What happened to civility?

[Jassy Melson]

It amazes me when someone will post his or her opinion on here about certain subjects, and they will be greeted by sarcasm and snideness.

Just one example: I happened to state that I had read Finnegans Wake twice, and almost immediately I was called a liar.

I don't understand what motivates someone to be sarcastic and snide; to pick and choose a statement made by a poster and ridicule it. It's almost as if these "vultures" have nothing better to do than to be a-holes. It's almost as if they're waiting for something they can swoop down on and tear apart. I feel pity for them.

[PeterL]

Snideness and sarcasm have their places in discussion, but no one had any business calling you a liar. You should have reported the post. There is discussion, but personal attack is a different matter.

[Delta40]

I agree Jassy. There is no evidence to suggest that you haven't read the book twice.

[miyako73]

I'm with you on this, Jassy. One should also have a proof if he accuses someone of lying. In this case, it is impossible to prove that you did not read the book twice.

[stlukesguild]

It amazes me when someone will post his or her opinion on here about certain subjects, and they will be greeted by sarcasm and snideness.

Just one example: I happened to state that I had read Finnegans Wake twice, and almost immediately I was called a liar.

Well you have to understand that the individual in question is a clear example of the idea that art is not for everybody, rather art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. Of course there are individuals here who have read as much or more than he and have a far greater grasp of literature... and yet would agree with you concerning Finnegan's Wake.

Liking or disliking Finnegan's Wake... or any work of literature... is not measure of intelligence or superiority.

With regard to your post on Joyce, I would question your initial assertion that a "masterpiece" needs to be accessible to a "majority" of readers. A great many works of brilliant literature are quite challenging: Blake's epics, Paradise Lost, Donne's poems, etc... I don't think that popularity (certainly not initially) is a measure of artistic merit... but I do think that there may be some validity to criticism of inaccessibility after the passage of a good many decades... even by very well-read individuals. Harold Bloom was a sworn champion of Joyce, but admitted that Finnegan's Wake quite likely will become one of those "classics" that almost nobody reads. I agree that a work of literature that can only be understood... even by the most well-read... with the help of critical commentaries and guides... may not be a work that survives over the long haul. This is no judgment upon the artistic merit of the work. We all must decide which works of art are likely to give us the greatest degree of pleasure... and when the challenges presented by a given work outweigh the amount of pleasure we are likely to gain in continuing to put forth such effort.

LitNet member JBI has spent the last couple of years in concentrated study of the Chinese language, history, and literature. Hie efforts in reading ancient arcane and esoteric Chinese texts likely makes reading Finnegan's Wake seem like a day in the park. As arrogant and egotistical as JBI can be (surely a peer to myself:lol:) I have yet to come across him suggesting that those who are unwilling to put forth such labors are lazy or inferior. If someone were to make a dismissive or ignorant comment concerning one of his favorite Chinese texts, no doubt he would jump in and correct them... but I've not seen him use his knowledge as some sort of "bragging rights". I think most of us recognize that no one is a master of everything. I've known doctors and lawyers... surely quite educated individuals... who knew little or nothing of art or literature. To admit to disliking Joyce shouldn't be imagined as some proof of inherent ignorance.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Joyce myself. The are passages and moments in both Ulysses and the Wake that I find absolutely brilliant... where language rises to a level rivaled only by a few wordsmiths such as Shakespeare... and there are long stretches that leave me absolutely exasperated. Overall... he has never been able to engage me to the degree that T.S. Eliot, Proust, Faulkner, Kafka, Borges or any number of other Modernists have... but I wouldn't think to suggest that he is overrated.

For some, however, to even suggest that you dislike a revered master is akin to a personal attack.

[Buh4Bee]

I have experienced that kind of BS on here too. The sarcasm usually comes from the SAME group of people, but there are a few who just go one step too far. For the most part, however, the majority of posters are pretty balanced in their responses.

[OrphanPip]

But sometimes it's fun to be a bit of a *****.

[stlukesguild]

From time to time... but you shouldn't make a career of it... unless you're Oscar Wilde or Ambrose Bierce.

[Anton Hermes]

I happened to state that I had read Finnegans Wake twice, and almost immediately I was called a liar.

I feel justified in questioning your assertion that you read Finnegans Wake twice, because you called it "incomprehensible." Who would read a book they considered unreadable nonsense not only once but twice?

Considering the amount of fairly imaginative claims (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?72173-When-I-Realized-I-Was-Famous&highlight=) that you've made here, I gathered that this was another example of your unique speculative fiction writing.

Carry on.


[COLOR="Straw Man Red"]
Well you have to understand that the individual in question is a clear example of the idea that art is not for everybody, rather art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. Of course there are individuals here who have read as much or more than he and have a far greater grasp of literature... and yet would agree with you concerning Finnegan's Wake.

Liking or disliking Finnegan's Wake... or any work of literature... is not measure of intelligence or superiority.

What an imagination you have. I never made any of the above claims, ever, and merely expressed skepticism that the OP had in fact read a book twice that he himself declared unreadable.

No need for hysteria.

[1n50mn14]

I hardly ever come on the forums anymore. Now I remember why.

[JCamilo]

I feel justified in questioning your assertion that you read Finnegans Wake twice, because you called it "incomprehensible." Who would read a book they considered unreadable nonsense not only once but twice?

Carry on.

I would. I do not understand the Comedia. Ready it a few times. I do not understan the Sistine Chappel. I admire it a lot of times. I do not understand all David Lynch movies. Watched more than once. Not sure how many time I have listen to beethoveen before i even understood the concept of polyphonia. If I do.

I would not be far to imagine the vast majority of people appreciate artworks that they do not understand well.

[miyako73]

good one, JC.

[stlukesguild]

Anton Hermes- Who would read a book they considered unreadable nonsense not only once but twice? Carry on.

JCamilo- I would. I do not understand the Comedia. Ready it a few times. I do not understan the Sistine Chappel. I admire it a lot of times. I do not understand all David Lynch movies. Watched more than once. Not sure how many time I have listen to beethoveen before i even understood the concept of polyphonia. If I do.

I would not be far to imagine the vast majority of people appreciate artworks that they do not understand well.

Certainly there is a great deal of truth in that. I have read the Comedia at least a dozen times... and yet each time I read it again, I discover something new. Clearly I have yet to wholly understand the work. I have looked at the the frescoes of the Sistine hundreds of times... and yet again there is something there that I did not see or grasp before. The Wasteland was largely incomprehensible the first several times I read it... yet something kept calling me back. This is perhaps the crux of the matter... the central goal of reading or music or art isn't to "get it"... to arrive at some epiphany at which point the "meaning" all becomes clear. The goal is the pleasure of the experience itself... and if the experience isn't pleasurable...? Well perhaps some of us are more masochistic than others.:out:

[cacian]

I'm with you on this, Jassy. One should also have a proof if he accuses someone of lying. In this case, it is impossible to prove that you did not read the book twice.

Even if there was no proof no on either claims it is not our place to make sniddy remarks. It is inappropriate and does not help with the discussion.

[manuscript]

i am always amused when some person, just about anyone, even a close friend, offers statements about the inner workings of my character. recently someone volunteered to inform me that i make my own life choices on the basis of pure rationality rather than considerations of feeling. what a laugh! what do they know about it anyway?

[cacian]

i am always amused when some person, just about anyone, even a close friend, offers statements about the inner workings of my character. recently someone volunteered to inform me that i make my own life choices on the basis of pure rationality rather than considerations of feeling. what a laugh! what do they know about it anyway?

I guess it is your words against theirs. We influenced by outside factors thoughts movements and sounds all the time that nothing is to left to us to think about the way we want.
I think whatever was said you stick to your guns because you are in charge of your writing not them.

[Kyriakos]

Trolls exist on every forum, and they are merely trying to cover the fact they are miserable by attempting to make others miserable.

You should just move on, those people don't change ;)

[kiki1982]

i am always amused when some person, just about anyone, even a close friend, offers statements about the inner workings of my character. recently someone volunteered to inform me that i make my own life choices on the basis of pure rationality rather than considerations of feeling. what a laugh! what do they know about it anyway?

If anyone were to say that to me, I'd say I am flattered. That means that I make the best decisions. Decisions based purely on considerations or feeling are never good.
It's usually people who are blinded by their feelings and considerations who impute that kind of stuff to others they well know are more rational beings than they.

That said, you should be feeling-less, but reason sould always have a bigger weight in the scales.

[Scheherazade]

Internet in a nutshell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLEQmMrRFw)

[Anton Hermes]

I would. I do not understand the Comedia. Ready it a few times. I do not understan the Sistine Chappel. I admire it a lot of times. I do not understand all David Lynch movies. Watched more than once. Not sure how many time I have listen to beethoveen before i even understood the concept of polyphonia. If I do.

I would not be far to imagine the vast majority of people appreciate artworks that they do not understand well.
That's not what our friend said about Joyce, if you'll recall. He didn't say that he appreciates the work even though he doesn't fully understand it. He called Finnegans Wake unreadable nonsense, even though he claimed to have read it twice.

Expressing skepticism over a dubious claim doesn't make someone a troll.

[JCamilo]

In the Finnegans thread, i do not think he used the unreadable nonsense expression, if he did, i would not mind it. Nonsense is quite a precise way to describe Joyce text, it is derivative of Lewis Carroll nonsense, quite a modernist way to represent the chaos. Not a problem.

Anyways, others been saying about misunderstanding. It is not what I meant when I said I did not understood the comedy. Misunderstanding is a form of understandment. You leave the experience fullfiled. You do not leave behind any lost piece to work. There is not Mistery to return. It is different from understanding the Comedy. There is still things that amaze me, prompt to jump out when I get distracted. There is mistery.

Voltaire often justified the existence of God due the fact we cannot understand all universe, then there must be God. One of the genial falacies of him, but he is right. The essencial masochism that is living. There is something baffling us, left behind, a mistery... Hence why we like those works we cannot domain or we feel we cannot domain even if we try harder and harder. It is God for even the atheists. I suposse most people would be more generous towards Joyce if you understand the sheer ambition of Joyce.

[Paulclem]

In the Finnegans thread, i do not think he used the unreadable nonsense expression, if he did, i would not mind it. Nonsense is quite a precise way to describe Joyce text, it is derivative of Lewis Carroll nonsense, quite a modernist way to represent the chaos. Not a problem.

Anyways, others been saying about misunderstanding. It is not what I meant when I said I did not understood the comedy. Misunderstanding is a form of understandment. You leave the experience fullfiled. You do not leave behind any lost piece to work. There is not Mistery to return. It is different from understanding the Comedy. There is still things that amaze me, prompt to jump out when I get distracted. There is mistery.

Voltaire often justified the existence of God due the fact we cannot understand all universe, then there must be God. One of the genial falacies of him, but he is right. The essencial masochism that is living. There is something baffling us, left behind, a mistery... Hence why we like those works we cannot domain or we feel we cannot domain even if we try harder and harder. It is God for even the atheists. I suposse most people would be more generous towards Joyce if you understand the sheer ambition of Joyce.

I like what you're saying JCamilo. The best poems I've read have taken me a long time to fathom out a fulfilling meaning, which I really knew was there - some resonance in the writing perhaps - but which didn't become clear to me until I, and my reading, had matured. The Waste Land is one example, and one for which the teaching I had on it really distracted from the essence of the poem.( I now think the teacher didn't really understand the poem when he was going over it with us).

[Pendragon]

Hey, it could be worse. A few years back we had a tremendous discussion thread on evolution versus creationism going that ran for a long time. There was plenty of vitriol throwing by people on both sides, and liar was one of the milder accusations. Any one of the religious threads can run into name calling and general mayhem, which is why I don't go there anymore.

Jassy, I was defending a person of Muslim faith who was being harassed by someone who obviously knew nothing of Islam, only to have the person I was defending call me a liar when I said I had read the Qur'an. Just take it in stride, and go on. In the end it doesn't matter if people think you a liar when you know that you are not.

Pen

[jajdude]

Civility is alive and well among normal people. The Internet is clouded with lost dreams and aggression.

But you read that book twice? I hear once is hard enough.

[booklover1971]

Internet in a nutshell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLEQmMrRFw)

This is so true the internet affords you a certain amount of invisibility – some people think that gives them the right to say (type) whatever they want.

[Delta40]

This is so true the internet affords you a certain amount of invisibility – some people think that gives them the right to say (type) whatever they want.

Yeah! So whoeva u r, ahm wiggling my tongue at you right now :prrr:

[JCamilo]

I like what you're saying JCamilo. The best poems I've read have taken me a long time to fathom out a fulfilling meaning, which I really knew was there - some resonance in the writing perhaps - but which didn't become clear to me until I, and my reading, had matured. The Waste Land is one example, and one for which the teaching I had on it really distracted from the essence of the poem.( I now think the teacher didn't really understand the poem when he was going over it with us).

That is probally why teaching is such a problem. Teaching is often the relation between someone who knows and one who learns. To be taken by a book, to like something you quite not understand, which is what is probally the aesthetic emotion, is contrary to that. Teaching literature is the true masochism.

[cacian]

Yeah! So whoeva u r, ahm wiggling my tongue at you right now :prrr:

:banana: hehe free will everyone to do whatever you want!
I wonder if riots go on inside forums LOL


That is probally why teaching is such a problem. Teaching is often the relation between someone who knows and one who learns. To be taken by a book, to like something you quite not understand, which is what is probally the aesthetic emotion, is contrary to that. Teaching literature is the true masochism.

Interesting things about teaching.
As a teacher myself I found most tedious to teach those who had no knowledge whatsoever of what I was teaching and so I seek other non orthodox methods of teaching.
I think teaching is two ways one must feed to the other by means of knowledge and understanding and the other must reciprocate by showing and exhibiting an ability to register what is being taught. In effect it is not just about how much has one accumulated but it is about how one has readily acknowledged learning.

[Scheherazade]

As someone who actually trains teachers, I find these thoughts about teachers and teaching quite puzzling - if not baffling.

[Paulclem]

That is probally why teaching is such a problem. Teaching is often the relation between someone who knows and one who learns. To be taken by a book, to like something you quite not understand, which is what is probally the aesthetic emotion, is contrary to that. Teaching literature is the true masochism.

I've since taught literature including poetry. The poetry was the best and easiest to teach because within a class you could come to a general appreciation of what a poem was about whist leaving space for more detailed interpretation by individuals - which they needed to be able to do to form opinions and ideas to be included in their essays.

Novels were harder to teach because there wasn't the time to allow such an appreciation to develop. Due to the time restrictions we had to present ideas to the learners rather than let them develop through reading and discussion in a more natural way. I suppose this is the problem of teaching literature - that and some learners not reading the book.

My old English teachers in the 70s seemed to be pretty unstructured until our post sixteen - 6th form education. We enjoyed it, but we didn't learn too much.


As someone who actually trains teachers, I find these thoughts about teachers and teaching quite puzzling - if not baffling.

The school I went to wasn't very good now I look back with a bit of experience. It was probably shared by many other comprehensives in the 70s.

[JCamilo]

The problem is objective. The objective in a class with 30,40, 50... students is one. The objetive of all individual readers is another. The teacher still represents a form of authority, a step towards understandment. Love for literature is a matter of individual faith, experience.

But since all teachers know it, even desire it a student that likes the book rather the one that explains the book but yet, they cannot grade it, teaching ends being a "torture". By the way, when i meant "teaching" i didn't mean just the student -teacher relation, but every learning experience, even those we find here.

[cacian]

As someone who actually trains teachers, I find these thoughts about teachers and teaching quite puzzling - if not baffling.

Hi Scher
It is propably the way I have expressed which is not very well.
I mean to say that teaching is also about how one learns. If I am able as a teacher to understand how one someone learns then I can proceed to teaching accordingly.
Learning is about knowledge and also about the psychological processes that one undergoes to acquire that knowledge.
Adapting the various forms of how the human psychic acquire understanding an learning to teaching is an important step to progress.
Well to me anyone.