Capitalism Versus Great Literature

People should write whatever they want to write. I've written four books of conventional literature. While I write conventional prose when it suits me I think it's repetitive to write ONLY in a conventional style.

Write any way you want to write. And I'll read what I want to read. But when I see thread after thread of conventional monotony on the Internet it's kind of boring – no matter how well written it is – unless of course the story is very EXCITING. If someone was a boy soldier in Africa, or someone worked on crab boats in Alaska, or someone worked in a whorehouse then probably their conventionally written story is interesting.

Pablo Picasso painted in a conventional style in his childhood. As an adult he moved on to bigger and better things. You too can be a Pablo Picasso of literature if you want to, but maybe you don't want to. It's up to you. Granted, if you are a Pablo Picasso of literature it probably will not be very helpful to your "literary career", as the publishing conglomerates prefer conventional writers.

I'm not telling anybody how they should write. But I will say one thing: I feel a sense of joy when I click on a thread and the whole story or poem or whatever is unique. I mean the WHOLE THING is unique, unlike anything I've ever read before, and not just a phrase or two. I feel joy! I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've seen stuff on the Internet way better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote. And sadly, they will probably die in obscurity, and their wonderful manuscripts will probably wind up in some landfill.

If we are all writing in just one manner – conventional or otherwise – I think it will get very boring very fast. If everyone painted like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock or Turner or Bosquiat then it would be horribly boring. But, if everybody writes or paints in their own style then I think it makes the world a more interesting place. And then if you don't like Wolf Larsen's writing – it doesn't matter – because there would be a zillion other people who each have their own style of writing. You can't possibly argue that everyone has their own style of writing. Most people don't. And it's boring to read something that resembles a zillion other works of literature, no matter how well it's written. Imagine if every building in every city on the planet had the same style of architecture – how boring!

I think if more people had their own style of writing more people would read literature. Maybe there's a reason why so many people find reading literature boring. And maybe conventional writers and publishing conglomerates that favor conventional literature are partly to blame for this.

But please write whatever you want to write. But don't expect me to read something that resembles an infinite variety of stuff I've already read. And don't expect future generations to bother reading it either.

And I shall continue to maintain that any illiterate idiot can write vulgarities. It takes neither intelligence nor wit nor any special talent. Doing so does not make you look cutting-edge or avant-garde or different - it just makes you look stupid. Vulgarity is what people who lack the education and vocabulary to express themselves adequately use. If you wish to be ignored because you resort to the expressions of the masses and the toilet door and the subway tunnel and the overpass, then by all means, just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Real talent lies in being able to take 100% recycled words (as Terry Pratchett put it) and re-arrange them into something new and meaningful.

There is an inherent contradiction between the capitalist system and the creation & dissemination of great literature.

Is there? Is this contradiction any more inherent than it was under a theocracy, an aristocracy, fascism, communism, etc...?

When the mind conjures up something great, something creative, something that will make wonderful literature the last thing on the mind should be money. But, the first thing on one's mind in a capitalist society is inevitably money-money-money! Will it sell??

I don't know, but as a visual artist, I rarely ever think about money while creating.

How do I get some money to survive, to live better, to pay my bills, etc.

As an artist, do you assume the world owes you a free ride unlike the rest of these peons?

But what if money had nothing to do with it? What if you were assured a regular income regardless of whether your writing was commercial or not? And what if there was a great repository of literature that insured the survival of your literary works for posterity? Wouldn't that be nice?

Nice? Perhaps... but you haven't addressed the problem of who gets to have this cushy life as a writer or artist or musician and who gets stuck cleaning toilets. If all creative artists are assured a steady income, room and board... who wouldn't want to be part of this... and who is stuck doing the day to day labor required to keep this system running?

What if it were possible to free literature from big business? Keep in mind that capitalism is only a passing phase in human development. Homo sapiens has been around for over 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for a few hundred. Capitalism is not eternal. Capitalism brings endless war and plenty of social rebellion as well. Perhaps capitalism will bring about World War III and human extinction. Or perhaps, workers will get tired of stingy wages and throw capitalism and the ruling class in the garbage can.

And what will replace it? Will it necessarily be better? War and struggle for power has been around long before modern capitalism... and will likely survive after it.

Let us suppose that the human race reaches socialism. The work week is reduced to 30 hours, and many necessities like childcare and medical care are free, while other necessities like housing are affordable. In addition, publishing is no longer run on a profit basis.

So under socialism you put in your six hours of work a day, plus you have two days free to write all day. You have more time to write than ever!

Again... what motivates the individuals who make this writer's Utopia possible? Why should they not all want to be poets or musicians or painters as opposed to plumbers, sanitation workers... or the physicians offering your free health care after 10 or 12 years of college?

As the planned economy advances and becomes more productive, people receive better wages and work less hours as time goes on. (Under socialism everybody has the right to a job.)

You still haven't addressed the issue of motivation and how we select who shall be awarded the position of writer, poet, artist, musicians as opposed to something less savory.

(And no, I'm not talking about Stalinism, although even under rotten Stalinism the standard of living improves for workers, and literacy rates go way up!)

So the standar of living in the Soviet Union under Stalin was greater than in the US and the rest of the West? Really?

So literacy increases under socialism.

How so? Do a little on-line research; the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe rank at the top of world literacy rates. Russia is quite high... but CHina is a good bit behind... and countries like Afghanistan and many other Middle-Eastern and African nations are the least "literate". Of course I'll assume by "literacy" you mean the ability and desire to read "great" literature... however you define that, but I doubt the Russians or Chinese are any more literature than us good old capitalists in that.

Plus, leisure time increases. Plus, the general population becomes more affluent. At present, half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. As these people become more prosperous under socialism, they will have more money to buy books. Hence, a larger audience for writers! Perhaps under socialism more writers will be able to live from their literature than ever before and quit the day job.

The capitalist Western nations are the most affluent in the world. They enjoy more leisure time than anyone else. Their literacy rate is the highest in the world. This has resulted in a greater audience than ever for books, films, music, etc... but it hasn't guaranteed that these works of art are "good" let alone "great". You assume a mass of intellectuals and sophisticated art lovers. The reality would likely be more trash novels and reality TV shows.

When the writer is no longer chained to commercial fiction writers become freer than ever to experiment and come up with ever new forms of writing! Why not? If you're not driven by profit and the necessity of making money from your writing, then you're free to write whatever you want! That's because you automatically have a paycheck coming in from your day job – were you work 30 hours a week (or less) for 40 hours of pay.

On the other hand... it may just as likely result in lazy writing... after all, I'm gonna get paid no matter how bad my crap is, right? From what I recall, Shakespeare had to write to meet the demands of the audience and the marketplace. I hear he didn't do too bad.

There is no reason to suppose as technology advances that the book as we know it becomes only one way to read a "book". Why not read off the wall?

Graffiti, posters, billboards, LED screens?

Project the words on a white wall and read that way? Why not turn reading into a 360° experience that surrounds the reader?

There are conceptual artists that have done as much. The reality is that such work crosses into the realm of theater and the visual arts and abandons the intimate nature of reading.

Why not turn reading into both a visual and auditory experience?

Umm... theater? film? poetry recitals?

Perhaps reading can become mass events, with people reading together in an auditorium while modern dancers dance how the words make them feel, and musicians play as well? I don't see why mass readings can't be combined with mass orgies (involving mutual consent), especially if there are preventive inoculations for all STDs and infinite forms of birth control. In other words literature can become everything and anything! As the human race becomes more free – so will literature become more free!

Ummm... yeah.

As communications become more instantaneous, and as leisure time becomes more prevalent, and as people become less concerned with the struggle for survival, they will have more time and energy to concern themselves with culture. Why not millions of people in the world simultaneously writing a book together?

Collaborative art. Sometimes the result is great. Think the Gothic Cathedrals or certain films. Sometimes its not so great. Think a lot of TV shows... or certain films.

Of course, some of this has already been done on a less extensive scale – as you know it's called multimedia. But, when composers and modern dancers and general audiences and writers and musicians and filmmakers and the general public from different parts of the world all simultaneously create a literary work together it will truly be awesome!

Or a chaotic mess.

The greatest literature of humanity is not in its past, but in its future. And you live at the time of the greatest changes in the literary world since the invention of the printing press. The freedom of literature from economic concerns is in its budding phase. And when literature frees itself from the chains of monetary considerations, that's when literature can truly become great and creative!

You've convinced yourself of this. I guess that's a start.

Pablo Picasso painted in a conventional style in his childhood. As an adult he moved on to bigger and better things. You too can be a Pablo Picasso of literature if you want to, but maybe you don't want to. It's up to you. Granted, if you are a Pablo Picasso of literature it probably will not be very helpful to your "literary career", as the publishing conglomerates prefer conventional writers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've seen stuff on the Internet way better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote.

Have you spoken to a medical expert about these hallucinations?

If we are all writing in just one manner – conventional or otherwise – I think it will get very boring very fast. If everyone painted like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock or Turner or Bosquiat then it would be horribly boring. But, if everybody writes or paints in their own style then I think it makes the world a more interesting place... You can't possibly argue that everyone has their own style of writing. Most people don't.

Maybe there's a reason why so many people find reading literature boring. And maybe conventional writers and publishing conglomerates that favor conventional literature are partly to blame for this.

The great writers have always developed their own unique voice. This is not limited to something as simplistic as mere novelty. How many writers do we have that are like Lawrence Sterne, Lewis Carroll, James Joyce, Fernando Pessoa, J.L. Borges, Georges Perec, Julio Cortazar, Apollinaire, Andre Breton, etc...? The reason so many find literature boring is that they lack the patience and discipline that challenging literature often demands. Or they aren't interested. They'd rather watch TV or sports. What makes you think that your Socialist Utopia would result in a world of literature lovers? It likely would result in more time spent drinking beer and watching baseball, football, basketball, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pumpkin337

lets see - its pointless, meaningless and vulgar, not to mention self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant and overweening oh yes and dangerously self-deluded with regard its own brilliance? I can read wittier vulgarities on the back of a public restroom door.

---

It might not be your bag, Pumpkin, but this strikes me as a lazy reading. The poem is narcissistic, but performatively, playfully so: "I launch my phrases of poetry into outer space with a screaming mouth larger than the universe." The narcissistic (self-deluded) element of the poem "a screaming mouth larger than the universe"--the part that presents itself as larger than life, undercuts itself everywhere: the "mouth larger than the universe" is comically launching phrases of poetry into outer space--something contained inside the universe--so that the narcissistic grandiosity is at the same time playfully aware of its narcissism, the ways its bigness exists only on the smaller terrain of its own mouth. Same with the grandiose metaphors of poetic conquering, which--hyperbolic, huge, overweening--are also unanimously metaphors of disenfranchised, in their own way impotent, forms of social violence: "pop-Pop-pop like Southside bullets," "neuroses," "a cannonball." There is also the poem's running awareness of its exclusion from socially legitimated avenues of aesthetic expression: "the literary world," "prestigious poetry magazines." I might add that all of the poem's violence and vulgarity is poetic and metaphorical: we're not talking about actual conquering armies, Southside bullets, or cannonballs; we're talking about "words," "each page," and "phrases of poetry."

The sum effect is a poem that understand in every line the impossibility and absurdity of its grandiosity, and more importantly, understands the absurdity of asserting such grandiose claims on behalf of poetry--but asserts them nonetheless: "Because the greatest literature ever made is in our future!"

You simply cannot make such claims for poetry without devolving into naivete and triteness--without, in short, being excluded from "the literary world." But this is the marginalized terrain the poem claims and celebrates, and in finding a way to do that, refashions a space to make such big claims for poetry. Vulgar it may be, but its vulgarity works in the service of a kind of euphoric, literary innocence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

People should write whatever they want to write. I've written four books of conventional literature. While I write conventional prose when it suits me I think it's repetitive to write ONLY in a conventional style.

Write any way you want to write. And I'll read what I want to read. But when I see thread after thread of conventional monotony on the Internet it's kind of boring – no matter how well written it is – unless of course the story is very EXCITING. If someone was a boy soldier in Africa, or someone worked on crab boats in Alaska, or someone worked in a whorehouse then probably their conventionally written story is interesting.

Pablo Picasso painted in a conventional style in his childhood. As an adult he moved on to bigger and better things. You too can be a Pablo Picasso of literature if you want to, but maybe you don't want to. It's up to you. Granted, if you are a Pablo Picasso of literature it probably will not be very helpful to your "literary career", as the publishing conglomerates prefer conventional writers.

I'm not telling anybody how they should write. But I will say one thing: I feel a sense of joy when I click on a thread and the whole story or poem or whatever is unique. I mean the WHOLE THING is unique, unlike anything I've ever read before, and not just a phrase or two. I feel joy! I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've seen stuff on the Internet way better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote. And sadly, they will probably die in obscurity, and their wonderful manuscripts will probably wind up in some landfill.

If we are all writing in just one manner – conventional or otherwise – I think it will get very boring very fast. If everyone painted like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock or Turner or Bosquiat then it would be horribly boring. But, if everybody writes or paints in their own style then I think it makes the world a more interesting place. And then if you don't like Wolf Larsen's writing – it doesn't matter – because there would be a zillion other people who each have their own style of writing. You can't possibly argue that everyone has their own style of writing. Most people don't. And it's boring to read something that resembles a zillion other works of literature, no matter how well it's written. Imagine if every building in every city on the planet had the same style of architecture – how boring!

I think if more people had their own style of writing more people would read literature. Maybe there's a reason why so many people find reading literature boring. And maybe conventional writers and publishing conglomerates that favor conventional literature are partly to blame for this.

But please write whatever you want to write. But don't expect me to read something that resembles an infinite variety of stuff I've already read. And don't expect future generations to bother reading it either.

---

Good ideas here, I think you have nice ideas but are a tad over the top with it. I also agree with Pumpkin to a degree, it doesn't take much to just write a bunch of vulgarities, though I think some of what you write is reasonably interesting.

Those that complain about the vulgarity are deluding themselves that I am trying to do this on purpose. In fact, those that complain about my so-called "vulgarity" give my intelligence too much credit! The fact is, what pops into my head goes on the page. It's stream-of-consciousness, or automatic writing like the kind Andre Breton advocated, and like every primate on this planet I am horny. By the way, I practiced automatic writing before I'd even heard of Andre Breton.
If I don't write down the sexual imagery then I am blocking the poem from proceeding in my head. I need the poem to proceed! The poem in my head is usually racing so fast – faster than the voice-recognition can get it down. It's bad enough dealing with voice recognition
Speaking of the devil voice-recognition software just crashed. Anyway when I used to type I had the same problem – how to get the poem down on the page as soon as possible because the images and phrases of poetry were galloping so fast!
Of course, later when I'm editing it things go much slower. There is no intent to be vulgar. I am merely trying to get the poem down from my head onto the page.
What I think is happening is that many readers are sexually repressed.
Or it could that I am not as sexually repressed as most people because my older brothers grew up during the time of the sexual revolution, and I was exposed to things and ideas, and any rate I believe sexuality is natural. To me the censorship that is obscene.
But if I don't put down the sexual imagery then I am blocking the poem.
What I found was interesting is that when I censored sexual imagery from my poetry they were more likely (much more likely) to get published in literary magazines. Some literary magazines did publish my stuff with sexual imagery in it, but many published the censored version. 0h by the way, when there was a line in the word censored was through it, they wouldn't publish it because they had a policy against censorship. But when the censorship occurred without me saying it was censored it was much more likely to get published. That's when I stopped submitting the literary magazines. Not all of them are puritanical, but many of them are. The literary world is puritanical as hell. I find that obscene!
Stukesquild made comments. Now this guy is smart! He knows his stuff. But he didn't read so carefully. I said that everybody would be working 30 hours a week. So there's no need to select. With more free time people will be able to write more, if they so choose. Others will choose to do less intellectual things. That's true. The seed will fall where it may. But at least smart people will have more free time and more education than ever before to produce great literature, if they so choose. And Cuba (even though it is a deformed Stalinist system) has the highest literacy rate in Latin America.
Anyway, it seems to me that capitalism encourages the masses to be as stupid as possible. They educate people no more than necessary to do the tasks they need them to do. The ruling class pushes sports, because sports are a distraction. The ruling class puts endless mindless garbage on television, to keep the people as mindless as possible. It's easier to control them that way. After all, you don't want them thinking. They might think: "why do I work so hard for so little?"
Anyway, it's good that so far the posters have kept this related to literature. As long as the debate about economic systems is related to literature I think we'll be okay, that is I don't think the moderators will mind. I hope not. Because if we can't discuss the environment that literature is created in then we'll be stuck arguing where the, goes and the; goes and so on. That is, we’ll be debating correct grammar which is much more boring.

Voice-recognition software is creating too many problems for me to go back and fix them all. So if there are errors my apology.

It matters, it always matters, to name rubbish as rubbish ... to do otherwise is to legitimize it.

- Salmon Rushdie

My point is precisely to legitimize aspects of what Wolf Larsen is doing. We don't need to buy the whole thing, hook and sinker, to acknowledge there are some interesting and productive elements.

'There is one born every minute'

- attributed to PT Barnum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pumpkin337

'There is one born every minute'

- attributed to PT Barnum

---

Hello pumpkin.

I encourage debate – I think it's great that you disagree with my ideas and you're willing to discuss them.

But try to stick to ideas – and don't attack people – because the moderators don't like that.

Just trying to help you. You don't want them taking away points.

You're new, so you didn't know. I say all of this openly so that hopefully nobody will have any problems with the moderators.

But it's a good thing that we debate ideas, no?

And welcome to online lit!

I'm not going to give you any more attention as it just gives you a further platform on which to pontificate.

That's fine with me pumpkin. Please have a pleasant weekend. And by the way, I was just trying to be helpful.

Some questions we might ask ourselves:

Is the literary world a good place for great literature? Or is the literary world in its present form an obstacle for the creation and dissemination of great literature?

What is great literature? Is great literature always conventional? Or in contrast is great literature always creative?

Should the literary world uphold tradition at the expense of new creative ways of expressing ourselves with words?

Should literature confine itself to the novel, the play, the poem – in other words – should literature confine itself to forms that already exist? Or should writers try to invent new forms of literature? What if these new forms of literature spontaneously form in the writer's head? What if the confines of the old forms (the novel, the play, the poem, the short story) become obstacles to what the writer is trying to express?

If we create new forms of literature how do we get these new forms of literature to the general public? If the traditional publishing conglomerates and the prestigious literary magazines and the literary world in general are mostly hostile or indifferent to creative literature, then how do we go around these obstacles to reach the general reading public?

Is the general reading public hostile to creative literature? Or is the general reading public merely unfamiliar with creative literature because the publishing conglomerates only publish a small amount of creative literature?

Since the vast majority of writers will never be traditionally published how do these writers reach the general public? Outside of the existing venues to reach the general public, can we invent new venues to reach the general public?

Will creating new forms of literature that never existed before help make the general public more excited about reading? (Particularly those that have become bored with traditional literature.)
If a book is not traditionally published does that mean that the book is bad? If a book is "good" does that mean that it will automatically get traditionally published? And even then, if it gets traditionally published, will it stay in print?

What is "good literature"?

Should writers always use correct grammar? Or should they experiment with incorrect grammar?
Should writing be intellectual? Or should it be instinctual?

Does a great writer have to be intelligent? Perhaps stupid people can be great writers too?
When voice-recognition software becomes A LOT BETTER, what role will illiterate people play in the creation of books? Can illiterate people write great books?

Now that English has become the number one world language, and many are writing in English as a second language, what role does non-standard English play in English literature? Perhaps non-standard English has a great role to play in creative literature? Perhaps non-native speakers should use non-standard English to further creativity. For example, other languages put adjectives in different places, and even use verbs in different ways, could not contemporary literature gain from this? Perhaps native English speakers can become inspired by non-native English speakers to do more creative things with the English language?

Should we attempt to smash the barriers of contemporary English to find ever more ways of expressing ourselves? Would this include making up words? Should we invent new forms of punctuation?

Should we dispose of a perhaps anal obsession with correct grammar in our communications with each other? Should we dispose of correct grammar in both our verbal communications and literary communications? Okay, medical books should have correct grammar, so should mass media like the New York Times or government publications – but why should we talk to each other in correct gramma?r for example, the? In the middle of that word was not on purpose, so? Maybe even mistakes can help one to be more creative. Look at your thumb, that was once a mistake. Your thumb was originally a birth defect of some primate, and that birth defect turned out to be a great advantage!

Of course, people may argue that using non-standard English and incorrect grammatical forms may make it harder for the reader to understand. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But this brings up another question. Why should literary works always be understood in a traditional sense? Is it really necessary to "understand" a literary work any more than it is to "understand" a painting or "understand" a symphony?

Do you consider yourself a writer of "avant=garde" poetry?

The reason I ask is there's a poetry contest here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=1#post1263754

I'm trying to get some examples of "narrative" poetry that is also "avant-garde". If you win, you get to run the next contest.