Please help me understand literature

[JamesGold]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail.

As a reader, if you want philosophy, read philosophy. If you want entertainment, read books meant to entertain. When you read books that try to do both, you'll probably end up bored and annoyed like me.

I picked up The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky a couple weeks ago and I'm about half way through the novel. The story is not entertaining, there's tons of fluff, and the philosophical message is belabored. Yes, Dostoevsky, we understand that you believe that simple faith trumps analytical skepticism. We see over and over how the novel's characters of faith (Father Zossima, Alyosha) have a positive effect on the world around them while the characters of doubt (Fyodor Pavlovitch, Dmitri, Ivan) end up destroying themselves and those around them. That's all well and good, but what have you got to back up your philosophy? Who says non-believers can't have a positive effect on the world? This is, after all, a work of fiction, where the author can manipulate the story in whichever way he pleases to support his particular philosophy.

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

[Emil Miller]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail.

As a reader, if you want philosophy, read philosophy. If you want entertainment, read books meant to entertain. When you read books that try to do both, you'll probably end up bored and annoyed like me.

I picked up The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky a couple weeks ago and I'm about half way through the novel. The story is not entertaining, there's tons of fluff, and the philosophical message is belabored. Yes, Dostoevsky, we understand that you believe that simple faith trumps analytical skepticism. We see over and over how the novel's characters of faith (Father Zossima, Alyosha) have a positive effect on the world around them while the characters of doubt (Fyodor Petrovitch, Dmitri, Ivan) end up destroying themselves and those around them. That's all well and good, but what have you got to back up your philosophy? Who says non-believers can't have a positive effect on the world? This is, after all, a work of fiction, where the author can manipulate the story in whichever way he pleases to support his particular philosophy.

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?


This is likely to generate a certain amount of refutation but I do see where you are coming from. It is very difficult to get the balance between the philosophical and fictional elements of a novel in proportion, but it is sometimes easier for people to relate to the philosophy if it is dressed up in a fictional tale with characters with whom the reader can identify. This, to me, is the sole justification for the type of novel you have mentioned.
However, there is another dimension to a novel, i.e. the form or structure of the book which may also be interesting to the reader and add to the entertainment value of the story if not to its philosophical content.

[fb0252]

you started what should be an interesting thread. i have karamazov ordered from Norton for a second reading. 1st was in 40 years ago in my early 20s. i have a good memory for the book. Be interested to see if the aging adult has the same view.

to read or not to read? entertainment, info, philosophy. u left out aesthetics, perspective. i notice a lot of posters on here seem to read in volume. the older i get the slower i go and find second and sometimes third and 4th (shakespeare) readings to be more illuminating. memorizing great passages. i am unsure that Shakespeare was such a superior genius, or whether he simply put more elbow grease into his work. there are lines in Mr. S so precise that regardless how high the IQ, it took a lot of work to get it there. interesting Q u posed!

[Drkshadow03]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail.

As a reader, if you want philosophy, read philosophy. If you want entertainment, read books meant to entertain. When you read books that try to do both, you'll probably end up bored and annoyed like me.

I picked up The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky a couple weeks ago and I'm about half way through the novel. The story is not entertaining, there's tons of fluff, and the philosophical message is belabored. Yes, Dostoevsky, we understand that you believe that simple faith trumps analytical skepticism. We see over and over how the novel's characters of faith (Father Zossima, Alyosha) have a positive effect on the world around them while the characters of doubt (Fyodor Pavlovitch, Dmitri, Ivan) end up destroying themselves and those around them. That's all well and good, but what have you got to back up your philosophy? Who says non-believers can't have a positive effect on the world? This is, after all, a work of fiction, where the author can manipulate the story in whichever way he pleases to support his particular philosophy.

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Philosophy and literature cover many of the same issues/concerns/problems of life, but they approach them differently. One sets out to talk about the matters of life and reality through a rigorous analysis of the issue, while the other attempts to dramatize those experiences and help us more directly connect to them by watching characters attempt to deal with them.

[OrphanPip]

I don't quite get why people think Dostoevsky a brilliant philosopher. He's notable as an early proponent of psychological realism. Instead of reading it thinking about the philosophical arguments going on, think about how Dostoevsky goes about trying to use philosophy and moral arguments to construct a concept of psychological individuality for his characters.

I think Notes From Underground is perhaps better for this because Dostoevsky only deals with one character throughout. BK is an impressive novel though and I enjoy it for what it is despite my complete disagreement with Dostoevsky's pseudo-philosophy.

[dfloyd]

To enjoy a writer such as Dostoyevsky, you must put effort into it. Reading literature is a subject broached by several scholars such as Clifton Fadiman and Harold Bloom. Rather than trying to read a particular work, try reading about reading by those in the know. And there will always be some critic who dislikes a particular novel or writer.

Readers who can read great literatire are often born, not made. There are some personalities who can pick up a book and understand the story and the writer's intent. Such a reader was Teddy Roosevelt who read voraciously. I doubt if Richard Nixon or George W. Bush ever read a work of fiction in their life.

[Lokasenna]

The main factor which distinguishes literature from straight philosophy is that literature isn't so much about what you say, but how you say it. The message, in a sense, is ancilliary.

Sure, the 'fluff' might not be to everyone's taste, but that's the subjectivity of literature. Mary Shelley could have simply written "Don't play God" and had done with it, but I doubt her work would have been as enjoyable, or as predominantly ingrained on the public conciousness, had she chosen to do so.

[JCamilo]

Philosophy and literature cover many of the same issues/concerns/problems of life, but they approach them differently. One sets out to talk about the matters of life and reality through a rigorous analysis of the issue, while the other attempts to dramatize those experiences and help us more directly connect to them by watching characters attempt to deal with them.

That reminds me an anedocte about Zeno. He came to his master and told him... "If achilles and the turtle start the race..." and when he ended the master got up and walked.

I suppose we should ask people to be more minimalist, why writting a philosophical work if a gesture is enough?

[sixsmith]

This is likely to generate a certain amount of refutation but I do see where you are coming from. It is very difficult to get the balance between the philosophical and fictional elements of a novel in proportion, but it is sometimes easier for people to relate to the philosophy if it is dressed up in a fictional tale with characters with whom the reader can identify.

I'm of the opinion that Dostoyevsky rarely gets it right and that his characters tend to collapse into mere mouthpieces for his sandbox philosophy. The tendentious novel is, however, a tough ask, so I don't judge his failings too harshly.

[stlukesguild]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail...

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Yes... there is something essential that you are missing and that is the fact that the "purpose" of literature is not to convey a (often philosophical) message. Your whole approach to literature supposes that the goal is arriving at the ending (thus the desire to eliminate the "rambling dialog and unnecessary detail") at which time one will grasp the "meaning". The reality is that the goal of literature... or the work of music... or a film or painting... is not to rush to the end and the "meaning"; the goal... perhaps not unlike life... is the journey itself. Literature is about telling stories, inventing characters, creating scenes and environments wholly with words... playing with words. Certainly, writers may confront philosophical, social, political, theological, scientific issues, but the supposition that the raison d'être of literature is the expression of such a message completely misses the purpose of art.

[JamesGold]

Yes... there is something essential that you are missing and that is the fact that the "purpose" of literature is not to convey a (often philosophical) message. Your whole approach to literature supposes that the goal is arriving at the ending (thus the desire to eliminate the "rambling dialog and unnecessary detail") at which time one will grasp the "meaning". The reality is that the goal of literature... or the work of music... or a film or painting... is not to rush to the end and the "meaning"; the goal... perhaps not unlike life... is the journey itself. Literature is about telling stories, inventing characters, creating scenes and environments wholly with words... playing with words. Certainly, writers may confront philosophical, social, political, theological, scientific issues, but the supposition that the raison d'être of literature is the expression of such a message completely misses the purpose of art.

Well said, sir.

If the purpose of literature is as you say, then I suppose I should stop reading the novel because the story bores me, the characters and scenes aren't particularly memorable, and his philosophy is kind of stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future I will come back to it and enjoy it.

[IceM]

If the purpose of literature is to convey a (often philosophical) message, it generally doesn't do a very good job of it. Either the message becomes obscured (deliberately, it seems) by the fictional story it's buried in, or the author belabors the message to the point of annoyance, or both. If you as an author want to convey a message, why shroud it in a long-winded story? Just come right out with it. Write a philosophical work and spare your readers the trouble of slogging through rambling dialogue and unnecessary detail...

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Yes... there is something essential that you are missing and that is the fact that the "purpose" of literature is not to convey a (often philosophical) message. Your whole approach to literature supposes that the goal is arriving at the ending (thus the desire to eliminate the "rambling dialog and unnecessary detail") at which time one will grasp the "meaning". The reality is that the goal of literature... or the work of music... or a film or painting... is not to rush to the end and the "meaning"; the goal... perhaps not unlike life... is the journey itself. Literature is about telling stories, inventing characters, creating scenes and environments wholly with words... playing with words. Certainly, writers may confront philosophical, social, political, theological, scientific issues, but the supposition that the raison d'être of literature is the expression of such a message completely misses the purpose of art.


This is likely to generate a certain amount of refutation but I do see where you are coming from. It is very difficult to get the balance between the philosophical and fictional elements of a novel in proportion, but it is sometimes easier for people to relate to the philosophy if it is dressed up in a fictional tale with characters with whom the reader can identify. This, to me, is the sole justification for the type of novel you have mentioned.
However, there is another dimension to a novel, i.e. the form or structure of the book which may also be interesting to the reader and add to the entertainment value of the story if not to its philosophical content.

I very much agree with the two excerpts I bolded. A novel's end serves as a denouement for the character; the journey is a voyage for the reader. Effective structures invite the reader to engage in the emotional, psychological and physical underpinnings of the novel. They transcend the selected medium to engage thought in the reader. And, to me, that is the beauty of great literature. The plot, regardless of how multi-dimensional and layered it may be, is ultimately linear; yet the journey, multi-faceted in it's lifelike evaluation of emotion, psychological and innate impulse, is what fuels thought. The novel's ending serves to express the author's belief. An individual evaluation of the journey in relation to the author's intent is what verifies it.

[Drkshadow03]

Well said, sir.

If the purpose of literature is as you say, then I suppose I should stop reading the novel because the story bores me, the characters and scenes aren't particularly memorable, and his philosophy is kind of stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future I will come back to it and enjoy it.

If you want to figure out the essential difference between philosophy and literature, the obvious choice is of course to read writers who wrote both (Sartre, Camus, etc.) in which their philosophical ideas appear in their literature and then think about how their fiction and philosophy differ even as they explore many of the same ideas.

[JCamilo]

The difference between literature and philosophy is quite simple, the same between Art and literature... sometimes Art is written, sometimes not. Sometimes literature is written, sometimes not...



Well said, sir.

If the purpose of literature is as you say, then I suppose I should stop reading the novel because the story bores me, the characters and scenes aren't particularly memorable, and his philosophy is kind of stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future I will come back to it and enjoy it.

Bingo! Literature just has no purpose. Writers and Readers may have a purpose.

[conartist]

As you can see, I'm a little frustrated with literature as a whole right now. Is there something I'm missing, some perspective on literature I haven't considered that could possibly redeem it?

Literature should be brooded on and analysed but it should also be immediately memorable; reading should be justified as an act in itself, entertaining, as you say, regardless of the book's wider implications. If The Brothers Karamzov hasn't grabbed you then you should take up a work of philosophy or another book. As long as you can acknowledge that the flaw might be with you rather than in the novel, and can consider coming back to it later, when you're perhaps a stronger and wordlier reader, then there's nothing wrong with that.

[Alexander III]

The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

-- OSCAR WILDE


We should just make Wilde's preface to Dorian Gray a sticky, and address all people who come here wanting to understand the meaning of literature to it.

[Drkshadow03]

Given that you're reading Dostoevsky, here is what I wrote about another novel of his, Crime and Punishment:


One of the main points of the book is to show the shortcomings of the new philosophies pervading Russia at the time; he does so in the most explicit way possible, by writing a story where one of those new philosophies leads a young student to commit murder and disregard the sanctity of life by naively fooling himself that it is for the larger social good. Dostoevsky rejects the crass materialism of nihilism and the social theories of Utilitarianism expressed by the likes of the powerful, immoral, and stupid Pyotr Luzhin. Before we assume that only socialism is critiqued, it is worth mentioning that capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie is condemned as well. Luzhin fantasizes about using his money to take advantage of poor women, in this case, Dunya and making them perpetually grateful for hand-outs. He is the living embodiment of the crass and vulgar bourgeoisie rising to riches through capitalism only to exploit the poor.

You'll notice I do talk about what the "meaning" or "purpose" or "deeper issues" of the book happen to be here. Or at least some of them (it's a long post and I'm only quoting part of it). However, you'll also notice I talk about them in relation to the characters and the plot and the characterization (even discussing some of the character's secret thoughts). The two are inseparable in a way. Unlike philosophy, literature helps us see how these issues and ideas play out through the medium of made-up characters and a fictionalized narrative.

So a novel should be entertaining and enlightening simultaneously. You should contemplate it as an object of art in its own right, but I think the most successful art forever changes your perspective on the issues it deals with so that when you think about those issues whether they be racism or the evils of slavery or love or pride or existentialist philosophy (even if you agree with the novelist or not) you can no longer think about them without thinking about the novel or poem as well.

Critic D.G. Myers puts it (http://dgmyers.blogspot.com/2011/01/backlash-against-gribbenizing.html) this way:

"A great novel is a disturbing comprehensive vision of the human experience. It persuades you, for a while, to watch the human parade from a weirdly angled window—to consider human life under the aspect, not of eternity, but of an odd and assertive particularity. This is what it means for a novel to be truly great: it changes your life. But not in any trivial self-improvement fashion. For a long time thereafter—if not forever—it affects the tone of every human encounter, the symbolism of every human gesture, the legitimacy of every human feeling. Even if you reject the great novelist’s vision, you are unable to shake the influence that it has upon the way that you view human actions."

[JCamilo]

Dostoievisky is tricky, because he is a teenager angst writer with 40 years old.

[fb0252]

i'd think reading great books has a more cumulative effect, although, suppose, a particular book might "change ur life". never has mine, but, one rat only.

Here's Harold Bloom on Brothers K per the OP:

"The genius D faltered when it came to representing religion..."

"D's obscurantist religiosity is plain tiresome..."

"In spiritual matters, he merely was a bigoted know-nothing, whose authentic anti-Semitism is the only evidence of his election as a Russian prophet."

On the other hand:

"Sigmund Freud, rather polemically, placed Brothers K fist among all novels ever written, approaching Shakespeare in aesthetic eminence."

[mal4mac]

Don't condemn all of literature because you dislike one author! Try Dickens or Tolstoy and see how they play with ideas. You might find them more appealing. But don't look just for philosophical meaning in literature. It's main purpose is to provide aesthetic enjoyment, that is pure pleasure! It should be closer to Mozart than to Kant. Blooms 'elegy' is quite good on 'literature as a purveyor of aesthetic value', but as the 12th grader in the "Western canon" thread points out, it is a bit difficult to chew:

http://mrbauld.com/elegy1.html

The bit I like best:

"Pragmatically, aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder.

What interests me more is the flight from the aesthetic among so many in my profession, some of whom at least began with the ability to experience aesthetic value... Longinus would have said that pleasure is what the resenters have forgotten. Nietzsche would have called it pain; but they would have been thinking of the same experience upon the heights."

Apart from Mozart, Dickens provides me with the greatest pleasures in my life. So I guess I'm fortunate in recognising the sensations that Dickens induces in me. Sometimes these sensations are, indeed, painful (the trial of Barnaby Rudge was a recent pain...) But as Bloom says, it's the 'same experience on the heights'. I find Dostoevsky to be all pain... worth reading... but a hard grind across a blasted heath!

[ralfyman]

It is best to read works that entertain and enlighten given various factors in place, such as minimal distraction, any classes, films, music, and other works related to what is being read, people to talk to about the work, etc.

For example, I enjoyed reading Dostoyevsky' Karamazov and even Crime and Punishment because I was taking a philosophy class that dealt with themes similar to those found in these books, read them slowly (a chapter or so at a time) late at night, had some delicious homemade empanada and soda (or hot choco) while reading, and saw some of the themes in relation to some European films that I was also watching during weekends.