Steamy and serious reading - writing

[osho]

There are two streams of writings everywhere, not that there cannot not be more subdivisions and some choose to write the steamy type, full of romance that may perk up the mind for a while. They are hot and the heat it generates is short-lived. The other is serious, the Dostoevsky type or the Tolstoy genre. I have gone through both a great deal and both engaged my mind. The first gave me a kind of sensation and or a series of arousals. I however ended up in serious literature not cheap romantic and sensuous ones. What about you?

[Charles Darnay]

There are plenty of works that fall into either both or neither of these categories. There is no such thing as a simple binary when it comes to literature - with the grand exception that Wilde points to.

"Books are well written, or badly written - that is all."

[PeterL]

I don't see it that way. I don't see any split between literature filled with sex and serious literature; although there may be a difference between high and low, in which high uses a better vocabulary.

[Adolescent09]

There are plenty of works that fall into either both or neither of these categories. There is no such thing as a simple binary when it comes to literature - with the grand exception that Wilde points to.

"Books are well written, or badly written - that is all."

If it is Oscar to whom you refer, his work "The Picture of Dorian Gray" definitely falls into the "badly written" category.

[cacian]

I would quote literature to esteem and relationship to steam. One is actual and the other physical.

[Lykren]

If it is Oscar to whom you refer, his work "The Picture of Dorian Gray" definitely falls into the "badly written" category.

Ha! Ha! Too true! And Salomé is even worse.

Seriously, though, why would the presence of sex in a text preclude its seriousness? Is Ulysses not 'serious' reading material?

[Desolation]

If sex or some manner of sensuality disqualifies literature from being "serious"...well, then there goes pretty much every major work of the last 100 years.

[stlukesguild]

There are plenty of works that fall into either both or neither of these categories. There is no such thing as a simple binary when it comes to literature - with the grand exception that Wilde points to: "Books are well written, or badly written - that is all."

If it is Oscar to whom you refer, his work "The Picture of Dorian Gray" definitely falls into the "badly written" category.

Ha! Ha! Too true! And Salomé is even worse.

Ack!!! Get thee to a nunnery!!! Or at least to Reading 101. What you both suggest is blasphemy!!! Neely should be along briefly to take you both to task... and if not, sure Dante has designed a proper circle in Hell.

By the way, Osho... why is sex or Eros not to be taken seriously?

"It is a foolish dimwit who doesn't realize it a waste of time unless a thing concerns f***ing!" -Pietri Aretino c. 1527

“Sex and art are the same thing” – Picasso

“But there are things that happen between a man and a woman in the dark… that sort of make everything else seem… unimportant.”
-Tennessee Williams

"The nakedness of woman is the work of God."- William Blake

"Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats

"Art can never exist without Naked Beauty display’d." - William Blake

"Sex and the dead are the only two topics that can be of the least interest to a serious and studious mind." -W.B. Yeats

[Lykren]

I liked those quotes, stluke. But you'll likely never convince me Oscar Wilde was a great, or even good, writer, with the possible exception of "Earnest". A fantastic wit, yes. An expounder of a philosophy of aesthetics I wholeheartedly agree with, yes. But his prose has always struck me as absurdly wooden and awkward.

[cafolini]

Beauty is a castle in the air.~ Anatole France

[osho]

There are plenty of works that fall into either both or neither of these categories. There is no such thing as a simple binary when it comes to literature - with the grand exception that Wilde points to: "Books are well written, or badly written - that is all."

If it is Oscar to whom you refer, his work "The Picture of Dorian Gray" definitely falls into the "badly written" category.

Ha! Ha! Too true! And Salomé is even worse.

Ack!!! Get thee to a nunnery!!! Or at least to Reading 101. What you both suggest is blasphemy!!! Neely should be along briefly to take you both to task... and if not, sure Dante has designed a proper circle in Hell.

By the way, Osho... why is sex or Eros not to be taken seriously?

"It is a foolish dimwit who doesn't realize it a waste of time unless a thing concerns f***ing!" -Pietri Aretino c. 1527

“Sex and art are the same thing” – Picasso

“But there are things that happen between a man and a woman in the dark… that sort of make everything else seem… unimportant.”
-Tennessee Williams

"The nakedness of woman is the work of God."- William Blake

"Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats

"Art can never exist without Naked Beauty display’d." - William Blake

"Sex and the dead are the only two topics that can be of the least interest to a serious and studious mind." -W.B. Yeats

All are really appealing and enlightening quotes.

[mona amon]

Ha, count me among those who think Wilde is an enormously overrated writer! I liked Salome, but I was an easily impressed teenager when I read it, and it was in a beautiful little book with Aubrey Beardsley's lovely illustrations, which must have influenced me in its favour.

As for the others that I've read - The Happy Prince - A bit of sentimental drivel

The Importance of Being Earnest - full of empty witticisms, quite amusing and entertaining in a shallow sort of way when performed.

Picture of Dorian Gray - A very clever idea, but that's about all. His attempts to flesh it out are pathetic.

I have to say his wit is really brilliant, and I feel most people are so dazzled by his wit and the horrible tragedy of his life that they are blind to his shortcomings as a writer.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh so this is the famous unofficial bash Oscar Wilde thread!

My own view on Wilde as a writer (and I agree it is often difficult to separate the man from work, but here goes…) is that he is a good writer with touches of excellence/genius for example in terms of some of his wit (some of which contain the greatest truths disguised as farce). True though there are also moments of wooden, poorer quality writing but these for me come from his earlier period, for example some of his earlier poetry and his earlier plays. (Wilde said that his early play ‘Duchess of Padua’ was ‘unworthy of publication’ and one work of his that he detested.

I think that you also have to take into account that Wilde was experimenting with form here and wrote in virtually every medium until he found his ‘voice’ in plays like 'Earnest', critically speaking his greatest, and I would say flawless, work.

Dorian Gray certainly has its flaws – there are some moments/characters that could be argued are not brilliant. However, it is certainly for me at least ‘good’ with some excellent touches – I mean the preface alone is enough! I certainly wouldn’t say it is poorly written.

I actually quite like some of his early poetry and used to memorise it all the time even if it is uneven. I do like his shorter fiction and essays though, very good. His later plays too.

However, it is a shame that his very best medium, oral, is now completely lost to us. For surely it is as the speaker that Wilde was at his greatest, best replicated in ‘Earnest’ perhaps or some of his letters, but in reality mostly lost to us. It’s not an exaggeration to suggest that Wilde was the greatest speaker of his generation or century.

Of his own work Wilde personally favoured ‘Salome’ and I think pleased with what he was trying to achieve in ‘Ballad of Reading Gaol’ though he admitted to sacrificing the art for the purpose. I also think he was pleased with ‘Earnest’ but overall certainly his own favourite work was ‘Salome.’

Where Wilde would have gone had he not met the end he did is obviously hard to say. Ross says that Wilde would have penned at least 10 plays equal to or better than 'Earnest.' Ross said that how Wilde wrote 'Earnest' was ridiculously easy, almost frightening. If this is anything like true, and I believe Ross here, then the weight of the tragedy was indeed a heavy one.

Wilde's always had his critics so criticisms are nothing new. It is true though that most contemporary criticisms concern what we would now see as antiquated views on so called 'morality' and of course Wilde's reply to that was featured in the preface to DG “When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.”

[AuntShecky]

Literature purports to concern itself with Life, with a capital "L." If sex isn't an integral part of Life, what is it?

You remember what Freud said -- human contentment can be boiled down to two basic things--Love and Work. Add the awareness of inevitable death, and you have the essential elements of art and literature.

A work can be "steamy" or "serious" or both, and still be "worthy." Declaring a work "serious" does not necessarily mean that it is squeaky clean or devoid of humor, but very few pieces of junk are worth "serious" consideration. Despite living in an age which prides itself on its lack of discrimination and judgement (though failing to live up to that ideal), we still have to make distinctions on the specific quality of any given work.

It all comes down to the presentation, the form of the work more than the content -- not the what but the how. That's what separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff, the gold from the trash, the good from the bad.

[Lykren]

Neely, it isn't Wilde's morality I have a problem with. It's simply the quality of his style. That's ironic of course, because he himself preferred, or claimed to prefer, style over substance. But if you simply enjoy his writing, then there's nothing for me to argue with; it's a matter of taste, and all I can do is congratulate you on having found a writer you like to read.

Can we get back to the topic of this thread now? (I admit I helped derail it). We haven't really heard back from Osho (or anyone) regarding a possible defense of the idea that the presence of sensuality is what segregates literature, something I would be interested in hearing about.

[AuntShecky]

Can we get back to the topic of this thread now?

Reply #14 ^^didn't try to do this?

[Lykren]

Reply #14 ^^didn't try to do this?

Sorry Aunt Shecky --

If you'll notice the time stamp on our posts you'll see they were posted in the same minute. I hadn't seen yours when I wrote mine.

Nevertheless, it seems most people posting here (including me) disagree with Osho, and argue that sex and literary merit are indeed compatible. For the sake of argument I'm willing to hear the other side.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, it isn't Wilde's morality I have a problem with. It's simply the quality of his style. That's ironic of course, because he himself preferred, or claimed to prefer, style over substance. But if you simply enjoy his writing, then there's nothing for me to argue with; it's a matter of taste, and all I can do is congratulate you on having found a writer you like to read.

Can we get back to the topic of this thread now? (I admit I helped derail it). We haven't really heard back from Osho (or anyone) regarding a possible defense of the idea that the presence of sensuality is what segregates literature, something I would be interested in hearing about.

No, I know modern readers are unlikely to have a problem with morality. I pointed out that this is what many contemporary criticisms were about. It's not an argument anyway, I'm just giving my opinion and honest assessment on Wilde based on my study of him.

Well the thread topic ceased to be of interest to me from the first reply, post 2. This for me said it all. End of conversation. Though of course I don't wish to derail the thread any further if others find interest it in.

[prendrelemick]

Some books are written to titilate and have no other agenda. I may enjoy the occasional vicarious sex romp, but I don't class them as Literature.

[osho]

Some books are written to titilate and have no other agenda. I may enjoy the occasional vicarious sex romp, but I don't class them as Literature.

True, and some writers do this to drive the reader since he may lack the ability to move the reader in a better way. Everyone, if he or she is sexually potent, has a passion for physical or sexual intimacy and some writers hitting on that human passion can achieve success

[Lykren]

But does the evocation of sexual passions exclude a text from literary status completely? I'm thinking of something like Lady Chatterley's Lover, in which sex is treated as an exceptionally beautiful part of life, and one we can all relate to, as surely as we can relate to the desire for deep emotional love.

I agree that there is badly-written erotica, but there is also badly-wriiten everything else. Why should the representation of sex be held to different standards? You might say that the topic of sex is an easier way of getting a reaction, but it seems to me that when it isn't well done, it can be as ineffective as any other piece of bad writing.

[AuntShecky]

.

I agree that there is badly-written erotica, but there is also badly-wriiten everything else. Why should the representation of sex be held to different standards? You might say that the topic of sex is an easier way of getting a reaction, but it seems to me that when it isn't well done, it can be as ineffective as any other piece of bad writing.

That's because there are only a limited number of ways the same thing can be described in a way that is "fresh." Whenever writers make the attempt, very often the result becomes unintentionally humorous.

[cacian]

Beauty is a castle in the air.~ Anatole France

I'd say beauty is a moat around a castle myself. Air is for shows.

[kelby_lake]

I liked those quotes, stluke. But you'll likely never convince me Oscar Wilde was a great, or even good, writer, with the possible exception of "Earnest". A fantastic wit, yes. An expounder of a philosophy of aesthetics I wholeheartedly agree with, yes. But his prose has always struck me as absurdly wooden and awkward.

His writing is best suited to plays I think.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think they're incompatible. Have you read Women in Love?