We Need A Revolution In Literature!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demian

Soon I was taken to a concert hall. He showed me the rapt audience and then gestured toward a man waiting in the wings, just opposite of us. "Who is that?" I asked him, but he kept his silence a while longer. I could see tears streaming down the man's face as the odd consortium of oboes and single flutes played their otherworldly fare. "I've never heard music like this before. What is the name of this piece?" He touched my lips and said gently,"It's A Requiem for the End of the World." I felt as if I was floating with those notes, far above this world to one far beyond and behind us as well. But here he was, still alive, he had made it--he was working again. And here was the world he was sure would come to an end--listening to his masterpiece. And then he touched my lips again and I could hear something else. Above those notes I could hear the sound of Rachel weeping and without comfort for her soul. She was weeping for her lost children...

---

What's great about this is that it works as a beginning and ending too.:thumbs_up

I Think we always speak about past about old writer in all things
Ok The old literature we must go back to it but when we need it

But We need Revolution at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

We Need a Revolution in Literature!
An Essay by Wolf Larsen

---

I really subscribe to your ideas. I feel that a great writer must be above all these petty things, for price for a great book can not be paid. Ideas are invaluable.

Not only that the government must provide books free of costs.

But unfortunately today writers are more commercial and all they want out of books is money.
Money is no doubt required in life, yet it should not the end of all.

Well, I can really tell one thing about the writer...

He's unpublished =p

Yes yes, smash the barriers - but the simple truth is that people and audiences have not really changed over the course of the entire body of literature, and that people love good ideas. If people don't love your work, it may not be a good idea.

Logic, no?

But keep trying.

There has been a revolution of language and book production and book selling.

Languages are mixing. Dictionaries and editors are no longer the last word.:)

Print on demand has made it far easier for someone to print small quantities of books.

And Internet book sales continue to grow, aided by increased online information and reviews at the point of purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

We Need a Revolution in Literature!
An Essay by Wolf Larsen

The best literature is the kind without a price tag. The goal of writing should not be to sell books, but to write the most innovative and exciting literature imaginable.

Copyright 2007 by Wolf Larsen

---

What ever happened to Wolf? He hasn't been around here in over six months. I know he's a nut, but I was getting fond of him and his zany ideas. :)

Stlukesguild, your words and the pictures you used were wonderful to read and a great deal to think on. Novelty in work or fashion or such has to be pretty special for it to touch me at all. I find that the simplest of melodies which perhaps are covered with intricasies as well as the simplest way of putting things with great deep and feeling are the greatest things I have ever read.I was unfamiliar with a couple of the paintings, they were most interesting.
Virgil, what do you mean calling this person a nut? What is meant by that and how do you know it for a fact? I have read some remarkable unbelievable biographies of people over the ages that were referred to like that, either in a joking or serious way. But upon reflecting upon their lives and looking at the ones who said so , I generally found it to be the other way around. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jane Jane

Stlukesguild, your words and the pictures you used were wonderful to read and a great deal to think on. Novelty in work or fashion or such has to be pretty special for it to touch me at all. I find that the simplest of melodies which perhaps are covered with intricasies as well as the simplest way of putting things with great deep and feeling are the greatest things I have ever read.I was unfamiliar with a couple of the paintings, they were most interesting.
Virgil, what do you mean calling this person a nut? What is meant by that and how do you know it for a fact? I have read some remarkable unbelievable biographies of people over the ages that were referred to like that, either in a joking or serious way. But upon reflecting upon their lives and looking at the ones who said so , I generally found it to be the other way around. :)

---

Virge is right, Wolf's a nut---you know, like a crazy nut, eccentric, cool, in that amusingly kooky way. He's a writer who craves for a revolution in literature...what's not to like about the guy? And his poetry is...um, well, nutty. Virge is a nut too, and so am I. Maybe you're a nut, Janey. :D Where is Wolf, good question.

I agree with you, our literature has remained stable for almost fifty years. It has actually become boring; everybody writes about the same things in the exact same way. No one has followed the path of Joyce, Faulkner, Borges, and other great innovators of the 20th century.
But why is that? All of what you said is true. But there is another factor that is virtually killing our creativity: conformism. Have you noticed that the most passionate, innovative and great works of literature have been produced in times of poverty, oppression and injustice or when their writers found themselves in desperate situations? Well, I have. Therefore, I believe that a writer has to be pushed by an internal or external fear. He has to be seeking to change the world, not to become rich enough to buy a Ferrari. Art is produced not by the brain, but by the heart. So, we need a big revolution in society, in our mentality, in our lives, to start writing more revolutionarily (new word?).

"An innovation in a literary form cannot establish itself as a new direction unless a sense of shared aims and objectives develops among experimental writers." -Patricia Waugh, Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction

While this citation is an extract from a work that focuses on detailing metafiction, [furthermore, it is not as recent as I would prefer -- 1984], this particular section hits some points that are obviously closely related to where the subject matter of this thread began.

Although I am as excited as anyone else for the prospect of some type of a "nouvelle avant-garde", I am not so sure if attacking, (or at least, questioning), the economic motives of publishers or authors really accomplishes the true objective of this anticipation.

if you ask me, fifty cent and p diddy are more innovative than Toni Morrison and Alice Walker combined as far as language use and poetic innovation are concerned.

Even Palin will kick their asses. At least, she creates new words everyday.

The role of literature is to make language dynamic, active, and alive.

Was it Faulkner who made up and used his own words?

if you want innovation, read syjuco's illustrado. now, that's a non-conformist piece of writing. But I doubt if Americans will read him; he's Asian who happens to be anti-prosaic literature

I wholeheartedly support the idea that there must be a revolution in literature. I am fed up with too many conventionalist ideas and let us have a different approach to literature and reverse all that is old the way our values have undergone dramatic changes. Our literature has its roots in age old dead values, for today we live in a different world and I savvy that we all are averse to old values and we take on new philosophies and yet we seem too much obsessed with the obsolete.

I feel we must kind of give up all our obsolete literature. Let us writer in such a simple way any man, even dimwit can understand the meaning underlying a particular piece of literature.

Why should we follow Alexander Pope's hard-some, mind-boggling tough phrases and to hell with James Joyce's experimental style and I abhor and I am reproachful of this heap of nonessential stuff. Being and nothingness engaged me for many days and at the end of the day all I arrived it is drivel and now I am into grammatology by another pretender named Jack Derrida. What the heck has he done by simply meddling us in sets of theories. Literature and particularly classical literature is already tough and these few so called theorists, propagandists are getting them more complicated.

James Joyce and Derrida have written for less than 1 % people, to instruct and entertain a few readers of professorships.

Let new writers emerge who can outshine all those old stuffs and herald a new horizon of literature

Your analysis of the mainstream is correct, but as with youth & music cultures, the next happenings are already occurring beneath the awareness of all but a tiny few. The internet and online publishing have busted the field open wide, though most are bogged down in debates over delivery systems over content. Time to restore the art of literature over its commerce. The internet will unlikely be able to deliver my work, which uses alphabets, typographies etc as well as words to examine the language and communication we all take for granted.

Any revolution in literature must restore the primacy of language to the novel, to nail down the slippery and elusive nature of meaning that words actually shroud rather than illuminate.

It's a big undertaking, but I'm game

LOL the essay sounds like one of the rants from The Fountainhead.

I agree though. The literary community is mainly composed of pretentious hero-worshippers who consider uneducated drunkards geniuses, and those who read Twilight.

Been a long day and I only got as far as the writing / music analogy. They're not the same.

I can open my mouth, vocalise or click my tongue; or I can keep my mouth closed and whistle, or hum; I can clap my hands, snap my fingers, slap my cheeks; I can stamp the floor, kick a dustbin [trash can, US] or rub my denimed backside on a brick wall. It's music. I can play an external instrument. I can do any or all of these alone, with a bunch of mates in a bar or for money at Carnegie Hall. It's the range of possible variants that creates the varieties of form.

Verbal language - the words, the tone, the narrative context - is as varied as music. All Writing is just capturing language. Writing is to verbal language what trumpet playing is to music: it's a means of expressing it. Of course one can make a range of sounds with a trumpet, in traditional or completely erratic forms. Whether people will stay to listen -and particularly whether they will pay to hear it once or repeatedly - is a matter of experimentation.

Exactly the same is true of writing. Write what and how you like, there have probably never been better opportunities to put your creations before people's eyes. Who cares if it doesn't sell? If you care, write something else or don't write at all.

Hi everybody!

I notice that the comments get less hostile with the passage of time. Perhaps that's because we are in the midst of some of the greatest changes in communication since the invention of the printing press. In terms of the written word we are in a revolutionary era.

Perhaps most of it is worthless but the Shakespeares of today don't even realize how talented they are. They're typing away on their various "telephones" which have become small computers far more sophisticated than virtually anything that was in most of the sci-fi movies of my youth. These people typing away are reinventing the English language and all of the languages of the world, and they're having fun doing it. We are truly in the midst of the written word being constantly innovated by the masses. The written world has gone from the monasteries to the universities to the publishing corporations to the masses, and in those masses are the Shakespeares of today. And I could care less if I spelled shakzpear correctly, who cares?

The big publishing corporations owned by people like Rupert Murdoch are nervous. There is no longer any reason for the big publishing corporations to exist. There are just simply every year more & more options for the general public to get a hold of literature in unconventional ways. Soon there will be no more books. Books may very well go the way of CDs. And if you can download the book for two dollars from some author's website what do you need a major publisher for? The author is happy because he got his two dollars, the reader is happy because the book only cost two dollars, and well the publishers like Rupert Murdoch can go find some other hobby. Big deal. As writers you are now free of the publishing coroprations. You don't need them anymore. Let the publishing corporations go the way of the horse and buggy.

You can say you don't like the idea of a revolution in literature, but the whole infrastructure for revolution in literature is there. What is lacking is writers with balls. Too many writers don't have the courage to stand up to all the brainwashed ideas in their heads that were planted there by their grammar school teacher. And if you don't have balls you're writing probably isn't worth reading. Why should I take the time out to read a book that's too much like a whole bunch of other books I've already read?!

I agree that there's no point to be different just for the sake of being different. And if you're not different why are you writing? If you're writing is like everybody else's writing than why don't you become a garbageman instead, you'll be contributing more to society that way.

I'm different because I grew up in different circumstances. The lake was on one side and the black ghetto was on the other three sides of my neighborhood, and one of the best universities in the country was also in my neighborhood. I'm white with blond hair and blue eyes and I went to schools that were 90% black.

After a graduated from University I went up to Alaska where I worked a seasonal job of about a hundred hours a week. I spent the other eight months of the year writing whatever the hell I wanted to and traveling around the world, when I wasn't hanging out in New York City and taking in the advant-guard scene. I've been to over 50 countries, and I speak three languages. Maybe if you had a background like mine you'd be different too! Being different is not a choice for me. I am different. And that's why I write differently. And if anybody doesn't like it I could care less.

The brief time I lived in the suburbs I saw conformity and closemindedness on an appalling scale. It was pathetic.

My purpose is not to insult anyone. But I merely wish to explain to the traditionalists that not everybody chooses to be different. We just simply are.

Best wishes to all.

Wolf Larsen

Hello once again.

I will now take the time out to answer some of the comments that were made on this thread while I was gone.

Somebody said $.50 - the rapper - is more innovative than some of the writers of our day. That is how pathetic writing has become - or at least commercial writing. The only thing that big publishers care about is money. When $.50 is contributing more to culture than contemporary published writers that says a lot! I like rap. But as a writer it's disturbing to me to admit that rap music is more innovative and contributing more to culture than contemporary traditionly published literature.

Contrary to what some of the earlier posters said I do not think that everything in the canon is garbage. But some of it appears to be.

Somebody said let new writers emerge that are far greater than anything in the past. That will be great! And if the human race survives there will be new writers emerging who will be far greater than any of the greats of the past. It's important to study the writers of the past. But we should not be enslaved to the past.

Somebody said we need a revolution in the world too. They are right. Half of the human race lives on less than two dollars a day. Unions in places like Wisconsin may be smashed. It's time for the working people to rule, because working people produce the wealth. The bourgeoisie are about as useless as 19th century French royalty. The only thing the bourgeoisie are good for is ruining the economy.

Somebody had to cool idea of swapping beginnings and ends and middle parts of stories with different writers. Sounds exciting!

Some of the traditionalists sought to discredit innovation in literature by giving us some crummy examples of innovation. I don't ever expect a traditionalist to write a good piece of innovative literature. That's like asking garbagemen to dance ballet.

There are times it's best to write in a traditional manner. For example, you would not want a book on plumbing to be written in a experimental manner. When you need to clean out bodily fluids from your plumbing you want a book written in a traditional manner. In addition, some books are best written in a traditional manner. There was a book about a boy soldier in Africa written in a traditional manner that was great powerful. A traditional manner of writing was best for that kind of book.

I guess there are no rules. The only rules are the ones you make.
All the best for everyone.
Wolf Larsen

What Wolflarsen is claiming to be a need is something that already has come to pass. And it is never going to go back to what it was. Many good points in the essay.

Grammar can't be tossed away completely because it is grammar that clues words together into a coherent sentence. You compare literature to art and music, but you forget something: literature is an art created out of words, and words are communicative tools. Art and music and break all boundaries they want, but to literature, there is the boundary of grammar, because without grammar literature is rendered incomprehensible.

also I don't really understand the ranting about capitalism. Capitalism has existed since the 18th century. During those time of capitalism we have produced the best writers possible: Dickens, Austen, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Hemmingway... People cannot just sit down idle all the time and write, we do need economic developments as well.

I think that now that the children have learned how to read, the mongers should learn how to read the children or stay in the museum until they recycle.

For the most part the literary world is a sterile factory that produces an endless diarrhea of airport novels, insanely boring literary criticism, and well-crafted "literary" fiction that is completely useless except for reading in bed to get one sleepy. In addition, the literary world is infected with endless politically correct prudes who are not much different than born-again Christians. These politically correct prudes are not much different than those who censored works like Lady Chatterley's Lover.

"Do you know how to eat a fig in society?"

The revolution has already taken place and the dynamics produce a staggering number of situations. The revolution is perpetual.

It seems from your replies to people here who've tried to give you their honest and sound reasoning on why your post is flawed (which is certainly my opinion as well) that you don't care about an actual discussion, but only about forcing your views down other people's throats. Your OP is filled with assertion after assertion - no evidence, no reasoning, no logic, just bold statements - and when someone tries to reply to it, your answer perpetually seems to be to reiterate what your post already said. What is the point of arguing with someone who refuses to see reason, who has already decided what they will believe, who will refuse to open his mind to any other viewpoints?

I also find it slightly pretentious that someone who (presumably) has never written a published work of fiction in his life thinks that he has the right to "demand" a change in literature. You should at least be at the forefront of that change, heading it, leading us forward, should you not? What makes you think an opinion like yours means anything, unless it comes from someone skilled enough (and we're talking world-class here) to make a difference to the course of literary fiction. Let me quote directly from you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Many of the past “greats” that are in the canon of English literature are not so “great” at all.

Many of the “great works” of English literature in the canon were written by “gentleman” with disposable income (that they didn’t have to work for) and lots of free time, as well as the high social connections to insure that their work was published. Not all of them were talented or had much to say. Is a writer/poet’s work “great” just because it’s included in the Norton Anthology and the professor taught it in your literature 101 class?

Of course, some “great” works of the past are better than others. Some of these gentleman of leisure in the canon had talent – in addition to the work ethic necessary to produce great literature – but not all of them.

---

What are you saying? What gives you the right to insist that many (or any) of the English literary greats really didn't have talent, and then use that as a basis for furthering the "argument" you're trying to ram down peoples' throats, when you are, beyond any reasonable doubt, worse than any of them (this is not an insult, but rather a fact, and likely to be true for nearly every person ever likely to visit this forum: if I'm wrong and you are Seamus Heaney or something, then feel free to correct me and I'll back down lamely, but looking at your short story, I doubt it)? You are making an assertion that a huge number of people would disagree with, and then using it as a loudspeaker to cry out how sad you are that literature doesn't seem to require talent to grant success.

Now, in short, I agree with a lot of the things you've said, but everytime you relate them to "needing a revolution" I completely disagree. In fact, you tend to talk very tangentially, and then only relate what you've said loosely back to the original point, and you leave me completely unconvinced that there's much wrong with the literary world at all. I feel perfectly comfortable with how literature is produced now, and I certainly don't think we need a "revolution": literature is literature and shall always be. The "revolution" is happening around you right now.

If I understand one of the above posters correctly he insists that any changes in literature be made by those authors who are traditionally published. So that means that only one in every 2,000 writers should bring about change in literature according to him, because only one in every 2,000 writers is traditionally published. And for every successful traditionally published author there are hundreds more whose books are out of print within a matter of a few years. So I guess according to an above poster only one in every 10,000 writers should try and bring about changes in literature.

Well, I disagree. I don't care much for the writings of airport novelists.

The same poster called for more "reason". If you're looking for "reason" I assure you that you're on the wrong planet. On this floating rock with 6 billion primates you won't find much in the way of "reason".

Aspirational has implied that all of the other posters have tried to "reason" with me regarding my "flawed" opinions. I don't understand why Aspirational thinks that he speaks for everybody else who has posted on this thread. There are lots of different opinions on this thread, but apparently Aspirational thinks that he speaks for everybody. I don't care. Aspirational is free to think whatever he/she wants.

Aspirational expresseses his satisfaction with the literary world in its contemporary state. I'm sure that the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his colleagues at the other six dinosaurs would be happy to hear that. Keep buying their airport novels and sleepy "literary" fiction and they will be very happy. They pay their workers peanuts, and they take the rest of the money to the bank.

Personally I am so tired of "literary" fiction where the author does little but contemplate his or her navel. At least when I contemplate my navel I do so in a VERY creative way, which no doubt angers the traditionalists immensely. But lately I've been distracted by the real world, as some of you may have noticed. Of course, the traditionalists will also criticize me for not contemplating my navel as a creative person should. But you know the real world is pretty interesting. You might want to check it out. Maybe you could even try writing about it. That traditional writing style should at least be good for writing about the real world. I assume it's good for something besides just airport novels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

If I understand one of the above posters correctly he insists that any changes in literature be made by those authors who are traditionally published. So that means that only one in every 2,000 writers should bring about change in literature according to him, because only one in every 2,000 writers is traditionally published. And for every successful traditionally published author there are hundreds more whose books are out of print within a matter of a few years. So I guess according to an above poster only one in every 10,000 writers should try and bring about changes in literature.

Well, I disagree. I don't care much for the writings of airport novelists.

---

I'm not saying that only one of the authors who is currently published. What I'm saying is that your bold statements hold no credence for me. Unless you're at the forefront of world literature at the moment (if you are, correct me, and I'll take back everything I've said), who are you to give your opinion (and expect it to be taken seriously) on what world literature should be doing and where it should be going? And how can you be dictating the route it should take and exposing problems in it when you have no experience of what it is like to be a top author in any field of literature?

At least now you've said you "don't care much for the writings of airport novelists". That is an opinion; it is thus perfectly acceptable to voice. It is not, on the other hand, worthy of discussion for someone who is not "even" an airport novelist to be saying, blankly, that airport novelists are bad. You do not have the right to condemn another person's talent, when you have demonstrated none of your own, as a fact, no matter what your opinions of whether or not they are talented are. If everyone agreed that airport novelists have no talent, then it's perfectly acceptable for you to openly say that you can do better than them, but since not everyone agrees that, it's not: your statements are opinions, not facts, and so we must move on to what reasoning you give to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

The same poster called for more "reason". If you're looking for "reason" I assure you that you're on the wrong planet. On this floating rock with 6 billion primates you won't find much in the way of "reason".

---

Again, looking down on humanity? It really annoys me that you think you have a good grasp of what humankind is, how they work and what they are capable of; something like your last sentence there ("On this floating rock with 6 billion primates you won't find much in the way of "reason"") I would expect to be a trivial quote coming from a truly great man having a laugh, rather than from someone who has achieved nothing and yet likes to make generalized comments about a world that has achieved a great deal and which he seems to completely misunderstand, and yet likes to scatter opinions on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Aspirational has implied that all of the other posters have tried to "reason" with me regarding my "flawed" opinions. I don't understand why Aspirational thinks that he speaks for everybody else who has posted on this thread. There are lots of different opinions on this thread, but apparently Aspirational thinks that he speaks for everybody. I don't care. Aspirational is free to think whatever he/she wants.

---

I am free to think whatever I want, not because I'm great or because of "my rights", but because it is you - someone posing under-qualified and unreasoned opinions without basis and asking for them to be considered - who is making a controversial point, and me who is asking for evidence.

As for whether or not I speak for everybody, I don't really care. Perhaps someone has brought this up before, and tried to argue (like me), but soon tired of your pretentious way of replying (wherein you don't consider what we say, but rather try to find ways to reiterate your point). Perhaps everyone else here is too polite to point this out? Perhaps I am making a mistake, in which case I hope someone else will correct me. But one way or another, I'm trying to show you the problem in your OP; that has nothing else to do with whether or not other people are in agreement with me, although I may occasionally make use of one of their posts as an example of how you don't really reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Aspirational expresseses his satisfaction with the literary world in its contemporary state. I'm sure that the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his colleagues at the other six dinosaurs would be happy to hear that. Keep buying their airport novels and sleepy "literary" fiction and they will be very happy. They pay their workers peanuts, and they take the rest of the money to the bank.

---

"Their workers"? Can I ask you, what kind of workers do you think airport novelists have?

Literature, the way I see it, does not include airport fiction. Murdoch is not a literary writer, in my opinion; if you want one of those in the modern day, go to Ishiguro. Is there a problem with Ishiguro? Have you ever even read him? Have you ever even read a true modern-day literary author? Or is the entirety of your post based on the number of airport novels you've read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Personally I am so tired of "literary" fiction where the author does little but contemplate his or her navel. At least when I contemplate my navel I do so in a VERY creative way, which no doubt angers the traditionalists immensely. But lately I've been distracted by the real world, as some of you may have noticed. Of course, the traditionalists will also criticize me for not contemplating my navel as a creative person should. But you know the real world is pretty interesting. You might want to check it out. Maybe you could even try writing about it. That traditional writing style should at least be good for writing about the real world. I assume it's good for something besides just airport novels.

---

You do so in a "VERY" creative way, do you? Can I ask, then, why NO-ONE will publish you (again, I could be wrong, but I expect I'm not)? Tell me, if the whole world but you thinks that literature is where it should be and your ideas (and stories, in terms of creativity) are off-the-mark, who would you guess is right?

Not all air port novels are bad...I mean they import the same stuff from Barnes and Nobles don't they? Nicholas Sparks is quite great to me actually, I love reading his love stories, how romantic <3

Anyway Aspirational does have a point. I do like your openess to revolution and a whole viva la revolucion attitude but something isn't right here. Your rail against modern literature, capitalism... these are pointless. Capitalism has existed for 200 years, yet within this 200 years mark we've produced the greatest writers. Even within the iron fist of the communist regime, literary geniuses always find their voices and produce canonical works that pass the test of time. This proves something. It proves that regardless of what political party a nation is under, of what ideologies hold ascendance, books and literature will always stay alive.

On the other hand, if capitalism should collapse, and novelists have the free time and a pressure free atmosphere to work their novels, it does not guarantee a perfect result. Why? Literature, like any arts, evolve from pressure. It is a kind of evolution which needs an invisible hand to push it. Literature without pressure, without a need to survive, to strive, to evolve, to me is void of any beauty and asthestic value/

I stopped reading aspirational's last post halfway through. In the part I did bother to read he says almost nobody except a handful of people have the right to criticize the lack of originality in much of contemporary traditionally-published "literature". That's hilarious! People will say whatever they want regardless of whether or not they have aspirational's approval! Perhaps the point should be who is aspirational to decide who has the right to criticize and not criticize the six dinosaurs - oops, I mean six sisters?

In addition, Aspirational continues on with the personal attacks. Like a certain clique of censored on this website he engages in Cyber bullying. I don't bother with posters who engage in cyber bulling just like I don't bother with censored on the streetcorner who make censored remarks to the passerby. (Yes I have to censor my comments now! What a shame I can't say what I want in these posts. Except as others have also noticed a certain clique on this website sure gets away with saying also kinds of censored things that others are not allowed to.)

Oh yeah, we are all primates. Don't believe me? Go to the primate section at the zoo and see how much the primates in the cages look like us!

Evolution and revolution is what has made it possible for us to write literature. Otherwise we'd still be in the trees eating bananas.

Unfortunately, I can't discuss Black Cat's post because of certain censorship policies on this website regarding discussing certain issues. I told you the literary world was uptight! But then again perhaps these rules apply more to those who have unconventional views.

At this point I'd like to thank some of the other posters for putting up some rather imaginative works. I was up late last night reading them. It was a joy! Thanks again. It's writers with imagination like some of you that makes it all worth it. If I click on five boring stories where the author doesn't take any chances and takes the safe road but then I'm lucky enough to find just one exciting thing to read it really makes my day! I can remember sitting through looooong poetry readings with horrible conventional poets that sometimes even rhymed, but if just one person got up and read something unusual and totally different and new it would really make my day!

Don't bother with the conventionalists. All they do is endlessly repeat all the same rules that they learned in grammar school. Anybody can write a book and put the periods and commas in the right place.

And then the conventionalists try to lecture us about all the rules we learned in creative writing 101 back in college or high school. We literary adventurers know those rules too - and we've moved on to do new things! Better to try out something new and even fail in the attempt then to write the same old stuff that 1 million others have written! What's the creativity in that?

Of course, some of you that have embarked on a creative road may now regard me as a traitor, because I also write in the conventional manner when it suits me. And at the present time it suits me.

I think the main thing is that regardless of whether you're writing in a conventional or nonconventional manner you should never bore your reader! In addition, take risks, push the envelope! If you're gay or bisexual or into wife swapping or you have unusual views or unusual experiences to tell than even if you write in a conventional manner your writing will still be fresh and bold!

Oh no, I mentioned wife swapping. Gee, am I going to get into trouble again?

In something I wrote that involved two airplanes a skyscraper and the president a group of cyber bullies descended on the post and said all kinds of horrible things, and yet I was the one disciplined for using the word ignorant to describe their behavior! And everybody who saw the comments of that Lynch mob knows that they were being ignorant!

Can you imagine that?

The main tactic of the traditionalists seems to be cyber bullying. Who know why? Because traditionalism is bankrupt! Traditionalism is a rotten diseased rat carcass filled with maggots. And practically all of the "greats" that the traditionalists praise were the innovators of their day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

I think the main thing is that regardless of whether you're writing in a conventional or nonconventional manner you should never bore your reader! In addition, take risks, push the envelope! If you're gay or bisexual or into wife swapping or you have unusual views or unusual experiences to tell than even if you write in a conventional manner your writing will still be fresh and bold!

---

100% agree. If you don't enjoy what you're writing how can you expect anyone else to? If you don't surprise or even shock yourself then you're cheating your readers.

Best wishes for a conventional 2012.

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackCat

Capitalism has existed for 200 years, yet within this 200 years mark we've produced the greatest writers./

---

No...last time I checked the greatest epoch for literature was the renaissance. I mean do we really have anyone in the last 200 years that can stand toe to toe with Dante or Shakespere? Possibly Tolstoy or Proust, but even then, highly debatable. And Homer Virgil ect.? Why the bias for the last 200 years? I won't say the last 200 years have been great for all art, but the best? Sounds rather audacious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackCat

It is a kind of evolution which needs an invisible hand to push it. Literature without pressure, without a need to survive, to strive, to evolve, to me is void of any beauty and asthestic value/

---

?

So Byron, Tolstoy, Proust, Fitzgerald are void of beauty simply because they never suffered from poverty and political oppression?

While I must profess respect for Alexander's knowledge and also his excellent creative writing I strongly feel that the best literature created by mankind will be in our future. There have no doubt been many greats in the past, but I believe it is in the future that mankind will achieve its greatest literary achievements.

In places like Cuba illiteracy has been virtually wiped out. When illiteracy is virtually wiped out on the planet the things that mankind will accomplish in literature will be phenomenal.

Mankind cannot fulfill its potential when half of the human race is living on less than two dollars a day. There are so many people who could be Shakespeares of the 21st century who instead are working long hours every day just to survive. And how many kids in Third World countries who could become future Shakespeares are instead on the streets shining shoes? Or even in some first world countries like America a significant part of the young people receive a rotten/mediocre education.

As Jack London said in the Sea Wolf "The seed will fall where it may." Many of those who have superior educations and the free time to write that comes from inherited wealth simply aren't up to the task of writing great innovative literature. In fact, the mentality of the privileged few is a conservative one, and inherently hostile to creativity.

This is not to say that some privileged country gentlemen in 19th century England didn’t manage to produce some decent literature. But the descendents of today's working class will produce literature of much more greatness.

For example, CCNY (a public university in New York City with open admissions known as the "poor man's Harvard") has produced more Nobel Prize winners then most of the Ivy League universities on the East Coast combined. (No doubt, the Ivy League universities are much injured by their "Legacy" program.)

Anyway, the golden era in literature is not in the past, it is in the future. The other night I discovered there are some very talented, very creative individuals on this very website who are writing innovative work better than some of the stuff in the Norton Anthology of Literature. That statement is both a compliment to some of the writers on this posting board, and also an indictment of the canon according to Norton. I read a fair amount of the Norton Anthology as it was the only book I had when I spent some months at sea on a commercial fishing boat.

If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo. While I respect some of the work in this canon I must say not all of it is impressive.

I have my suspicions that some of the best literary work of the past did not find its way into the canon, but found its way into the garbage can. Manuscripts that contained too much politics, contained unconventional or unpopular ideas, too much sex, too much homosexuality, or simply a writer didn't have the right contacts, or didn't come from the right class of people to have the right contacts - you can bet that any number of factors might prevent a great work from getting published, let alone getting into some canon.

Of those works lucky enough to get published you can bet that the conservative academic/publishing environment is not going to put something in the canon that's going to ruffle too many feathers. Of course, there are many great people in academia, I was lucky enough to have some great professors. But as many of you know when you start getting high up in the academic structure, when you encounter those in higher positions who are making the decisions, well you might find a lot of vultures who seem to be primarily concerned with covering their ***, amongst other things. And my guess is those people in higher positions have had a lot to say as to what goes in the canon. I doubt the average college professor has much say in what goes in the canon, and should you be lucky enough to be having a drink with a great college professor you might hear some amusing comments about the "canon".

However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon. I am of course talking about the canon of English literature, as I cannot even begin to comment on the literature of other cultures, as my education unfortunately overly emphasized the literary achievements of a rather backward island on the periphery of Europe. That same island is producing great contemporary painting today, and maybe producing great contemporary literary talent that far out shines it's more primitive past. If it is I doubt the publishing conglomerates will bring it to the light of day.

Just because some book is in your literature class in college doesn't mean it's good. Somebody on the bus next to you typing away on their "telephone"/computer might be writing something far superior. And what's amusing is that they might not even be trying to write great literature, they might be just writing a slang-filled grammatically-incorrect creative tidbit to a friend. But the seed falls where it may.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

While I must profess respect for Alexander's knowledge and also his excellent creative writing I strongly feel that the best literature created by mankind will be in our future. There have no doubt been many greats in the past, but I believe it is in the future that mankind will achieve its greatest literary achievements.

In places like Cuba illiteracy has been virtually wiped out. When illiteracy is virtually wiped out on the planet the things that mankind will accomplish in literature will be phenomenal.

Mankind cannot fulfill its potential when half of the human race is living on less than two dollars a day. There are so many people who could be Shakespeares of the 21st century who instead are working long hours every day just to survive. And how many kids in Third World countries who could become future Shakespeares are instead on the streets shining shoes? Or even in some first world countries like America a significant part of the young people receive a rotten/mediocre education.

As Jack London said in the Sea Wolf "The seed will fall where it may." Many of those who have superior educations and the free time to write that comes from inherited wealth simply aren't up to the task of writing great innovative literature. In fact, the mentality of the privileged few is a conservative one, and inherently hostile to creativity.

This is not to say that some privileged country gentlemen in 19th century England didn’t manage to produce some decent literature. But the descendents of today's working class will produce literature of much more greatness.

For example, CCNY (a public university in New York City with open admissions known as the "poor man's Harvard") has produced more Nobel Prize winners then most of the Ivy League universities on the East Coast combined. (No doubt, the Ivy League universities are much injured by their "Legacy" program.)

Anyway, the golden era in literature is not in the past, it is in the future. The other night I discovered there are some very talented, very creative individuals on this very website who are writing innovative work better than some of the stuff in the Norton Anthology of Literature. That statement is both a compliment to some of the writers on this posting board, and also an indictment of the canon according to Norton. I read a fair amount of the Norton Anthology as it was the only book I had when I spent some months at sea on a commercial fishing boat.

If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo. While I respect some of the work in this canon I must say not all of it is impressive.

I have my suspicions that some of the best literary work of the past did not find its way into the canon, but found its way into the garbage can. Manuscripts that contained too much politics, contained unconventional or unpopular ideas, too much sex, too much homosexuality, or simply a writer didn't have the right contacts, or didn't come from the right class of people to have the right contacts - you can bet that any number of factors might prevent a great work from getting published, let alone getting into some canon.

Of those works lucky enough to get published you can bet that the conservative academic/publishing environment is not going to put something in the canon that's going to ruffle too many feathers. Of course, there are many great people in academia, I was lucky enough to have some great professors. But as many of you know when you start getting high up in the academic structure, when you encounter those in higher positions who are making the decisions, well you might find a lot of vultures who seem to be primarily concerned with covering their ***, amongst other things. And my guess is those people in higher positions have had a lot to say as to what goes in the canon. I doubt the average college professor has much say in what goes in the canon, and should you be lucky enough to be having a drink with a great college professor you might hear some amusing comments about the "canon".

However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon. I am of course talking about the canon of English literature, as I cannot even begin to comment on the literature of other cultures, as my education unfortunately overly emphasized the literary achievements of a rather backward island on the periphery of Europe. That same island is producing great contemporary painting today, and maybe producing great contemporary literary talent that far out shines it's more primitive past. If it is I doubt the publishing conglomerates will bring it to the light of day.

Just because some book is in your literature class in college doesn't mean it's good. Somebody on the bus next to you typing away on their "telephone"/computer might be writing something far superior. And what's amusing is that they might not even be trying to write great literature, they might be just writing a slang-filled grammatically-incorrect creative tidbit to a friend. But the seed falls where it may.

---

But the seed falls where it may, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

While I must profess respect for Alexander's knowledge and also his excellent creative writing I strongly feel that the best literature created by mankind will be in our future. There have no doubt been many greats in the past, but I believe it is in the future that mankind will achieve its greatest literary achievements.

In places like Cuba illiteracy has been virtually wiped out. When illiteracy is virtually wiped out on the planet the things that mankind will accomplish in literature will be phenomenal.

Mankind cannot fulfill its potential when half of the human race is living on less than two dollars a day. There are so many people who could be Shakespeares of the 21st century who instead are working long hours every day just to survive. And how many kids in Third World countries who could become future Shakespeares are instead on the streets shining shoes? Or even in some first world countries like America a significant part of the young people receive a rotten/mediocre education.

As Jack London said in the Sea Wolf "The seed will fall where it may." Many of those who have superior educations and the free time to write that comes from inherited wealth simply aren't up to the task of writing great innovative literature. In fact, the mentality of the privileged few is a conservative one, and inherently hostile to creativity.

This is not to say that some privileged country gentlemen in 19th century England didn’t manage to produce some decent literature. But the descendents of today's working class will produce literature of much more greatness.

For example, CCNY (a public university in New York City with open admissions known as the "poor man's Harvard") has produced more Nobel Prize winners then most of the Ivy League universities on the East Coast combined. (No doubt, the Ivy League universities are much injured by their "Legacy" program.)

Anyway, the golden era in literature is not in the past, it is in the future. The other night I discovered there are some very talented, very creative individuals on this very website who are writing innovative work better than some of the stuff in the Norton Anthology of Literature. That statement is both a compliment to some of the writers on this posting board, and also an indictment of the canon according to Norton. I read a fair amount of the Norton Anthology as it was the only book I had when I spent some months at sea on a commercial fishing boat.

If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo. While I respect some of the work in this canon I must say not all of it is impressive.

I have my suspicions that some of the best literary work of the past did not find its way into the canon, but found its way into the garbage can. Manuscripts that contained too much politics, contained unconventional or unpopular ideas, too much sex, too much homosexuality, or simply a writer didn't have the right contacts, or didn't come from the right class of people to have the right contacts - you can bet that any number of factors might prevent a great work from getting published, let alone getting into some canon.

Of those works lucky enough to get published you can bet that the conservative academic/publishing environment is not going to put something in the canon that's going to ruffle too many feathers. Of course, there are many great people in academia, I was lucky enough to have some great professors. But as many of you know when you start getting high up in the academic structure, when you encounter those in higher positions who are making the decisions, well you might find a lot of vultures who seem to be primarily concerned with covering their ***, amongst other things. And my guess is those people in higher positions have had a lot to say as to what goes in the canon. I doubt the average college professor has much say in what goes in the canon, and should you be lucky enough to be having a drink with a great college professor you might hear some amusing comments about the "canon".

However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon. I am of course talking about the canon of English literature, as I cannot even begin to comment on the literature of other cultures, as my education unfortunately overly emphasized the literary achievements of a rather backward island on the periphery of Europe. That same island is producing great contemporary painting today, and maybe producing great contemporary literary talent that far out shines it's more primitive past. If it is I doubt the publishing conglomerates will bring it to the light of day.

Just because some book is in your literature class in college doesn't mean it's good. Somebody on the bus next to you typing away on their "telephone"/computer might be writing something far superior. And what's amusing is that they might not even be trying to write great literature, they might be just writing a slang-filled grammatically-incorrect creative tidbit to a friend. But the seed falls where it may.

---

I agree with you that the future will be where the greatest works come from,

but modern does not equal better.

But as you say, looking at the population in the future there will be many Dante's and Virgils and Homers. It is probability that is in our favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo. While I respect some of the work in this canon I must say not all of it is impressive.

However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon.

---

What works in the Norton Anthology do you find mediocre and unimpressive?

I don't foresee this future golden age of literature. A large percentage of humanity will continue to be encumbered by necessity and even many of those with ample leisure time will go on squandering it with various distractions, such as television, video games, ect. Even with success at combating illiteracy we now have a plague of aliteracy, of people who are able to read but simply choose not to. We won't have a bunch of Shakespeare's popping up. Not everyone can be a Shakespeare. It takes the right genes, the right environment, a complex falling into place of numerous variables that can't and won't occur for many.

When I browse my copy of the Norton Anthology I am taken aback at the sheer wealth of astounding artistic achievement gathered therein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

What works in the Norton Anthology do you find mediocre and unimpressive?

I don't foresee this future golden age of literature. A large percentage of humanity will continue to be encumbered by necessity and even many of those with ample leisure time will go on squandering it with various distractions, such as television, video games, ect. Even with success at combating illiteracy we now have a plague of aliteracy, of people who are able to read but simply choose not to. We won't have a bunch of Shakespeare's popping up. Not everyone can be a Shakespeare. It takes the right genes, the right environment, a complex falling into place of numerous variables that can't and won't occur for many.

When I browse my copy of the Norton Anthology I am taken aback at the sheer wealth of astounding artistic achievement gathered therein.

---

I agree with this. A golden age of literature in the future is possible, but hardly something that anyone can see coming; it would most likely be largely coincidental and last for only one to two generations. In any case, WolfLarsen is hardly likely to be at the head of that golden age (and even if he is, without support from other super-talented literary writers he still won't be able to change the way literature is percieved and written, NOT that there is anything wrong with that way).

Wolf... no one is going to buy into your notion of an egalitarian golden age of the future... especially when you need to skew the facts (lie?) to prove your point:

For example, CCNY (a public university in New York City with open admissions known as the "poor man's Harvard") has produced more Nobel Prize winners then most of the Ivy League universities on the East Coast combined. (No doubt, the Ivy League universities are much injured by their "Legacy" program.)

CCNY has nine Nobel Laureates. Colombia has 96. The University of Chicago has 87. MIT has 77. Harvard has 46. etc...

Anyway, the golden era in literature is not in the past, it is in the future. The other night I discovered there are some very talented, very creative individuals on this very website who are writing innovative work better than some of the stuff in the Norton Anthology of Literature.

And you continue to undermine your argument by suggesting a glaring lapse in critical judgment.

If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo.

Art evolves in the sense that it changes. Artists must deal with the world in which they exist. But art is not like science. In spite of all our advantages in terms of knowledge and access to the whole of literary history we are not blessed with a wealth of writers today who are inherently greater than Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare.

I have my suspicions that some of the best literary work of the past did not find its way into the canon, but found its way into the garbage can. Manuscripts that contained too much politics, contained unconventional or unpopular ideas, too much sex, too much homosexuality, or simply a writer didn't have the right contacts, or didn't come from the right class of people to have the right contacts - you can bet that any number of factors might prevent a great work from getting published, let alone getting into some canon.

You've been reading too much of the politically correct criticism. You make some rather unlikely suppositions assuming that writers/artists of the past would have acted like writers of today in terms of openly questioning their leaders, their faith, etc... At the same time you miss out on the glaring audacity of many of the greatest writers/artists of the past which in no way supports the notion that the canon is chosen in support of the power elite. Shakespeare was quite likely bisexual, may have had an affair with a mulatto, and wrote plays that were clearly amoral: good does not prevail... evil is not ugly, ignorant and ultimately the loser. Shakespeare's rival atop the canon, Dante audaciously reinvents heaven, hell, and everything in between as he sees fit. Surely Milton would have been much more fit as a role model of the time. And then there's Michelangelo with all his nudity and his pent-up (homo-) sexual frustration exploding above our heads in the very heart of the Catholic Church. Your suspicions prove nothing without digging further.

However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon. I am of course talking about the canon of English literature, as I cannot even begin to comment on the literature of other cultures, as my education unfortunately overly emphasized the literary achievements of a rather backward island on the periphery of Europe.

As others have asked, I would like to know just which works you imagine are "mediocre" and why.

Can I ask which writers on this site you think can match the Norton Anthology? And can you provide some links to their work? Perhaps if everyone were to agree that Shakespeare-level talent is littered around the fabric of society at every level from the slums to the upper-class, then everyone would agree that literature needs to change the way it's represented. Somehow, though, I doubt you ever saw any work on this website that you really think is better than the Norton Anthology. Possibly, you've never read the Norton Anthology. I suppose the likeliest situation is just that you're so convinced by this revolution concept (you seem to want it to be true) that you've convinced yourself that the work of sub-optimal writers (OK, I accept that there may be on this forum one person, a neglected gem capable of matching the writers in the Norton Anthology, but the vast majority of people here could never dream of being in that class, let's be honest) is superior to those of the people the rest of the world (including said witers) hold up as the best.

I wrote a reply to Darcy the other night which I will post now. I will post responses to the other posters later time permitting.

Hello Darcy,

Actually, that's a very good question! And I wish I knew the answer, but it was 20 years ago that I was in the middle of the Bering Sea with only the Norton anthology.

Even if I had a copy of the Norton anthology here right now with me I probably would not take the time out to reread/skim through the book to properly answer your question, although it is a very good question.

Perhaps not all of the problem is the Norton anthology. Perhaps English literature is rather limited compared to some other cultures. After all, England is an island on the periphery of Europe. Many artistic and literary achievements were occurring in continental Europe long before the Anglo-Saxons became even remotely civilized. Perhaps great English literature and painting begins with the Romantics, perhaps not. I am no expert. And I'm not going to take the time out to become an expert. If I have the time I'd rather study the literature of continental Europe, the Middle East, India, and China.

Perhaps the Norton anthology for me was sort of like this website. Everyone in the Norton anthology is a capable writer. But guess what? Virtually everybody on this Internet site is a capable writer.

But you see it's not enough to be a capable writer. Cities are filled with capable buildings that are boring and add nothing to the advancement of architecture. So you see you can be a very capable architect or writer and still add nothing to the advancement of architecture or literature. You need to do something new!

In the world of literature as long as you're doing something different I feel that it's okay to write in a conventional style. However, it's a lot more difficult to write something different in a conventional style when practically everybody and their dog is writing in the conventional style. Why should I bother reading something that reminds me of 10,000 other works I've read?

Look at the art museum in Bilboa or the new bandshell in Chicago and you will never forget it. Look at an adequate building that fits into its environment and you will probably forget it. But there is always somebody who beats the odds, and writes something conventional and still manages to write something truly unique. On this website there is at least one such writer. He can take important powerful people and reduce them to some trivial and rather pathetic human being sitting on the toilet. I don't think he actually had anybody sitting on the toilet in his stories, but you get the idea. He's good. He somehow manages to make conventional writing feel fresh, which is not an easy thing to do. Most conventional writing feels stale.

It's not easy to make a conventional story worthwhile reading. So a story is well-written with proper grammar? So what!! As far as I'm concerned you learn correct grammar in grammar school, and after that it's time to do something new. If you have a white-collar job you use correct grammar all day long. When you get home don't you want to do something different? If you have a blue-collar job you probably have to do everything by the book all day long for safety reasons, and you should carefully follow safety procedures! But when the work day is done the last thing you want to do is be tied down by rules and routine. You want to be creative!

People keep saying that correct grammar is the architecture of the sentence. What's going to happen if you don't use correct grammar? Are all the sentences going to come crashing down on screaming people like a falling building or something? Take some chances! Get some balls! Do something different!

In some ways there isn't much difference between the Norton anthology and this website. Some people write exciting innovative literature, and others just right competent literature. Both in the Norton anthology and this website you will find some exciting bold literature and then you will find literature that is merely competent.

And if I'm stuck on some goddamn fishing boat on the Bering Sea chopping fish heads off all day long day after day I tell you when I'm lucky enough to have some free time I want to read something amazing! But as I found out not everything in the Norton anthology is amazing. Unfortunately that all happened 20 years ago, so I couldn't tell you which authors and poets were disappointing, but a lot of them were. I guess I had high hopes the first time I could choose for myself what in the Norton anthology I would read, as opposed to whatever was assigned to me in college, but as I sat in that bunk I became more and more disappointed with each turn of each page. I didn't see as much greatness in the Norton anthology as I was hoping for. It was disappointing. But just like this website some were more creative and therefore made a greater contribution to the advancement of literature than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Even if I had a copy of the Norton anthology here right now with me I probably would not take the time out to reread/skim through the book to properly answer your question, although it is a very good question.

Perhaps not all of the problem is the Norton anthology. Perhaps English literature is rather limited compared to some other cultures. .

---

Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, Eliot, and the list goes on and on, a cavalcade of creative geniuses whose works are worth more than a million times their weight in gold. Sure, some writers' works are less stellar than others, but I have a hard time, looking through the table of contents now, finding my finger over a name that I'd feel confident in dismissing as a merely "competent" writer.

It sounds like you are casting judgement on the entire body of English literature based on a perfunctory scan of the Norton Anthology some two decades ago. Look through it again. Engage a few of the works. I'd wager you'll have the same experience I had. The cover of that anthology is like a closet door in a C S Lewis novel. It opens into a fantastic world of beauty and wonder.

The core works of the canon are unimpeachable. Shakespeare's plays, Donne's poetry, Paradise Lost, Conrad's novels, ect. Due to the fact that I am only vaguely familiar with the literature of other cultures I won't proclaim that of England to be the greatest. But its got to be in the running at least.

I just re-read Heart of Darkness, am now reading Blood Meridian, and next up have the Alexandria Quartet, which I've scanned and read a few chapters of. I must ask, what precisely about the past or present state of English literature so turns you off and provokes this sweeping condemnation? In what way could the creations of a Conrad, a McCarthy or a Durrell be substantially improved upon? McCarthy is leaving me speechless, Durrell was a master, and Conrad is.... well he's Conrad. Two of my favourite authors are D H Lawrence and Henry Miller. English literature abounds with writers who pushed the envolope, penning masterpieces that took little heed of convention, the critics be damned.

Your critique smacks of some kind of hairbrained idealism, of a longing for some utopian state disconnected from and utterly beyond reality, issuing from blind categorical negation.

Darcy - Yes you've mentioned some very impressive names in English literature. However, if I'm going to take a timeout to read something that's not contemporary I'm certainly not going to bother with English literature, partly because I already got plenty of it in college and high school. I will look at French literature. I will look at Italian literature. I will look at the literature of China and India.

In university I took a course on Shakespeare. There was ONLY Shakespeare in that course. He's good. Particularly when you have the lights of Harlem at your feet at two o'clock in the morning. What a beautiful view and Shakespeare in my hand! Yes it's wonderful! I would read Shakespeare out loud. Absolutely wonderful!

But you know. As good a Shakespeare is I do not feel he is as good as many say he is.

A different poster said something about the number of Nobel Prize laureates amongst professors at different universities. Never would I ever ever say that CCNY had more noble prize WINNERS amongst its ALUMNI then the University of Chicago. Not only does the University of Chicago leave all those legacy universities on the East Coast in the dust, but the University of Chicago leaves CCNY in the dust as well. It's not even close, it's not even remotely a contest. After all, it's the University of Chicago. And listen carefully - I'm talking about certain Ivy League universities on the East Coast that have something called the legacy program. I'm not talking about Ivy League universities that do not have a legacy program. The legacy program is an affirmative action program for dumb rich white kids. Well, most of them are white. I'm not trying to be racist, after all I'm white. But I had to say that because I seem to get accused of just about everything around here. LOL

Nor did I ever say I believe in complete egalitarianism. There are some people like George Bush Junior who attended one of those legacy universities. I know high school dropouts that are more intelligent than George Bush Junior. So you got some high school dropouts I knew who work as crewman in Alaska who make the Ivy League legacy types look dumb, they make me look dumb, because they work 12 hours a day sleep six hours a day and read the other six hours. You can say anything you want about the legacy universities but as far as I'm concerned they are overpriced good old boy clubs. Of course, at those legacy good old boy clubs you're bound to make some good contacts that will help you in business or politics or academia later in life, which is very useful if you want to be one of the masters of the universe. (Well academics don't become masters of the universe.) But I bet the ones that go to the Ivy leagues on scholarships are far more intelligent than the gentleman's C types. In fact, I bet you the ones that go to the Ivy leagues on scholarships are more intelligent than Wolf Larsen 1000 times over.

Then there was something about the painter of the Sistine Chapel being gay. Yes he was gay. But so was the Pope at the time (at least that's what I read in the book about the sex lives of the popes). I guess it's all about who you blow, I mean know. Talent doesn't hurt. To bad the prudes later had the private parts painted over. So many damn prudes interfering in literature and the arts, but that's a different subject.