by any foolish thoughts at all.

Literature should be written directing at them, addressing their issues, their problems. Shakespeare for instance was too much royalty fetish and the rest of other following in his footsteps were obsessed higher social echelons.

[JCamilo]

Shakespeare royality feitish certainly was a vulgar element of his work. He loved to see kings dying, betraying ,etc. The comedy elements, some vulgar (crossdressing, mistakes, puns, buffoons) are even in his drama. I think you miss the notion he was paid for his works by the nobility and managed to work without losing popularity appeal.

[Lokasenna]

Shakespeare royality feitish certainly was a vulgar element of his work. He loved to see kings dying, betraying ,etc.

I would disagree, I'm afraid. The Renaissance writers, and those who came after them, followed to classical idea that tragedy has to be associated with nobility and aristocracy. As far as writing conventions went at the time, a tragedy based around rude mechanicals was utterly unfeasible. Part of what makes Arthur Miller such a great playwright is that he was really the first to seriously challenge this idea, and to great effect.

So I wouldn't call Shakespeare's method vulgar; rather, he managed to be unique while still working within a conventional social idea.

[blazeofglory]

Shakespeare has focused himself on the few royal people and he was, and in fact most of his contemporaries too were patronized by the kings of England and that is why royal families and their kins have been dominant subjects in his books. They had little to do with the common man in point of fact

[mal4mac]

I take the word "appreciation" as meaning something more than "like". It also presumes an admiration based upon understanding. I agree that anyone can like a snippet... a catchy tune... from a given opera. It takes experience and some effort to come to develop the deeper appreciation... the understanding of the narrative, the formal structure, the aesthetic innovations, the manner in which the work builds off prior works. Anyone may like a lovely tune from Mozart... but a deeper appreciation... a sense of where he fits in history, his importance, how he compares with others.



Nabakov was famously atonal, but (no doubt) had a good "understanding of the narrative, the formal structure, the aesthetic innovations, the manner in which the work builds off prior works" of the Magic Flute.

Now imagine a musical kid transported by the music but knowing nothing of the narrative, never having heard of a mason, not knowing if Mozart was alive or dead. Who has the greater appreciation? Does Nabakov have any real appreciation of Mozart's music? He can have an appreciation of his place in history without that. Whereas doesn't the kid *really* appreciate the music?

I actually have a Herbert von Karajan recording of Tristan und Isolde! I have put off listening to it for years after a really bad experience with Solti's Ring Cycle.

In general, I much prefer instrumental music. So in deciding what to listen to it usually goes like this: "I haven't listened to all of Haydn's piano trios yet, and I much prefer any Haydn I've heard to Wagner, so I'll just listen to some more Haydn before digging out Tristran from the back of the broom cupboard..." And, like you, I rather like medieval music, and I've hardly begun to explore it...



I would never recommend Wagner's operas as a first move into the realm of classical music. Mozart? Certainly. I'd start with his last symphonies, the clarinet quintet and concerto, and the late piano concertos. Beethoven? Of course. Listen to the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 9th symphonies and the great piano sonatas (Pathetique, Moonlight, Appassionata, Tempest, etc).


I agree with this! Which performers do you recommend? I have Karajan's Beethoven symphonies, which are superb. Although i don't usually buy multiple versions I somehow ended up with three versions of the Pathetique, Moonlight & Appassionata sonatas - Gilels, Brendel, Lupu - all wonderful, I'd hesitate to choose between them. You can usually get these on the same disk and I can't imagine a better disk to get people into classical music - anyone will know bits of them already, of course, but it's good to listen to them in full. I like ASMF for Mozart, but not for Bach! (At least I didn't like Marriner's early excursion into the Brandenburg's - Pinnock is my man there.)




I'd also recommend the Baroque for the simple reason that the steady beat (often based upon the dance) is something it shares with popular music. Begin with Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Handel's Water Music and Royal Fireworks Music. But also explore Chopin (nocturnes and waltzes), Orff's Carmina Burana, Holst's Planets, Rossini's (and even Wagner's) overtures, etc...


Bach is difficult, I find. It took repeated listening to different performers before I really appreciated the Brandenburgs and other pieces (like the Well Tempered Clavier - Hewitt not Jando!) Vivaldi is a lot easier - instant joy - I have Nigel Kennedy's version which is good and has pop cred. :) Pinnock has a nice box set of Vivaldi at a bargain price if you want to dive deeper.



I'm definitely not sure of the comparison between James Joyce and Wagner. Wagner is actually a larger figure within the course of music than Joyce withing literature. He is incredibly innovative... equal to or surpassing Joyce on this account... but he does not so fragment or shatter the tradition as does Joyce. Schoenberg might be closer to Joyce on that account. Perhaps rather he is like someone like Proust with his lush epic or Balzac and his superhuman collection of novels. Wherever he falls... I don't think he is anywhere near as difficult as Joyce or the Modernist composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Penderecki, etc...

It was rather a flip comment. It's just that both artists have caused *me* more pain than any others...

I like Stravinsky and Bartok. I would recommend "The Rite of Spring" to Pink Floyd fans.


I doubt that Bach could have lowered himself to writing songs for Britney Spears...


The Brandenburgs were aimed at an elite sponsor but can the same be said for his church music? Wasn't at least some of that music aimed at the average pleb in the pew? Some of the cantatas sound fairly straightforward ... for German speakers...

Dante is simply hard, not hard to read - reading is quite easy, reading Joyce is easy - but deeply understanding it or even making the Comedy your "pillow book" is something else. I would say it is the most difficulty work of all literature, but I would not mind if someone told me it is Dom Quixote.

I recently made the Divine Comedy my pillow book. I didn't find it that hard - in Mandelbaum's translation - it is no more difficult than Shakespeare. With both you need notes, but not that many. I think I understood it reasonably deeply, at least I though I was getting most of the intellectual stuff in 'normal reading' mode. It's not like reading Kant - where I had to unpick each sentence with continual reference to secondary literature.

Don Quixote is an easy read! Hardly more difficult than Dickens, in Grossman's translation. Maybe it's hard in old Spanish? The most difficult works of all literature are surely written by Joyce - Finnegan's Wake, followed by Ulysses.

[stlukesguild]

You are right, Alexander, the majority are idiots and but they can be instructed and entertained by a good piece of literature. Maxim Gorky wrote the Mother that could entertain the vast majority or the working class as well. To put it totally differently, the masses are considered idiots because in our eyes they are too simple, unconditioned, free, unprejudiced and un-preoccupied by any foolish thoughts at all.

No... the masses aren't idiots... but they are ignorant. They lack the experience and the knowledge demanded by most of what is defined as "fine art"... be it literature, music, or art. Yet within the modern Western cultures at least they always have the option to invest the time... to put forth the effort needed to come to an appreciation of such art. Most choose not to. They are disinterested and/or not willing to put forth the effort. The notion of the noble-working class, free and unprejudiced would be comic if it weren't so outmoded and condescending. Next you will be singing the praises of the "noble native" or the "simple savage".:shocked: The working classes are no less prejudiced than the "elites" and are no more "free". They are just as much a product of the social mores of the social circle in which they travel as anyone else.

Literature should be written directing at them, addressing their issues, their problems.

There is plenty of literature directed toward the disinterested masses. Do you assume that all literature should be written toward the masses... that all art should be for everybody? This is but a lame fantasy.

Shakespeare for instance was too much royalty fetish and the rest of other following in his footsteps were obsessed higher social echelons.

No... they were intelligent enough to recognize that you don't put bread on the table by writing art for those who can't read or don't read or can't afford to purchase books or attend the theater. They were also in love with the art of literature... language, words, metaphor, rhyme, cadence... and not with idealistic notions of changing society and culture. As a result, they wrote for an audience that shared a love of and understanding of language and literature... not for an audience easily entertained... or an audience in waiting for a messiah.

[mal4mac]

Shakespeare royality feitish certainly was a vulgar element of his work. He loved to see kings dying, betraying ,etc. The comedy elements, some vulgar (crossdressing, mistakes, puns, buffoons) are even in his drama. I think you miss the notion he was paid for his works by the nobility and managed to work without losing popularity appeal.

He was only partly paid by the nobility - do you think he let his groundlings into the Globe for free? He aimed directly for popular appeal, just like a Hollywood director. What is remarkable is that, at the same time, he could retain enough complexity to please the most intellectual.

I do agree that he 'loved to see kings dying, betraying, etc' - as long as they were bad kings, and the betraying had its comeuppance (Macbeth, Richard III...) But you can't say he loved the deaths of Hamlet or Cleopatra - they were tragedies, we hate to see them die while admiring the tragic spirit of the plays.

[mal4mac]

Shakespeare has focused himself on the few royal people and he was, and in fact most of his contemporaries too were patronized by the kings of England and that is why royal families and their kins have been dominant subjects in his books. They had little to do with the common man in point of fact

I disagree. The common man is always present in his plays, usually with a big part. The lead characters often have a clever servant - think Juliets nurse, Hamlet's Horatio (not common enough - OK the poor players and the grave digger), Caliban and his drunken chums in the Tempest, the fool in King Lear, Bottom and gang in MND, Falstaff in Henry V (not common enough? Ok his chums and Mistress Quickly), Cleopatras maid in A&C.. and on.. and on...

These characters have close interactions with the Royal characters, bringing them down to Earth and giving them the common touch. It's probably why the UK still has a monarchy...

[JCamilo]

I would disagree, I'm afraid. The Renaissance writers, and those who came after them, followed to classical idea that tragedy has to be associated with nobility and aristocracy. As far as writing conventions went at the time, a tragedy based around rude mechanicals was utterly unfeasible. Part of what makes Arthur Miller such a great playwright is that he was really the first to seriously challenge this idea, and to great effect.

So I wouldn't call Shakespeare's method vulgar; rather, he managed to be unique while still working within a conventional social idea.

Actually no, Shakespeare is almost the end of Renaissance and he is far from a classicist, breaking some conventions of classical theatre. Even Romeo and Juliet, you notice is a comedy that turns into drama and Romeo is not a typical tragical hero. And the traditional familes of Verona are neither nobility or aritocratics strictly speaking. Imagine that Schiller with his Messina tragedy received critics for returning to classical models years before Miller. Which means, it was broken quite sometime before him.

You basically can not find in Shakespeare works absence of vulgarity: he placed a clown in the middle of the plays, he had several puns and sexual jokes, he often used comic circustances (Even Hamlet acts like a fool) to enhance the drama of his tragic heroes. He certainly have a way to please both nobility and the masses with the same plays. Also, it is good to remember, play writers did not had a big status at that time. It was a minor form of writing, way behind poetry and philosophy (and one of the reasons the shakespeare matter grew so strong). Shakespeare certainly bowed to two masters and he had a good notion that the crowd would like to see the nobility suffering and dying on their wars on stage.

Like it was pointed, a notable portion of his plays has ordinary people and for once, with voice, as they have their opinion or saying - which reflects Shakespeare communication with the public. Also, he certainly dig some themes and stories from popular culture and not just from "classical sources" (which is actually not so present in his work). He was certainly not elite,neither wrote only for them and just about them.

[Lokasenna]

Actually no, Shakespeare is almost the end of Renaissance and he is far from a classicist, breaking some conventions of classical theatre. Even Romeo and Juliet, you notice is a comedy that turns into drama and Romeo is not a typical tragical hero. And the traditional familes of Verona are neither nobility or aritocratics strictly speaking. Imagine that Schiller with his Messina tragedy received critics for returning to classical models years before Miller. Which means, it was broken quite sometime before him.

You basically can not find in Shakespeare works absence of vulgarity: he placed a clown in the middle of the plays, he had several puns and sexual jokes, he often used comic circustances (Even Hamlet acts like a fool) to enhance the drama of his tragic heroes. He certainly have a way to please both nobility and the masses with the same plays. Also, it is good to remember, play writers did not had a big status at that time. It was a minor form of writing, way behind poetry and philosophy (and one of the reasons the shakespeare matter grew so strong). Shakespeare certainly bowed to two masters and he had a good notion that the crowd would like to see the nobility suffering and dying on their wars on stage.

Like it was pointed, a notable portion of his plays has ordinary people and for once, with voice, as they have their opinion or saying - which reflects Shakespeare communication with the public. Also, he certainly dig some themes and stories from popular culture and not just from "classical sources" (which is actually not so present in his work). He was certainly not elite,neither wrote only for them and just about them.

Ah, I'm sorry - I missunderstood your use of the term 'vulgar'. I assumed you meant it was vulgar for Shakespeare to focus on the aristocracy, rather than that his plays merely contained vulgarity.

That said, I still stand by my comments. It was not until the 20th century that tragedy could realistically (i.e. without irony) be associated with the common folk.

[mal4mac]

That said, I still stand by my comments. It was not until the 20th century that tragedy could realistically (i.e. without irony) be associated with the common folk.

Caliban? Falstaff? Shakespeare modulates between irony and straight-forward tragedy with these characters. For instance, Falstaff's rejection by Hal, and his death scene, are heightened by Shakespeare moving out of comedy into straight on tragedy - thereby heightening the impact. And, even with knightly pretensions, Falstaff is definitely common, that's what Hal's rejection is all about. Other tragic commoners - "Poor Yoric", Cleopatra's feisty maid servants, who died with her.

[Lokasenna]

Caliban? Falstaff? Shakespeare modulates between irony and straight-forward tragedy with these characters. For instance, Falstaff's rejection by Hal, and his death scene, are heightened by Shakespeare moving out of comedy into straight on tragedy - thereby heightening the impact. And, even with knightly pretensions, Falstaff is definitely common, that's what Hal's rejection is all about. Other tragic commoners - "Poor Yoric", Cleopatra's feisty maid servants, who died with her.

But the point is that these examples are not straight-forward tragedy. For example, Falstaff's deathbed scene is played for laughs, with Mistress Quickly saying that she discovered he was dead by feeling further and further up his leg, and finding no warmth - the innuendo is very obvious. Caliban may be on one level a sympathetic character, but his savageness is also a source of humour, particularly in his identification of Stephano as god-like figure, and his half-baked plot to kill Prospero. It is true that there is a nobility to his "Be not afeared" speech, but it is underscored by the fact that the recipients of his wisdom and understanding are not Prospero or any other noble, but two drunken clowns.

The concept of applying pure, unadultered tragedy to a non-noble character in drama is, I maintain, a relatively recent one.

[JCamilo]

I think what you mean is focused on common people, not just with common people on it.
We can say Romeo and Juliet were "normal" (neither aritocratic, noble, kings. And of course, Shakespeare heroes are not mytic heroes), but you can say they are just idealized to be common people.

Then I say Moliere used only common people and much of portuguese -spanish drama (just like much of the popular drama) used it. And of course, XIX century had Tchekhov. But I will say I do not disagree much with what you are saying, from XIX all art changed audience as it was hinted here, but this does not mean that only Miller was the first to challenge the rules of tragedy as a role.

[Lokasenna]

I think what you mean is focused on common people, not just with common people on it.
We can say Romeo and Juliet were "normal" (neither aritocratic, noble, kings. And of course, Shakespeare heroes are not mytic heroes), but you can say they are just idealized to be common people.

Then I say Moliere used only common people and much of portuguese -spanish drama (just like much of the popular drama) used it. And of course, XIX century had Tchekhov. But I will say I do not disagree much with what you are saying, from XIX all art changed audience as it was hinted here, but this does not mean that only Miller was the first to challenge the rules of tragedy as a role.

Fair enough. I'll freely admit to not being familar with European literature after the medieval period, so perhaps my first contact with it was through Miller.

[kelby_lake]

Schindler's List wasn't THAT depressing...I watched it and Downfall in the same day, and I thought that Downfall was quite a bit more depressing. Schindler's List was kind of hopeful, all about the good in humanity and the ray of light in overwhelming darkness.


Agreed.

[kelby_lake]

I think Woyzeck by George Buchner is the first modern tragedy, in the sense that it focuses on the downfall of a working-class man.

[wat??]

My own view is that Literature nowdays seems to have become a lot simpler, much like abstract painting which anyone can do. Definately things are being published which wouldnt have been published if one had to familiarise himself with a small circle of intellectuals (again this word has taken a negative connotation, which is fair, given the analogous demise of intellectialism) who also wrote, and were highly critical of one's work.
I tried sometimes to read books created after ww2. Time and time again i gave up. I think that the only post ww2 book in my collection is one with three plays by Ionesco, but i am not particularly fond of them either.


On what do you base this view? The fact that most published authors currently putting out material aren't as skilled as the greats from the 19th century isn't necessarily a testament to the decline of sophisticated literature. The fact is that the only works you or I read from the 18th century and further back, are works which have managed to stand the test of time. If your belief is that only classics were published before world war two I think you are incredibly misguided.

Not anyone can create good or interesting abstract art (abstract being an incredibly broad field I assume you are referring to abstract expressionism); and I have not observed this analogous demise of intellectualism of which you speak.

I tried sometimes to read books created after ww2. Time and time again i gave up.

{Edit}

[wat??]

I thought that Lord of the Rings was great. As for The Dark Knight, it elevated an entire genre to a new level. I think that Christopher Nolan's going to go down in history as one of the great film-makers and story-tellers of the 21st Century, although his Batman films, which he's most famous for, are definitely the worst movies in his filmography (and that's saying a lot).


Geez really? Is that all it takes?

[kelby_lake]

Schindler's List wasn't THAT depressing...I watched it and Downfall in the same day, and I thought that Downfall was quite a bit more depressing. Schindler's List was kind of hopeful, all about the good in humanity and the ray of light in overwhelming darkness.

I thought that Lord of the Rings was great. As for The Dark Knight, it elevated an entire genre to a new level. I think that Christopher Nolan's going to go down in history as one of the great film-makers and story-tellers of the 21st Century, although his Batman films, which he's most famous for, are definitely the worst movies in his filmography (and that's saying a lot).

Really? :shocked:

[Alexander III]

Actually, in regards to post wwII lit, you should definitely check out Umberto Eco and Italo Calvino, two of the greatest post-war writers not only in Italy but in the world. Oh and I should also mention Borges, him and Calvino are the peak of post-modernist lit.

In the 19th century for every dickens there were hundreds if not thousands of steven king's and dan browns. The difference is that only dickens survives, from the past we only get the top 1%, of contemporary lit we don't have the advantage of having generations of writers and academics skim out 99% of mediocrity leaving only that 1% of genius. That is why to each generation it appears that the past was far better and their generation is intellectually devoid.

[kelby_lake]

And what about Nabokov?

[JCamilo]

I would not say Borges is a post-modernist, he was discovered in Europe after the 50's, but he was writting for quite a while before it and was member of modernist groups as well. Which is probally why Nabokov is not exactly a post-modern (or post-war) writter...

[Alexander III]

Hm, time is not the only factor in placing a writer to a movement, I would consider Nabokov a modernist simply as he built upon and expanded within the modernist vein. I would deem Borges a post-modernist as though he wrote in a modernist vein and he built upon said style, his best works only have a base of modernism, their style being the first sign of post-modernism.

Much like D'Annunzio and Proust are deemed modernist, but the base of their writing lies in symbolism, from which they founded modernism.

[JCamilo]

You just not even dates (But you can not really call someone writing before the wars a post-modernist), it is simple that Borges is the main argentine modernist writer. There is an entire generation after him build upon his style that can be called post modernist (Marquez, Casares, Cortazar).

Now, Borges style is typically modernist. He is not only similar to Nabokov (they shared an empathic link according to the russian), but several other modernist writers (Joyce, Eliot, Ezra Pound, Faulkner, Paul Valéry, Lugones, Fernando Pessoa) and had several modernists traits.
Also, the bases of his writing is also surrealism (He wrote poetry to be like Verlaine, and Poe and Baudelaire are two of his youth heroes)and he is clearly linked to spanish modernist small movements (or the ultraism, which is a modernist anti-modernist cliche) and presents every trait of modernism in south america (the regionalism).