We Need A Revolution In Literature!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

The posts of Bewlay have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and have nothing to do with literature as well. Why not just ignore his posts? I think his posts would be better suited for some right-wing neo-Nazi posting board. It certainly isn't the kind of stuff that belongs in a discussion about literature.

---

First, all perspectives should have a voice in a discussion of almost anything. Have conservatives never written good literature?

Plus, I hardly think his voice is representative of a far right-wing mentality, much less a neo-Nazi mindset--and, fankly, i wonder if you even know what that means.

Quote:

---

A different poster, one whose posts are far more relevant to the topic, was kind enough to give a list of some writers and poets that he felt were innovative. I wish to thank him. Others may also wish to share with us the names of writers and poets who they feel are innovative, particularly of the modern and contemporary periods. Other members of the site might enjoy reading those poets and writers very much. (As I said before unless you have permission from the copyright holder please refrain from posting an entire work, just list titles, as posting an entire work that is not yet part of the public domain is against copyright rules. Thank you.)

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

---

Do you have any particular contemporary examples of literature that has been censored or suppressed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Of course I know who he is. I'm well read. He wrote Fathers and Sons right? See I know.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

The posts of Bewlay have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and have nothing to do with literature as well. Why not just ignore his posts? I think his posts would be better suited for some right-wing neo-Nazi posting board. It certainly isn't the kind of stuff that belongs in a discussion about literature.

A different poster, one whose posts are far more relevant to the topic, was kind enough to give a list of some writers and poets that he felt were innovative. I wish to thank him. Others may also wish to share with us the names of writers and poets who they feel are innovative, particularly of the modern and contemporary periods. Other members of the site might enjoy reading those poets and writers very much. (As I said before unless you have permission from the copyright holder please refrain from posting an entire work, just list titles, as posting an entire work that is not yet part of the public domain is against copyright rules. Thank you.)

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

---

There we go. Boom. You don't agree with it so that is the end of it. Though if it was something you agreed with, you would be all over it. You are a phony. You don't care about truly being "controversial" but only ridiculing people you don't agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Whatever. I've heard scholars state that the form of slavery the African Americans endured was perhaps the most brutal in all history. I can think of few example of such large numbers of people being shipped to other continents and kept in drudgery and discrimination for centuries. I'm sure there are some but it is not "typical" as you in your superior intelligence and historical perspective state.

---

Drudgery and discrimination? They would much rather be here in America right now than Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

Drudgery and discrimination? They would much rather be here in America right now than Africa.

---

My response to that is to say that I will not dignify it with a response.

Quote:

---

Not to mention a BA in English is only 12 classes over a 4 year period, so that averages out to be 3 classes a year. How much can a person really cover in so short a time period in their courses? Not to mention I remember having a discussion with Mortalterror a little while ago on Lit Net in which he asserted that many people he knows with BAs in English spent too much time reading contemporary work in their courses, while getting little to no background in the older classics. So Wolf's claim that students are forced to only spend their time with the Old Masters doesn't match up well with everyone else observations.

---

There certainly is plenty of contemporary literature taught in college literary courses. However, much of that work, while often quite good, lacks innovation and experimentation. I think that there should be some conventional contemporary literature, but at the same time there should be innovative literature in these courses as well. What is often being left out of the courses is the contemporary INNOVATIVE literature.

In an earlier post I posted the work of a relatively unknown author (with his prior permission) whose work I discovered on the Internet. I believe his work to be more creative than ANYTHING I read in 16 years of formal education with a BA in English literature. This is certainly not the first time that I discovered on the Internet excellent innovative works by unknown authors.

Perhaps the best writing in the history of the human race is being written right now, or perhaps the best writing of the human race does not find its way into any canon, because the tastes of those who decide what goes in the canon might be far too conservative. The canon may contain some very good works of literature, some others that are not so good, but does the canon have the greatest works of literature written by man? I doubt it.

We've already heard the word "good taste" repeated over and over again like some mantra. "Good taste" is nothing more than the prejudices of the status quo. Certainly, until he made big, Pablo Picasso's work was not considered to be in "good taste". His paintings were considered vulgar. And certainly he is not the only one.

Each generation of artists and writers must fight against the haughty connoisseurs of "good taste". For the guardians of "good taste" new and bold does not fit their definition of "good taste".

This does not mean that I don't think there is a place for conventional writing. At the moment I myself happen to be writing in a conventional manner.

But there is no correct manner of writing. There is no such thing as "good taste". If people wish to do so let them write in a conventional manner one day and a completely innovative manner the next day. Let there be as many creative writing styles as there are poets and writers in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

There is no such thing as "good taste".

---

Oh but there is. Its a preference for quality. It accepts the vulgar and the new be they a worthy read but rejects whatever is of poor quality. That story you posted was interesting but its silly to say its better or more creative than every work in the canon. I realize that the poetry establishment has become somewhat more conservative as of late, placing greater emphasis on rhyme for example. But I walk into a library or a book store and am confronted with a veritable tide of outstanding innovative literature, many works laden with sex, politics, amorality. Like I said, these sentiments of yours would have been timely 150 years ago. I suppose it might not be a bad attitude for an artist to have, whether it reflects the reality or not. But don't take rejection as cause to condemn the entire world of literature. Maybe, just maybe it has to do with the quality of your writing and not with the conservative puritanical censorship you imagine to pervade the literary world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

They would much rather be here in America right now than Africa.

---

That doesn't work. If the ancestors of the descendants of slaves had never been enslaved, those ancestors would have lived completely different lives with different people around them. They would have engaged in coitis with different people, and at different times in their ovulation cycles and sperm production. They would have had different children, and because millions of people would be different the world itself would be different, you can't know if it would be better or worse for hypothetical people in that scenario or if we're better off with this reality. Furthermore, America would be a completely different place. Everything contributed or done, big or small, by a person who is the descendant of a black slave would never have been done, and that adds up to a lot. Not just the big names, American has been affected by it's black population in many ways - look at the color of many of the soldiers in the Vietnam war for example, that whole situation would have certainly gone differently. You can't make a judgement about the quality of that hypothetical, alternate-reality America. You're saying, "this reality is better than what would have been if black Africans weren't enslaved," but there's no way in hell you would ever possibly be able to know that. That's outside of our field of vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

That doesn't work. If the ancestors of the descendants of slaves had never been enslaved, those ancestors would have lived completely different lives with different people around them. They would have engaged in coitis with different people, and at different times in their ovulation cycles and sperm production. They would have had different children, and because millions of people would be different the world itself would be different, you can't know if it would be better or worse for hypothetical people in that scenario or if we're better off with this reality. Furthermore, America would be a completely different place. Everything contributed or done, big or small, by a person who is the descendant of a black slave would never have been done, and that adds up to a lot. Not just the big names, American has been affected by it's black population in many ways - look at the color of many of the soldiers in the Vietnam war for example, that whole situation would have certainly gone differently. You can't make a judgement about the quality of that hypothetical, alternate-reality America. You're saying, "this reality is better than what would have been if black Africans weren't enslaved," but there's no way in hell you would ever possibly be able to know that. That's outside of our field of vision.

---

far to many if's.

Most likley had they not been taken from affrica, their descendants of now would be virtual slaves to ather africans.

Irony, humanity if full of it.

Thank you Mutatis for sticking up to me. I was starting to feel alienated and it is obvious that many people here are like talking to brick walls. Not you though.

Darcy:

You know what I said is true. You don't care about the truth or truly probing the essence of humanity and life. All you care about is trying to prove just how much you care about black people. I'm not impressed. I expect such things. How about you go past the most simplistic layer of the topic at hand?

And Darcy, do you know what I like to do on Saturdays? If I have no other plans?

I love to go to Dunkin Donuts and get a dozen of donuts but four boxes. Then I put three donuts in each box. I then go to miscellaneous places. Barnes and Noble, Tj Max, the YMCA, and I look for a nice wholesome Africian-American family. I then go to them and say, "Hey man, me and my family are about to go on a road trip and we couldn't finish these donuts and we don't want the car to smell like donuts. Do you want the rest?"
Normally they say yes. Now Darcy, do you know why I do this? I do it so I can prove to them that I am NOT a racist.

Now I know what you are thinking. What good will that do? Only like three families will know i'm not a racist! You see the thing is, you may not agree with everything I say - but you have to agree with evolution and homeostasis. You see, since blacks have been hunted and maimed and beaten by white people for their entire existence, they have evolved an uncanny ability to describe all of the queasy nuances of the caucasion face. I figure that when African-Americans will get together, they will talk about my acts of beauty, and describe my face. I predict that by 2025 72% of African-Americans on the east coast will know that, in fact, THIS FACE loves them!

My goodness. Sometimes I just feel like I am one with humanity itself. This is one of those times. I'm talking about paradigm-shattering, take-no-prisoners compassion. I aspire to be you Darcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

far to many if's.

Most likley had they not been taken from affrica, their descendants of now would be virtual slaves to ather africans.

Irony, humanity if full of it.

---

Even when it is true that most of the slaves that came to America were bought by negro importing businesses, from other Africans that had taken them POW's, that has nothing to do with the nature of slave life in USA.
The American civil war was not truly fought for the liberation of many slaves, although Lincoln would claim it. It was mainly fought for the monopoly of textiles in the midst of the industrial revolution. Lincolm's claim was true as the beginning of a consequence of the civil war.
It was not until the 1930's that the true political currents of slave liberation came to stage. And in the south we were in the 1960's and seventies before the lynchings stopped considerably, not fully.
What does all of this business of how the slaves arrived to America has to do with slavery in America and what it developed into and how the problem was resolved? Vestiges of stupid racism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Most likley had they not been taken from affrica, their descendants of now would be virtual slaves to ather africans.

---

Or an infinite number of other possible scenarios. That's the fun of the chaos theory. African slavery in America is actually a huge chunk of modern history. If it had never happened, who the hell knows what the world would be like? America would be completely different, and America is a huge global powerhouse. The whole world would be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Or an infinite number of other possible scenarios. That's the fun of the chaos theory.

---

Your the fan of logic and reason here - look at it from the point of view of probability. The majority would be contempory slaves in africa. it can't be denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

That doesn't work. If the ancestors of the descendants of slaves had never been enslaved, those ancestors would have lived completely different lives with different people around them. They would have engaged in coitis with different people, and at different times in their ovulation cycles and sperm production. They would have had different children, and because millions of people would be different the world itself would be different, you can't know if it would be better or worse for hypothetical people in that scenario or if we're better off with this reality. Furthermore, America would be a completely different place. Everything contributed or done, big or small, by a person who is the descendant of a black slave would never have been done, and that adds up to a lot. Not just the big names, American has been affected by it's black population in many ways - look at the color of many of the soldiers in the Vietnam war for example, that whole situation would have certainly gone differently. You can't make a judgement about the quality of that hypothetical, alternate-reality America. You're saying, "this reality is better than what would have been if black Africans weren't enslaved," but there's no way in hell you would ever possibly be able to know that. That's outside of our field of vision.

---

You are right about the second half. Blacks have helped make America a great place. It is unfortunate that for a lot of the help they didn't really have a choice. That is in the past though. We have moved past that embarrassing and depraved era, and today all of America is better because of it - including the descendants of slaves. It is terrible that it happened but luckily society has been mature enough to move forward, been progressive, and not harbored ill will against people because of acts they did not commit, or warped their grasp of humanity because of hand-picked enormities.

People like Darcy... oh boy. He has that platform of his, that feeble perspective of the grand scheme of things. It is up in the sky somewhere, a castle on a plot of land. Weighed down by the gravity of progress, he falls down to lowly hateful America. He despairs, but realizes that in his hands he is still grasping clumps of soil, from when he was holding on for dear life. He holds onto these clumps. They never leave his sight. He tries so hard to make a garden out of them.

I hope to hell he doesn't succeed. I like people. I know how easy corruption comes though, and how disgusting they can be. I've seen personalities get flesh-eating diseases. Scores and scores of them. It is a hard thing to watch happen. I'm glad they aren't armies though, which would be Darcy's utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

That is in the past though. We have moved past that embarrassing and depraved era, and today all of America is better because of it

---

Is it really - I mean if you prioritize a civilization over the individual, slavery is extremley beneficial. I mean almost all of the great civilizations were founded upon a bedrock of slavery - human history without slaver, would meant that most civlizations would not have been able to rise and culture as we know it might have never existed, for what created art and philisophy and culture was the fact that slavery meant there were also lots who did not need to work and could dedicate time otherwise, to the pursuit of culture.

Just sayin...

dont blame other for being narrow minded and then proccede to shoot out cliche blanket statments without much tought to what was said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Your the fan of logic and reason here - look at it from the point of view of probability. The majority would be contempory slaves in africa. it can't be denied.

---

That's not mathematically correct. To discuss the minute points of ecological chaos theory would take a really long *** time but I'll give you one obvious example of a very large, observable change. What we're talking about happened a long time ago, when the world's population was quite low. If we were to go into the world's genetic tree, those people who's offspring would have been changed because of African slavery would be the starting branches for billions of people, and those are people, variables abound. People cause things, great social changes. Imagine if Hitler had never been born, or if Gandhi had never been born, or ANY huge social changer (Bush, Kim Jong-Il, Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Stalin, the list goes on forever). How could you be sure that there wouldn't have been another huge social changer in that massive group of billions of people who would have existed in the hypothetical scenario in which black slavery in America never happened? It's a solid bet that there would have been at least a couple and that's all you need to change the world, one Shakespeare or one Alexander of Macedonia. Not to mention the fact that a few of the big names in our reality would never have been born, Martin Luthor King for example. How would the world change then? Hell, the reproduction of the slave owners would have been altered as well, not as much time for ****ing if you have to pick your own damn cotton. Some white Americans who you might not even think connected to anything at all might never have been born, and other people would have taken their place, people who would have been raised under different conditions and who would make completely different decisions. And then remember the medium and the multitudes of small effects as well, they really add up. I'm telling you, society and the world would be completely different in ways nobody can possibly predict.

That's why Bewlay's suggestion that people are "better off" because of black slavery doesn't hold water. There is no way in hell that you can predict a thing like that.