Weaknesses of Literature in General

[cacian]

What would say are the weaknesses of literature as a whole or in any genre?
Post one weakness you think is need of change.

I will chose Fables and say that the one weakness that striked me as a kid and still does today is the concept of animals portrayed as a humans.
It took me ages as a kid to get my head around that because once a story was read to me or I read it I could see that cats or dogs or any animal for that matter did not speak. For a child that was a big lie and very disappointing.
The truth about literature is that it must stay true to its foundation and that is to stick with real images and ideas.
Reality must reflect literature and literature must reinforce a reality for the better.
Literature and reality can be a marriage made in heaven if one knows how to manipulate to extrapulates or so I believe.

[PeterL]

I suppose that literature would be better, if reading were an ability that was intrinsic to humanns, but it isn't. Literature is a mode of communication that evolves as needed, so I don't think that literature has any weakness in general, but they people who write literature may have problems.

Literature can be used to communicate concrete information or the most abstruse of ideas. The idea that it must "stick with real images and ideas" is absurd.

[mal4mac]

I liked talking animals as a kid. But I can't remember why. It might be "wish fulfilment fantasy". You see all these cute, interesting animals walking about and wish you could talk to them. But you can't :( Then someone reads you a fable... :) Just tell kids this is "make believe" (another wonder!), and where is the lie? Literature must be about life, but that does not exclude the use of fantasy and talking animals, even for adults. What about Orwell's talking pigs, and Swift's talking horses?

[AuntShecky]

As far as I can say -- though, incidentally, who the hell am I to say?-- the only weakness in literature is catering to commercial interests at the expense of artistic invention. (I was going to say "innovation," but all the ads for brokerage houses ruined the word.)

[stlukesguild]

:mad2:

[LitNetIsGreat]

:mad2:

:lol:


The truth about literature is that it must stay true to its foundation and that is to stick with real images and ideas.

We must have facts, facts boy, facts, etc, etc...

[Darth Fett]

I don't get it. Do you mean weaknesses of the reader? Because that's what this list has come down to so far. That you had a hard time understanding the concept of animals portrayed as humans wasn't a weakness in the literature--it was your weakness. I'm not trying to sound mean, but that's the truth. That I don't like or get or believe or whatever when it comes to a certain type of literature is my problem, not the literature's.


I suppose that literature would be better, if reading were an ability that was intrinsic to humanns, but it isn't. Literature is a mode of communication that evolves as needed, so I don't think that literature has any weakness in general, but they people who write literature may have problems.
But that's a problem with the reader, not the literature.

As far as I can say -- though, incidentally, who the hell am I to say?-- the only weakness in literature is catering to commercial interests at the expense of artistic invention. (I was going to say "innovation," but all the ads for brokerage houses ruined the word.)
That, too, isn't the fault of literature, but the fault of commercialism itself.



Reality must reflect literature and literature must reinforce a reality for the better
That's just not true.

[kelby_lake]

:lol:



We must have facts, facts boy, facts, etc, etc...

Hard Times? :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hard Times? :)

Ha, ha, yes. It just brought that sort of image to mind.

[MorpheusSandman]

I suppose that literature would be better, if reading were an ability that was intrinsic to humanns, but it isn't.This was the first thing that came to my mind. Language must be learned, and even when it's learned, it inevitably changes, and sometimes it changes so radically that even literature in the same language from centuries ago might as well be a foreign language itself. This makes translation a necessary evil, and necessary evils are still evil. I wish literature could be as direct as film, music, photography, painting, etc. were. It's not that one doesn't need to learn anything to appreciate those mediums as well, but simply that there is the possibility to enjoy them without that understanding that simply isn't present in literature. A child can listen to and enjoy Mozart without understanding what they're hearing, but a child can't read a foreign language and enjoy it in the same way.

[JBI]

:lol:



We must have facts, facts boy, facts, etc, etc...

A play to Dickens or am I over-reading?


As for the problem with literature, it is limited to the fact that it is literature. One can fall in love with Rousseau's Julie, but never actually meet her. That is the big tragedy, that you make so many acquaintances that disappear as the last page burns.

[cacian]

A play to Dickens or am I over-reading?


As for the problem with literature, it is limited to the fact that it is literature. One can fall in love with Rousseau's Julie, but never actually meet her. That is the big tragedy, that you make so many acquaintances that disappear as the last page burns.

JBI you do indeed summer up what I call a very good point. I have to admit that I myself never had the disillusionment of falling in love with any characters from any books but I was however disappointed as a child that some of the concepts I have come across did not meet their requirement.
Another example would be little riding hood. The idea that a wolf can dress up as a human imitate an old person then eat a human regurgitates it then spits it out was beyond my comprehension as a child. It was devastating.

[kelby_lake]

You must have been a very thoughtful child :)

Pretty much everything aimed at children makes no real sense, but they accept it anyway because it's cute.

[PeterL]

This was the first thing that came to my mind. Language must be learned, and even when it's learned, it inevitably changes, and sometimes it changes so radically that even literature in the same language from centuries ago might as well be a foreign language itself. This makes translation a necessary evil, and necessary evils are still evil. I wish literature could be as direct as film, music, photography, painting, etc. were. It's not that one doesn't need to learn anything to appreciate those mediums as well, but simply that there is the possibility to enjoy them without that understanding that simply isn't present in literature. A child can listen to and enjoy Mozart without understanding what they're hearing, but a child can't read a foreign language and enjoy it in the same way.

The abil;ity to make and understand speech s built in, but written language is a completely intellectual matter. The specific language must be learned, but the ability is builf-in.

[stlukesguild]

cacian- I have to admit that I myself never had the disillusionment of falling in love with any characters from any books but I was however disappointed as a child that some of the concepts I have come across did not meet their requirement.
Another example would be little riding hood. The idea that a wolf can dress up as a human imitate an old person then eat a human regurgitates it then spits it out was beyond my comprehension as a child. It was devastating.

kelby_lake- You must have been a very thoughtful child


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q

[dark desire]

I remember words from Thus Spake Zarathustra - That everyone can learn to read will ruin in the long run not only writing, but thinking too.

[Shevek]

Science fiction -- too sciency.
Romanticism -- too much scenery.
Poetry -- too poetic.
Novels -- not poetic enough.

As for literature in general, it can't pay my bills and it won't go grocery shopping for me.