What diminishes the scope of literature?

[osho]

The classy are often cheeky and they belittle the majority. Liberalism in literature has not come into force since there is a dominance of the few who reserve all else in the domain of literature.
Our capacity for telling stories is reduced and we are fettered by too many rules and protocols. Let literature be open and easy and let it accommodate many. Let our wordiness-fetishism be derailed.
Style has one dimension of course and there are other dimensions that are equally significant

[Lokasenna]

In other words, what you are saying is that we should not show discernment in our choice of what merits good literature, nor indeed should we subject it to any kind of critical analysis.

If we ignore rules (such as a basic grasp of linguistic ability), and let all literature be 'open and easy' then there is no room for opinion, or for progression. A few word hurled at random on to the page, with no technical merit whatsoever, in such a reading is the equal of Paradise Lost or the Canterbury Tales.

What you suggests panders to the lowest common denominator, which is two parts idiocy to one part verbal incontinence. There can be no depth to anything - only a uniform shallowness.

If we don't discriminate on the grounds of ability, then what is the point of any of it? It is not about belittling anyone, it is about being honest.

[Charles Darnay]

I think you are over-simplifying the matter. If there was as much discrimination as you propose there is, a lot of the material on the best seller list today would not be there. And we have seen, here, what your (and others') anarchic views amount to: I think Shakespeare masturbating speaks for itself.

[cafolini]

Rockabye baby on the tree top...

[aliengirl]

What diminishes the scope of literature?
Badly written and poorly edited works!

There are lots of 'open and easy' literature out there but don't tell me they are all 'good' literature. Lokasenna has clarified it very well and I agree with him.

[cacian]

If it is a scope then it depends how you look at it.
Through a looking glass a lense or a naked eye or all three consecutively or may be none of the three.
You just see it and go along with it.
A scope from scopic to eutopic to isotopic. Take your pick and that is anything goes.

[Paulclem]

If it is a scope then it depends how you look at it.
Through a looking glass a lense or a naked eye or all three consecutively or may be none of the three.
You just see it and go along with it.
A scope from scopic to eutopic to isotopic. Take your pick and that is anything goes.

Do you have a recognised author in mind that subscribes to this?

[Paulclem]

Double post.

[cacian]

Do you have a recognised author in mind that subscribes to this?

Hi Paulclem I am merely addressing this through me . The answer I provided is what I do when it comes to literature. So no author that is just me.
The reason I think this is because I'd rather go along with it then fuss because the end result is and might be far greated then one has ever assumed. I play along with possibilities in order to catch new ones.
If one fuss and put a rule to stop it then one would miss on opportunities to learn more.
Risks are worth taking when it comes to learning new ventures. One must give way for new ways to allow.
To barricade an idea developing because of rules simply annulates new possibilities and then what one finds is more of the same.
Anyway why do you ask? :)

[Paulclem]

Hi Paulclem I am merely addressing this through me . The answer I provided is what I do when it comes to literature. So no author that is just me.
Why do you ask?

I wondered whether it was your personal approach or whether you knew of other authors. I don't agree that anything can go in terms of published material. As a personal practice, that's up to you.

[cacian]

I wondered whether it was your personal approach or whether you knew of other authors. I don't agree that anything can go in terms of published material. As a personal practice, that's up to you.

That is my personal approach. I depend on what I think is valuable to intellectual development through the freedom to manipulate language and express oneself the way one want.
Creativity transgends barriers and allow for ideas to develop. Obeying by the same rules means we all write and think the same which we don't.
One rule for all means we all write towards the same goal and that is what I am not comfortable with.
One learns to express oneself through one's rules or lack of them.I am a great believer in language experiment the more we away from the formalities and the bureaucracies of right and wrong and the more we allow ourselves to discover our own right and wrongs. Writing is a great fortune teller and if we let it manage without rules it will manage us to be ourselves the way we believe we should.

[Paulclem]

That is my personal approach. I depend on what I think is valuable to intellectual development through the freedom to manipulate language and express oneself the way one want.
Creativity transgends barriers and allow for ideas to develop. Obeying by the same rules means we all write and think the same which we don't.
One rule for all means we all write towards the same goal and that is what I am not comfortable with.
One learns to express oneself through one's rules or lack of them.I am a great believer in language experiment the more we away from the formalities and the bureaucracies of right and wrong and the more we allow ourselves to discover our own right and wrongs. Writing is a great fortune teller and if we let it manage without rules it will manage us to be ourselves the way we believe we should.

I'm fine with experimentation. There has to be some, but i disagree that obeying the same rules means we write the same thing. How can that be? Take poetry for example - many fine sonnets have been written within the strictures of the rules. If one chooses to write a sonnet, then the structure is merely the frame for creativity. It's the same as having a frame for a painting. I don't see why a painting should be constrained by a frame particularly, and i have seen some that go into a more 3d approach. That's fine, but there were, and still are many many fantastic paintings which adhere to a frame.

One rule for all means we all write towards the same goal

Why? I just don't think that's true. A sonnet could be about love, or it could be about a spaceship.

I am a great believer in language experiment

Me too

the more we away from the formalities and the bureaucracies of right and wrong and the more we allow ourselves to discover our own right and wrongs

What has right and wrong got to do with it apart from as a subject? Who says that writing in a particular way is wrong? Writing experimentally is fine, and writing to a form is fine. What's the problem?

[cacian]

I'm fine with experimentation. There has to be some, but i disagree that obeying the same rules means we write the same thing. How can that be? Take poetry for example - many fine sonnets have been written within the strictures of the rules. If one chooses to write a sonnet, then the structure is merely the frame for creativity. It's the same as having a frame for a painting. I don't see why a painting should be constrained by a frame particularly, and i have seen some that go into a more 3d approach. That's fine, but there were, and still are many many fantastic paintings which adhere to a frame.

I have tried sonnets and I am not to their likings. A frame work a structure restricts in the sense that only a certain amount of wordsat any given time are to be used. They also have to be related. I mean is there is only an amount of volume/surface to be used to fuffill one meaning. I prefer to write towards many meanings to one meaning. I believe there should not be a separation of an actual word to refer to another.



One rule for all means we all write towards the same goal

Why? I just don't think that's true. A sonnet could be about love, or it could be about a spaceship.

Yes that is right and that is why I find it restrictive because I wish to write about both love and spaceship. I wish to introduce more then one topic to a piece.



[COLOR="#B22222"]the more we away from the formalities and the bureaucracies of right and wrong and the more we allow ourselves to discover our own right and wrongs

What has right and wrong got to do with it apart from as a subject? Who says that writing in a particular way is wrong? Writing experimentally is fine, and writing to a form is fine. What's the problem?
I personally do not feel there is the one subject. I feel there are many subjects within other subjects. I specialise in a variety of feelings to introduce a plurality of feelings meaning a subject is not specific to itself but relates to many others. A subject exists in conjunction and because of many others.

[Paulclem]

I have tried sonnets and I am not to their likings. A frame work a structure restricts in the sense that only a certain amount of wordsat any given time are to be used. They also have to be related. I mean is there is only an amount of volume/surface to be used to fuffill one meaning. I prefer to write towards many meanings to one meaning. I believe there should not be a separation of an actual word to refer to another.




Yes that is right and that is why I find it restrictive because I wish to write about both love and spaceship. I wish to introduce more then one topic to a piece.



I personally do not feel there is the one subject. I feel there are many subjects within other subjects. I specialise in a variety of feelings to introduce a plurality of feelings meaning a subject is not specific to itself but relates to many others. A subject exists in conjunction and because of many other.


I have tried sonnets and I am not to their likings. A frame work a structure restricts in the sense that only a certain amount of wordsat any given time are to be used. They also have to be related. I mean is there is only an amount of volume/surface to be used to fuffill one meaning. I prefer to write towards many meanings to one meaning. I believe there should not be a separation of an actual word to refer to another.

That's why sonnets are really good when done well because they take time to craft.

Yes that is right and that is why I find it restrictive because I wish to write about both love and spaceship. I wish to introduce more then one topic to a piece.

There's nothing to stop a poet doing that in a particular form - except the shorter forms. I just takes time to craft again.

I personally do not feel there is the one subject. I feel there are many subjects within other subjects. I specialise in a variety of feelings to introduce a plurality of feelings meaning a subject is not specific to itself but relates to many others. A subject exists in conjunction and because of many other

I don't think we disagree on anything fundamental about poetry except your claim that forms of poetry are restrictive. All I'm saying is that they aren't, but it is down to the skill of the poet. You might cite length as restrictive, but still a series of poems in a particular form could be written.