That must have some meaning. Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Printable View
That must have some meaning. Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
http://chzjustcapshunz.files.wordpre...-to-potato.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
Please, people, please. How much confusion can you take before you give up the con and achieve some fusion. Meaning can only occur in what interests you. Words are meaningless without your cooperation.
well the same can be said about about a book
should a book be taught for example?
I consider fiction as denouement of the mind and to teachit is to stick it with an institutional tagging that drags down the idea of writing to a boredom state of analogy without aim.
A book is an art piece and should left to the individual to make out of it what they wish.
teaching it is a right spoiler. That is what I think anyway.
The point of fiction is to textually experience things that we have not experienced in real life. You can feel the lust, pain, and guilt of an older man falling for an underage girl in Nabokov's Lolita, or you can be a Lolita in your mind feeling or textually experiencing how it is to be desired and lusted for by an older man. For teen readers, that's enough an experience. They don't have to go on dates with grandpas and retirees.
Is it better to just tell someone that eating lots of bacon cheeseburgers will cause a heart attack or to actually tell people the story of my uncle Joe who after a hard day's work sitting eight hours at his office desk would head to his local burger joint to pound five bacon cheeseburgers everyday -- and not satisfied with the traditional offerings he would augment the greasy monstrosity he would consume with a few slices of extra cheese and five additional strips of bacon. Unsurprisingly, he just dropped dead one day right in middle of taking a bite of one of those lovely cholesterol bombs, juice still dribbling down his cheek, his heart saturated with what he loved most in this world. My uncle was a kind fat man, a tragic Santa Klauss who always gave back to the grill-working pimpled teens of his community. They said his arteries were blocked worse than a California freeway at rush hour. Every burger I see, every fast food place, every rancid scent of fried potato brings back the specter of my uncle, reminds me of the clandestine death lurking within the tastiness of food.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
There is a reason that even nonfiction informative article writers will often include a personal story. Stories are convincing and add an emotional angle to a topic. The prolific nature of stories across cultures and civilizations suggests human beings have an ingrained need to hear and tell stories. It shouldn't be all that surprising that stories with their origin in myths extend beyond mere entertainment and become a mode of understanding our world. Myths transmit values of the culture and understandings of the nature of the world, whereas in later literature adds the function of critiquing and bringing forth problems of a particular society.
It doesn't take very long to work out his opinions. Besides, a lot of the enjoyment is in his beautiful prose and the entertaining stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
It's not simply a case of rich people not being happy- it's a case of people who have this god-like existence. They can't be happy in this world but they can't survive without it.
You seem to be reading fiction expecting to find the answers to life. Fiction won't do that- the answers to life are not facts you can look up. It would be like me thinking "Hmm, is there a God? Let's read the Bible and find out" and then being disappointed when somebody told me that there are many books that say that God does not exist.
I think the issue here is that you feel that you don't find the deep emotional layers/symbolism in fiction that other readers find. I'm not saying that it makes you unintelligent or that every piece of fiction is profound, but the more you read, the more you will pick up on things that aren't explicitly said but are implied.
Well, that's your problem then, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
Seeing as you're pursuing an MA in creative writing, I'm assuming you've lived an impeccable life, free of any downsides, therefore making your writings worthy to be read.
Honestly, seeing as you have such a low view of fiction and writers, I think you've chosen the wrong field to get an MA in.
It does seem a little strange...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
Despite some of the responses here being insightful and lovely, I unfortunately lack time to read all of them so I apologize if I repeat something that has already been said.
All literature reflects a philosophy/world-view/ideology. I personally prefer the type of literature that is aware of this fact and attempts to cohesively and coherently convey a philosophy.
As opposed to a philosophy manifesto, the writer of fiction has at his disposal a rich toolbox from which he can withdraw immense amounts of tools (albeit limited) that allow him to do several things:
1) saturate the world in the colors of his philosophy
2) have characters embodying the values of philosophies
3) through these characters, create dramatic situations that test the boundaries, extremities and limits of these philosophies and make an estimation for where they clash
This is perhaps why the Socratic dialogues are so profound - they make use of what has become fictional tools and their characters, through dialogue (communication), arrive at conclusions to which we are privy to and invested in.
At the heart of these 3 points (although there are certainly several more), is undeniably, but not regretfully - manipulation.
Manipulation, the word, has nasty associations but we should not strictly consider it as such. It is what allows us to virtually inhabit the fictional world (if it is successful in its endeavors) and better grasp it. However, we are freely thinking and critical beings that still reserve liberty to kindly reject all it has to offer - we do not have to be victims of propaganda.
Even "bad" literature does this because at its essence lies communication - truly a sacred thing and a human need.
Essentially, fiction is not so much different from our daily experiences - interweaving both truth and lies.
Fiction is just so much better.
I agree that it must be one of the genuine purposes: acquiring an ability for indirect thinking. Very fruitful!Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Trolling? Inane? Nu-uh: these are what's known as "genuine thoughts" - ie, inquiring into something rather than swallowing the party line. You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm only doing it to wind you up. I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That's an interesting point. I wonder if it's true? Whether it's "experience" or "imagination" that you're talking about. I'll have to have a think. Though I guess anything that saves 14-year-olds needing to go on dates with grandpas is probably a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
And yet, that's exactly what I've been saying - that real-life examples and non-fiction and all that kind of thing are useful in teaching and learning and inspiring and demonstrating the actual possibilities, and that fiction perhaps isn't. 'Cos in fiction Uncle Joe might not necessarily die, or could be superfit, or any other thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
1. Yes, but again that's not real "rich people", it's make-believe rich people from one guy's head, so what's the use in that? Surely you have to agree that it would be far more beneficial to gain an opinion on this topic from, say, a psychological study or a non-fiction analysis of a large number of "rich people"?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
2. That's true. Or rather, I was, but that has changed somewhere in the unfolding of this thread. See: BREAD MAKER.
3. That's nice that you're not saying I'm unintelligent. Thank you. I think I've read plenty and been through that stage of seeing deeply into fiction - and now I'm suggesting that there's a stage beyond that. Or are you suggesting that the stage you're talking about is the ultimate height?
1. I wouldn't necessarily say it was a problem: but I suppose it is the less conventional way of looking at things. I guess part of it stems from certain writers being trumpeted and heralded as geniuses when I just think, hm, you stick your head in an oven while your kids are in the room next door I don't much care how nicely you can string a sentence together, you flopped as a human being. It's a bit like some playwright I was exposed to recently - quick google reminds me it was Sarah Kane - wherein even after half a scene I was like, I bet this person killed themselves or at least was severely troubled. Et voila, I was right. To me, you show your professor or some friend some material the like of which she was producing and there should be no sense of people applauding you and encouraging you to publish or whatever, it should be like, hell's bells, you need some help, we're gonna do what we can for you, but you're a mess. And that's what I find weird about the society we live in: that people don't think, Christ, you're seriously whacked, someone needs to sit you down and try and sort you out, we put them on the stage and say, you're great, you're a genius, and then talk about tragedies when those people throw themselves out of windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
2. Regarding the MA, I'm mainly doing it because: a) I used to want to be a writer - for like a really long time - but now I'm mostly over it; and b) because I got all my fees paid for by the university and so it was kind of a no-brainer. Who wouldn't toss out half a dozen pieces of work and go back to glorious lazy student days for a couple of letters after their name?
I can dig that. I think it's a far cry from general dramatic fiction or whatever I suppose I mean when I say "fictional literature." Ya know, just stories. Variations on a theme. Something to fill the brain-time. Philosophy can bring newness. Until, I suppose, you've exhausted that too. I almost wouldn't even include philosophical writings in the area of fictional literature. It's like one guy's ideas dressed up in fictional characters - but it's not as though it would be such a stretch, or even produce such a different effect on the reader, if it were presented as pure philosophy. I'm thinking of the book "Ishmael" which has some very interesting ideas stuck into the mouth of a make-believe gorilla. But I'd still find the ideas just as interesting if the author lost the gorilla and said, "this is some stuff I've been thinking about." Same with Plato, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by the facade
Are you saying your actual life is not as good as reading fiction? That's sad. :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by the facade
Rubsley--
Is this for a thesis? A dissertation which questions the value of fictional literature before a lit panel would be a tough sell, but I'd have to admire the courage in it anyway.:lol:
I'm tempted to ask What is the point of your original question? Some stories, indeed, will have been motivated by the author's wish to make a point, often of a moral nature. The 'point' of many or most others is simply to tell an interesting story or to acquaint us with interesting characters and to bind us into a community.
If you experienced an incident which you later narrate to a friend of yours, what is the point of doing that?
Except you're agreeing that option # 2 is more convincing and I don't have an uncle Joe. It was just a fictionalized account. So bringing up the possibility that a fiction story could present Uncle Joe as not necessarily dying in the end or being super fit is just a different story, ultimately with a different message it is trying to convey. It's not just that fiction says things we already know, but precisely by the fact that it's fiction it helps us see those important issues in a new light by making the familiar unfamiliar. Plus there is also the advantage of it being a fun way of doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
Sure, I can read a nonfiction article about a particular topic to learn about it, but reading about a fictionalized character that I develop an emotional connection with struggling through a problem (related to the topic) is more convincing (because now I'm seeing the issues involved in said topic tested in a hypothetical fictional situation), I have an emotional connection (because I'm connected to the characters struggling through said problem), and it's an entertaining way to go about exploring the topic.
I think the bigger problem, though, is that there isn't one single thing that all literature necessarily does. Some literature provides wisdom, while other literature is an aesthetic experience, and yet other works are valued for both.
Well, they were based on actual people, so not entirely make-believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
Who wants to read a non-fiction analysis of a large number of "rich people"? You'd be trying to pass off as "truth" only the experience of a percentage of "rich people". Fiction admits that it is limited by the personal perspective; non-fiction doesn't admit it. Besides, the whole thing would be terribly dry.
3. That's nice that you're not saying I'm unintelligent. Thank you. I think I've read plenty and been through that stage of seeing deeply into fiction - and now I'm suggesting that there's a stage beyond that. Or are you suggesting that the stage you're talking about is the ultimate height?
No, you're not suggesting there's a stage beyond that. You're negating the validity of seeing deeply into fiction because you have impossible demands from it. By all means, you can focus on the philosophical elements the writer is conveying but these are not the "answers to life".
I understand your not being able to enjoy a piece of fiction if the writer is not somebody you would admire as a person, but their personal problems do not disqualify them from writing. If anything, it's interesting to hear from people. Nobody is going to read Sylvia Plath's poetry and think "Hmm, a role model for me! I'll just go stick my head in a gas oven", but they might appreciate the emotions in it and find a personal relevance there.
Nobody's saying that the writers were wonderful people. I doubt there are many writers that are a paragon of goodness. We don't praise them- we praise their work. And to be honest, who are you to be a moral judge? She and Sarah Kane both had serious depression, I believe, and despite all the factual information we can read about their lives, we don't really have any idea what it was like to live that life. If you have had serious depression, I apologise in advance, but the same thing applies to pretty much anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
How do we know people didn't? You are right in asking whether there is a desire to push already fragile people to create more art and thereby prolonging their pain so we can benefit from their work. That is a reasonable question to ask, rather than throwing out moral judgements.Quote:
And that's what I find weird about the society we live in: that people don't think, Christ, you're seriously whacked, someone needs to sit you down and try and sort you out, we put them on the stage and say, you're great, you're a genius, and then talk about tragedies when those people throw themselves out of windows.
Very few people's lives are as interesting as fiction, and if they were, they would probably end up being unsatisfying anyway. It's only sad if somebody sees their life as unliveable because it is not as exciting as fiction.Quote:
Are you saying your actual life is not as good as reading fiction? That's sad. :-(
This is perhaps the "point" of fiction.
For the most part the point of reading fiction is to experience life from a different perspective or even a different world entirely, wheras the point of writing it could be an innate desire for control of an invented world or a wish to explore and explain a worldview in a fictional, or semi-fictional setting. Geore Orwell and Philip K. Dick are obvious examples of the latter of these, even though Dick's references are occasionally rather too obscure and eccentric to be understood by mere mortals.
I like vegetables.
Well, if anything, literature has trained my brain not to consider joyless, death-obsessed fanatics like Jesus and Buddha enlightened, so I guess it was useful for something.
But certainly not as death-obsessed as Plath, Dickinson or Poe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
To start with, I can't really agree with the idea that we have to look for a "point" to everything.
What's the point of fiction? In the same you can ask what's the point of life? It could be merely to propagate our species, It could have no meaning at all or it could be countless other things we haven't worked out yet. But really what's the point in asking, all we can do is try to get along as healthily and as happily as we can.
Aside from the question of whether it's even worth asking, i think there are countless "points" to fiction.
It can have whatever meaning you ascribe to it; it could be a comfort and an escape, a means of learning about lives other than your own, a warning of what might happen, an interpretation of what already has, an experiment to see how things would play out in a world drastically different from our own, or just one of the tools we use to pass our time as happily as possible.
There seems to be one major thing you judge very differently from myself that could be a cause of our differing opinions. You see a great distinction between fiction and non-fiction. That you can only learn from something that is definitely true, and lessons learnt from something made up are meaningless. What are thoughts and ideas if they are not something we have made up and created? Are you saying you can't learn from anything anyone says unless it is first written down in a so called "non-fiction" book?
Now, there is a certain class of fiction which is just the same old story churned out to match certain criteria and to sell copies - I can see no point in this type of fiction other than as an escape and distraction from the world, or a means to temporary entertainment.
But, the majority of fiction can hold a lot more than that. Fiction can be just the same as a conversation you would have with a real life person, except in fiction their thoughts and ideas are often entwined with metaphor and imagery and have been written down so as to reach a wider audience. They also might present opinions contrary to their own in such a way as to highlight the fallacy in them.
There are endless lessons to learn from these works of fiction, it is a medium unconstrained by the speed of response needed in a conversation, and by the limited amount of stories and characters available to "non-fiction".
You seem to admit the possibility of learning from "non-fiction" but why should any of this be more true? People have always exaggerated to make themselves look better, plugged the gaps in their memories with stories overheard from others. And Science books - no true scientist would claim his work was "true", it is only ever the current best guess, instantly overturnable when a better theory turns up or more evidence comes to light.
I don't see such a clear boundary between fiction and non-fiction as you seem to base your argument on.
Now, i strongly disagree when you try to claim any work from these troubled people is worthless. Just because someone takes drugs or eventually kills themselves, it doesn't make their opinions or their art any less valuable. I do agree however, that we should try to help them before we start hailing them. The trouble is, that often the people with the best imaginations, the people most open to the world, with the most to give to it, are also those who have let down their defences and are most vulnerable to it. Their art makes them vulnerable to the world, and often curing them means removing their art.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
I've seen this idea reflected in many of the greatest authors, artists and poets, but a recent interview with the musician Pete Doherty sums it up pretty well. I don't know if you know about him, but he is an English musician and poet who has struggled against drug addiction and been thoroughly villanised by the press as a consequence. He makes it clear the only way he thinks he can give up his troubles and addictions is by giving up his talent and ceasing to write:
"All the songs I write deal with sadness, emptiness and disillusionment. Now, I seek happiness, but I do not want to sing. I want to live. If I stay in music, I just want to play guitar in a band. I hate the pressure, the stress of being at the forefront, in the spotlight. I give a small drop of my blood in this life night after night and I kill myself with it, I cannot go on like this forever, I'm trying to kill myself, I feel it. It killed my friend Amy Winehouse, she turned a tremendous weapon against herself. I certainly have a smaller calibre weapon, but I still have to stop. People want everything from me, they want me to be the essence of my songs. But it is a self-destructive essence. "
There may be countless troubled people such as you have described who have been helped in time to save them, potential Hemingways who have slunk away into office jobs. And anyway, if you assign so much of an arts worth to the artists lifestyle, how do you know you are not mistaken? From your comments about Jesus, I assume you hold the New Testament highly, but would this opinion change if it came to light Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were raging alcoholics?
It's not that I agree with every word you wrote here (which I do!) And it's not that it's so lucidly expressed (which it is!). It is, I believe, the general tone of civility in your response. Unlike some, you don't appear to need to win the argument at any cost. Bravo!Quote:
Originally Posted by First thoughts
Oh no, these three don't come close to the grand morbity of Jesus and Buddha's philosophies. Being humans who accepted their humanity, their exploration of death is a mere product of their own mortality. Jesus and Buddha were men who put death on the center of their way of life, an impossible, superhuman level of perfection and purity imposed on ordinary men to render their lives stunted and incomplete by depriving them of the simple pleasures of life, and punishing them with fantasies of horrors if they failed to attain said perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic
I'll take a melancholy drunk in Poe's work to a saint eating roots in the desert. I know which one is more human.
Hi!
Congratulations for having reached to this point in life that you feel like this. I agree that written word is a total nonsense. Everywhere. It is a stage and it is a performance which intends to make you think that there is no stage and it is reality - a reality different from your own reality.
The other day I was reading this introductory book on literature. The author, a professor of English literature somewhere in England, mentions reasons why to read literature and all of them were at best outdated and at worst pure nonsense.
Having said all this, I now ask you to bring your attention to all the fictions that you have been told and you still believe in. Jesus is one. Democracy is another. Education is third. Of course they have not not been told to you as systematically as a work of fiction tells the story. You believe that it is real because it works out well for so many people, however, in fact it works because people hopelessly follow these things; if you will look deeper you will see that all these things have as many flaws as they have triumphs, they make people suffer as much as they help people in their lives. You might want to argue that economic survival is served by these things. But what is the meaning of this survival if everyone has to die in the end? Then you might say family and procreation and continuation of the species and I will say nothing good has come to this world without the creation of an equal bad.
You will find it difficult to see my point here and honestly this is not even MY point. Read Roland Barthes and you will understand what I am talking about here. For the time being, till the completion of my argument, you can assume what I am saying is true.
Some people are gifted to see through all the imposed meanings till the very source of human suffering. The imposed meanings of what and how things are, are often the source of great suffering. The entire feminist argument is based on this.
If you can see beyond everything you are taught, you will see that a human being always tries to find meaning, it is something deeply rooted within us. Your attempt to find a point of literature also looks like an effort in the same direction. But the world is absurd and it provides no meaning. None is possible whatsoever unless you strive to create it yourself or you deceive yourself to believe something because it is convenient.
meaning is one of the greatest enigmas of human existence that ordinary people so easily take granted for. They find meaning in every ridiculous thing - the discoveries of science and technologies, public struggles thousands of miles away from where one lives and so on and so forth. An artist tries to find it in all life around. Existentialists believe that no meaning exists (I am an existentialist myself). Yet they explore the dimensions of existence in their entirety.
You will agree that there is a lot of preaching in the world today. Even Christ, Buddha and Mother Teresa had their doubts but today everyone seems to know everything. In such times, literature provides the questions, the doubts, the doubts that matter. Barthes once said - Literature is question minus the answer. Do not theorize this because it is also on the reader to see the doubts rising within as one reads. Why writers write is a personal question to the writer and will have answers different for every writer. Literature can provide questions within a person if the person is open to questioning the world.
Till now you have always looked for a moral of the story, what is the message of the story. You have always reduced a writer, an artist to a moralizer. Oscar Wilde has aptly said - "No artist has ethical sympathies. Ethical sympathies in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style."
Stop looking for morality lessons of how you should be from either life or literature; only then you are living, only then you are a person of your own making.
Do you feel like questioning your own existence? Read the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. It might be a difficult thing to read. But try it.
A man who decides that his life is over is a far more substantial person than one who waits for death and disease to decide his fate. An even more substantial one would be one who would not care about his death. That is how most good authors live (I am not making this a rule). One fine day if they take their life, what is the big deal about it?
futility of attempts to find meaning is one of the central themes of existential writings. Have you not read any of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHeart
When I first read your initial post, I was appalled too like many others here. But then I realized that you are articulating things so well. A person who actually believes what you have written would never write this.
So there was enigma in your writing. I am happy and proud that I could see it. But there is a lot that is right in front of your eye and you are not seeing it.
Your happy life has become meaningless while you tried and even enjoyed extracting meaning from everything you could read. I envy you for all that you probably have read. I am way behind you in reading. I am a person of technical education. Back in my concluding years of my education I blamed my education too. The flaws in technical education were easier to see, I suppose, than those in literary education.
Your crisis is having too much meaning in your life. Under so much meaning, your existence is highly burdened. I am sure a lot of people look at you with utmost positive regard. While I am not telling you to destroy that, I ask you to challenge it. Whoever thinks positively of you, ask them for what they truthfully think of you and you will find an answer that does not match what your own experience of yourself is.
This should bother you. More than anything else. It is all these perceptions about you to which you cater to all the time that have taken you away from having any pleasures of your own - one of the reasons why you do not enjoy literature.
That voice, that self within you that has come out so eloquently in this post is otherwise suppressed in your happy life. Now I am not preaching you anything. I am just asking you to embrace the crisis that your life is. Throw it out on people. Ask people in your life about things that do not make any sense to you, things that baffle you. You need to pay more attention to your life than to literature and books and even writing and your theories. The way you had the courage (or stupidity) to ask this question on a literature forum, you need the same in your life.
Life has no meaning although this is not your present experience. You live for a lot of things even if they do not make much sense to you. If you will move your life a little bit closer to the edge, a place from where the edge is visible, you will see how everything, including literature will come to life. Even your creative writing will spring to life. People might end up calling YOU a crackpot and to your surprise you may like it too. I did.
It has been fascinating reading this thread that exists because of your creative effort. One advice - Read Roland Barthes. His writings are beyond the realm of meaning. With your experience, you will be able to understand him.
Now I will read this thread beyond your second reply. :P
I'm not sure how one comes upon the idea that writers are flops as human beings. I wouldn't be confident enough to say that about any human being. Maybe a remorseless murderer. A flop as a human being? Those writers were loved by worthwhile people, so the writers weren't flops to them. That word flop! It's something I don't ascribe to, writers or otherwise.
Another part of your idea appears to me to relate to how factual writing is more truthful than fictional. Any writing that attempts to be more than a very, very basic report of simple occurences involves personally-charged judgements - that's a perspective, and there is no difference with how that is employed between a writer of history or a writer of fiction. If there's one thing the literature that's out there shows, it's that the more talented minds, when it comes to writing, veer towards fictional writing, since the majority of eloquent writing is fiction or poetry. It seems to let the imagination go at life more freely, which seems to let more truth in, compared to more tightly-reined, less imaginative writing that adheres less to insight and more to the basic reporting.
Fiction is well worth reading: it gives pleasure and gives lots of other extremely plausible, reliable viewpoints on life. It doesn't require analysis to see the rich, elegant perspectives offered have their golden grains of truth. The writing with something original to say rises to the top and is intelligently appreciated.
Beautifully written fiction and poetry that only the talented, insightful few can write, doesn't need any defending. The beauty of the things are their own defence. This whole argument, I don't know if there's any water at the bottom of this particular well.
I guess you are trying to find out what meaning You can give to Your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
Can you tell me one person who succeeded in figuring out the basics of living a happy human life? On the same point, why don't you give it a shot considering that you believe such a thing as "basics of living a happy human life" exists?Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
There lies your very own personal fear of death.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
I have never read a book by Hemingway, Joyce, Woolf or Plath that said or even hinted that they were purveying wisdom. On the other hand, consider everything that has been preached to you through books (or otherwise) under this Oscar Wilde's quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
A moralizing man is a hypocrite, a moralizing woman is plain.
Religion was not been established by its founders to moralize man into happy living. Those who ruled the houses of religion after the passing of the prophets used religion to establish power (that was the point of religion and it is largely the point of religion even today). Religion was meant to liberate. Everyone who thinks of a larger social order without actually contributing to it in a very visible way is a hypocrite deceiving himself.
You have to look for your own wisdom (I don't believe such a thing exists though and I think you will agree), your own way and that in a dashing style and not in dull mundane abstract rules.
By the way, I have utmost regards for all the four writers you mentioned above. They had beautiful experiences and I am grateful that they looked for words to express them. I place that hard work above any conquests by the Napoleons and Genghis Khans of this world.
It's a pity indeed that your words always lag behind your impulses. Have you ever considered this to be an outcome of your over-analytic habits?Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
I doubt if you can put this much hard work. But if you can manage to do that I assure you that you will not need this discussion thread at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
After a certain age everything every man does on earth is to distract himself from from the certainty of his death. Your frustration stems from the beautiful completeness of your distraction away from your own eventual demise.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
Why should one do that? To prove something that solely exists in your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
How did you come to the conclusion that they do not have life? From your own lack of understanding of their work?Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
It must have felt really nice getting to vent your frustration like this! But be a little aware of what you are talking man! You criticized the purpose of reading literature, you criticized Nobel Prize winners, then you go on to criticize cultural critics.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubsley
I am curious why do you care so much about literature and all this? Why did you read critical literary theory? What made you pick that up while you so clearly hate literature? And ultimately what made you write that long initial post on this thread? I am sure it is more than a Creative Writing MA submission.
Dark Desire, if you think it's more than a creative writing submission, you should say what you think it is, otherwise you leave the reader hanging for no reason. If you don't say it because you've no clear idea yourself or you think the idea you have is paranoid, then why mention your suspicion in the first place, as to why the thread-starter made the initial long post?
Declan,
The idea is that Rubsley is confused and he has more on his mind than he is saying. I am provoking him to come up with something deeper inside him instead of his superficial judgments and arguments. I think there is more to him than these 60 something posts express. If I write what I think, that will undo the intent of my post. Wait till he responds.
We're all confused and have more on all our minds than we say. I liked your intial response to him, when you said he couldn't have written that thread in that way if he really believed what he was saying, as there is an aspect of thoughtfulness and logical clarity to his expression. That's a good point; you really pointed out the strength of his writing.
.....
.....
I agree. It is delusional to think that non-fiction is more truthful than fiction simply because it purports to be so. Writers of fiction are ironically more truthful because they believe that they are pretending. The comfort in being able to deny the truth of their work allows them to write more truthfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan
I've been quiet: s'only because I haven't been online much. Will continue and correspond soon.
Cheers! :-)