The downgrading of literature

[WICKES]

Does anyone share my impression that literature (and the arts generally) have a lower standing today that they did in the past? My own feeling is that we are living (certainly here in the UK) in an age in which science is THE authority. I know that is not the case in, say, an African village, but it is true in much of the west. I was just listening to a British BBC radio show hosted by a comedian and a physicist; it's jokey but intelligent, with different guests each week, usually scientists and academics. The Physicist this week introduced a guest, an author who'd begun by writing about the great Romantic poets (Coleridge, Shelley and Byron I believe) before moving on to write about science. The Physicist introduced him as "a man who realized that writing about those who've explored the mysteries of the Universe was more interesting than writing about people who just made words rhyme". That attitude seems to be so prevalent. In fact it's a running joke on the show that the co-host (the comedian) "only has an arts degree".

Poetry in Britain today is not regarded by most people as a source of profundity or truth; if it's truth you want you turn to science. My own feeling is that most people think of poetry as just 'pretty language', nothing more. And that is reflected in contemporary poetry. A reviewer of the British poet laureate's last collection of poems wrote that the poems were OK, but that they felt "a bit GCSE [the exams taken by schoolchildren]" and gave the reader the impression that poetry was "a trivial art form". The problem was not so much that the poetry was no good, but that the poet was too timid, too trivial, too unambitious. I would argue that the poet (I can't think of her name) had absorbed the idea that poetry IS trivial and shouldn't be trying to express profound truths about life, the universe and everything because that is the job of science.

[PeterL]

Yes, it is a matter of literacy becoming more common. When literacy was a privilege for the few, literature was treated as something special. In these degenerate times anyone can learn to read, so it isn't special.

[Emil Miller]

Does anyone share my impression that literature (and the arts generally) have a lower standing today that they did in the past? My own feeling is that we are living (certainly here in the UK) in an age in which science is THE authority. I know that is not the case in, say, an African village, but it is true in much of the west. I was just listening to a British BBC radio show hosted by a comedian and a physicist; it's jokey but intelligent, with different guests each week, usually scientists and academics. The Physicist this week introduced a guest, an author who'd begun by writing about the great Romantic poets (Coleridge, Shelley and Byron I believe)

This is a perennial question that has caused heated discussion in the past and seems to be looming again.
If, as I believe to be the case, science is beginning to advance its cause, it may well be due to the digital revolution which has brought advanced technology into people's lives to a greater extent than previously. While technological innovation has always impacted on the population at large, this time it's up close and personal and the time spent on literature is being replaced with the time we spend on our computers and associated gadgets. There is currently a much publicised campaign in the UK to push science teaching to the fore in educational establishments if only to allow us to compete with other countries.
People may point to Amazon and use that as an example of more people reading than ever but it's quite likely that the concern in governmental circles over falling literacy rates could indicate a future where many people, who may be adept at digital manipulation, have never read a book in their lives.
I don't think the arts have ever held a high standing among the general public and have usually been the province of an elite, not by design but by default.

[mal4mac]

... The Physicist this week introduced a guest, an author who'd begun by writing about the great Romantic poets (Coleridge, Shelley and Byron I believe) before moving on to write about science. The Physicist introduced him as "a man who realized that writing about those who've explored the mysteries of the Universe was more interesting than writing about people who just made words rhyme". That attitude seems to be so prevalent. In fact it's a running joke on the show that the co-host (the comedian) "only has an arts degree".

Surely he was being ironic. I'm sure most physicists know there's a lot more to Coleridge, Shelley and Byron than 'making word's rhyme'. I have a physics degree and the my arts graduate friends would, rightly, have given me a severe verbal beating for saying such a thing without irony. (Fortunately, even then, I wasn't that stupid...)


Poetry in Britain today is not regarded by most people as a source of profundity or truth...

I don't agree, Shakespeare is usually voted at or near the top of "best of British" lists. A lot of poetry, certainly, isn't that profound, but the same is true of much of physics and other subjects.

[WICKES]

Surely he was being ironic. I'm sure most physicists know there's a lot more to Coleridge, Shelley and Byron than 'making word's rhyme'. I have a physics degree and the my arts graduate friends would, rightly, have given me a severe verbal beating for saying such a thing without irony. (Fortunately, even then, I wasn't that stupid...)


Well he said it half-jokingly (but only half). Though I'm hopeless at science, I share the sense that literature, philosophy and so on are primitive ways of trying to understand the world in comparison to science. For example, I recently read Eliot's Four Quartets for the first time. Eliot is concerned very much with time and the nature of time, but I somehow felt that I couldn't take his ideas about time seriously unless it had had the stamp of authority from science- so I googled 'Einstein and the four quartets', then 'Hawking and the four quartets', then 'relativity and the four quartets' and so on to see whether anyone had tried to link the two or whether Eliot had been influenced by reading books on 20th century physics. I didn't come up with much (and I probably wouldn't have been able to understand it if I had!!), but it's interesting that even my (i.e someone with zero scientific knowledge) first instinct was to seek scientific approval.

Something else I've noticed is the contempt, even aggression, a lot of science lovers display towards 'fantasy' or 'escapist' fiction. Richard Dawkins recently published a book called 'The Magic of Reality' and often says in interviews, with a tone of exasperation, "what more do people want? THIS world should be fascinating enough".

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't know about that particular radio show, but I do hear people bash the arts all the time, and especially poetry. Just last month I ran into someone from the psychology department on the ferry who told me that poetry is nonsensical pretty language and novels are simply entertaining stories, and to both mediums we (as readers) apply significance that wasn't intended by the author and isn't actually there. I think that this kind of thinking can be attributed not to supidity, but to laziness. It's similar to when people bash low culture, like a popular television show for example, in order to make themselves feel highbrow even though they rarely spend time engaging in high culture pursuits. Talking trash is a quick way to feel smart without actually doing anything. I think that when these anti-arts opinions come from the average person, bashing poetry makes them feel scientific (and therefore enlightened and modern) without ever actually studying science.

Education should be a package deal anyway, you're a much more complete person if you enjoy and have a solid grasp of art and science and history (and even athletics, cooking, ancient ritualistic magic, as many widely varying things as possible) than if you're just limiting yourself to one thing.

[kev67]

Does anyone share my impression that literature (and the arts generally) have a lower standing today that they did in the past? My own feeling is that we are living (certainly here in the UK) in an age in which science is THE authority. I know that is not the case in, say, an African village, but it is true in much of the west. I was just listening to a British BBC radio show hosted by a comedian and a physicist; it's jokey but intelligent, with different guests each week, usually scientists and academics. The Physicist this week introduced a guest, an author who'd begun by writing about the great Romantic poets (Coleridge, Shelley and Byron I believe) before moving on to write about science. The Physicist introduced him as "a man who realized that writing about those who've explored the mysteries of the Universe was more interesting than writing about people who just made words rhyme". That attitude seems to be so prevalent. In fact it's a running joke on the show that the co-host (the comedian) "only has an arts degree".

Poetry in Britain today is not regarded by most people as a source of profundity or truth; if it's truth you want you turn to science. My own feeling is that most people think of poetry as just 'pretty language', nothing more. And that is reflected in contemporary poetry. A reviewer of the British poet laureate's last collection of poems wrote that the poems were OK, but that they felt "a bit GCSE [the exams taken by schoolchildren]" and gave the reader the impression that poetry was "a trivial art form". The problem was not so much that the poetry was no good, but that the poet was too timid, too trivial, too unambitious. I would argue that the poet (I can't think of her name) had absorbed the idea that poetry IS trivial and shouldn't be trying to express profound truths about life, the universe and everything because that is the job of science.

The Infinite Monkey Cage with Brian Cox and Robin Ince is a brilliant programme. Prof Cox sometimes takes the micky out of Robin Ince and arts subjects, but then Robin Ince regularly takes the micky out of him. The programme usually has two guest scientists and a celebrity guest. It's a difficult gig for the celebrity I think. They are often out of their depth. Billy Bragg was good, Kate Winslet was annoying, last week's celebrity did not say much. It is a science programme, so it is fair to expect a slight prejudice towards science over over subjects. Radio 4 has plenty of arts and culture programmes too.

I have felt a bit uneasy recently about the government's apparent prejudice for promoting science over the humanities in education. The proposed baccalaureate award for 16-year-olds would have required passing two science subjects and only one humanities subject, either history or geography. Since geography is only half a humanities subject, this seemed to quite strong bias towards science. However, it is pretty hard to get students to study the sciences at university, especially Physics. I read that in 2011/2012 the physics teacher training target was 925, but only 2000 physics students were expected to graduate that year. In that respect, I think Physics popularisers like Brian Cox are doing a very good job.

Scientific truth is rather different to artistic truth. Scientific truths should be backed by evidence. Scientific theories should predict results. An artistic truth occurs when a piece of art resonates within you, giving you the feeling that this says something true about the world. An artistic truth is a difficult thing to quantify or agree upon. Social scientists use a whole range of methods to get at the truth. The legal system uses yet other methods.

Isn't Carol Ann Duffy the current poet laureate?

[cacian]

I am not sure you can downgrade literature as much you can downgrade ideas. it is them that makes literature stands out. if however the content of the book is unpleasant,unimaginative, unappealing then words become worthless and literature suffers greatly.
with words come great wisdom but with firm comes great deeds. literature that was is different because now is out.
then life was much more restricted and ideas were not allowed to be flaunted and so literature enjoyed the decadence of it. ie engaged in writing about in away that was not allowed in real life.
now that anything goes there is no taboos or restrictions as such literature becomes just another repeat what you see/read is what you get.
there is no intrigue or curiosities about it because the modern worlds lives and breaths everything. therefore everything you read feels as if downgraded because now we know and see everything. media is one part of it.
for example a film is out before the book is widely published or read.
the quality of writing is also downgraded because technology surpasses literacy. the young up and coming generation does not spell anymore it abbreviates on keyboard most of the time.
handwriting is fast disappearing and so is printed writing. books are replaced with tablets and conversations/communications is mostly done on phones computers which means the art of communication has gone down a drain. many youngsters cannot tell the difference English and abbreviated half words half numbers.
it will be them writing books next apparently. well one can imagine the horrors that will come out of it.
or maybe they won't be any stories written anymore because they will all be aired through sound like youtube for example. don't write just record it for the audience to hear. or abbreviated language will become the language to write with. shock horror.

[WICKES]

I am not sure you can downgrade literature as much you can downgrade ideas.

I meant the way we come up with ideas rather than the ideas themselves. I guess what I was trying to say is that we no longer have any faith in 'poetic vision', or at least not as much. Blake is a good example. We label him 'schizophrenic' and, were he alive today, we'd probably have him dosed up on lithium or something; in ancient Greece he'd have been considered a prophet.

Einstein, so far as I understand it, put his greatest discoveries down to moments of 'vision' in which he imagined himself riding on lightbeams and so on rather than down to patient experimentation in the lab.

[stlukesguild]

I'm going to agree with Peter here. In all reality, art, music, and literature are more popular than they've ever been. There are more readers and more books and e-books being sold than ever in the past. It seems every other person imagines himself or herself to be a writer or poet. The same is true in my field. There are more artists... painters than ever. Art supply stores are thriving on the weekend painter. But the obvious consequence is an overall decline in quality.

When only the well-to-do and well-educated could read... or afford to purchase books regularly, the quality of what was read and created was naturally of a higher standard. The same is true of art. When few people could afford the materials... let alone had the luxury of "free time" in which to engage in the artistic self-expression, the over-all quality of art was much higher.

Essentially, the masses make up a far larger market and with the mass media and mass production this audience has become far more important in financial terms than any "elite" audience... whether speaking of a financial, social, or intellectual "elite"... or simply those who have invested a degree of serious effort in the study and understanding of a given art form.

Having said that... I'm not certain that today's "elite" are a much better source of artistic discernment. The realm of the traditional fine arts (painting, sculpture, etc...) has really never been impacted by the mass media or mass production in the way literature or music has. Paintings cannot be mass produced... although Warhol tried... in the same manner as books or CDs. The market for fine art is still one largely reserved for the rich... and the "super-rich". The rest of us "peons" may look on... visit galleries and museums... and voice our opinions, but I can assure you such opinions have absolutely no impact upon upon artists. They know on which side their bread is buttered. In spite of the fact that painting and sculpture (etc...) remain an elitist game... I can't say that the quality of today's painting and sculpture is any better than today's literature or music. As always, 95%+ of all art is mediocre at best.

[stlukesguild]

I suspect that our obsession with promoting science and math over everything else, along with our wrong-headed obsession with "objective" standardized testing has much to do with a sense of national/cultural insecurity... not unlike that which gripped the US after Sputnik and the fear that the Soviets were winning the technological race. The US... and perhaps to a lesser extent the West in general seem gripped with a fear that "others" are gaining on us... especially the rising Asian hoards. The scores of our students... at least when looking at the skewered data... are horrible in comparison to the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Norwegians. Thus we throw the baby out with the bathwater in our mad rush to catch up. We become increasingly obsessed with science and math and hard practical approaches to education at the expense of art and music and literature and the various means of creative thinking that have kept us atop of the trash heap for so long. Here we are obsessed with "literacy" and reading... yet the education gurus backed by idiot politicians and corporations are pushing to eliminate literature more and more from our student's experiences. We are now closing in on something like 70% non-fiction. We shove dry non-fictions articles down students' throats (based on the theory that most adults will never read... let alone write fiction or poetry in their professions)... and then we wonder why students hate reading more and more, and would rather spend time in the fictional fantasy worlds of video games, TV, and film.

[cacian]

I meant the way we come up with ideas rather than the ideas themselves. I guess what I was trying to say is that we no longer have any faith in 'poetic vision', or at least not as much. Blake is a good example. We label him 'schizophrenic' and, were he alive today, we'd probably have him dosed up on lithium or something; in ancient Greece he'd have been considered a prophet.

Einstein, so far as I understand it, put his greatest discoveries down to moments of 'vision' in which he imagined himself riding on lightbeams and so on rather than down to patient experimentation in the lab.

I understand. I think the way literature is manipulated in that it is set up in rules and format and therefore it is directed us rather then given.
Incorporating rules and forms in poetry for example encourages one to accumulate rather then assimilate. meaning it teaches one to copy rather then feel. it is more important to sound like one rather then be like self.
self expression is reduced to minimum because what is important is to apply what one has acquired through intensive learning. I personally do not consider art as a study but more of a laissez faire live and let live sort of idea.
syntax/grammar is the same. there is rules to be followed studied and applied and therefore everything one writes is a copy of what the rules formate in other words experimentation is disallowed and more of the same is spat out if you like. dictating structure grammar and format in poetry disable one to go with the follow but more follow in the same footstep of others before them and therefore there is no freedom of expression because one has to regurgitate what one has learned.
the whole point of art and literature is that it should allow one to expand and experiment and have a feel for what one really want to say the way they want to and not the way rules wanted them or they way rules have modelled them to become.
when I think of Picasso his painting are very telling of what rigid programming of ideas generate it goes the other the extreme way. and so when you look at his painting you wonder about the human body shape and where it has gone to in other words the expression the artist produce in rebellion to the rigidity of rules is incomprehensible unorganised style it is almost anarchic. we instruct to deconstruct is the ultimate aim of any dictatorship and I am afraid literature is part of it.
in other words the end of result of such pressure inflict on forms and shapes which are anything but harmonious.

[AuntShecky]

There is nothing intrinsic about science that pits it against the arts and vice versa.

But if you think the BBC host disdained the Romantic poets, you'd be appalled at the hostile attitude toward poetry specifically and the arts in general on these shores. Part of it can be attributed to four centuries of distrust toward European values; there is an undercurrent of American "anti-intellectualism" running deep down to the marrow of the materialism and rugged individualism of our culture.

Even the so-called "elite" faction share this attitude. The captains of industry and government proudly cop to the habit of "reading," but strictly "non-fiction." This is an element of America's obsession with "The Fact," which Dwight Macdonald roundly skewered in one of his essays.

Additionally, in certain circles, including even Academia, there has arisen a certain rejection of excellence: antipathy directed at works of art that are ironic, against the status quo, and most of all, difficult. Many times the strident criticism is explained, perhaps excused, as championing "politically correct" causes, but this may be a diversionary tactic, because what these pseudo-do-gooders really are expressing is a kind of jealousy: deep-seated resentment. This is the theory first posited in 1997 by Vince Passaro. Cf.
"Railing at Greatness," (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?59356-Railing-at-Greatness-Why-Critics-Educators-and-Readers-are-so-Touchy-These-Days)a discussion exploring such notions which appeared on the LitNet a couple of years ago.

St Lukes Guild is partially right in maintaining that "95% of [contemporary?] art is mediocre. That may be especially if one lumps all tiers of artistic works together-- the cream of the crop, along with as the culls and the chaff. In America there has always been a strange bedfellows-style relationship between art and commerce, since both factions almost often overlap. The manufacture of entertainment products designed to pander to all levels of education and taste --"masscult," as well as the insipid pap presented upon a classy platter --"midcult": such cynicism is an insidious traitor to
true art and culture. Once again, I strongly recommend reading the seminal essay by Dwight Macdonald.

[cafolini]

There is nothing intrinsic about science that pits it against the arts and vice versa.

But if you think the BBC host disdained the Romantic poets, you'd be appalled at the hostile attitude toward poetry specifically and the arts in general on these shores. Part of it can be attributed to four centuries of distrust toward European values; there is an undercurrent of American "anti-intellectualism" running deep down to the marrow of the materialism and rugged individualism of our culture.

Even the so-called "elite" faction share this attitude. The captains of industry and government proudly cop to the habit of "reading," but strictly "non-fiction." This is an element of America's obsession with "The Fact," which Dwight Macdonald roundly skewered in one of his essays.

Additionally, in certain circles, including even Academia, there has arisen a certain rejection of excellence: antipathy directed at works of art that are ironic, against the status quo, and most of all, difficult. Many times the strident criticism is explained, perhaps excused, as championing "politically correct" causes, but this may be a diversionary tactic, because what these pseudo-do-gooders really are expressing is a kind of jealousy: deep-seated resentment. This is the theory first posited in 1997 by Vince Passaro. Cf.
"Railing at Greatness," (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?59356-Railing-at-Greatness-Why-Critics-Educators-and-Readers-are-so-Touchy-These-Days)a discussion exploring such notions which appeared on the LitNet a couple of years ago.

St Lukes Guild is partially right in maintaining that "95% of [contemporary?] art is mediocre. That may be especially if one lumps all tiers of artistic works together-- the cream of the crop, along with as the culls and the chaff. In America there has always been a strange bedfellows-style relationship between art and commerce, since both factions almost often overlap. The manufacture of entertainment products designed to pander to all levels of education and taste --"masscult," as well as the insipid pap presented upon a classy platter --"midcult": such cynicism is an insidious traitor to
true art and culture. Once again, I strongly recommend reading the seminal essay by Dwight Macdonald.

But to propose that it was ever different than today is ridiculous. Only nothing is for free. No actual thing is for free.

[AuntShecky]

But to propose that it was ever different than today is ridiculous. Only nothing is for free. No actual thing is for free.

You're absolutely right. But here in the good ol' U. S. of A., conditions are especially meretricious. (And a Happy New Year.)

[Emil Miller]

It’s indisputable that more people than ever are interested in the arts but it is, as ever, a matter of proportionality. It’s fairly obvious that those who can talk knowledgeably about football or pop music are far more numerous than those who know the difference between Leonardo da Vinci and Leonardo DiCaprio.
I believe it’s important to recognise the significance of digital technology on the collective psyche of humans and the resultant change in what is viewed as artistic.
Already we see through mass distribution via the Internet, manga and other of what were formerly considered juvenilia being considered as having intrinsic artistic value. Perhaps in some Huxleyesque future, the lowest common denominator will be regarded as the acme of human achievement; it’s already being promoted as such in the cause of a spurious equality and the pursuit of profit..

[JCamilo]

nah, there must be very few people who can talk about pop music "knowledgeably". I am not talking about fans who know the color of britney spears underwear. I am talking people who actually understand about music and can tell why Beatles was good, why Punk worked that way, etc. And I am an administrator of a huge Football forum. I can assure you, almost nobody is knowledable about football. it is like the creationism vs. evolution internet debate, lots of people talk about, very few know anything about it.

[Emil Miller]

nah, there must be very few people who can talk about pop music "knowledgeably". I am not talking about fans who know the color of britney spears underwear. I am talking people who actually understand about music and can tell why Beatles was good, why Punk worked that way, etc. And I am an administrator of a huge Football forum. I can assure you, almost nobody is knowledable about football. it is like the creationism vs. evolution internet debate, lots of people talk about, very few know anything about it.

Yes, you are correct about football. I did think of changing 'knowledgeably' when in fact I should have left it out altogether.

[Paulclem]

I think one of the problems is that science and technology is progressing so fast that it is difficult for poets, artists, painters to keep up and remain on the edges of things. HG Wells for example, used his cutting edge science knowledge to populate books like The Time machine. Blake was on the fringes of religion, and the Romantics were revolutionary in their time for their attitudes to the French Revolution and their attitudes to nature. It's much more difficult to be a polymath these days and include science - other than the popular kind - and relate it to literature meaningfully.

interestingly, there is currently in the UK an Art Everywhere exhibition that is taking over advertising space temporarily across the country. I say interestingly because number 10 in the most popular poll was Dark Matter: An Exploded View which seem to be an attempt to sculpt a scientific concept.


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cold+dark+matter+an+exploded+view+1991&safe=off&rlz=1R2TEUA_en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=h3QGUvGZHsKw0QXWjYD4BQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1188&bih=492#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=2yLuiT86xB_PjM%3A%3Bln3oMKsHdh6iVM%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252F2.bp.blogspot.com%252F-ANf0b0u6ym4%252FT0RPUuG93oI%252FAAAAAAAAMGA%252FUU nqQF6H7dc%252Fs400%252Fcornelia%2525252Bparker_0.j pg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fun-blog-evable.blogspot.com%252F2012%252F02%252Fcold-dark-matterand-engine-oil.html%3B1100%3B867

Art Everywhere link

http://arteverywhere.org.uk/your-top-ten-british-masterpieces/


I also find this dichotomy between science v the arts depressing. My school experience was that you were either or - which is ridiculous - and in practice meant that the school timetables were set up to be mutually exclusive. I think a new approach is really necessary, though our whole academic structure maintains this division.

On balance I think that a solid science and mathematical education is crucial in today's world. I'm not advocating a relegation of the arts to a second division - there will always be those more suited to arts subjects - but I could have done both on my O' Level results. I think a proper education in how to read critically, for example, is necessary but lacking. With critical reading skills, the correct questions can be asked and appropriate conclusions reached. Instead we have a generic qualification which, whilst it does promote proper writing skills, ends up not developing any skill enough.

[cafolini]

Wrong thread.

[Paulclem]

A popup.

[cafolini]

There is no way to downgrade literature without it having been arbitrarily upgraded first. May your cons stay away from your fusions. God's Grace be with you.

[Paulclem]

I wouldn't downgrade literature, but there is a definite bias - or has been - to the arts. I think that's he teaching profession's fault, and the fault of those who strategically plan for the academic workforce. The arts get the best of the teachers available, because that's where the arts career path often leads. What grade of teacher is there left after all the science, research, engineering etc etc jobs have gone? I think back to my maths lessons in secondary school - 11-16 - and they were the dullest lessons with the teacher demonstrating and then you doing exercises from a book. It has improved, partly because of the recognition that you actually need the skill of a teacher, not just the knowledge a degree brings.

What would you tell your kids to do these days? What they are good at presumably - but ideally you'd want them to learn a real skill like a language, or maths or a science that could really help them in the full knowledge that with a good rounded education they could read upon and follow debates on literature if they wanted.

[JCamilo]

However I think you overstimate H.G.Wells, who was indeed quite informed (but more a rarity), but basically a layman. A bit like saying Michel Crichton had true science knowledge. Today, guys like Pullman seems to fit that description quite well, no?

[Paulclem]

From what I've read he was party to new scientific ideas of the time, but I may well have overstated it.

[JCamilo]

well, not like people actually build a time machine :D

But dont we had guys suggesting things like internet also?

In a way, the academia, science in academia is heavily downgrading other disciplines, this includes Phlosophy. But that because a degree is not idiot's proof.

[AuntShecky]

However I think you overstimate H.G.Wells, who was indeed quite informed (but more a rarity), but basically a layman. A bit like saying Michel Crichton had true science knowledge. Today, guys like Pullman seems to fit that description quite well, no?

The late Michael Crichton was an M.D., and even though physicians make lots of "potatoes" (to use Damon Runyon's term for $), Crichton started harvesting bushels full with Jurassic Park and the like. And just the other day I heard that the guy who came up with the electric car and the proposal for the high-speed underground train --it's called the "Hyperloop" or some such futuristic thing-- has parallels with the fictional "Iron Man."

[mal4mac]

Well he said it half-jokingly (but only half). Though I'm hopeless at science, I share the sense that literature, philosophy and so on are primitive ways of trying to understand the world in comparison to science. For example, I recently read Eliot's Four Quartets for the first time. Eliot is concerned very much with time and the nature of time, but I somehow felt that I couldn't take his ideas about time seriously unless it had had the stamp of authority from science- so I googled 'Einstein and the four quartets', then 'Hawking and the four quartets', then 'relativity and the four quartets' and so on to see whether anyone had tried to link the two or whether Eliot had been influenced by reading books on 20th century physics. I didn't come up with much (and I probably wouldn't have been able to understand it if I had!!), but it's interesting that even my (i.e someone with zero scientific knowledge) first instinct was to seek scientific approval.


But surely the physical aspect of time is only one of Eliot's considerations, isn't he also looking at time as a subjective, artistic, religious and philosophical phenomenon?



Something else I've noticed is the contempt, even aggression, a lot of science lovers display towards 'fantasy' or 'escapist' fiction. Richard Dawkins recently published a book called 'The Magic of Reality' and often says in interviews, with a tone of exasperation, "what more do people want? THIS world should be fascinating enough".

But in one his books I remember him going out of his way to praise poets like Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Keats...I think it was "Unweaving the Rainbow". He only says things like that when he's attacking fundamentalist Christian beliefs, he isn't anti-literature.


However I think you overstimate H.G.Wells, who was indeed quite informed (but more a rarity), but basically a layman...

From wikipedia:

"Wells won a scholarship to the Normal School of Science (later the Royal College of Science in South Kensington, now part of Imperial College London) in London, studying biology under Thomas Henry Huxley. As an alumnus, he later helped to set up the Royal College of Science Association, of which he became the first president in 1909."

Sounds like more than a layman to me! He didn't spend all his youth messing about in drapers shops.

[JCamilo]

Still a layman, he was not a biologist, didn't keep studying it. Dr.Moreau is inspired by Darwin's theories discussion, he was aware physical traits were genetics, but that is all he went. In a way, Wells is good because he make Magic be Science, he tell us fantasies, which have like previous fantasy, a strong moralist guide with the scientific discuss. Time machines? Genetic alteration of animals? Invisible people? That is fantasy.


The late Michael Crichton was an M.D., and even though physicians make lots of "potatoes" (to use Damon Runyon's term for $), Crichton started harvesting bushels full with Jurassic Park and the like. And just the other day I heard that the guy who came up with the electric car and the proposal for the high-speed underground train --it's called the "Hyperloop" or some such futuristic thing-- has parallels with the fictional "Iron Man."

Yes, of course the creativity of the authors is the key. Poe for example had vivid interest on science, just like those guys, had great ideas about technology and that. The guy of star trek as well.

[Kyriakos]

I generally agree that most of what gets seen today is less interesting than what got seen in the near past (eg pre-ww2), or before that.

Then again i also accept as poignant the note by Fernando Pessoa, according to which it is common for people in the realm of letters to accuse those of previous eras of failing to notice writers of importance- and then to go on to do the same against their contemporary writers of worth. :)

[mal4mac]

Still a layman, he was not a biologist, didn't keep studying it. Dr.Moreau is inspired by Darwin's theories discussion, he was aware physical traits were genetics, but that is all he went.

He studied under Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin's right hand man, and gained a Bachelor of Science degree in zoology from the University of London External Programme. Maybe you have a different definition of "layman" in your culture, but he wouldn't be called a layman, in the UK, with a BSc degree. With that he could have stepped right into working as a professional zoologist, instead he became a writer using his professional knowledge of zoology & evolution. That's probably why the biological knowledge he uses in his science fiction is so convincing. He seems a bit less sure when he steps into physics/technology... could he not have imagined a better way to get his First Men to the Moon?

I recently re-read "The Invisible Man"... an excellent story in which he keeps biological matters very much in mind... like what happens to the food he eats. Is it still visible? The biochemical story of how he became invisible is rather fantastic, but he throws in enough scientific detail to give an aura of believability, showing he has more than a layman's knowledge of such things, and more than the average science fiction hack who's picked it up by reading magazines. You can see an agile scientific, as well as literary, mind at work



In a way, Wells is good because he make Magic be Science, he tell us fantasies, which have like previous fantasy, a strong moralist guide with the scientific discuss. Time machines? Genetic alteration of animals? Invisible people? That is fantasy.


But he really has to know the science to make that work... that is why it is science FICTION and not science FANTASY.

Time machines? Genetic alteration of animals? Invisible people? In Well's hands this is FICTION not FANTASY, partly why he's so great. Also his Invisible Man and War of the Worlds were in his backyard, London and near London, so you get detail packed realism combined with believable future science, leading to amazing stories that you feel 'could happen', they are so real.

Dragons and Vampires are fantasy, and Wells steered clear of these.

[JCamilo]

He studied under Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin's right hand man, and gained a Bachelor of Science degree in zoology from the University of London External Programme. Maybe you have a different definition of "layman" in your culture, but he wouldn't be called a layman, in the UK, with a BSc degree. With that he could have stepped right into working as a professional zoologist, instead he became a writer using his professional knowledge of zoology & evolution. That's probably why the biological knowledge he uses in his science fiction is so convincing. He seems a bit less sure when he steps into physics/technology... could he not have imagined a better way to get his First Men to the Moon?

According to Merriam Webster a layman is

1
: a person who is not a member of the clergy
2
: a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field

Among the antonyms, there is "professional", surprisingly, exactly what you said he choose to not be. So, I suppose you can bag your artificats and return to the Samoan island from where you came, because in my culture, H.G.Wells is a layman.

An Wells majority contributions to science fiction have nothing to do with biology.


I recently re-read "The Invisible Man"... an excellent story in which he keeps biological matters very much in mind... like what happens to the food he eats. Is it still visible? The biochemical story of how he became invisible is rather fantastic, but he throws in enough scientific detail to give an aura of believability, showing he has more than a layman's knowledge of such things, and more than the average science fiction hack who's picked it up by reading magazines. You can see an agile scientific, as well as literary, mind at work

A scientific way of thinking is not the same thing. A guy can be completly scientific minded and throw in scientific absurds in the text. Just like Artur Clarke and Kubrick, two scientific rational minds, joined hands to produce a brillant movie about Creationism. Wells appeal to "scientific" details such what happens with the food of some invisible (Refer to an article published in 1936 in Nature) is just a mode to make you feel it realistic.




But he really has to know the science to make that work... that is why it is science FICTION and not science FANTASY.

Know science? Really? Writers need to be specialists on science to write science fiction?



Dragons and Vampires are fantasy, and Wells steered clear of these.

He just wrote a precussor story of vampire science fiction... waits, Science Fiction with vampires, that is unheard off....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTM0lAiSJ6w&hd=1

[mal4mac]

According to Merriam Webster a layman is

1
: a person who is not a member of the clergy
2
: a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field



So was Darwin a layman the day before he signed up for the Beagle? He had no more qualifications than Wells. Was he introduced to that formidable Captain as, "This is Darwin, he's a layman, and he's your field biologist"?

Do the adverts in New Scientist seeking field biologists say "layman required", or are they looking for expertise, that is, at least a BSc?

OK there is a line between "layman" and "Thomas Henry Huxley", and Wells was somewhere in the middle of that line. You can't call him "the leading expert on Darwinism", but you equally can't call him a layman.


Wells appeal to "scientific" details such what happens with the food of some invisible (Refer to an article published in 1936 in Nature) is just a mode to make you feel it realistic.

But he can only do that well if he knows enough science. An interesting question is: could Wells have written as well if he hadn't taken his degree, hadn't got his hands dirty doing disection, hadn't got a visceral feel for the subject beyond the possibilities of a layman?

[Oedipus]

My primary feeling towards people who feel that the 'masses' are really unintelligent, and that they constitute an exception, is that they provide a fine example of irony. So what if 'societal' norms have changed - does it affect your books? Does every 'plebeian' in the street laughing at some 'stuffy bookworm' tear a page out of your volumes?

[mortalterror]

We even see that attitude on litnet from time to time.


I am only impressed by advanced degrees in hard science and mathematics, perhaps linguistics and foreign languages. A degree in urban studies or English is a laugh to me. I have seen what all those degrees did for poetry. The lay opinion in English or urban planning or theology can hold its own. In hard science it is a churl's opinion, unless dealing with an ethical matter.

It is not a contest, a matter of education trumping intuition. But I will tell you this: degrees in English are relatively easy to get, degrees in hard science are not.

If you have an advanced degree in math, I know you did not fake the tests the way so many people bull$#&* their way through an English test, because you cannot do that on math tests, it doesn't work. The guy with the degree in basket weaving will have to prove independently to me that he is a working light in the arcade. He can do that, it is done all the time.

and philosophy without science is no better than fanwanking about life.

[mal4mac]

We even see that attitude on litnet from time to time.

Not quite sure what attitude you are referring to, but I'll assume that you are referring to a general attitude leading to the downgrading of literature.

If that is the case, then this attitude is not just found from "time to time". It's to be found *all* the time. Look at all the posts on on the World Cup, look at the silly forum games. Also, look at all the barely-first-draft literature being thrown up. All these things downgrade the forum and thereby, 'cause it's the top literature forum in the search engines, downgrade literature.

[tonywalt]

I love it when we dredge up this old thread. I am wachin the Kardashians at the moment and will respond after it's over (ITS A GOOD ONE!)

[AuntShecky]

One often hears businessmen, politicos, even journalists saying that they are avid readers, quickly adding that they only read "non-fiction," never fiction. So? Is that supposed to be admirable? Maybe yours fooly isn't raking in the dough the way these guys are, but one thing I do know is that non-fiction, topical books get old real fast whereas great literature still lives.

[JBI]

The quality in writing varies. You have more now, and the market is bigger, so basically most authors are writing for specific niche audiences, whereas before they would be writing for one single audience, namely the rich elite who could afford such works, and more importantly could read in general.

As for the quality of writing in general, it has been improving. The biggest difference is a disconnection with classical sources. Classics have really seen their position beaten down in the last centuries, and the whole great books ideology also took a beating. Which, of course, has greatly altered the approach to writing as well as reading.

Likewise, I would suggest to look elsewhere. In terms of art, cinema is always impressive, as is music and even dance. On the cutting edge, these forms are clearly innovating and moving. As for novels, well, outside of genres they have been stagnating for a while, where there is no single harlequin novel that stands out, since they are all the same.

Innovation is part of a cultural turning. Since the united states has not been turning much since thevreagan era, I would suggest literary trends and ideology have stagnated. Is this permanent? I would expect a great deal more of Hispanic authors to emerge in the next 20 years, as well as a major upsurge in sort of conservative literature and cinema. But certainly art doesn't ever die.

As for the study of it. The big difference is specialization of knowledge. The polymath ideal is relatively impossible to realize now. As such you get groupings of people. Thats the fallout of progressing discourse. But, then again, in my field history, archeology, psychology, theology, literature, philology, linguistics, manuscript studies, as well as several other approaches seem to be working together. What's more, we are now able to combine comparative approaches with other cultures. This is a great improvement, but taxes the student or academic.

As for the problem with English Majors though, the biggest problem is they don't read enough or speak/study foreign languages. We already have enough scholars of contemporary novels. We need more people instead to focus on time periods (renaissance, 19th century, medieval, enlightenment, etc.) and less to focus on the easy stuff.

English is a fascinating subject, but it needs to break out of its students are too narrow in their focus, and spend time reading boring novels rather than more interesting texts (by my judgment). The american academy, and the Canadian for that matter has a rather weak command of historical approaches to literature (in the German sense) and also lacks a lot of quality control in studies.

Much has to do with the fact that many people in university ate not going in with the expressed desire to become specialists in their respective fields. As such, they just take up space. Not that this is bad though, since, as some pompous ignorant posters fail to realize, these students basically fund all the research and science classes that such science students use to brag about their superiority with. A 1000 person philosophy lecture is there with the purpose of both educating an uninterested mass, as well as to fund research in other fields. Is that so bad? No. But the students probably won't emerge as philosophers any time soon.

[mal4mac]

One often hears businessmen, politicos, even journalists saying that they are avid readers, quickly adding that they only read "non-fiction," never fiction...

You don't hear that much in the UK, it's still considered crass to say such a thing.

[Ecurb]

mal4mac -- If that is the case, then this attitude is not just found from "time to time". It's to be found *all* the time. Look at all the posts on on the World Cup, look at the silly forum games. Also, look at all the barely-first-draft literature being thrown up. All these things downgrade the forum and thereby, 'cause it's the top literature forum in the search engines, downgrade literature.


AuntShecky -- One often hears businessmen, politicos, even journalists saying that they are avid readers, quickly adding that they only read "non-fiction," never fiction.


mal4mac -- You don't hear that much in the UK, it's still considered crass to say such a thing.

“Still”? Here’s Jane Austen on the subject, around 1800.


(Catherine and Isabella were quick) to read novels together. Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel–writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding — joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine–hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens — there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. “I am no novel–reader — I seldom look into novels — Do not imagine that I often read novels — It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss — ?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best–chosen language.

It’s not only modern business men who brag about avoiding novels. It’s also academics. “I have no time to novels,” brags the philosopher or historian. “All of my reading is devoted to my field.”

Besides, why brag about one’s reading habits at all? What merit is there in reading novels, instead of watching World Cup matches? If education and self improvement are the goal, doesn’t it make more sense to brag about reading history or philosophy or science? In addition (contrary to Auntie’s implication) doesn’t “literature” comprise biography, history, philosophy and other subjects, as well as fiction?

The disdain for fiction that malmac and auntshecky (and Jane Austen) deplore hs been transferred to a disdain for other popular entertainments – TV shows, World Cup soccer matches, etc. Would-be high-brows in the U.S. are (I think) unlikely to pooh-pooh novel reading, but likely to brag about never watching TV or sports. Business men (like academics) are wont to brag about not having time to read (those 80 hour work weeks!).

As JBI points out, the diversity and quantity of published information has put a damper on the social and cultural rewards of literature – we can no longer discuss the latest novel at cocktail parties because most people haven’t read it. The same is becoming true of TV (now that there are hundreds of channels even the most popular shows are not universally watched) and music (modern technology has made pop music more diverse – megahit songs or bands are rare these days).

Fortunately, we still have sports.

[mal4mac]

It’s not only modern business men who brag about avoiding novels. It’s also academics. “I have no time to read novels,” brags the philosopher or historian. “All of my reading is devoted to my field.”


George Eliot gave us a picture of that type of over-specialised philosopher/historian in Middlemarch. I guess if such a scholar is happy in himself, like a pig in ****, or fans watching the World Cup, that's good as far as it goes. But if he wants to try and place himself in the context of wider humanity, or even the whole universe, surely he has to look to cultural forms that encompass him, his discipline, and much else, and perhaps the form with the greatest claim to do that is the novel (at least in the hands of the likes of George Eliot, Dickens or Tolstoy.)



Besides, why brag about one’s reading habits at all?


Who's bragging? We're just flying the flag for literature, which seems appropriate in a literature forum!



What merit is there in reading novels, instead of watching World Cup matches? If education and self improvement are the goal, doesn’t it make more sense to brag about reading history or philosophy or science? In addition (contrary to Auntie’s implication) doesn’t “literature” comprise biography, history, philosophy and other subjects, as well as fiction?


For me, it's more pleasurable. Of course it's more difficult, even if you are just reading David Eggers. So in reading novels I get to have fun, and hopefully learn something beyond the usual self improvement literature & history books (like how not to be Casaubon.)



As JBI points out, the diversity and quantity of published information has put a damper on the social and cultural rewards of literature – we can no longer discuss the latest novel at cocktail parties because most people haven’t read it.

Reading literature is not about gaining social rewards or shining at cocktail parties.

“The novel is the one bright book of life. Books are not life. They are only tremulations on the ether. But the novel as a tremulation can make the whole man alive tremble.” ― D.H. Lawrence

[Kafka's Crow]

I think art and science have always worked together and this scenario will not change. The real enemy is the mass culture. Stupid, thoughtless and ignorant sheeple with no critical thinking skills and no knowledge, will always create and sustain this so-called dichotomy. Superficial knowledge would always show science more useful than the arts. Blame dumbing down of the populace and universalisation of education for this. The more I think of it the more it becomes evident that universal education has given voice to the people who had been ignored for hundreds of generations and now their new-found knowledge has made them over-confident. Then there is the so-called equality of opportunities as well, which helps people promote themselves into positions that they never deserved. The so-called 'University of Life' produces crooks and shysters as its graduates.

I went to a red-brick university and studied English. I did manage to breakthrough into a decent career and was on my way up when petty office politics dragged me down. My degrees in English had taught me how to identify this pettiness, but at the same time I found myself ill-equipped to survive in squalor. God knows I am glad that I am out of that mess, although the loss of a big salary hurts at times.

I have skills that nobody can take away. I still have my email and when I write messages, things happen. I can still communicate at all levels and am able to approach and talk to company directors, while my present bosses mumble and don't know what to say. They hate me for this, but this is one thing they can't take away from me. Now, at the age of 46, I have realised how strong knowledge is, how important communication skills are and how one uses one to improve the other. A degree in maths or science would have taught me a lot but it would not have taught me how to defend myself and destroy my enemies using my pen/keyboard. I am happy that I made a right choice when I decided to study English.

[Vota]

My latent potential for math and science is somewhat middling. With hard work I can do well, but these aren't subjects that come easily to me, yet the arts are practically effortless. Painting, drawing, music, writing, all come easily and naturally, but the financial prospects for these areas is rather weak on their own.

I have known more than a few math and engineering majors who can barely write, and are awkward at expressing their thoughts in person. The majority of people are not going to be scientists, engineers or mathematicians. The ability to communicate effectively is a valuable skill. One of the #1 problems colleges are complaining about is the poor reading and writing levels of students. Texting all day, watching vitriolic television shows, and reading books a 5th grader could easily understand don't do much in the way of improving one's communication abilities, nor do they helped build your mind up. Reading good books is like lifting weights for the brain.

One of the strongest capabilities you can have is complete, or at least a very high level of proficiency, in your own language, which for many of us is English. Many people scoff at this, but I always find it rather ironic when I look forward to writing a 10 page essay and receiving top marks, while math and science majors, from my experience, tend to groan at the thought.

Unless a person is going to actually be an engineer, scientist, mathematician, or whatever, they would do well to prioritize their writing and speaking ability. If you are going to specialize in something then you should at least be able to communicate that knowledge to others clearly and concisely, and that includes laymen. Even the people in the fields I previously mentioned would greatly benefit by improving their writing skill.

[Ecurb]

George Eliot gave us a picture of that type of over-specialised philosopher/historian in Middlemarch. I guess if such a scholar is happy in himself, like a pig in ****, or fans watching the World Cup, that's good as far as it goes. But if he wants to try and place himself in the context of wider humanity, or even the whole universe, surely he has to look to cultural forms that encompass him, his discipline, and much else, and perhaps the form with the greatest claim to do that is the novel (at least in the hands of the likes of George Eliot, Dickens or Tolstoy.)

Who's bragging? We're just flying the flag for literature, which seems appropriate in a literature forum!

For me, it's more pleasurable. Of course it's more difficult, even if you are just reading David Eggers. So in reading novels I get to have fun, and hopefully learn something beyond the usual self improvement literature & history books (like how not to be Casaubon.)

Reading literature is not about gaining social rewards or shining at cocktail parties.



I like reading, too. And I like novels. That's one reason I post here. Nonetheless, Casaubon was an actual scholar (albeit a mediocre one), so why denigrate his contributions? He surely led a richer intellectual life (in many ways) than Dorothea. Indeed, Dorothea seems to me like the high-brow wannabe. Her intellectual pretensions misled her; her do-gooder ambitions were only realized when she abandonned them (and the river of her good will became more diffuse).

I agree that at a literature forum we should fly the flag of literature -- I disagree with the people here who seem to think novels (and maybe poetry) constitute the whole of literature. That's just as silly as the authors Austen deplores for not allowing their heroines to read novels. There's plenty of great non-fiction literature.

As far as "shining at cocktail parties", you miss my point. One reason we all post here is we like discussing literature. It's hard to find real-life social situations where one can do that. One good thing about major sporting events is that they create a common interest about which most people in society can talk to one another. They are communal events. Perhaps it would be more fun if novels were more communal (and sometimes they are), but my point was that the diversity of available publications has diminished that possibility.

[JBI]

There is a point about how specific books create a canonical language amongst a specific group of people. The classic example are the premier anthologies of the classics and literature in China that formed the corpus and education of scholarly elite for a good 600 or so years - that everyone had read the same books created a world where everybody would discuss the same texts, and offer new, or interesting interpretations on top of already familiar works. That the works were limited to around 50 books or so in the core, 13 or so memorized virtually in whole, word for word, only added to the general power of these works to inform and influence a specific group.

The same can be said of the Biblical and Rabbinic canon amongst Jews for nearly 2000 years. That every educated Jew was using the same base texts as an educational foundation enabled a communication rooted in similar language and approach. in the 20th century thus, when Jewish nationalism took off, something like Biblical Hebrew, the language of classical education, made a comeback to work as both a lingua franca, and later as a modern language. Such a tradition only was able to exist for the simple reason that every Jew more or less was brought up on the Bible and Jewish texts as education. With the text in the background, the language for communication was inherited - that is, a culture was inherited with the language and literature.

Such can be said about the Koran for Arabic speakers as well, or Latin Classical Authors for Western Europe. That these texts formed the foundation of knowledge led to a shared space for both discussion and for development within specific cultural parameters - the function of such was pretty much to keep Western Europe as a general area relatively whole through the dislocation of the disappearing Roman classical world. The same was the function of Greek for the Eastern Roman Empire, which remained relatively cohesive despite the shrinking influence it held, and the emerging political and cultural chaos, a distinction still held to this day.

When this is considered, the general sharing of classical heritage lasted until the 19th century upsurge in nationalist feelings in the west. Our general focus moved from "classical" heritage to "our" heritage, with a focus on the nation (as the educated class, all united by the same classical education across Western Europe, gave into the new public class of people only educated in national vernaculars). With that a chaotic dislocation occurs, where English takes over as the only heritage, and even English becomes dislocated toward "American" as a centre of focus (whatever that means).

You cannot talk about the so called "Western" Canon (Here by Western I mean Western European) in the modern world the same way you could 200 years ago for the educated class of a generally wide space of Western Europe (including North Europe, and more or less inclusive of traditionally Catholic Europe). That this was missing led basically to a chaos of identity, where rather than match to the tradition, the trend has been instead to match to a successive, smaller tradition.

We cannot really talk about the "state of the arts" in general, since they are so divided and broken now, and there is not one tradition, or one coherent movement. That is generally a big shift, which means the niche, or the specific market has gained ground over the narrow, or traditional market which historically was the only educated market, and thus, with lack of literacy and financial means, the only cultured market.

That generally has compartmentalized specific readers, since, as anybody may note, you cannot read everything. What troubles the game is that the vast amount of work has made it impossible to really single out a specific text as central to moving a tradition forward in a specific direction, in the sense that Virgil, or even Milton or Wordsworth moved their specific traditions. The Late Marquez in a sense seems one of the last Titans I can picture with such creative power, but even then, we cannot be certain his works will be imitated and used as the basis of allusion and tradition.

I guess the diversity makes it much more difficult to stand out as a contemporary artist, in that in the 18th century (in English) there were only a couple dozen or so authors publishing, and everyone in the market generally shared the same cultural heritage.

Now, basically the amount of overlap between readers and people who discuss literature is based on how close one's reading habits and tastes are to those around them. Strangely, people seem to gravitate to people similar to them, and the internet seems to bring like-tasted people together. So these forums, for instance, are generally a focal point for English language novels, something which I neither read nor feel much inclined to discuss anymore. That such a community exists actually is quite interesting given the limited community for texts in lets say even the renaissance, where such an international discourse on novels, or literature in general was far more limited and narrow, and certainly a much smaller circle, where readers of early Latin books, for instance, such as More's Utopia, had a few hundred people from all across Europe (at the most). Shakespeare, in the original form, was limited to the capacity of the theatre he performed his plays in. 18th century books had print runs that didn't exceed a few thousand copies at most.

Or we can look at visual arts. This idea that everyone was looking at the same paintings is ridiculous, given the simple fact that, for the most part, these artworks were limited to the places in which they were collected. To see, for instance, the Mona Lisa, one must have had to have access to the French collection in which it was stored. To generally understand the vibe of any painting pre-photography, you actually had to physically go to see it, or else, get a rather faithful duplicate of it, if such a thing is possible. That's more so why Da Vinci's Last Supper is such a powerful piece, not so much in that it is a masterwork, but that as a masterwork it moved beyond Milan to influence the Last supper's that follow it. The limited audience, as such, is able to expand over time with the development of the follower pieces. Today we may go see the (recreated pretty much as the thing is faded) original in Milan, yet in the Renaissance even such a thing was impossible. The physical object has transcended the medium, and actually enabled anybody with internet access to see a world of artwork that was impossible 100 years ago. Books are the exact same way.

So, as for decline, not exactly. Merely the prestige of the educated class (in the English world, that is the class that could afford education) has been damaged by new-money classes of people, and their monopoly on literature has evaporated. As far as I am concerned, that is progress.

[mal4mac]

I like reading, too. And I like novels. That's one reason I post here. Nonetheless, Casaubon was an actual scholar (albeit a mediocre one), so why denigrate his contributions?

He doesn't make any contributions! His "great work" collapsed under the weight of its own false profundity and his misdirected scholarship and delusions of grandeur. All that single minded effort was wasted effort. I think that good scholarship can be a useful career, but being (say) an expert on the "100 year war" doesn't automatically mean you are living a richer intellectual life than an expert builder or a housewife. In fact, I think that Robert Tressell & George Eliot lived richer intellectual lives than most Oxford scholars (they certainly provided more intellectual riches!)


Indeed, Dorothea seems to me like the high-brow wannabe. Her intellectual pretensions misled her...

...into marrying Casaubon

[AuntShecky]

.

The disdain for fiction that [. . .] and auntshecky [. . .} deplore[s] . . .

That's the opposite of my point! I was "deploring" those who publicly imply that non-fiction is somehow more worth-while than fiction. If you go back to my original reply, you will see that I said that non-fiction generally has a much shorter life than literature.

But to clarify, I was thinking of a certain type of fiction, the so-called "literary novel" as opposed to mass market fare (the kind of escapist reading one would buy at airport newstands and the like.) In the U.S., where a centuries-old undercurrent of anti-intellectualism holds sway, many citizens look down on the arts, thinking it "elitist" or "high-brow."

Let me give you an example. A visit to our local state-of-the-art library will reveal that it's difficult to find say, a John Barth novel or The Recognitions by William Gaddis. But if you're looking for a tome by Danielle Steele, you've got hundreds of volumes to choose from.

[Ecurb]

I'll grant, malmac, that "contributions" was the wrong word. Casaubon might or might not have completed his book, if he had lived. However, he was a scholar. So was (for example) William Stoner (I just read "Stoner", often touted as the Great American Novel few people have heard of). Plenty of scholars lead forgotten lives, and their contributions are minor.

I knew what you meant all along, AuntShecky. I wrote so many negatives that my final meaing became unclear (although I believe it parses). You deplore those who disdain fiction (and who like only non-fiction). You are in good company -- Jane Austen does the same in the Northanger Abbey passage I quoted. My point was that non-fiction (on these boards) is often disdained, as if only fiction can constitute "literature". I think that a great many non-fiction works have literary merit.

Speaking of non-fiction, have you read (or heard about) "The Rise of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic" by Max Weber? It's one of the seminal 19th century works attempting a "social science", and relevant to the ideas in your "Dirty Little Secret" post. If I get time, I'll respond in that thread.

[mal4mac]

I'll grant, malmac, that "contributions" was the wrong word. Casaubon might or might not have completed his book, if he had lived. However, he was a scholar. So was (for example) William Stoner (I just read "Stoner", often touted as the Great American Novel few people have heard of). Plenty of scholars lead forgotten lives, and their contributions are minor.

Yes but Stoner is a real mensch who manages to keep his soul alive *in spite of* being immersed in the world of academic scholarship. A key moment is when he encounters Shakespeare as an undergraduate student of Agriculture, and moves to studying literature because of this encounter. But, on moving into teaching, his fellow scholars are spiteful, petty careerists who try to destroy him, and give him the most menial & tedious teaching jobs.

Stoner, of course, might not have encountered Shakespeare if he had stayed on the farm, so the University wasn't all bad for him. But if he had somehow managed to become a well read blue collar worker (like Tressell) he might have had the same "encounter with significance". I guess Stoner was also lucky to have a public service job with tenure - no such luck for Tressell.

I thought Stoner was a great novel, but can it really be a candidate for the Great American Novel? It seems too concentrated on the little world of academia for that. It has none of the breadth of "Moby Dick" or "East of Eden", for instance, which seem much better candidates. I'll certainly be reading more Williams, though. I just borrowed "Butcher's Crossing" from the library. The bumpf begins with "Will Andrews is no academic...", which is a good start, maybe we'll see more breadth here :)

[Ecurb]

I agree with you about Stoner -- it's an almost perfect novel, but a small novel, both in terms of its length and its breadth. The acknowledged great novel of which it reminds me is "Fathers and Sons", which is also a family drama involving academia. "Fathers and Sons" as a little more breadth, though.

Casaubon's book on religion (I can't remember the title off hand) seems modelled after Frazier's "Golden Bough", which offers a good example of a non-fiction book with literary merit. Here's the opening:


WHO does not know Turner’s picture of the Golden Bough? The scene, suffused with the golden glow of imagination in which the divine mind of Turner steeped and transfigured even the fairest natural landscape, is a dream-like vision of the little woodland lake of Nemi— “Diana’s Mirror,” as it was called by the ancients. No one who has seen that calm water, lapped in a green hollow of the Alban hills, can ever forget it. The two characteristic Italian villages which slumber on its banks, and the equally Italian palace whose terraced gardens descend steeply to the lake, hardly break the stillness and even the solitariness of the scene. Diana herself might still linger by this lonely shore, still haunt these woodlands wild.

Unfortunately, I must answer Frazier's initial question by saying, "I." The copy I just looked up doesn't (I assume) do the original justice. (http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/turner-the-golden-bough-n00371)

[JHG]

Apologies if I restate some things previously said.


As for the quality of writing in general, it has been improving. The biggest difference is a disconnection with classical
sources. Classics have really seen their position beaten down in the last centuries, and the whole great books ideology also took a beating. Which, of course, has greatly altered the approach to writing as well as reading.

A great point, leading to my assertion that there is no Rennaissance for the modern reader. There is instead a curriculum, a forced burden, from which a few students might find a few things that they like. Students, save for a few, walk away from this cuirriculum with spite and a vow never to return.

I once heard the Renaissance defined as a love of the Classical World. There was a time when the educated would look back at the great thinkers (Aristotle) and Poets (Homer) with admiration and a desire to emulate. Today there seems to be no looking back (ie, Renaissance). Instead there is a looking forward, mainly to audience appeal and profits. Literature is deemed to suffer because of that. The place of Industry and Capitalism seems to be the best place to blame, if blame is the objective. A commoditization? Industrialization? An assembly line, for books? At least in part, and perhaps in totality. Let us push further into this historical tangent. The scientific revolution propounded new methods of thought which made the previously mysitcal place of art and literature quantifiable. We can look at Psychology as the more obvious example, but Historicism and Formalism are active as well. Art was to be classified, not worshipped.

From Lukacs The Theory of the Novel (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/theory-novel/ch01.htm:

Truly a folly to the Greeks! Kant’s starry firmament now shines only in the dark night of pure cognition, it no longer lights any solitary wanderer’s path (for to be a man in the new world is to be solitary). And the inner light affords evidence of security, or its illusion, only to the wanderer’s next step. No light radiates any longer from within into the world of events, into its vast complexity to which the soul is a stranger. And who can tell whether the fitness of the action to the essential nature of the subject — the only guide that still remains — really touches upon the essence, when the subject his become a an object unto itself; when his innermost and most particular essential nature appears to him only as a never-ceasing demand written upon the imaginary sky of that which ‘should be'; when this innermost nature must emerge from an unfathomable chasm which lies within the subject himself, when only what comes up from the furthermost depths is his essential nature, and no one can ever sound or even glimpse the bottom of those depths? Art, the visionary reality of the world made to our measure, has thus become independent: it is no longer a copy, for all the models have gone; it is a created totality, for the natural unity of the metaphysical spheres has been destroyed forever.

What are we getting at? This commoditization is realized by the modern audience as born consumers, and as such, the modern audience places literature on the same plain as cell phones and shampoo. Like those commodities, they pick the book they like best, for whatever reason (advertising, social pressure, personal relatability, etc). Thus the reader is defined.

For a writer in a saturated market (the saturation is debatable, but that argument is for another day), he/she has to cut through the great noise with the most obvious emotional appeals onto a very narrow audience, in order to make sales. Thus the writer is defined. The economic needs and desires of the struggling author lead to a soppy, cliched product for the reader.

Commoditization and a lack of Renaissance compound into eachother until the thought of Literature as Art is a matter only for lifelong academics sitting in their offices. Though I add this is not unique to this span of history (for instance, the late 1800s in America). It seems to take a historical event (World War I) to smack western literature out of its funk, and back into producing art that is historically significant.

I would like to respond to more of your post, especially the bit about an English education (which I largeley agree with), but the rambling needs to stop.

[mal4mac]

... the modern audience places literature on the same plain as cell phones and shampoo. Like those commodities, they pick the book they like best, for whatever reason (advertising, social pressure, personal relatability, etc).


I think you are too dismissive of the reader; many readers look to the canon & great critics for the "next good read". That's a kind of social pressure, but if you dismiss that, then you dismiss Lukacs. I haven't read Lukacs, but I try to be "serious" in my choices, and Lukacs recommends many novelists I admire, if Wikipedia's summary is anything to go by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs#Literary_and_aesthetic_wor k

Interesting that he argues for the work of Thomas Mann as a superior attempt to deal with the condition of modernity, above Franz Kafka's brand of modernism. Although I find things to admire in Kafka, I think I agree with his estimation, is there a greater modern work than The Magic Mountain? Lukács was opposed to the formal innovations of modernist writers like Kafka, James Joyce, and Samuel Beckett, preferring the traditional aesthetic of realism - something I totally agree with! I may have to read his Theory of the Novel. I admire John Carey, a modern critic who has attacked modernists in the defence of realism.

I don't see the thought of Literature as Art as a matter only for lifelong academics sitting in their offices - this downgrades the stance of many serious general readers, and gives too much false glory to the lifelong academics, many of who may be devoted to academic power games rather than literature.

I don't think there was a funk before World War I. For instance Tressell's magnificient socialist novel, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists was completed in 1910, published 1914, and was certainly historically significant. To name just a few others, Kipling, Conrad, Hardy and Forster were all producing magnificent work in this period.

[JHG]

I think you are too dismissive of the reader; many readers look to the canon & great critics for the "next good read". That's a kind of social pressure, but if you dismiss that, then you dismiss Lukacs. I haven't read Lukacs, but I try to be "serious" in my choices, and Lukacs recommends many novelists I admire, if Wikipedia's summary is anything to go by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs#Literary_and_aesthetic_wor k

Definitely as good a guide as any! Though you are correct that I made several uncalled-for generalizations in interest of the argument I was formulating. Certainly all readers are not so simple or shallow.


Interesting that he argues for the work of Thomas Mann as a superior attempt to deal with the condition of modernity, above Franz Kafka's brand of modernism. Although I find things to admire in Kafka, I think I agree with his estimation, is there a greater modern work than The Magic Mountain? Lukács was opposed to the formal innovations of modernist writers like Kafka, James Joyce, and Samuel Beckett, preferring the traditional aesthetic of realism - something I totally agree with! I may have to read his Theory of the Novel. I admire John Carey, a modern critic who has attacked modernists in the defence of realism.

Definitely. I found myself being very influenced by Lukacs after reading Theory of the Novel. We Western readers are perhaps too quick to idealize the works of the Modernists.


I don't see the thought of Literature as Art as a matter only for lifelong academics sitting in their offices - this downgrades the stance of many serious general readers, and gives too much false glory to the lifelong academics, many of who may be devoted to academic power games rather than literature.

I don't think there was a funk before World War I. For instance Tressell's magnificient socialist novel, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists was completed in 1910, published 1914, and was certainly historically significant. To name just a few others, Kipling, Conrad, Hardy and Forster were all producing magnificent work in this period.

To the first part, agreed, for the reason of my over-generalization as previously mentioned.

To the second, also agreed. There were definitely some works worthy of history written in the "funk." And there are some being written today. But when measured against the more influential times, such as the emergence of Modernism after World War I, the "funk" is as I describe it. I meant to assert that we are today in a funk: Post-modernism has lost its novelty, Close Reading (New Criticism) seems to be played out; the only historically significant literary movements in our present time are those of social progress (eg = gay rights), which are certainly very important but not uniquely literary movements.

[Marina Moura]

Does anyone share my impression that literature (and the arts generally) have a lower standing today that they did in the past? My own feeling is that we are living (certainly here in the UK) in an age in which science is THE authority. I know that is not the case in, say, an African village, but it is true in much of the west. I was just listening to a British BBC radio show hosted by a comedian and a physicist; it's jokey but intelligent, with different guests each week, usually scientists and academics. The Physicist this week introduced a guest, an author who'd begun by writing about the great Romantic poets (Coleridge, Shelley and Byron I believe) before moving on to write about science. The Physicist introduced him as "a man who realized that writing about those who've explored the mysteries of the Universe was more interesting than writing about people who just made words rhyme". That attitude seems to be so prevalent. In fact it's a running joke on the show that the co-host (the comedian) "only has an arts degree".

Poetry in Britain today is not regarded by most people as a source of profundity or truth; if it's truth you want you turn to science. My own feeling is that most people think of poetry as just 'pretty language', nothing more. And that is reflected in contemporary poetry. A reviewer of the British poet laureate's last collection of poems wrote that the poems were OK, but that they felt "a bit GCSE [the exams taken by schoolchildren]" and gave the reader the impression that poetry was "a trivial art form". The problem was not so much that the poetry was no good, but that the poet was too timid, too trivial, too unambitious. I would argue that the poet (I can't think of her name) had absorbed the idea that poetry IS trivial and shouldn't be trying to express profound truths about life, the universe and everything because that is the job of science.

Interesting discussion. You say you are from UK, well, I'm from Brazil. Brazil does not have much love for literature in general. We do have some amazing classic authors like Machado de Assis and Guimarães Rosa, but unfortunately, education is not a priority in my country. Literature, books, are considered a privilage, a hobbie...something you do when you have nothing better to occupy your time. I agree on the terms that our Time and age is less worried with filosifical discussions and wonderings. People are so caught up with the material and aesthetic side of life, that they don't have time for the subjective, emotional part of our existence.

[Aere Perennius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs#Literary_and_aesthetic_wor k

Interesting that he argues for the work of Thomas Mann as a superior attempt to deal with the condition of modernity, above Franz Kafka's brand of modernism. Although I find things to admire in Kafka, I think I agree with his estimation, is there a greater modern work than The Magic Mountain? Lukács was opposed to the formal innovations of modernist writers like Kafka, James Joyce, and Samuel Beckett, preferring the traditional aesthetic of realism - something I totally agree with! I may have to read his Theory of the Novel. I admire John Carey, a modern critic who has attacked modernists in the defence of realism.


Very interesting! I find Antony and Cleopatra to be the greatest argument against realism, or at least it's dominance in art, so I don't personally agree with this, especially concerning novels in tradition of Fielding; but I always find idiosyncratic views on art far more compelling the reductive ones usually found— even when I disagree with them.

[lemonorange]

I've always had this question.
If I may use a bit strong word...
Is it the death of Literature? or the death of readers?

Readers can turn into viewers and not be readers. They can exist without being readers.
But what about literature? Can a book really exist without a reader?
Have we failed to produce good literature or good readers?

It feels like chicken vs egg question, but I think somewhere along the line,
we've also experienced the death of readers, and upon the ashes of good readers arose science!
Not really... but it feels like it.

All in all, the downgrading of literature might be not just science's fault.

[Pumpkin337]

I think that people read less and read less seriously than they used to. At one time being educated meant being well read and that no longer applies. Being educated has little or nothing to do with how well read you are, neither in how we educate, nor by association in the public eye.

This change in how we perceive both education and the value of reading has resulted in a loss in perception of the value of reading.

I think we reached a nadir when I hear ad nauseum in response to criticisms of the paucity of quality in the prose of Harry Potter that 'at least it gets kids reading'. I can respond with 'at least fast food gets kids eating'. The question is not 'are they reading' but WHAT are they reading? Just as low quality food does not nourish the body neither does poor quality writing nourish the soul nor stimulate the intellect.