Printable View
Hi everybody...Well, against the Romantic idea which tells us to be true when writing, there's this Shakespearean line which wisely (in my opinion and two centuries before Romantic period) lights the true path of literature: writing is lying. This is from As you like it , act iii scene 3. Do you agree?
Well... If you say that writing is lying, you'll find truth. If you say that writing is telling the truth, you'll always find lies. But the former point of view might be well taken because thinking that writing is telling the truth could be far more catastrophic if taken seriously. But what does that incompetent Venetian Shakespeare has to do with this? Many many writers have dealt with this subject without having to be monkeys signifying nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jayat
Sorry, but I can't see your point. You mean that is a very usual subject in the literarian world the fact of the fiction contract, the untruth which becomes (by literarian magics) a undenyable true at the readers' eyes. I think you said that but I don't understand from "but what does the incompeten Venetian" untill the end of your quote. Would you be so kind to explain it to me again? thoroughly if possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I'd rather be kind enough not to explain it. Have fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by jayat
Shakespeare is no better judge than Osho, Mind here Osho with the capital O. To quote one writer to infer a point or judgement is not insightful. There are so many writers, critics, reviewers, general readers like myself and many others posting here or the entire history of literature stands against Dimwitted Shakespeare's conclusion. It is not just English writers or theorists or propagators I would or any wise readers or writers or critics must lionize in the literary jungle. Let us welcome Vedic thought and I do not call it Hindu or Indian thought since this narrow downs the scope of the Vedas. Mandarin thought from the sources of Mongolian literature cannot be ruled out at any rate when you want to make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jayat
What I do not intend to be vague on the issue however. Truth can be compared to a colossal mountain or we have a classical story of a horde of blind people making different estimates of an elephant. When you look at the mountain you see only one dimension. When Shakespeare understood literature only one narrow part of it. Truth is widespread, pervasive, universal and layered like an onion and keep on trying to arrive at the core your endeavors will end up in nothing.
I reserve judgement when it comes to arguing for the Shakespearean Truism. Shakespeare is a product of the tens of thousands of junk mindsets of the day and I do not think he could be a touchstone. Better refer to Tolstoy to arrive at the point or Dostoevsky in the line who had seen truth from a closer distance than Shakespeare. Shakespeare was a stylist and style in literature is pretext, deceit only and that is why he might have said writing is lying. This is absolute trash
This is absolute trash
Yep... that pretty much sums up the whole of your post.
There's an interesting and fairly short dialogue called The Decay Of Lying: An Observation written by Oscar Wilde touching on this subject, which you can access on this website.Quote:
Originally Posted by jayat
Shakespeare's real opinions can't be readily inferred from one of his character's lines, at least without looking at context. We need not look far to find conflict of opinion between characters. The most obvious in this case is probably Hamlet who states in act 3 scene 2 that "the purpose of playing" (i.e. the purpose of performing plays) is "to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature."Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
Sea I appreciate your comment and far better than the former comment in which there was no essence and logic save a little preconception.
Shakespeare's real opinions can't be readily inferred from one of his character's lines, at least without looking at context. We need not look far to find conflict of opinion between characters. The most obvious in this case is probably Hamlet who states in act 3 scene 2 that "the purpose of playing" (i.e. the purpose of performing plays) is "to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature."
That's a problem with literature and art as a whole. Too many confuse the artist and the art... in spite of the fact that we know "art" is at the root of the terms "artifice" and "artificial".
I appreciate your comment and far better than the former comment in which there was no essence and logic save a little preconception.
One does not waste a great deal of time constructing a logical argument to challenge opinions which are themselves not rooted in logic in the least. You have made any number of posts in which you have made your artistic preferences for "clarity" and "simplicity" (some might argue "simple-mindedness") blatantly clear. Such is well and fine. We all have artistic preferences. But you seemingly suppose that these preferences ... these opinions... are fact. You struggle with the aesthetic complexity of Joyce and Shakespeare... and thus Shakespeare is judged as dimwitted and Joyce as a mere product of mindless critics. Ultimately, your artistic judgments have less to do with aesthetic and artistic quality and more to do with your ideal of art that reaches and resonates with the masses. Unfortunately, for all your idealism, not even your beloved Tolstoy or Dostoevsky have achieved that.
I fully agree that there are endless points of view to any question to be found among the whole of literature. I also agree, that Shakespeare, like any other artist, offers but a limited view of "truth"... or of human existence. He can but speak for himself. I also would reiterate that I would take any quote from Shakespeare with a grain of sand... considering that he was a playwright... and it is his characters who speak... not necessarily Shakespeare himself. This alone speaks to the artifice of art.
[QUOTE=Sea;1203020]There's an interesting and fairly short dialogue called The Decay Of Lying: An Observation written by Oscar Wilde touching on this subject, which you can access on this website.
Thank you very much, Sea. Well, The Cyril's summary contains four ideas: 1. art always expresses art stuff; 2. All bad art comes from coming back to life and nature, always idealising them(very important point); 3. life imitates art far more than the other way around, and last but not least, 4. lying, the telling of pretty but untrue things, is the proper target of art.
It's difficult to distinguish what is true and what are lies from the literarian world. It's a world by itlself, with their own rules as big and complex as the main reality for us, the human people, but as unattainable as this main reality which everyday sorrounds us. Thanks again, Sea.
You're more than welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by jayat
I'll agree with Oscar Wilde's assertion that all bad poetry is sincere. There is probably no poetry more sincere than that which we wrote as teenager... nor any more bad... so much so that I sincerely hope mine never sees the light of day.
all art is fiction, and it is only through fiction that humans seem to grasp certain universal truths, especially of an abstract nature. and stluke is right--personal poetry is bad when it's merely subjective and doesnt further the true cause of art--creating an objective work that produces an experience for the reader, listener, spectator that will allow them to grasp universal truths, particularly about human nature and action, and our place in the cosmic setting.
I wouldn't have answered this if you didn't make any sense, except at the very end, where you don't. There is no cosmic setting in the terms you antecede correctly. We only have Cosmicomics and Numbers in the Dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diar624
I don't know about romantic but to be true is a concept that insoluble it means nothing.Quote:
Well, against the Romantic idea which tells us to be true when writing,
writing is an act of possibilities that you and I simply cannot quantify. to write is to say and to say is to be.
lying is an reaction to an action one lies because one needed to regardless of consequences.Quote:
lights the true path of literature: writing is lying.
writing however is a consequence meaning we write to achieve whatever need be achieved or completed.
and so to put these two items together is like saying it is raining because it is sunny. it is incongruent because it is an incomplete concept. both rain and sun exist but when put together they make no sense. that is one truth and the only one.