Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

This thread has been spawned by my Harry Potter thread which has been derailed to the unrecognisable, although an interesting point has been made which I wish to follow up on.

The theme seems to be:

Some novels are "worth" inherently more than others and we should not value reading unless something of "value" is being read."

I think this is a load of bunkum, myself.

I think any attempt to say otherwise is pure elitism and the exact equivalent of an art critic saying that one piece of art is inherently more valuable than my six-year old's scribbles.

Let's see if JBI wants to play!

Obviously the OP was designed merely to provoke us "elitists"... and yes... I have no problem admitting that I am an elitist. I do not for a single moment accept the notion of artistic/aesthetic relativity. All art is not of the same merit. Even among the "scribbles" by six-year-olds there are examples that are better and worse. As an art teacher I am made aware of this each and every day.

As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good. Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another. But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

We all make aesthetic decisions. We must. We cannot read and reread each and every book... thus we must make the decision as to which books bring us the greatest degree of pleasure. In that sense, aesthetic decisions are certainly individual and subjective. To state that I dislike this book or that this painting does absolutely nothing for me is fine. To point out that book X or painting Y has sold millions of copies is completely irrelevant to the question of its artistic merits. The popularity of a work of art is based upon the ability of an artist to fill a certain niche and to reach the largest possible audience. Popularity neither speaks for nor against the artistic merits of a work of art. Some works that achieve great popularity will stand the test of time... the vast majority won't. The fact that a given book is popular is about as useful a measure of artistic merit as he question of which book makes a better paperweight. When we begin to make broader statements declaring that this book is great or bad or this artist is far better than that one then we are no longer making a statement of personal preference... we are making a statement that is far more objective... a statement of fact.

The arts are certainly never going to be as objective as the hard sciences... and even they are not completely objective... theories sometimes become fact... and sometimes are overturned. The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

JoZ... is that marriage proposal still valid?:brow::lol::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

Poetry and drama is separate. we have general fiction a-z. Irish fiction a-z. Crime, Sci-fi fantasy, kids and young adult, then loads of non fiction ones. I suppose we all do things differently in different countries.
bit strange not getting canadian fiction in a canadian bookshop....:confused:

---

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ... :D
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...


librarius
:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by librarius_qui

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ... :D
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...

---

Ha Ha! That's where they shelves Harry Potter is in the realist section. ;)

Reminds me of the time some girl I know called me boring for reading Saramago, and criticizing Twilight. I doubt she had even heard of Saramago before seeing me with a volume by him, and simply because he was a foreign writer, and a Nobel Prize winner, not to mention the name of the book was Balthasar and Blimunda, she concluded that I was boring for reading said work.

What a shame - Perhaps had she given Saramago a chance, assuming she could comprehend his brilliantly unique poetic-prose style, she could possibly had enjoyed something. As it is, her aesthetic focus is on Twilight, and Harry Potter. I don't think I'm boring for it, I think she is. What I get out of reading, for instance, As for me And My House by Sinclair Ross she can hardly fathom, since she simply doesn't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Reminds me of the time some girl I know called me boring for reading Saramago, and criticizing Twilight. I doubt she had even heard of Saramago before seeing me with a volume by him, and simply because he was a foreign writer, and a Nobel Prize winner, not to mention the name of the book was Balthasar and Blimunda, she concluded that I was boring for reading said work.

---

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?

---

Only read this one, and it was great. I don't know what the French title of the book is, if you are wondering, and the Portuguese title is Memorial do Convento, which isn't the same as the English

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field.

---

The fundamental deficiency that I see with these analogies is that one doesn't need to be a doctor to evaluate whether or not a doctor has done a good job treating your ailment, nor does one need to be an electrician to evaluate whether or not good work has been done on the breaker box. If a bunch of highly trained doctors say Dr. Abe is the best doctor and Dr. Bob is a terrible doctor, but every patient of Dr. Abe dies under his care whereas every patient of Dr. Bob makes a full recovery, little ol' me with no medical training can still conclude that the highly trained doctors' opinions are wrong, or at least they have a different definition of "good" than the one I'm interested in.

I think a more apt comparison can be made to the religious elite. A regular guy might well wonder why cussing is wrong, but defer to the opinion of his pastor because, after all, the pastor is the "expert" on morality, and there isn't really a clear alternative authority.

A problem that elitists face in every age is that they have to simultaneously distinguish themselves from everyone else to establish their superiority, and at the same time find enough common ground with everyone else to keep their superiority relevant. So, if the elites continually call books "great" that people don't enjoy, and pan as "trash" the books that people do enjoy, the rational thing for non-elites to do is to perform a little bit of simple code-breaking and conclude that they should read the "trash" and skip the "greats".

It may indeed be the case that, by investing the resources to get initiated into the elite, one will enjoy some of the "greats" that he/she didn't enjoy before. This raises the question, how important is this additional elite ability? If it really is the case that the experience of the masses have no relevance to the standards of the elite, then inevitably the standards of the elite have no benefit for the masses and therefore this additional elite ability isn't very important at all.

It seems to me that long term popularity is one of the most reliable objective indicators of a book's worth available. You (stlukesguild) almost concede as much when you use as a criterion whether or not the work stands the test of time.


As to the larger question in this thread about "genre fiction" versus "literary fiction", some of you might be interested in these tidbits I've come across from Neal Stephenson.

The first is his answer to the second question in this interview on Slashdot (look under "2) The lack of respect ... - by MosesJones"). He talks about the differences in "accountability" between different kinds of writers.

The second is this talk he gave, which I found on boing boing (warning: it's about 40 minutes long). Here he mainly makes observations about the state of "speculative fiction".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?

---

José is kind'a tricky ... Try to take a look at all the titles, and search for the one(s) you think might interest you better.

I haven't read him up till now, but I itch for reading the History of the Siege of Lisbon, because of my background. (I lived in Portugal, I like History, I wish to begin reading Saramago and I have to choose a door ...)

But maybe someone who's read many of his books already will give you better directions.

These are two ways of finding out where to begin from, I think.


librarius
:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Only read this one, and it was great. I don't know what the French title of the book is, if you are wondering, and the Portuguese title is Memorial do Convento, which isn't the same as the English

---

Heh, the French title is Le dieu manchot (something like the one-armed god or the penguin god, not sure which meaning they want to give).

Those crazy translators...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Heh, the French title is Le dieu manchot (something like the one-armed god or the penguin god, not sure which meaning they want to give).

Those crazy translators...

---

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius
:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by librarius_qui

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius
:crash:

---

Not really, since the English title is also far from the original translation. It always depends on the works. I'm not sure it has anything to do with tradition, you know.

Translating is not always an easy matter, recently I became aware of the translation of the title of a book by Saint-Exupéry. The title is Terre des hommes. Something like Land of Man, but Terre in French means both Earth and land and both meanings are important. The universal exposition in Montreal had as title Terre des hommes, which they translated in English as Man and his Land (Land of Man is still the best bet in my opinion). Not very good translation, in my opinion. The title of the book in English is so bad though, it's: Wind, Sand and Stars... ugh... but this book is absolutely amazing, by the way, I could not recommend it enough. Probably one of the most beautiful books ever written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Not really, since the English title is also far from the original translation. It always depends on the works. I'm not sure it has anything to do with tradition, you know.

---

You'r~ right ... Maybe it doesn't. It's a hypothesis. "Every hipothesis needs material data to be proved or refuted" (...).

I've only put a general feeling I have on the matter, based on other cases, better not to mention here, cause it'll go waaaay off-topic.

We might open a thread (or ressurrect one?) on translation.


lbr_q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Why do you buy a book instead of a pile of blank paper then? It costs less and you get your paper one way or the other. If it's for the ink, this is quite cheap as well when you buy them in bottle.

---

You obviously missed my point - I clearly stated that each and every opinion on a particular book is a personal, and entirely subjective opinion.

Can I be clearer?

I read the books I choose to because I rate them far higher than other books, but that is purely my opinion. Other people will have different opinions (and abilities) and suggesting that one book is better than another for someone else is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Honestly, you theoretically cannot even prove your own existence to anyone but yourself (if you can even do that).

---

Hell, I constantly remind people that solipsism is both ugly and stupid. What it has to do with the topic, I have no idea, but I'm with ya!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

This sort of arguing goes nowhere, and is merely nihilist rhetoric.

---

Well, you seem to be making a good attempt at turning into nihilistic rhetoric, but I doubt that I'll help you on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It all will come down to - what is the point of living if you are just going to die.

---

Considering I was talking about reading, I really don't see the connection to my argument. Or anyone else's for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

There is no answer, the same way there is no definite, unconditional answer that reading is worthwhile.

---

I disagree with that entirely; in fact, I thought I'd mentioned that reading was a survival tool. (I did, back a few posts.)

Odd that on one hand you're arguing the worth of one piece of writing over another, but you can't decide whether reading itself is inherently useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

We must accept certain assumptions if we are to get beyond pointless arguing over logical fallacies.

---

Nicely put!

May I paraphrase?

"I say that these are Teh Rools and any argument to the contrary is fallacious."

Hmmmm...

Seen better attempts to justify a position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

---

Again, I have actually said just that.

Your choice of wifely aesthetics backs me up beautifully!

Unless you want to argue that certain traits of humans are aesthetically more pleasing/attractive than another, it makes my point for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Obviously the OP was designed merely to provoke us "elitists"... and yes... I have no problem admitting that I am an elitist.

---

I hadn't particularly aimed at any sector, but yes, I did have a small suspicion that those who class themselves as lietarary elitists would have a word or two to say!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I do not for a single moment accept the notion of artistic/aesthetic relativity.

---

Well, you wouldn't, would you, you're an elitist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

All art is not of the same merit. Even among the "scribbles" by six-year-olds there are examples that are better and worse. As an art teacher I am made aware of this each and every day.

---

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Let's play.

In what way are the drawings of some six-year olds better than others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good.

---

As you can see above, I agree with you 100%.

But on your basis, because she's an outstanding and most beautiful woman, that she must therefore be as good a wife for anyone else! You know that's not right, which means that, like Jo, you've just made my argument for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another.

---

Nah, leave the sports analogies to me.

;)

Shocking analogy, by the way. In sport, we have a thing called a scoreboard. Each match, the scoreboard shows a winner and a loser. These are indisputable facts, which cannot be subject to any opinion at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

---

Well, you're talking to someone who is an elitist intellectually, so I can understand you position.

I don't agree with it at all, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

We all make aesthetic decisions. We must. We cannot read and reread each and every book... thus we must make the decision as to which books bring us the greatest degree of pleasure. In that sense, aesthetic decisions are certainly individual and subjective.

---

Couldn't disagree with a word of that. I said as much a couple of times already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

To point out that book X or painting Y has sold millions of copies is completely irrelevant to the question of its artistic merits.

---

Agree again. Hell. I'm an atheist - I don't do arguments from popularity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

When we begin to make broader statements declaring that this book is great or bad or this artist is far better than that one then we are no longer making a statement of personal preference... we are making a statement that is far more objective... a statement of fact.

---

Then make that argument!

Since you can state why one piece of art or literature is better than another, go ahead. Don't just tell me it happens, show me how you arrive at the assessment of greatness objectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off.

---

Breaking this down, using your own analogy, you're saying that people who study hard are the ones of value - like elctricians. If they are able to complete the intrinsic technical elements of the job, then that person is of great value.

A great artist then, will be one who makes no technical mistakes and a great novelist will be one with a PhD in English Literature and perfect grammar. The bad news is, from a literary sense, that Steven King is the Lit Prof, while Orwell was essentially a drop-out.

I'm glad you prefer King to Orwell. I have it the other way around myself, but hey, either/either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

---

Nor is all wiring, which is why some houses burn down and others don't.

I'm glad we've sorted all this out, and I thank you for your help.

Greatness is achieved through hard work, not talent. He who worls hardest is best. Very Boxer-like in the end.

Quote:

---

The arts are certainly never going to be as objective as the hard sciences... and even they are not completely objective... theories sometimes become fact... and sometimes are overturned. The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

---

The problem with this is that the purpose of art is to be experienced directly, not analyzed. The latter is a deviant approach that many writers (such as Fowles) disapprove of. While I understand the purpose of such behaviour in our culture, I do find it distasteful. How can we speak of aesthetic choice, when we then come back and center art on technicalities? It's like, rather than observing an animal in the wild, we choose to disect it. While that may help us understand in more detail how that organism works, one can not retrace the steps and make it alive again.

But my greatest problem with literary elitism are the strong conservative nuances, hinting at intellectual inbreeding. Most "quality literature" comments refer to canon authors, which makes weak points against popular literature (and I hate most popular literature), because there's little difference between the sides. Influential, after all, is simply popular within a limited group, while the fanboy and the snob are the same ape in a different suit. Shakespeare is poised so high on the standard of western culture that even a five year old can say "Oh, this is no Shakespeare" about another work, maybe even quote something he heard somewhere else, and get away with it. On an intellectual level, it tries to impress and fails.
Realistically, as good as they were, most canon works are dipped and broiled in outdated world-views (hence, the "difficulty" and need to study in order to find meanings) and they belong in a box with today's artists and art-lovers outside, unless they are specifically drawn to the era afferent to a certain author.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by librarius_qui

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ... :D
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...


librarius
:crash:

---

Where i actually live is in that sentance i'll have you know. Black pool in Irish is Dubh Linn and my city is Dublin which means the black pool. The whole faery bit is because i usually have a faery avatar. Not to forget also that my country has a large collection of faerie myths, legends, folklore, locations associated with faeries and literature. So dont you think that the Black pool of faerie is quite fitting for Dublin, Ireland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Ha Ha! That's where they shelves Harry Potter is in the realist section. ;)

---

yes very funny.

Genres distinctions are ridiculous, science fiction, policial, fantasy are almost only usefull for the organization of shelves in libraries. As I said before, if we consider Fantasy was and is the only genre that matters. And it wont show anything about quality, c'mom, Paulo Coelho have stories that have the same argument of Khalil Gibran and Jorge Luis Borges. What does it matters.

The only reason people should be educated to read is to have access to a knowledge that was once a privilegy of a few classes, not to read just to read and die happy because they could spell their names. Of course, not everyone will turn to be such specialized kind of writer than will go reading Finnegans Wake in subway. But there is considerable more options and she must at least move there once or while (I disagree with the notion that after reading Dante would make impossible to enjoy any inferior work, even because we must re-read it. Since I consider the Comedy the greatest work ever and I have read it when I was very young, my life would be quite painfull. "Ack, Brothers Karamazov, how inferior to Dante it is. I feel painnn!") and I think the average work help to keep the market and all alive.
The problem is how the market is today, massive propaganda for one model - In less traditional markets (such as Brazil, where the "academy" does not have stronger roots due to a older literary tradition) the damage is considerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by librarius_qui

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius
:crash:

---

Blame Machado de Assis for this, but really brazilians can be rather original with translations as well, all the market consideration and all...

Nice thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

---

Well a kid with a leg missing won't run as fast, isn't it?

Quote:

---

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

---

Well you can always give merit based on effort, but whatever you want it to be, the kid just won't run as fast.

Effort isn't the only factor. You are forgetting inspiration which is even more crucial than natural ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

But my greatest problem with literary elitism are the strong conservative nuances, hinting at intellectual inbreeding. Most "quality literature" comments refer to canon authors, which makes weak points against popular literature (and I hate most popular literature), because there's little difference between the sides. Influential, after all, is simply popular within a limited group, while the fanboy and the snob are the same ape in a different suit. Shakespeare is poised so high on the standard of western culture that even a five year old can say "Oh, this is no Shakespeare" about another work, maybe even quote something he heard somewhere else, and get away with it. On an intellectual level, it tries to impress and fails.
Realistically, as good as they were, most canon works are dipped and broiled in outdated world-views (hence, the "difficulty" and need to study in order to find meanings) and they belong in a box with today's artists and art-lovers outside, unless they are specifically drawn to the era afferent to a certain author.

---

Very nicely put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Well a kid with a leg missing won't run as fast, isn't it?

Well you can always give merit based on effort, but whatever you want it to be, the kid just won't run as fast.

---

Correct.

Because in sport, the facts are absolute. A runner with one leg cannot run as fast as one with two. That's why we have the Paralympics.

If sport were judged on aesthetic qualities, a disabled person would have the same chances as an able-bodied one. because sport is about physical comparisons, obviously a one-legged person cannot compete.

Those sports analogies just aren't doing it for you.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Effort isn't the only factor. You are forgetting inspiration which is even more crucial than natural ability.

---

That would then make J K Rowling an outstanding author. She's certainly put in the effort, taking many years to get from idea to publishing, and regardless of how her books are seen, they are certainly inspired. I don't think there's any other way to describe a plot which has enabled its author to become a billionaire. J K Rowling has oodles of inspiration. And if you meant inspirational authors, I'd have a two word reply:

John Kehoe.

I don't believe either the inspiration behind the book/s or the inspirational nature of the text supports your belief at all.

Seems to me that your defence of labelling of "great" literature comes down to no more than your personal preference, based upon your own aesthetic tastes and cultural/educational background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Again, I have actually said just that.

Your choice of wifely aesthetics backs me up beautifully!

Unless you want to argue that certain traits of humans are aesthetically more pleasing/attractive than another, it makes my point for me.

---

No it doesn't. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are things any philosophical inquiry or criticism can say about the beauty itself. One of them, in literature or art, is universal appeal.

Let me take De Kooning, which was one of the few splendid discussions we had on DIA:

Quote:

---

Re: [DisabilityinArts] De Kooning


Very well. I am pleased that visual art has made its way into the discussions. It is such a subjective form of art and I am sure everybody will have an opinion to share with the group. Abstract art is not an easy area to understand as it focuses the viewer on the medium: paint, canvas, the tactile quality of the work and not so much on a definate object other than the painting itself.

There are many areas on the internet that discuss Willem De Koonings late paintings. A quick google will suffice. However the curator and writer Robert Storr from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) has written an in depth study of the late paintings with reference to other famous artists late paintings. In the book to accompany the exhibition that has traveled across America and Europe Robert storr gives a lengthy account of the works and gives interesting details on De Koonings studio practise while painting the late works. An excerpt of which is here: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1997...ing/essay.html


I will follow up this email with some more information about abstract painting and be posting a few images of paintings done by De Kooning at different stages to discuss. The history of the Abstract school, as the main group were known, is very interesting and eventfull. Willem DeKooning was considered on of the leading lights of this movement. At the time of revolution of abstract expressionism in the 50s people were still very sceptical, expecially in Europe about the new move away from realism to what seemed like just splashes or doodles on canvas. Sometimes leaving parts of the canvas showing. This sceptisisim has reemerged in a different form again as Dekooning, the aging abstract artist, changes his painting methods and style. Seemingly due to deteriation as a result of alzheimer's desease. How now do we assess his work. Are the late works valid De Kooning paintings? How do we assess DeKoonings identity as a painter.

---

The member who got this topic voted in was a rare find, a special education teacher in England who actually had an education, unlike most of my American members who wanted to turn blue in the face about ADAPT radicalism.

I do not have a great deal of art world training, but I have enough to see that what makes De Kooning De Kooning, even after he was dying of Alzheimer's, is his use of color and line to appeal to our basic emotions with a coy playfulness. Every artist, every writer who makes it, has some trait of this universal appeal, regardless of culture or point of origin, something that touches and says "Yes, I can identify with that!" So that we may learn something about ourselves, or the world around us, refreshing vigor and will, and the sheer joy of living.

And this is my last engagement with YOU about aesthetic uselessness. You have my pity.

They aren't inspired by the right things. She refurbished things. When I talk about inspiration, I mean it in the Wordsworthian sense, in the channeling of Raw emotions. Rowling I don't think is very inspired - a mere beginners level of Greek mythology, and a boring reading of cliché works isn't inspiration.

Atheist, I am interested in your points throughout this thread, but for me I have to side with the "elitists," some books are simply better than others.

My response to this thread is based on perspective, but the short answer is, "yes"; some books are better than others.

One legitimate way of looking at book is by way of craft. Just as some houses are better than others (they may use higher quality materials, make more efficient use of space, etc), so too are some books simply made better than others. Characters are complete, language is accurate and precise, form is challenged or perfected in purposive ways.

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

My response to this thread is based on perspective, but the short answer is, "yes"; some books are better than others.

One legitimate way of looking at book is by way of craft. Just as some houses are better than others (they may use higher quality materials, make more efficient use of space, etc), so too are some books simply made better than others. Characters are complete, language is accurate and precise, form is challenged or perfected in purposive ways.

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

---

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Because in sport, the facts are absolute. A runner with one leg cannot run as fast as one with two. That's why we have the Paralympics.

---

And there are absolutes in art. Those absolutes are perhaps less clear or fixed, but they are there. That for example, a football player is better than another, does not mean that you do not prefer another one than the best, either, you see?

Quote:

---

If sport were judged on aesthetic qualities, a disabled person would have the same chances as an able-bodied one.

---

And if each book was judged on their speed of running, all bad book would have the same chance as a good one. Are you having a hard time putting comparisons in their contexts?

Quote:

---

because sport is about physical comparisons, obviously a one-legged person cannot compete.

---

And because art is about aesthetic comparison, Harry Potter cannot compete with, say, War and Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

---

It's true that some books are better than other, but simply because such a truth is valid doesn't necessarily mean personal tastes still aren't a huge factor in deciding which books deserve more merit and also that "good books" exist that may not quite be the "best books."

The problems I think with the "elitist" position whatever the heck that is as I've seen a variety of positions is:

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

It also assumes that because you did X, everyone will come to the exact same conclusions you did. If they aren't spouting the exact same conclusions than they must not have read X. Yet I am pretty sure everyone here has had a healthy dose of the classics, we all are fairly articulate and have wonderful contributions to make about literature in general, but heaven forbid if someone happens to rank Harry Potter too highly. Now we have to whip out the loaded metaphors about food critics, and how if only you had tasted ambrosia you would see how poor that other meat really is. Except the problem with these loaded metaphors is that everyone has in fact tasted ambrosia and hasn't come to the same conclusions!

Honestly, I find art - specifically literature - to be entirely subjective in its overall quality.

That being said: certain works of art inspire a greater depth of appreciation, understanding, and emotion. Poetry does not necessarily require completely understanding in order to enjoy - although understanding helps. The Waste Land of T.S. Eliot does not necessarily require a thorough understanding of Grail myth in order for me to simply enjoy the imagery and the vibrancy of the language. Similarly, a reading of Paradise Lost does not require a complete knowledge of Greek mythos in order to simply be awed by the language and the grand nature of the epic.

Great literature requires imagination of its reader; it draws its reader and in invites them to be a part of the imaginative effort of art. There are no set requisites for art to be considered great, but it so happens that great art has ambiguity and beauty that inspire in us our own creative cognition.

Lesser literature simply does not. We read the story, understand the language, and that is the end. There is no transfer of emotion, there is no, dare I say, spiritual appreciation; there is simply the transferal of a story and the reception of information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

---

To reply to this briefly:

This is not to say one cannot enjoy Stephen King after one has read Faulkner. There are books, just as there are movies, made simply for entertainment, and do not aspire to a greater level of artistic innovation. Oft times I don't feel like wracking my brain over poetry, so I'll read a newspaper or magazine.

But going on that note: there should be no reason why these novels written plainly for entertainment should be compared, in away, to Art that truly aspires to be Art. I somewhat pity J.K. Rowling (but given her millions, this doesn't go too far), because she never set out to be the next Shakespeare, and never aspired to be critically analyzed by centuries of literary criticism, but because of her worldwide readership, this burden has been thrust upon her.

There is nothing wrong with simple entertainment, but don't compare it to the greats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

---

The canon was never a solid, thing it is only used to judge old works. Even modernism quite frankly can't be put into the canon. The books that are taught vary between countries, and quite frankly, there is no definitive list.

Even Harold bloom doesn't think there really is a list - his list a mere sales gimmick - and to put it bluntly - a very successful one.

There are canonized authors, who will not budge, or will not budge for some time, but like literature, the canon is fluid, and always changing. Books fall in and out of favor, and regional attitudes, not to mention personal attitudes vary.

In terms of what is taught - it's true, most of that is fixed, but for good reason. Much of literary schooling is in classical texts, for instance, Victorian Poetry and Prose, or Renaissance Drama, and I don't think there is room for those texts to move around much - besides the odd random poem that gets thrown in for one reason or another.

There is no canon, because not everyone speaks every language. Perhaps there is an English canon, but I'm sure Australians, Canadians, Americans, Caribbean Island peoples, British, Irish, Scottish, and others see the canon very differently.

Yes, but Atheist's contentions are more radical than the ever typical argument about the canon's usefulness, and as a writer who has spent my life in the service of aesthetic vision, I am, quite frankly, offended to be made entirely irrelevant by someone who cannot see the *value* of literature. We will have debates about the pecking order of our artifacts for as long as we have society and culture, but for someone to assert those artifacts have no value, and no measure of superiority, this is, for me, beyond the pale.:rage:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seems to me that your defence of labelling of "great" literature comes down to no more than your personal preference, based upon your own aesthetic tastes and cultural/educational background.

---

Well said. People read for many different reasons and so they should. I have said it before if we all read the same books and agreed on everything this there would be no need for this forum.

If you decide not to read certain types of books because they don't appeal to you then great but don't just decide that the books have no merit because they don't appeal to you.

Not every book that I read needs to be a master piece sometime I just like a good enjoyable read.

Do people realize that this is not about cannon, lists, ranking or whatever? Doing this is like trying to pick water with your hands. It's not even so much as comparing two works together.

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

But anyways I just feel many people are just going to misread my post and it's going to open a can of worm, so I won't be going farther.

No Etienne, I do *get it* and such a cavalier attitude has made me angry, to the point that you and I are on the same side on this, which I suppose could be considered amusing. :)

I had to stop myself from stomping off and not coming back, and at least managed that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Do people realize that this is not about cannon, lists, ranking or whatever? Doing this is like trying to pick water with your hands. It's not even so much as comparing two works together.

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

---

Of course taste needs to be cultivated that is very true. If I hadn't have read so much crap in the past then I wouldn't be able to appreciate the things that I now do. With that said I am painfully aware of my gaps and inadequacies in the field of literature, it is part of the realisation of reading that the more you read, the more you realise there is to read, and the little that you really know.

The only reason that I mentioned the canon was that in the past it has ignored women writers for instance and as such some texts need to be re-examined. For example I have a tutor who has recently brought Eliza Parsons back into print - it is things like this that I was referring to earlier, though JBI made some true and fair points upon the matter.

Of course Etienne is correct this has nothing to do with cannon at all and I somewhat apologise for bringing it up.

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

A great chef can enjoy a hot-dog, but he knows that it has nothing to do with great cuisine, it's not even a question. But some "cruder" people will think a hot-dog is so much better than great cuisine. In the same way that taste for wine needs cultivated to appreciate fully the subtleties of different wines, in the same way any taste can be cultivated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

A great chef can enjoy a hot-dog, but he knows that it has nothing to do with great cuisine, it's not even a question. But some "cruder" people will think a hot-dog is so much better than great cuisine. In the same way that taste for wine needs cultivated to appreciate fully the subtleties of different wines, in the same way any taste can be cultivated.

---

Yeah, but on the Potter question, I think you and I are approaching it from different premises. I don't think Rowling was ever trying to be canon-worthy. She was a mother with a kid, and she was on the dole, almost like me, not quite, but almost.

Unlike me, what she did at her typewriter helped her beat back the system. I admire that, and as I've posted elsewhere, her work is getting heat it doesn't deserve. She isn't A.S. Byatt, but she wasn't trying to compete with Byatt in the first place.

Well ok, she is the example of a professional success, but she is artistically worthless. I think that, from the beginning we were discussing her artistic merits, if we were to discuss the professional success, we might as well discuss the founders of Google or something of that kind.

One could say that she didn't write literature, but books. Of course, we could argue about semantics, but the point is getting the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

---

Oh I see what you mean sorry. I still stand by the fact (rather crudely) that you need to have read the bad to truly appreciate the good, in some ways at least. I am not suggesting that we all turn to the bad first, but that people seem to find their feet with what they are comfortable and happy with first, before moving on to better things later. I am not insisting that my five year old daughter should read Dante for example, any book is fine. It is probably just a question of development But no one cannot claim Harry Potter as a great work of art at all.


Just to be clear on my position with the Potter thing: anyone who claims Harry Potter to be a great work of art is rather foolish indeed, but at the same time I am sure it was never set out for that purpose. People seem to really enjoy it and defend it with a zeal, rightly or wrongly.

A problem that elitists face in every age is that they have to simultaneously distinguish themselves from everyone else to establish their superiority...

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. It has nothing to do with class (although politicians have always played it up in that way), and it has nothing to do with intelligence. There are persons who struggle from paycheck to paycheck who have also decided that poetry or painting is important enough to them that they have put forth the effort into learning all they can about it. By the same token there are brilliant lawyers, doctors, and scientists who are certainly not lacking intelligence in any way... and yet their opinions upon art are largely ignorant because they are largely uniformed... inexperienced in the field. Someone puts forth the effort to learn about art by choice. I would assume that there are those for whom such knowledge gives them a sense of superiority... but most, I would assume, make such a choice because of the pleasure they have discovered in grasping the finest that the arts... that humanity has to offer.

...and at the same time find enough common ground with everyone else to keep their superiority relevant.

Again... there is little thought of superiority. I don't read Shakespeare or Dante or Homer or Rimbaud or Neruda because I imagine it will give me a sort of authority with the "lower plebes". I don't read Tolstoy to impress (at least I haven't done that since I was a teenager and somehow imagined that it would impress girls:blush::lol:). I couldn't care less whether the masses think Dante is relevant.

So, if the elites continually call books "great" that people don't enjoy, and pan as "trash" the books that people do enjoy, the rational thing for non-elites to do is to perform a little bit of simple code-breaking and conclude that they should read the "trash" and skip the "greats".

Again... the "elites" make the choices they do based upon what gives them pleasure. The "non-elites" do the same. The difference in taste is accounted for by the difference in experience and the willingness to put forth a degree of effort... believing that there is sometimes a greater pleasure to be derived from something that challenges than something that is too easy or simplistic.
If the opinion of a given critic never aligns with your own taste... certainly feel free to ignore it. I somehow doubt that the average person cannot discover much that will give him or her great pleasure among the vast range of great literature... but if that were true... ignore it... the fact that you are uninterested in Dickens, Poe, Verlaine, Whitman, Pessoa, etc... has no effect upon me.

It may indeed be the case that, by investing the resources to get initiated into the elite, one will enjoy some of the "greats" that he/she didn't enjoy before. This raises the question, how important is this additional elite ability? If it really is the case that the experience of the masses have no relevance to the standards of the elite, then inevitably the standards of the elite have no benefit for the masses and therefore this additional elite ability isn't very important at all.

I have no problem with suggesting that the opinions of the "elites" may have no relevance and offer no tangible benefit for the masses. Didn't the greatest of the self-acknowledged "elites", Oscar Wilde, admit as much when he declared, "All art is quite useless." Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet. The reality is that the opinions of the 'elites" are the only ones that matter when one is speaking of the survival of a work of art. Every era has its great blockbusters. Almost every last one of them disappears over time as tastes change. The work that survives... that becomes "canonized" (if we wish to use that term) is that which continues to speak to an audience that is comprised of those for whom literature is important and worth the investment of time and effort: scholars, academics, historians, critics, later writers, and the "common readers"... those who simply love great books for the pleasure they bring and are willing to put forth the effort they sometimes demand. This group as a whole do not always agree on everything. In some instances certain portions of the "elite" have differing opinions than the rest. James Joyce, for example, is far more popular with critics, scholars, academics and other writers than he is with the "common reader"... while Poe and Dumas are far more popular with the "common reader" than with the critics and academics. What is common is the fact that the opinions of each is based upon effort and experience.

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

At one swipe I make no assumptions about a student's ability or potential... I merely make a judgment of the work at hand.

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Does it? Art would seem to be the result of both effort and aptitude (talent... natural ability... whatever you wish to call it). There are artists in all walks of life who can create marvelous works beyond the abilities of most... even beyond the abilities of many who have put forth the greatest degree of effort. Others achieve greatness as a result of sheer tenacity... continued effort and the refusal to give up.

Let's play.

In what way are the drawings of some six-year olds better than others?

Let's talk specifics. I can compare MacBeth to Harry Potter because I have specific works to compare/contrast various elements. If you wish for reasons why one student work is better than another you must provide the examples.