Do People Read More or Less

[Mr. Pedantic]

I suppose that people may read more, but with lower quality of writing. Of course, I base this on what I see around my college campus. Most people I know read Steven King or Michael Crichton, and seldom expose themselves to serious literature.

I view this as a serious problem. I'm not sure who blame. My finger's pointed at modern authors, the public for not challenging themselves, television and the Internet for distracting people, and the publishing industry for not taking risks and only publishing safe bets that are sure to sell.

I'm wondering whether this is a growing trend or if most people never flocked to more challenging literature and classics. However, as a young man my data on this subject are weak.

Do people read more or less then they did twenty years ago? Please discuss, particularly older members who have more life experience regarding the subject.

[Jassy Melson]

There are more books being published and more people reading than ever before.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No difference. People read the same as they did 20 years ago. 20 years is nothing!

Like any art form, literature is something of a niche market, whereby the amount of people willing to invest the time and study in understanding literature to a greater degree is always going to be in the minority. I believe that you get out what you put in many times over, but you are not going to see the average Joe reading Milton at the bus stop, not because they aren't necessarily "smart" enough to "get it" but rather, it is going to appear removed from what they generally see and follow in the public eye. It's just the way it is, no real worries.

[spookymulder93]

You might catch me reading Milton at the bus stop.

The first seal has been broken! Our time is at hand.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh of course, me too, many people on here will - but what percentage of people will do so? The average reader is not likely to go into a book shop and pick up Milton or Shakespeare, most of them are still scarred with Shakespeare from school to even think about it, this is why most "literature" sections are to be found right at the back of the shops in little dusty corners, where no one but students or the odd freaky stray dares to venture.

[Alexander III]

Hmm I think the "poor quality writing" which circulates and amasses large popularity in 2010 is more or less the same as that of 1810. The difference is we do not know of all the trash lit from 1810 as after a few years it died, while collerige, keats ect. lived on, not because they were remarkably popular ( I think the only one from that period in Britain who amassed extensive popularity was Byron). To put it bluntly same ****, different day.

[Heteronym]

Only a small elite likes the arts. The millions who in the past read penny dreadfuls and pulp magazines have logically moved to similar modern entertainments: videogames, TV series, etc. The form changed, but the content remains: sexual titilation, crime, likeable heroes, simple morals. There's not much of a difference between CSI and all the square-jawed detectives of Edwardian times.

A small core of readers always remains who love what is called high literature.

[Drkshadow03]

Oh of course, me too, many people on here will - but what percentage of people will do so? The average reader is not likely to go into a book shop and pick up Milton or Shakespeare, most of them are still scarred with Shakespeare from school to even think about it, this is why most "literature" sections are to be found right at the back of the shops in little dusty corners, where no one but students or the odd freaky stray dares to venture.

Really? Is this a British thing? The literature section in most Barnes & Nobles or Borders in America is usually prominent, larger than any other section, and right there at the front/side of the story, running across the entire wall of the store usually. Sometimes it's right in the middle of the store too. But almost never in the back.

The "literature" section is usually one of the first sections you see in most used bookstores too. Usually the genre fiction (SF and fantasy and horror is in the little dusty corner).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Use bookstores are different things altogether, but yes generally my experience is that most "literature" sections in small to moderate sized bookstores at least, are not too prominent. My local W H Smiths for example has a tiny literature section and no poetry at all. Waterstones is a little better, but there is not much out of the ordinary - Dickens, Austen etc, etc, and that section is located right at the back of the store. The used bookshop I sometimes go to is about ten times smaller than Waterstones with about the same about of classic books on offer. If you are a bookseller it makes perfect sense to place the popular books, the best sellers and the like at the front of the store - it's just good business sense, like putting more expensive items on the top of supermarket shelves. However I mostly buy my books online so it doesn't make much difference to me, I rarely buy new books anyway.

[PeterL]

People read essentially the same as they did a hundred fifty years ago. Reading is more popular now than it has been for decades Popular authors probably are better than the popular authors of the past, but we are not familiar with the popular authors of the past, thank the Gods. If you can find a "penny dreadful", then see if you can read it. It probably was written by someone who wasn't as good a writer as whoever wrote the left behind series.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well the responses I got have been uplifting. I reckon every era has its drivel. But, what I'm concerned is with the actual classics not being read. By this I mean Homer, Virgil and stories of the Bible. I feel that these works are superb sources of inspiration that sadly remained untapped by modern writers. Schools aren't as pressed to have everyone classically educated anymore. Rather, they have put an emphasis on modern classics such as Austen and Melville, which are, of course, excellent in their own merits, but lack the scope of true classics. I guess what I'm trying to say is that more people ought to read the ancient classics.

Did any of that make sense?

[spookymulder93]

I don't think the average Joe would find a lot of the ancient classics to be interesting even if they did try to read them.

Times have changed. Authors need to find ways to modernize the classics if they want to reach a wider audience in the new generation. I don't know of any novels that do this, but I know I found the movie "Disturbia" to be more interesting than Hitchcocks "Rear Window", though the camera techniques in "Rear Window" were awesome.

[Drkshadow03]

Well the responses I got have been uplifting. I reckon every era has its drivel. But, what I'm concerned is with the actual classics not being read. By this I mean Homer, Virgil and stories of the Bible. I feel that these works are superb sources of inspiration that sadly remained untapped by modern writers. Schools aren't as pressed to have everyone classically educated anymore. Rather, they have put an emphasis on modern classics such as Austen and Melville, which are, of course, excellent in their own merits, but lack the scope of true classics. I guess what I'm trying to say is that more people ought to read the ancient classics.

Did any of that make sense?

Well, that's an entirely different issue altogether. From what I've seen I would agree colleges have gutted their classics departments (by which I mean specifically, Ancient Greeks and Romans). The departments are shrinking (when tenured professors retire they're not replaced), and you're not required to take any class in the Classics department in many cases. I don't know, maybe mythology is run through the Classics department? When I took a mythology class at a different university it was given as part of the philosophy department. The classics department in one of the other schools I attended was basically there for the people who were majoring or minoring in Classics, which also meant not just reading Virgil and Homer, but actually learning Latin and Greek.


In my English courses, we read Antigone and Oedipus as examples of drama as part of the Intro to Lit survey courses, but otherwise we never touched Classic Lit. All the Classic lit I've ever read I did on my own time in translation of course. This makes some sense in that the discipline is English. So the emphasis is on British Literature and American Literature. If you actually look at the origins of English Literature as a discipline, according to Terry Eagleton at least in his Introduction to Theory, it was seen as a completely different discipline from studying the Classics. The Classics professors looked down at these upstart professors wanting to teach English novels, poetry, and drama. Why would you want to waste your time studying that Shakespeare crap or the Romantic poets when you could be studying important works like Virgil or Homer or Horace?

As far as your original issue, I think there is still plenty of high quality writing to be found being published today in all genres. The classics of literature as a whole (Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare, Melville, Joyce and company) still sell solidly, which is why the publishers still publish them (it's not a charity organization after all and most of these works are in the public domain so they're cheap to produce in comparison to other books where you have to pay the author with an advance and royalties), even if a large chunk of these steady sales can be attributed to school required readings and course syllabi.

Most contemporary literary writers also have steady sales. McEwan, Roth, DeLillo, Proulx, Morrison, and company are hardly starving writings living in a garret. So I wouldn't be that worried about an uneducated public reading only Stephen King and James Patterson.

[the facade]

I think that it's normal for people to think that things were better before and that the cultural fabric is deteriorating. It seems to me that more people are reading, even if it's Dan Brown and bunch. We can only hope that it will lead some into more enriching literature like it did for me and which I'm eternally grateful for.
Cheers!

[PeterL]

I think that it's normal for people to think that things were better before and that the cultural fabric is deteriorating. It seems to me that more people are reading, even if it's Dan Brown and bunch. We can only hope that it will lead some into more enriching literature like it did for me and which I'm eternally grateful for.
Cheers!

Everything has been sliding since the time of Socrates, and see how much worse things have become.

[Serena03]

It has been nearly the same in comparison to the last twenty years. However, TV has really been the replacement and many would rather refer to a movie/TV adaptation of a book instead. But endorsement from he internet has made books a bit more accessible and affordable. Although the material people choose these days is not quite a refinement, such as Twilight, it is nonetheless gratifying to see people, especially youth, enjoying the printing word once again.

[breathtest]

I think that literature has changed so much because people are always looking for things they can relate to in a story. It's just like the modern tv adaptations of, for example, sherlock holmes. People want modernised stories, and along the way this may or may not have resulted in a decline in reading habits (though i dont know because i'm only young).

[Stendhal]

Well, I think that such an approximation is difficult to make because today's popular fiction is tomorrow's great literature.
For example, Dickens was wildly popular in his time simply for his entertainment value, and now he is seen as a classic author.
Also, you say Crichton is not "serious literature", yet his novels are loaded with social and scientific commentary. Some of his books are fairly simple, but most work through important and complex social and scientific issues.
Next, one of his last novels, is a grand tale about the ethical problems of genetic engineering.
I strongly suggest you read Crichton before you judge him, or read more if you haven't read much.

[African_Love]

seldom expose themselves to serious literature.

I view this as elitist. Art is supposed to generate emotion, it can't be analyzed as being 'valid' or not because it doesn't appeal to you.

[stlukesguild]

I view this as elitist.

And??? Art is elitist.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, I think that such an approximation is difficult to make because today's popular fiction is tomorrow's great literature.
For example, Dickens was wildly popular in his time simply for his entertainment value, and now he is seen as a classic author.
Also, you say Crichton is not "serious literature", yet his novels are loaded with social and scientific commentary. Some of his books are fairly simple, but most work through important and complex social and scientific issues.
Next, one of his last novels, is a grand tale about the ethical problems of genetic engineering.
I strongly suggest you read Crichton before you judge him, or read more if you haven't read much.

Well, I did read Jurassic Park. Perhaps, I was unfair in singling in him out. But he's no Dickens that's for sure.

[spookymulder93]

I view this as elitist.

And??? Art is elitist.

Why is it elitist?

[Alexander III]

Why is it elitist?

Because any one can read Keat's poem, To a Nightingale, anyone can think it good, and like it. But to see it's true beauty one must in a way study it and explore it, also one must have read poetry which preceded it in order to truly value it. This takes a lot of time, most people don't have or don't want to use up such a vast amount of time in such endeavors. In fact in the olden days art was mainly for the aristocrats and upper middle classes, as they were the only one who had sufficient time to devote to it. So yep art always has been, and in a sense alway's shall be elitist.

Even if you look at art which appears to be anti-elitist, such as Kerouac's novels, with a depthened look, you can see it is very elitist, as all good art is.

[spookymulder93]

Because any one can read Keat's poem, To a Nightingale, anyone can think it good, and like it. But to see it's true beauty one must in a way study it and explore it, also one must have read poetry which preceded it in order to truly value it. This takes a lot of time, most people don't have or don't want to use up such a vast amount of time in such endeavors. In fact in the olden days art was mainly for the aristocrats and upper middle classes, as they were the only one who had sufficient time to devote to it. So yep art always has been, and in a sense alway's shall be elitist.

Even if you look at art which appears to be anti-elitist, such as Kerouac's novels, with a depthened look, you can see it is very elitist, as all good art is.

Couldn't anything become elitist then?

[Alexander III]

Couldn't anything become elitist then?

Precisely

[Abras]

I read, more or less... :blush5:

[African_Love]

I view this as elitist.

And??? Art is elitist.

No, art is an expression of emotion. You cannot analyze whether or not art is valid because emotions are not logical or illogical. This attitude is why I could never consider myself to be an 'intellectual' (besides just not being very intelligent :blush5:).

[Alexander III]

No, art is an expression of emotion. You cannot analyze whether or not art is valid because emotions are not logical or illogical. This attitude is why I could never consider myself to be an 'intellectual' (besides just not being very intelligent :blush5:).

So your saying a Poem of Spenser is of equal merit to that produced by a random boy at 14 ?

Art expresses emotion true. But as with all things in life, you can do it badly, well or greatly.

[JCamilo]

Well, he is just reacting to the word elitist. Saying something is the expression of an emotion (which is also a poor definition of art) would not contest or sustain the elitism of art.

I would say the word elitism is unecessary, it is rather obvious: all fields of human knowledge (as much as human life) produce elits. Just like Eistein belongs to an elite where I do not belong, Beethoveen belonged to one elite. Simple as that, someone will produce know better physics just like someone will make better music.

Of course, some aspects related to art is not elitist: production does not need to be (albeit, it is regulated by economic factors, so it is), neither access. Being elitist does not means either popular artists wont be part of the elite, Shakespeare is always a proof that he is both popular and part of an elite. Dickens is another example. Of course He wrote popular novels, but just like several others and of course, Dickens was superior to them all. It is not because he is popular that he is liked or the other disliked, but because of his work.

So, in the end, Art is not elitist, but it does a generate an elite that put apart the quality works and artists and will forgot others. Art allows the bad art to exist too. Elitism is not bad as the democratic misconception of merit seems to imply.

[African_Love]

So your saying a Poem of Spenser is of equal merit to that produced by a random boy at 14 ?

Art expresses emotion true. But as with all things in life, you can do it badly, well or greatly.

bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.

You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.

What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?

[spookymulder93]

bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.

You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.

What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?

I agree, but no one else on this site will.

[JCamilo]

You can express emotions badly, that is why there is good actors and bad actors. Laurence Olivier was much more able to give credibility to his expression of emotion than Stallone.
And my scream of pain when I broke my art was a expression of emotion and certainlly not art. I could even do it in a creative way, next time.

[Alexander III]

"bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.

You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.

What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?"



You are right everyone experiences similar emotions. However the ability to express them is a skill in its self. Compare the two bellow:

I Love you
Baby I do
Each time I see you
My heart stops
Without you
The sun don't shine


Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee.




Both of these poems express love...guess which one takes talent to compose and which one doesn't...

Emotion is a crucial part of art, but it is not the only factor. Saying art is solely about emotion is like saying War is solely about who has a bigger army.

Art is about the creation of beauty, expressing emotion takes part in it as well, but I assure you the creation of beauty is one of the most difficult things out there.

Now if you say that from your own point your prefer L' Arssetr Essgrand poetry ( made uo the name) to all classic poetry. There is nothing wrong with that it is quite fine. The enjoyment of art is utterly subjective. However anyone who is trained in literature wont think the same way as you. Know if you are fine with that, things are all peachy, but if you preach your opinions above those who have years of study, then you come of looking rather...lets use the word foolish here...

The creation of great literature depends greatly upon having studied past greats. Il give the example of Rimbaud who created all his work in his teens, people suppose he was a natural genius and it all came flowing to him, balderdash, at the age of 17 Rimbaud had read more classics and greats than most people in the 21st century shall read in their lifetimes, he spent nearly his entire young years reading.


Oh and JCamilo, I see your point, but I maintain that someone who devotes time in studying and understanding a poem shall enjoy it far more than one who just reads it.

[Drkshadow03]

The enjoyment of art is utterly subjective. However anyone who is trained in literature wont think the same way as you. Know if you are fine with that, things are all peachy, but if you preach your opinions above those who have years of study, then you come of looking rather...lets use the word foolish here...


People trained in literature are not mere automatons who all have the same exact opinions about everything.

Have you ever considered that African_Love might have studied literature for years and come to different conclusions than you?

[Alexander III]

People trained in literature are not mere automatons who all have the same exact opinions about everything.

Have you ever considered that African_Love might have studied literature for years and come to different conclusions than you?

You are quite right they don't all have the same opinions, they have varied opinions, for example Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. However they all have educated opinions and will base their arguments using logic and reason which can be understood, they wont just say I don't like it because I don't; and if they do its hard to take them seriously.

The same logic can be used for example in evolution theory. If someone say's I don't believe in evolution because the bible say's otherwise, to one who lacks faith, there is nor logic in the argument and is thus discredited. however a man who argues the theory of evolution based on the notion that there are gaps in the theory and he uses logic to explore the gaps and show why he doesn't believe in evolution shall be listened to. Do you get the jist of what im saying ? sorry if I am not quite clear with what im tying to express.

It is entirely possible that African Love is far more well studied in literature than me, she may ( or he) have a bachelor in literature, or maybe ever a masters or PHD. Her theory may be that the sole essence or art is emotion, that is a theory which may be plausible, and I am wiling to listen if she offers logic and examples to prove her point, good logic...

However I believe differently and while I could offer all the logic to my view, it would be easier just looking up the symbolist and decadent as well as the romantic and modernist views of literature, as I mainly agree with what they say, I have yet to say anything new. Yet African Love says something new, something which requires a little bit of argument on her (his) part.

[JCamilo]

"
Oh and JCamilo, I see your point, but I maintain that someone who devotes time in studying and understanding a poem shall enjoy it far more than one who just reads it.

Well, I do not think I am enjoy my readings and re-readings the same. If I, a single person, can have a different degree of enjoyment, I do not think it is objective to build an argument about it. However, my point that is not the enjoyment that creates the elite, it is the studying time and knowledge.

[Alexander III]

But does not the studying and knowledge enhance the enjoyment ?

[stlukesguild]

I view this as elitist.

And??? Art is elitist.

Why is it elitist?

Art is elitist because it makes demands upon the audience. In order to gain a deeper appreciation of a work of art the individual must invest a degree of time and effort into coming to a understanding of the work... the intentions and goals of the artist... the history of the work and its predecessors... where it stands within a given tradition. The "elitism" that I speak of is an elitism of choice... an elective affinity. The individual decides that a given work of art or a given artistic tradition is worth the effort... or not. This is as true of fine literature as it is of sub-genre. Those who take science fiction seriously are as clear or certain as to a certain hierarchy of great writers as those study literature. Those who are into jazz or the blues are just as certain that some individuals are far greater and far more influential than others as those who listen to opera or classical music.

Art is also elitist because every artist strives for recognition and survival. Art is truly a Darwinian game of the "survival of the fittest". There is the Romantic notion of art which certainly rejects any idea of competition and embraces art as little more than "self-expression"... but art is more than "self-expression". The teenager's diary entries are self-expression... as are the baby's cries because he has gas... but they most probably aren't art. Artists have historically congregated in great metropolitan centers where they could feed off each other... and prove themselves in comparison with others.

[stlukesguild]

No, art is an expression of emotion.

Is that so? What emotion does this express:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6yuR8efotI

or this:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4872432938_6b6bfac391.jpg

Whatever emotional impact you draw from these works comes from you. An artist can have an intention of conveying a certain emotion... but this is not true of all art. Some art is anchored more in formal concerns, the expression of an idea, the illustration of a narrative or drama. The notion that art is simply the expression of emotions is an idea rooted in Romanticism and nopt in the reality of art as a whole.

You cannot analyze whether or not art is valid because emotions are not logical or illogical.

"Valid?" What makes something "valid" or "invalid". All art involves an expression or an intention... it is not this that is judged. The intention of an artist or an individual art work may go against our own values, beliefs, standards, or experiences... and still be successful as art. I think immediately of Plato's Republic. I disagree with almost every conclusion that Plato comes to... but I have no qualms about judging the work as a great piece of literature.

This attitude is why I could never consider myself to be an 'intellectual' (besides just not being very intelligent ).

An inability to analyze a work of art... to recognize where it falls short and where it succeeds... will also severely handicap any attempt at individual artistic endeavors. The creation of art involves continual critical analysis... at time very conscious... and in other instances quite intuitive... yet rooted in experience.

[JCamilo]

But does not the studying and knowledge enhance the enjoyment ?


I am not sure if I enjoyed the Comedy now or when I was 10 years old more or less... Other reasons for enjoyment surelly exists, not sure which is better, stronger, more fit or not..

[stlukesguild]

bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.

You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.

What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?

I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong. You can most certainly express emotions badly... or less artistically. The diary of the teenage girl expresses emotions that are no more profound or less worthy of artistic expression than anything else... but quite likely they are not expressed well... in terms of art. You are seemingly confusing art with the expression of emotion and so are unable to make any objective analysis or judgment of the art.

Have you ever considered that African_Love might have studied literature for years and come to different conclusions than you?

It's possible... but highly unlikely considering the strength of the arguments here and elsewhere.

[Sancho]

...There is the Romantic notion of art which certainly rejects any idea of competition and embraces art as little more than "self-expression"... but art is more than "self-expression". The teenager's diary entries are self-expression... as are the baby's cries because he has gas... but they most probably aren't art...

Nice explanation(s), stluke. But I always thought babies grinned or giggled when they let one fly – just like me.

[JCamilo]

I think people often confuse the effect of an artwork (trully subjective, trully rooted on a possibility of interpretation, wrong or right, trutlly emotional in the aesthetical sense) with the definition of art. Definition, the meaning of words, is not an artistic work, it is when culture accepts another word or a serie of words (and since I think art is process, that is more easy to be showed than simplificated on one line analogy) that you have a definition.

If art is what cause emotion and subjective, the day I listen to Bach and feel nothing, it would cease to be art.

[Bastard Child]

asdfg

[LMK]

I suppose that people may read more, but with lower quality of writing. Of course, I base this on what I see around my college campus. Most people I know read Steven King or Michael Crichton, and seldom expose themselves to serious literature.

I view this as a serious problem. I'm not sure who blame. My finger's pointed at modern authors, the public for not challenging themselves, television and the Internet for distracting people, and the publishing industry for not taking risks and only publishing safe bets that are sure to sell.

I'm wondering whether this is a growing trend or if most people never flocked to more challenging literature and classics. However, as a young man my data on this subject are weak.

Do people read more or less then they did twenty years ago? Please discuss, particularly older members who have more life experience regarding the subject.

At the risk of admitting to the 'older members' remark, when I was in college other than required reading; Camus, Dostoevksy, Chekhov, Brecht, Sartre, etc.

Fun reading was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance or Jonathan Livingston Seagull along with the poems (lyrics) of Bob Dylan
and other folk type artists.

No I don't think that what is being read today is of lesser quality, because I am still reading and enjoying and expanding and exploring. I read older works because I want to know about them and want to keep them around. I read newer works to see what there is to see.

Try The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon I read it over the summer (I would recommend not doing this if you are the least bit skittish), it is not fiction, and for me it was an effort to start, but am very glad it was recommended and given to me to read.

[Alexander III]

"Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist - Albert Einstein" I forget whose profile that quote was taken from, and I'm sorry but it's amazing...
I'm sorry, also, but I can't in any constructive way participate to such a random conversation - its like participating in a Quebec Sovereignty convention which, though I may live there, I can in no way adhere to...
I mean, I love all of it, everything, every single thing that can inspire or amaze me.. science, art, agriculture, turd-picking (should it come to it)...
Which kind of leads me onto my following question about EXPERTS:
If there are so many experts on literature - here as elsewhere - why so few authors/poets that post?
Ashamed? Wouldn't think of it...
Fakes? Hm...
{edit}

man! This COULD be an awesome site...
Just stop this nonsense, please...
I KNOW people... people who would join, WILLINGLY... COOL people (hahaha)...
But these inane discussions?
Really?
Please... I could metaphorically discuss my cats valuelessness in view of life's valuelessness with or without your own evaluational calendar and still understand poetry better than most the idiots that choose to flap-and flop-and flip their pens on here...
You know?
Last I checked (less than 15 min. ago) there were less than 30 people on here...
Damnit man! I am all for keeping {EDIT} small, select, distinct and as esoteric as possible, but has that really been the case? Worldwide? 30? Really? How is ANYONE to get a DISTINCT appreciation of their individual worth based on the appreciation of 30/5billion people?
Whatever...
Bah...


Sorry bastardchild, but you completely lost me there, what do mean ?

[kasie]

Hello, BChild - welcome to the site, I see you have joined in the last few days. You may not have realised that this is a 24 hour site, members may spend only a few minutes looking at it, or several hours, they come and go - your input will be read by more than thirty people in the course of a few days. They will be of all ages and of a wide variety of experience (life and literary) and critical ability - you may be surprised at the wisdom you come across here, as well as the tolerance and humour, not to mention the help, should you require it.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Try The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon I read it over the summer (I would recommend not doing this if you are the least bit skittish), it is not fiction, and for me it was an effort to start, but am very glad it was recommended and given to me to read.

As soon as I'm done, "The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love", I'll get right on it.