Literature and Class

[cacian]

does literature follow classes or is it for everyone to everyone regardless of whether one upper middle class to lower ?

or
should literature follow classes, is another way of thinking, if you think it does not?

[Poetaster]

No, to both. Class is really more of a social phenomenon than a literary phenomenon. I'd be willing to bet that people of different social classes read different kinds of books, maybe those of higher classes read more literary fiction, but that is not based on anything at all, and I'd rather know than just guess to be honest.

[sandy14]

Literacy, rather than literature tends to follow classes, which affects access to literature.

Interestingly enough, the opening statement of the prosecutor in the obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley's finished with the question;: “Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servant to read?" So certainly there was a belief amongst some that certain types of literature belonged to, or should be excluded from, certain classes. However, the prosecutor lost the case - so it was a minority view back then.

[PeterL]

Literature is for the literate, and literacy somewhat follows socio-economic class, but not exclusively. A few weeks ago I ran across a quote from the Middle Ages to the effect that paintings were the books of the illiterate. I have to find the quote again; it was in a book on aesthetics that was edited by Umberto Eco.

[cacian]

Literature is for the literate, and literacy somewhat follows socio-economic class, but not exclusively. A few weeks ago I ran across a quote from the Middle Ages to the effect that paintings were the books of the illiterate. I have to find the quote again; it was in a book on aesthetics that was edited by Umberto Eco.

I say what? painting books of the illiterate? I would have thought it the opposite a book crammed with words is the for the illiterate to learn to read and so they need as many words as they can get. painting is for those who needs no words to express an idea. they are already challenged by the fact that a book can run thousands of words to express one thing and so they turn to painting to avoid looking like true illiterate extracting words to express a thought.

[cacian]

Literacy, rather than literature tends to follow classes, which affects access to literature.

Interestingly enough, the opening statement of the prosecutor in the obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley's finished with the question;: “Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servant to read?" So certainly there was a belief amongst some that certain types of literature belonged to, or should be excluded from, certain classes. However, the prosecutor lost the case - so it was a minority view back then.

on the basis of Lady's Chatterley's Lovers account I would have thought anyone with a bit of sense would have felt compelled to hide the book from anyone with any clear judgement let alone a wife or a servant for that matter.

[PeterL]

I say what? painting books of the illiterate? I would have thought it the opposite a book crammed with words is the for the illiterate to learn to read and so they need as many words as they can get. painting is for those who needs no words to express an idea. they are already challenged by the fact that a book can run thousands of words to express one thing and so they turn to painting to avoid looking like true illiterate extracting words to express a thought.

I'll have to find that quote again. It was in reference to paintings in churches in the Middle Ages. The illiterate couldn't read the books, but they could look at paintings that illustrated the same ideas and interpret the images. I,mages are for those who don't have the words necessary to describe something in more detail. Even now visual,pictorial media are available for those who can't or don't want to read the books, and movies, etc. are condensations of books, so the literate still get a more complete, more detailed version.

But I will repeat that literature is for the literate. The illiterate are watching movies instead, so they don't have a chance to think about it while they are absorbing it. And think of how many books haven't been made into movies.

[Emil Miller]

I'll have to find that quote again. It was in reference to paintings in churches in the Middle Ages. The illiterate couldn't read the books, but they could look at paintings that illustrated the same ideas and interpret the images. I,mages are for those who don't have the words necessary to describe something in more detail. Even now visual,pictorial media are available for those who can't or don't want to read the books, and movies, etc. are condensations of books, so the literate still get a more complete, more detailed version.

But I will repeat that literature is for the literate. The illiterate are watching movies instead, so they don't have a chance to think about it while they are absorbing it. And think of how many books haven't been made into movies.

This might be true were it not for the fact that there are movies that have not originated from books, such as Citizen Kane, the greatest movie ever made, that originated in the mind of af a twenty-five-year-old genius called Orson Welles. Or Alexander Nevsky by Sergei Eisenstein, a brilliant propaganda movie made just before the German invasion of Russia in WWII.
It is true that today the illiterate and semi-literate are watching the visual images of mindless television soap operas and programmes such as Xfactor that are designed to keep them down, but it is equally true that there has been a storm of protest at the planned closure of libraries under government attempts to save money in the current economic crisis.

[JBI]

Authors tend to have a targeted audience. Even something like Ulysses is aimed at a "literary" or "scholarly" class. The characters inside the book most likely would neither understand the book nor want to.

[stlukesguild]

As Peter suggests, Literature is written for an audience that is literate. Being "literate" is not something exclusively limited to a given social/economic class... although it certainly was far more so in the past. As JBI suggests, authors/artists have a targeted audience... commonly one not unlike themselves. Being "literate" is not limited to having the ability to read given words. One may be quite literate in the sense of being able to read the newspaper, a textbook on law, anatomy, or mathematics; or a contemporary mainstream novel, and yet lack the "literacy" demanded in order to grasp Shakespeare, William Blake, or T.S. Eliot.

As for painting and sculpture being "books" for the illiterate in past cultures... this is wholly true and common knowledge among anyone studying Medieval art history. The visual arts were employed by the Church as a means of reinforcing the narratives and lessons that were conveyed in the Bible and in the sermons to an audience that was largely unable to read. Literacy blossomed following the innovation of the movable-type printing press as print publishers sprang up across Europe... but the use of painting and sculpture to reach the illiterate audience and reinforce given narratives continued well into the Baroque era (1600s) with the conscious efforts of the Counter-Reformation to employ painting, sculpture, music, architecture, and all the trappings of the Church rituals as a sort of theater intended to seduce the audience.

[PeterL]

This might be true were it not for the fact that there are movies that have not originated from books, such as Citizen Kane, the greatest movie ever made, that originated in the mind of af a twenty-five-year-old genius called Orson Welles. Or Alexander Nevsky by Sergei Eisenstein, a brilliant propaganda movie made just before the German invasion of Russia in WWII.

Whether something was released as a book prior to being made into a movie is completely irrelevant.


It is true that today the illiterate and semi-literate are watching the visual images of mindless television soap operas and programmes such as Xfactor that are designed to keep them down, but it is equally true that there has been a storm of protest at the planned closure of libraries under government attempts to save money in the current economic crisis.

Yes, there are people who go for prepackaged images, and there are people who read.

[cacian]

Authors tend to have a targeted audience. Even something like Ulysses is aimed at a "literary" or "scholarly" class. The characters inside the book most likely would neither understand the book nor want to.

how do you mean by
''The characters inside the book most likely would neither understand the book nor want to''?

[cacian]

I'll have to find that quote again. It was in reference to paintings in churches in the Middle Ages. The illiterate couldn't read the books, but they could look at paintings that illustrated the same ideas and interpret the images. I,mages are for those who don't have the words necessary to describe something in more detail. Even now visual,pictorial media are available for those who can't or don't want to read the books, and movies, etc. are condensations of books, so the literate still get a more complete, more detailed version.

But I will repeat that literature is for the literate. The illiterate are watching movies instead, so they don't have a chance to think about it while they are absorbing it. And think of how many books haven't been made into movies.

art is not a written form of communication it is an idea whether its aim is to communicate is a different matter I believe.
words speaks louder then else. paintings are dimensional in colours and forms and are to please rather then to ease.
the other thing that strikes me is that churches are a place of worship and for it to become a place of communication is interesting. is it not the place of a priest to ensure communication is served? paintings are merely for pleasure distraction of another measure.

[sandy14]

churches are a place of worship and for it to become a place of communication is interesting

Churches in central Europe and Italy, that were left untouched by reformations are very good examples of this. There are churches in Germany and Italy with huge paintings in the ceilings depicting the journeys of saints & sinners and so on. It is not as prevalent in England as the reformation destroyed quite a lot of it. The paintings inside the Florence Dome are examples of this an I've seen a few in Belgium too.

I am sure it still exists in England, and I'm sure other folk more qualified than myself could come up with some decent examples, but you do not come across it quite so often in England. During the reformation a lot of this stuff got smashed up, and it never got replaced. Walking around churches in Europe can be a very different experience from churches in England.

[cacian]

churches are a place of worship and for it to become a place of communication is interesting

Churches in central Europe and Italy, that were left untouched by reformations are very good examples of this. There are churches in Germany and Italy with huge paintings in the ceilings depicting the journeys of saints & sinners and so on. It is not as prevalent in England as the reformation destroyed quite a lot of it. The paintings inside the Florence Dome are examples of this an I've seen a few in Belgium too.

I am sure it still exists in England, and I'm sure other folk more qualified than myself could come up with some decent examples, but you do not come across it quite so often in England. During the reformation a lot of this stuff got smashed up, and it never got replaced. Walking around churches in Europe can be a very different experience from churches in England.

is one saying churches were first created to show case paintings and communicate rather then worship a diety? a bit like a museum I mean.

[sandy14]

No, I don't know why churches were created in the first place. Someone with more theological knowledge might be able to answer that one, but I imagine it would be a big answer.

The paintings and the artwork are art of worshipping the deity. Either by providing a focus for worship (such as statues of the Virgin Mary) or by communicating messages or stories from the bible. The huge artworks on the ceiling are usually cartoons with each panel telling part of a story. Parents explain the story to their children and it gets handed down the generations without the need for text.

Iconography is part of some Christian beliefs - so the art is part of the act of worship - so looking and praying to the artwork is an act of faith. I'm not a theologist, so I can't explain it in much depth. The artwork is part of the act of worship - they are not entirely separate. There have been schisms over this issue in the past.

In Britain a lot of this stuff was smashed up after the reformations, and I don't think it returned to the same degree as I have seen elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I can't offer you a fully qualified opinion, just observations. I'm sure someone else could explain it a lot better, and in more depth.

[PeterL]

are is not a written form of communication it is an idea whether its aim is to communicate is a different matter I believe.
words speaks louder then else. paintings are dimensional in colours and forms and are to please rather then to ease.
the other thing that strikes me is that churches are a place of worship and for it to become a place of communication is interesting. is it not the place of a priest to ensure communication is served? paintings are merely for pleasure distraction of another measure.

I agree that today words speak louder than pictures, but many people think otherwise, and six or eight hundred years ago things were a little more extreme, because few people could read words, but pictures are a different matter. For example, the works of Hieronymus Bosch were not of dreams; they were illustrations on religious concepts, things that the priests might say, such as sin, reward, punishment, Heaven, Hell, and so on. Remember that I am referring to paintings and stained glass windows made centuries ago. Movies aren't generally used to express religious ideas, but the same principle applies.

[Emil Miller]

Whether something was released as a book prior to being made into a movie is completely irrelevant.



Not in the light of your comment that: "movies etc are condensations of books."
I have given just two examples where that isn't the case.
Moreover, there have been a number of books written about the making of Citizen Kane that wouldn't otherwise exist.

[ennison]

In the sense that literature is written then it is fairly obviously the case that the educated literate had an easier access to it but it is some time ago now since universal literacy was achieved in most Western European states and North America. We have now widespread opportunities to read but there are some who though able chose not to. Most of these are probably connected with the old Working Class. That class is now much much smaller than it was even forty years ago. In the sense that literature can include oral sources I am certainly sure that it was never mainly the educated elite of the upper and middle classes who enjoyed it but rather the reverse. I might even hazard a guess that many of the modern day non-reading members of the Working Class get their literary "fix" through the medium of popular culture in its various guises