Hehe.Quote:
Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet.
Printable View
Hehe.Quote:
Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet.
What a surprisingly divisive subject!
Isn't this simply an appeal to popularity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
On that basis - universal appeal - J K Rowling would rate more highly than most authors. Harry Potter appeals to kids, teens and adults.
If you mean "universal appeal amongst people with preconceptions about what constitutes literature", then it doesn't have the same weight, in my view.
Why would you pity me? Because my aesthetic tastes differ from yours? Can't be that, because you have no idea what my tastes are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Disappointing.
Still, I think we're making progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Now, your requirement for literary greatness is the amount of passion a writer uses?
I don't think that's going to work for you either.
Are you able to give a more specific rationale as to why a particular work - of your choice - is more important to humankind than a workshop manual for my 1963 Volswagen?
Just a note; personally, I think Harry Potter is drivel. But I still cannot say with any kind of certainty that it is intrinsically worth less than any other book.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
Look, I'd be the first to agree that some books are better than others, and I've said as much throughout. The only difference between us is that I don't believe my opinion has any more validity than the dummies who write at Yahoo that Harry Potter is the greatest work ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that, but I've read works of supposed literary genius I've used to light fires with while I've also found gems amongst the remainders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I certainly don't have any pretensions to reading only "good" books.
Ok, then can you please try to articulate that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
You've started to get a bit circular in your argument, making the same assertion, and failing to use sports analogies to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
I ask you also to please be specific about why one book is more valuable than another.
Goodo, that's a good starting point. Use W&P as the example to show its inherent value. What message does W&P give us that cannot be obtained from another medium?Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Well, that's what I've been saying...Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Unfortunately, even among elitists, there is little consensus, aside from a very few works.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Yep, that's why people write books.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Orwell's essay, Why I Write is a great example of it. Orwell was 100% certain that the whole point of his writing was to be read.
As to transfer of emotion, surely the examples of Yahoos and Harry Potter give the lie to that being a requirement. Potter has touched people's lives and changed them.
Well, we don;t have much to argue about!Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
:D
Ah, this is important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?
No.
Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.
I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.
But people do!Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
And if they feel it has the qualities of greatness, as above, that they were moved and inspired by the story, then they're right.
That's fine, but maybe you'd like to have a shot at describing what does constitute a great work of literary art?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Great post stlukes. :thumbs_up I especially like:
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 filed. 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.
Hell that is part me, I struggle to put decent beer upon the table, (I somehow manage) but I consider myself a rich man due to the art or literature I enjoy and have devoted myself to study, in rejection of the capitalist "go-getter thing." Good stuff, good night. :)
Failing to use sport analogy? I'm sorry but you haven't shown that my analogy was bad, you simply claimed it was bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Well you seem to have a hard time figuring the notion of value or worth as we use. We are not talking of money, we are not talking of technology. We are talking about art, some, you might say abstract notion. Well yes.Quote:
I ask you also to please be specific about why one book is more valuable than another.
Where are we talking of message? Message is one thing, but you don't seemto understand the notion of aesthetic. Why do you read books, only for their message? Why would I be interested in visual art, say, painting, when all that is "useful" (according to your notion of useful) can be gotten out of photography?Quote:
Goodo, that's a good starting point. Use W&P as the example to show its inherent value. What message does W&P give us that cannot be obtained from another medium?
Also, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you drop this little fathering tone and all that rhetoric.
This is rhetoric again, if it was so, there would be no factual arguments. You've read 1984 too much.Quote:
Ah, this is important.
That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?
No.
Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.
I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.
Let me use your rhetoric again: You read George Orwell only because you were told it was good, you don't honestly like him.
I'm sorry, I must have misread your earlier post. I thought you were claiming that the opinions of the elite were better than the opinions of others, and that you were using your analogy with doctors and electricians to support that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I reread my post, and I realize it is pretty unclear what the point was that I was trying to make. My point is not that I think the elite is, in fact, completely irrelevant. What I was trying to say is that if it were the case that the judgment of the masses has no correlation with the judgment of the elite, then there is no reason for the masses to consider the opinions of the elite better than their own. As you state, that is not the case. Thus, I would argue, the popularity of a piece of literature is important.
One part of your post that is still unclear to me is your inclusion of "common readers" in your definition of elite. At first, I read that as a fudge factor to account for readers that essentially follow the judgment of the professors (for example), except they don't happen to have an advanced degree in literature. Now, it sounds like you are just referring to people who enjoy reading. But these are the same people who have high opinions of popular books, so their inclusion seems to undermine your point that popularity is completely irrelevant.
SLG (quote)- 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.
The question, with regard to literature, isn't what is better or worse for you. If you cannot grasp the language of Chaucer or Shakespeare they are obviously not good for you (at that given moment). What we are discussing is whether some literary works are better than others. My guess is that even your idealized "masses" would have no problem with answering that question in the positive. Anyone of us who has made any attempt at virtually anything realizes that there are times when we are on our game... and times when we are not. If all is but relative why make any attempt even as an individual at improvement. The slightest scribble of the rank beginner, after all, is no less than the greatest masterwork. All is relative... it is but thinking that makes it so. By the way... does that work in sports as well?
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.
Ah!! There we have it!! The sound of the elitist. Because of your experience in a given field you would suggest that you are better equipped to offer judgment. Is that not what an elitist in literature... art... music suggests?
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.
Does the scoreboard tell all? How often have I heard sports fans arguing the merits of two athletes: Micheal Jordan vs Larry Bird vs LeBron James... Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds. I would assume that some opinions hold more weight than others based upon knowledge and experience. Admittedly art is more subjective than some other disciplines, but the reality is that opinions based upon experience and knowledge are what hold the most weight in nearly any field.
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.
You may disagree with it... but it is a fact. The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends. The opinion of the persons who have invested a great deal of their time in understanding art or literature simply holds far more weight in discussion of those topics than the opinions of others. Certainly, they do not always agree... and certainly there are times when their opinions prove wrong (hell... even doctors were sometimes wrong!!:eek:) but the fact that an educated opinion is still subjective to a degree does not make it equal to worth to every last uniformed opinion.
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.
Again... to do so demands specifics. Without such I can easily turn the question upon you: you suggest that all works of art are of equal merit... then prove it.
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.
The ability to create art and the ability to judge art are in no means one and the same. Even if they were, I have never suggested that what we call "elites" (which includes artists as well) is limited to persons of a single class or a single academic walk in life. That is always the tired argument of those who would attempt to undermine aesthetic values... usually a rather sophomoric act put on by those who are themselves just as much a part of the "elites" as the "old guard" in an attempt to make themselves seem more down with the folk... Elitism, as we have been discussing it, is an elective affinity... a choice. It has nothing to do with whether one is an academic or a plumber.
Greatness is achieved through hard work, not talent. He who works hardest is best. Very Boxer-like in the end.
Sometimes... sometimes not. The opinion of the person who has put forth a great deal of effort in a given field is commonly going to bear far more weight than that which is uniformed and inexperienced.
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."
I fully agree. The opinions of those with the greatest experience are still subjective. Perhaps the way around this is to recognize that personal preferences are not the same as facts. To declare that James Joyce sucks, or that Harry Potter is greater than Joyce is a statement of fact. Personally, I have struggled to appreciate Joyce (although I greatly admired parts of Ulysses). I far prefer Kafka, Borges, Proust, Calvino, and many others, but I recognize that the fact that I prefer Calvino to Joyce is not enough to declare him to be the greater writer.
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.
Again... I don't think this needs to be true. I love Wagner and Puccini and still listen to the Louvin Brothers and Johnny Cash. There are many works, however, that do become unpalatable as one gains experience.
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...
Are you certain of that? Is there a requirement for joining LitNet that one have read a certain amount of "classics"? I have gotten the opinion that there is a wide range of literary experience here.
...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.
Noted. It becomes irritating when we are repeatedly confronted with declarations of the literary brilliance of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Steven King, etc... and I usually try to avoid such threads. When such declarations escalate into statements about how boring all those big words and descriptive passages are in Tolstoy or Dickens... or nonsense about how the "classics" have become irrelevant because they don't speak to us here and now... as if we read solely to reinforce our own perceptions and our own prejudices rather than to open ourselves up to other possibilities... other experiences... other cultures... then I end up getting drawn into the fray... although I should know better.:D
Meh, this elitist titling is rather pointless. I like good literature, and don't like much of what is popular. I am not an elitist for not liking mediocrity, I am a humanist, and try to encourage other people to like the same. My goal, as a would-be-critic is to shed light upon, and perhaps the odd time, value works. I am not valuing works based on how small their readership is - I would like everyone who hasn't to read, for instance, Alice Munro.
And Again, what's with the appeal to the classics. It always seems to flip back to them - why can't we discuss contemporary literature - can someone perhaps be an enthusiast with a fine taste for that? Aesthetic reading isn't "reading the classics."
Never trust anyone who only reads classics (I think I'm paraphrasing on Eco). They can't be held to have a strong opinion on literature, since theirs is based primarily on other scholars.
JBI... I like the term "humanist". Of course "elitist" is used by me somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps not unlike many of the artists who proudly wore the term of the various "isms" that were thrown at them in a derogatory manner, I have embraced the notion of an "elitist" as accepting the fact that some achievements are better than others... that there are standards... and rejecting the sort of anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires intellect, or expects high standards... not unlike certain politicians.
Stlukes, I am only going to comment on two of your responses to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I was mostly referring to the people participating in this conversation who seem to be taking the "other side" and I hesitate to use that term because I don't think this is really an argument with clear-cut sides necessarily.
I think this nails it. With all the forums I've posted on, especially fantasy forums which tend to have "a literature/academia is keeping us down complex" that can more than one up LitNet's "Harry Potter complex" as Jozanny put it, I can't tell you how many times I have had this argument. Probably hundreds, and I'm really not exaggerating. Plus I've done this one from both angles. On the fantasy boards, I would sometimes defend the values of Great Literature in comparison to fantasy to those deriding the Tolstoys and Dickens of the world. These conversations get old really quickly, and they usually end up being fairly circular.Quote:
Noted. It becomes irritating when we are repeatedly confronted with declarations of the literary brilliance of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Steven King, etc... and I usually try to avoid such threads. When such declarations escalate into statements about how boring all those big words and descriptive passages are in Tolstoy or Dickens... or nonsense about how the "classics" have become irrelevant because they don't speak to us here and now... as if we read solely to reinforce our own perceptions and our own prejudices rather than to open ourselves up to other possibilities... other experiences... other cultures... then I end up getting drawn into the fray... although I should know better.:D
I personally do think Potter has some literary value, that there are interesting themes going on dealing with racism, academic freedom, the importance of friendship, and the primacy of choices in moral development, that the way she refurbishes and recombines old motifs of various world mythologies is actually rather sophisticated, and that her world is in fact magical so to speak with the proper amount of strangeness and wonder, while still maintaining a familiarity that allows her themes to have real world relevancy. Not to mention she provides us with characters we can care about and readers relate to.
As they say in internet lingo you're milage may vary; I realize from the bagillion threads before this one a lot of people don't agree with my assessment, which is perfectly fine by me. I am not saying you have to love Potter, I'm not saying you or anyone else need consider the books worthy of literary analysis, and I am certainly NOT saying the books are anywhere near the level of Shakespeare or Dante, but for me I do think there is more going on beneath the surface of those novels that increased my enjoyment of them. Because as I pointed out again and again, the first and only real purpose of reading literature is for entertainment. Though, of course, my definition (or I should probably say Michael Chabon's definition) is fairly broad.
Meh, people just need to start more text-analysis threads, rather than the continuous context-driven threads. We tried to, of course, start one on the Poetry board, but for the most part, the discussion is rather minimal (as few people really joined in, and quite frankly, even I didn't join in as much as I would have hoped to).
Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.
Quite frankly, if someone really wants to discuss Potter, or any such author, they should start a thread about the books themselves, and go from there. But of course, that doesn't seem to happen. All we get is comments on the sales of books, the popularity of books, or the concept of reading in general. Or the value of the author (which of course, I know I contribute to as well)
Oh wow, I'm starting to sound like a New Critic, I better slow down.
There is a difference of accepting the existense of a Canon and defining exactly what a Canon may be. Some people seems to attack the mere existense of such canon, as attacking tradition or some authority. Harold Bloom list (for example) is not the Canon , it is his list. I disagree with some options because I reckon for example that Bloom knowledge of english literature is far superior of his knowledge of south american literature. He is human, not good, as anyone will disagree if I create such list (I avoid lists anyways). But that does not invalidad the existence of such canon. That is like denying the immortality of Homer after so many years (We can tell objectivelly that Homer is part of the canon by his permanence) or how much influential Shakespeare is (much more than Alexander Pope, for example). Those things are objetive.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Plus, I found the attack on elites very funny. Those people when sick go after a crap doctor or they trust in the best possible doctor? Those people think Michael Jordan, arrogant as he may be, does not belong to elite for his own merits. Agreeing or not with Bloom, dont they think 40 or more years of study, a capacity to recite Proust from memmory, etc does not place him a elite for his own merit? It is necessary more than attacks on elitism to dismiss the guy, because frankly,in 100 we are going to be dead and Shakespeare not.
The problem with Bloom though, is the quality of work he has come up with has taken a beating over the years - he spends more time yelling at the "resenters" than he does talking about literature. As for the Bloom of The Visionary Company, or The Anxiety of Influence, I will admit he was groundbreaking, but the Bloom of How To Read and Why doesn't quite compare, in terms of the quality of the text. Of course, his focus is different now - he wants to sell more copies by reaching a wider audience - hence the list at the back of the Western Canon, which was more a sales gimmick than something meant to be taken seriously, and the catalogue books he is fond of writing now, yet he fails in the sense that he has let his scholarship slide.
The canon cannot be written down, because it isn't one list - it is a regional list, changing from university to university, from person to person. We merely can track similarities in lists, for instance, seeing that Don Quixote, Shakespeare, and Dante seem to be on all of the "literary canon" lists, amongst others. Yet the notion of the Western Canon is quite dated; it's only a matter of time before someone (or many people, as seems likely) tries to piece a world canon, taking from all over the world.
I understand where you're coming from A. We've (on lit net) had this discussion many times. There is some sort of balance that I try to achieve in these arguments. I agree that all works of creativity have merit and are significant to someone and that is their right and their pleasure. If it gives someone pleasure than the work has merit. That said, it is within the right of some readers, call them critics, who have come together and reached some conclusions as to what is exceptional art. Now they can be wrong and there can be differring and contrarian opinions. But I do think over time (say a century or so) that some literature (and this can apply to all forms of art) can be established to be superior, or if superior is the wrong word, of noteworthy and sustaining merit. That does not take away the achivement and pleasure of works that do not over time reach this status. I cringe at elitism too.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
That said, I have not read through this entire thread. So if I've covered topics that have already been discussed, I apologise.
JBI, I happen to agree with you here, but the problem, especially in a forum like this which claims over 50k posters of various skills and education, is the logistics. For example, Hayley started a thread on a particular Doris Lessing text.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I love Lessing, but have not read what Hayley wants to discuss, and think I am the only one who even bothered a reply, so I don't know how one coordinates it, and for me personally, it is too difficult for me to go chasing books I don't own just to participate.
This is unavoidable. The fact that I have not read Lessing, as of yet, is a weakness in me and not in Lessing, or the thread. This is mostly true of contemporary writers, who - although fantastic - simply cannot expect such a wide readership as the classics. A thread focusing on Milton would generate more responses because generally more people have read Milton than Lessing - this not being a comparison of the two but a statement of the fact that Lessing has not been around as long as Milton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
the fact that you are trying to classify literature using "genre" is a big mistake. in the case of poetry it may be possible (with fixed form poetry). we can call "the sonnet" a genre, although it is a forced taxonomy. but, in the case of prose, this cannot be done. all we can do is to classify prose according to themes (or in french "motifs"). let's take for example bulgakov's "the master and margarita". It is a horror story (satan himself is a character in it?? It is a sci-fi story (margarita uses a broom for flying)? cortázar' short stories where can be placed according to "genre"? or j.l. borges?
I've told you several times why they are bad analogies - sports keep results and it's obvious that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter who's ever lived. No argument there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
No, I don't have any problem with the notion - it's the why a work is considered to have literary value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Even after 100 posts, we haven't got closer than "Because I/a consensus says so".
Please go ahead and get closer to your point if you're able.
Ah, but you've nade a supposition that anyone ever told me he was good. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. I fell in love reading Animal Farm long before anyone ever suggested it as a good read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Nope. A n00b will lose every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
This brings us right back to the training and competency argument. You seem to now be agreeing that training and study makes a great author, just as training and practice makes a great athlete.
I dunno how many times I can say this: sports results are not subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Nope. Everyone has a different opinion - aside from who the greatest sportsman ever was - and nobody tries to suggest their opinion is anything more than that. There are elite sportspeople who become elite by proving they are the best, but there is no elitism in sports commentators. As soon as sport discussions enter the equivalent of an aesthetic argument - who was a better boxer, Ali or Louis? - the authority disappears and it become subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
No it is not, something which is evinced by your failure to provide anything other than failed analogies. Here's another:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Which is a return, yet again, to an argument that training maketh the artist/writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That's fine, but I will remind you of Orwell and Steven King. One has immense training, the other had none, yet I'd take a large bet you consider Orwell part of literary heritage and King pulp fiction.
Admitting defeat already?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I avoid this argument like the plague. On this basis, the world's expert on telepathy would be Dean Radin.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
A tip: he isn't.
But still unable to quantify that literary greatness you've vehemently insisted exists?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Write away; I really would like to hear a coherent argument as to why you're right, but at this stage, all I see from the defenders of literature that "My opinion is right."
I know this is a bit random, but there's this popular crime novel I need to vent about. Harry Potter will look like Nobel Prize material in comparison to this kind of writing.
The book I mean is a German one by a woman called Charlotte Link.
The story/ plot is as follows
plot 1
a well-educated professional
middle class
woman is cheated on by
her husband and they separate
plot 2
one/ more woman/women
is/ are murdered.
(forgot how many)
oi confusion, who can be
the murderer?
..
...
...
plot 1
the middle-aged middleclass woman goes on holidays in Italy.
there she meets the black-haired,
green-eyed, well-built, oh so charming
dreamlover and they have a good time doing
clichéd things like having dinners and phenomenal orgasms.
(Ok, I admit I'M not sure I remember that last bit correctly ;) )
then they go to live in Switzerland or some place and the dream lover
gets nasty.
The woman leaves him but he returns to murder her because he is a psychopath/ rapist/ whatever.
There are some gruesome scenes about either the woman/ the dream lovers other ex girlfriend being nearly slaughtered by him (I think it wasn't even the woman herself but another girl). But then she isn't killed and the guy kills himself and the woman goes home (not to her cheating husband, though).
oh, I forgot, the title of the novel is "The Admirer". hum? who on earth can be the murderer? is there an admirer in this book? surely she doesn't mean the black-haired, green-eyed, well-built pseudo-Italian dream-lover? *gasp*
leaving aside the question of what anyone can learn from this book (NOTHING, imho), what I fail to see is how anyone can be entertained by this?????
Seriously, I hardly ever read crime, but I knew that the dream lover was the murderer as soon as he started behaving funny, maybe even earlier, seeing as we need a male character to be the murderer of those girls in the other plot and he is neatly introduced and there are no other male main characters at this stage. I will not go down the "which-well-educated- professional-woman-would-be-daft-enough-to-trust-the-.....dreamlover"-road.
The language was fluent but nothing special. Just the normal everyday language you'd expect from a book like this.
This book was a bestseller and people from all backgrounds read it. Even one of my professors (physical geography) exclaimed about how rivetting this book was. ?????
So, what I don't understand about this kind of bestseller is how anyone with a brain bigger than an amoeba's [do they have brains?] can be entertained by such predictable, clichéd drivel?
Yep, there's that subjective opinion again.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
No, amoebae don't have brains, but then, neither do some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I could think of several published authors who fit the same scenario, but I don't accept that because I think they're drivel that that means anyone else can't think they're brilliant.
Let me try again to point out why this analogy is flawed, since I don't think I was very clear in my last attempt. In both traditions -- physics and medicine -- there is a way to evaluate the validity of the tradition's tenets that is independent of the tradition itself. Another way to put it is that there is an ultimate purpose that "good" physics serves that non-physicists can understand, and non-physicists can evaluate whether or not the physicists are fulfilling this ultimate purpose. Namely, the physicists' theories enable engineers to do things like make more destructive bombs and image brain tumors. The same goes for medicine -- one does not need medical training to evaluate whether or not doctors are successfully treating patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
However, there is no clear "ultimate purpose" of literature. The closest thing that comes to an "ultimate purpose" of literature is whether or not people enjoy it. While polling random people is not likely to be a good method of determining how to build a nuclear bomb, it is likely to give an idea of whether or not people enjoy a given work of literature.
I think, if you want to compare specialists in literature to specialists in another field, it would be better to compare them to specialists in the field of some religion. The main features that you built the comparison on are still applicable -- pastors and theologians (to use the titles of specialists in Christianity) spend a great deal of effort and time studying morality. Like specialists in literature, they expect non-specialists to regard their (the pastors' and theologians') opinions on morality as better than the opinion of a random person. Like literature, it is not very clear what the "ultimate purpose" of the tradition is, and indeed, it seems to engender some of the same sorts of arguments as we see here regarding what makes "good" literature.
Athiest:
That's fine, but maybe you'd like to have a shot at describing what does constitute a great work of literary art?
Ok, then can you please try to articulate that?
Look, I'd be the first to agree that some books are better than others, and I've said as much throughout. The only difference between us is that I don't believe my opinion has any more validity than the dummies who write at Yahoo that Harry Potter is the greatest work ever.
People connect with different texts for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations. I wouldn't take anything away from someone who connected to a particular author, but preference is not the same thing as quality. You have to stand back from personal preference and see the broader picture. One of my favourite novels is Wilde's Dorian Gray but I wouldn't for one minute disagree that there are far better novels out there. The likes of Hardy, Austen and Emily Bronte, and many more besides, just in the English language, eclipse Wilde in the novel form fairly easily. But preference has nothing to do with quality.
Everyone is entitled to preference and can enjoy what they like, but it does not qualify them to raise Dan Brown above Hardy.
Generally speaking the quality of writing can usually be found within the first ten pages or so. This is the process of elimination at the BBC and at other publishers. Of course they have other agenda’s such as the marketing of a particular piece, audience, the suitability of it in terms of sales, etc, so this is not perfect, but overall quality can be sampled within a short time. It is not possible to spot many things within such a short space, in particular character development and integrity, but it is quite easy to spot poor writing within such a space of time, clichés, poor structure, obvious motifs, poor descriptive quality, cheap narrative tricks, all shout out of the writing - loudly. I remember being forced to read a popular detective novel for a module at uni, it took till page two for the detective to bring out the coffee and donuts!
All texts are equal, it is just that some texts are more equal than others.
Anything in particular?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I do not think you understand well. In the Internet you are not goint to find people who can tell why Yeates poetry is superior to my poetry and give you the reasons. It is harder, but it can be done using objective approach - his use of the vocabulary, his use of cliches, the metric and rythim, etc. It may be not precise as physics - nothing "is" - but saying there is no objective way to analyse a artistic work is ignoring the fact all artists are trainned with objective techniques and must apply it correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
As "ultimate purpose"? You cannt tell that Dante achive his "ultimate purpose" right now? His work (fact, not subjective opinion) read since ever by all kind of cultures, Beatrice is the most famous muse in the history of literature, the italian is a stabilished idiom, etc. Just because it is needed more time to analyse and we can not be sure about predictions, this does not mean the reading of the history is flawed as you suggest.
No one needs magical training to tell Shakespeare was a success. You do not even need to read him. I can not explain why the doctor cured me, but I can tell he does. I can not tell why Shakespeare is so good, but we can tell he is good.
"Ultimate purpose" is your creation. It is not like every biologist started studying a subject and rejected anything else than his ultimate purpose because of that, otherwise the most important theory of biology history would not exist, since Darwin had no interest to study animals, he was basically just collecting species for Lyell. In the end Ultimate Purpose of both is finding the truth - a philosophical aspect - and nothing relevant for the results and impact.Quote:
However, there is no clear "ultimate purpose" of literature. The closest thing that comes to an "ultimate purpose" of literature is whether or not people enjoy it. While polling random people is not likely to be a good method of determining how to build a nuclear bomb, it is likely to give an idea of whether or not people enjoy a given work of literature.
The same people who can randomly like a book that is not reggarded as good is able to come up with great medicine. For example, my father's wife have great stuff to cure a flu. Some random people are creationists also. They even think it is scientific. You can not stop the folk lore, can you?
That is silly. Scientists do not even bother to reggard the opinion of anyone who is not a specialist in their field, they also expect to have their opinions reggarded as true, because any specialist in the field of art, they have spent years building such knowledge. Elits are build this way and trying to imply there is not an human elit among scientist is out of place.Quote:
I think, if you want to compare specialists in literature to specialists in another field, it would be better to compare them to specialists in the field of some religion. The main features that you built the comparison on are still applicable -- pastors and theologians (to use the titles of specialists in Christianity) spend a great deal of effort and time studying morality. Like specialists in literature, they expect non-specialists to regard their (the pastors' and theologians') opinions on morality as better than the opinion of a random person. Like literature, it is not very clear what the "ultimate purpose" of the tradition is, and indeed, it seems to engender some of the same sorts of arguments as we see here regarding what makes "good" literature.
Just like everything, every single individual will have his opinion, this opinion will be "tested" by the body of knowledge of all humankind. Ezra Pound didnt like Virgil, Voltaire didnt like Shakespeare. Imagine if their individual wills (strong as they were) would be able to destroy the so claimed subjective of art analyses.
Agreed, I would say he is suffering with his anxiety because he discovered his is a neo-marxist and he hated it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Serious, he suffers a Richard Dawkinism, his objectivity damaged by the holy war he is fighting. Still able to convice anyone to read Emily Dickinson. So, a good critic.
A canon is a thing that happens to be. Perhaps we can all "It" like the Adams Family creature...Quote:
The canon cannot be written down, because it isn't one list - it is a regional list, changing from university to university, from person to person. We merely can track similarities in lists, for instance, seeing that Don Quixote, Shakespeare, and Dante seem to be on all of the "literary canon" lists, amongst others. Yet the notion of the Western Canon is quite dated; it's only a matter of time before someone (or many people, as seems likely) tries to piece a world canon, taking from all over the world.
This question is very nearly obscene. One does not quantify the arts the way one quantifies the spectrum of colors in light. I do not know what you are trying to destroy here, but you are looking at it in the wrong way. What is it about being the human animal we are that makes the way aesthetic choice operates so powerful?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
A, you can have any opinion you want about the choices you make, this isn't what upsets me. Your determination that the arts are useless does. Why not go to a science forum then? Indeed, why be here, in a literary network forum? Even in a strictly material sense, and I told you before, my philosophy studies have shown me the problems with being a strict materialist, but even if one takes this position--our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art; one can even imagine that training in superior aesthetics is an evolutionary advance over those who have no aptitude to make such discriminations.
You aren't killing off fake gods--though seemingly this is the thrust of your position. I regret the loss of any further confidence between ourselves. Good luck to you.
This the key distinction in this whole argument, a distinction with which I completely agree.Quote:
but preference is not the same thing as quality.
Heck, I would prefer a half-dozen double-stuff Oreos for breakfast, but I chose whole wheat toast with light cream cheese for its quality contributions to my health and well-being. In this case I chose the better breakfast, just as when I chose to read Thoreau instead of People magazine I chose the better writing.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes I choose light reading and heavy snacking over more healthy options. But I know that the only good thing about an Oreo is the taste.
Hey, I hear you, but as health and opportunity allows, I am about 100% aligned with JBI and Drkshadow. These large and overbearing abstract contentions are boring me, and I think from now on I want to look at the authors and poets themselves, when I care to invest the time to do so. I cannot with Montale over in the poetry thread, unfortunately. quasi and luke have been dear helping me with access to samples, but I have to actually get my hands on the texts themselves and study a little. The weather is bad, and menopause is trying to kill my poor little crippled body, at least in this cycle!:sick::DQuote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
CLASSICS are still unparallel and I myself have forgotten how many times have I read HAMLET ,MACBETH and OTHELLO!!!!!???
Her anthologies are all, for the most part, great. I would recommend, in terms of an intro-work to her, either her selected stories, which combines stories from her earlier books, or for a more concrete introduction, the anthology, Who Do you Think You Are, which is the closest work she has to a novel, being that the short stories for the most part are interconnected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Though, I would say her best work is probably Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You, which is a superb anthology. Seriously though, you can't really go wrong with her.
Ok, at least you've made a start here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
You are proposing that quality of writing - character development, integrity, lack of cliches, clever narrative, good structure and descriptive quality make a great work.
That's fine by me, you've just placed Frederick Forsyth among the greats!
:D
To you, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Well, this is exactly what I've been saying - that all opinion is subjective. Wasn't that hard to agree with me, was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Why does a magpie pick up bright objects to decorate its nest with? The origins of aesthetics are purely evolutionary - we pick good-looking (to us) mates in order to strengthen our genes. We pick good-looking vegetables because we feel they will be th freshest and most nourishing. Because we're a little smarter than the magpie, humans have broadened aesthetics to cover abstract concepts. As we've been saying, because people have different tastes in partner, it's pretty clear that we'll have different tastes in every form of aesthetics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
That stays true until people start to believe that one work has inherently more "worth" than another.
Why does everyone think his/her own children are the most beautiful, wonderful children ever? We cleave to what we know, and in the case of literature, our "knowledge" is gained through studying, which leaves the way open for confirmation biases to grow.
Where have I said that the arts are "useless"? They aren't necessary for survival, but they certainly have their uses. My only contention is that no one piece of art is worth more than another. (Discounting the obvious market value of pieces, which again, is no more than personal preference.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Again, you're making my case for me. "Our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art..." Sure they are - but in exactly the same way many other human constructs have become culturally essential. If you can see where aesthetics in art and literature might have an evolutionary advantage, please let me know how/where/why, because I don't agree at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Any myth is a good myth to explode, in my opinion. I'd thought this one could be dealt with on a very friendly basis because there didn't seem to be any sacred cows involved in the proposition - we're talking about books at a forum dedicated to the subject of books. If you're getting upset by it all, just ignore my opinion, since it's just that - my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Classics aren't unparalleled. Contemporary literature has just as strong merits. Perhaps Shakespeare is unparalleled, but many contemporary works are just as strong as classic books.Quote:
Originally Posted by dogar sahab
Honestly, Atheist, you are having a solipsistic argument with yourself whether good things exist, or whether they are good because you think they are good. It comes down to Plato - Is a book good because we think it is good, or do we think a book is good because it is good.
Either way though, that doesn't disqualify the notion that they are good. Whether they are for one reason or another, they are deemed good or bad, and therefore represent quality, and more value. Subjectivity is a value system, and it works. You're just shoving in a misreading of the basics of philosophy into a pointless argument over whether or not something can be called better or worse.
I bring it back to this, if all roads lead to death, why live? That's right, until you can answer that, without something like "why not?" than there is no basis for argument. In that sense, if there are reasons we live our lives, one of them, or perhaps the most important, is a desire for pleasure. And certain things are deemed by us better deliverers of that pleasure. Therefore, reading certain books are better than others, because they give more.
Note, I use pleasure for lack of a better term, things like clarity, experience, and other such terms are also interchangeable, I cannot think of a header term, I just wanted to through off the nihilist argument.
Thanks for responding. I essentially agree with these points, and I don't think they contradict my point. My point is not that there are no similarities between the field of literature and fields like physics and medicine. My point is that the dissimilarities make the analogy unconvincing for the claim that popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a piece of literature is good. I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
You make good points, and they bring the discourse to a deeper level in the analogy. You're right that literature is not entirely subjective. The specialist in literature can argue that a poem is good using standards based on his use of vocabulary, cliches, and meter, just like a specialist in physics can argue that spacetime is compact based on general relativity, and data from experiments. You're right that neither of them needs to consult non-specialists in these endeavors. But so far, all this really shows is that the methodology of the specialists in literature is (at least somewhat) coherent -- that it is consistent enough to be useful among other adherents of the same tradition. The difference is that, in the end, there is an independent check on whether or not the methodology of the physicists produces "good" results -- non-specialists see that their methodology produces things like nuclear bombs and MRIs. This is why we non-specialists find the physicists so authoritative, to the point that it is appealing to make arguments about the field of literature by drawing comparisons to the field of physics (even among people who are not specialists in physics). Like I suggested before, the closest thing to an independent check that comes to mind for literature is whether or not people actually enjoy the literature that the specialists claim to be "good", so it seems that popularity should be a much more important factor in literature than in physics.
It is not clear to me that this serves as an independent check on the specialists of literature comparable to the independent check on physics I described above. Indeed, this standard seems to accord much better with religion than with physics. Christian morals, like Dante, has dominated the West, but it is not clear that this implies that the opinions of today's pastors and theologians should have the final say in morality for everyone.Quote:
You cannt tell that Dante achive his "ultimate purpose" right now? His work (fact, not subjective opinion) read since ever by all kind of cultures, Beatrice is the most famous muse in the history of literature, the italian is a stabilished idiom, etc. Just because it is needed more time to analyse and we can not be sure about predictions, this does not mean the reading of the history is flawed as you suggest.
This might be the main point of difference between our opinions. I do not think these two situations are equivalent in this context. I think it is much more clear that being cured is "good" than that Shakespeare's success is "good".Quote:
I can not explain why the doctor cured me, but I can tell he does. I can not tell why Shakespeare is so good, but we can tell he is good.
As a side note, let me address this point:
You're right that "ultimate purpose" is a term I made up. I don't mean by that term some ideal that individual specialists strive for; I don't mean "ultimate intent". To exagerrate the point a little, by "ultimate purpose" I mean, not what the specialists want for their field, but what the non-specialists want from that field. I was basically just trying to express the independent check I described above.Quote:
"Ultimate purpose" is your creation. It is not like every biologist started studying a subject and rejected anything else than his ultimate purpose because of that, otherwise the most important theory of biology history would not exist, since Darwin had no interest to study animals, he was basically just collecting species for Lyell.
To sum up:
I am not claiming that there are no similarities between the field of literature and the fields of physics and medicine.
I am not claiming that literature is completely subjective.
I am claiming that there are dissimilarities between the field of literature and the fields of physics and medicine that results in a bigger role for popularity in literature than in physics and medicine.
I am suggesting that it would be more apt to compare the field of literature to a religion than to physics and medicine.
Thanks for bearing with silly little me! :)
I have no problem with that, I would just point that there is also no similarity between medicine and physics either. Or sociology and physics, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
I do not think it is necessary any analogy. Knowledge is (even in traditional cultures) elitist because not everyone have the time, education and traits to be dedicated to a intelectual life (and here, I am calling shamans and old storytellers intelectuals).Quote:
My point is that the dissimilarities make the analogy unconvincing for the claim that popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a piece of literature is good.
Also, the reasons why something turn to be popular are not always independent to outside factors. Today we have market and cultural domination. In the past the influence of important hystorical events could create booms of popularity (like books about the Second World War), and popular figures may create popular products (a book by Madonna for example). Fashion is decisive as well. Those factors certainly cann't tell anyone about the quality of the artwork because they do not last much.
But of course, Dickens was popular and is good. So, something popular may be good, and that is why I think we should pay attention to booms of popularity, after all it can be good (which is why it is silly when people complain about someone talking or reading a book they do not like).
I would say that something right is done when a book is best-seller. We just must see if what he is doing right is creating a profitable product or a artistic masterwork. I would say those are merits, but not the merit I like to see.
I would say that ok, Art experience is closer to religion experience. But I would say that the study of art often is less philosophical than Religious study.Quote:
I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.
Quote:
You make good points, and they bring the discourse to a deeper level in the analogy. You're right that literature is not entirely subjective. The specialist in literature can argue that a poem is good using standards based on his use of vocabulary, cliches, and meter, just like a specialist in physics can argue that spacetime is compact based on general relativity, and data from experiments. You're right that neither of them needs to consult non-specialists in these endeavors. But so far, all this really shows is that the methodology of the specialists in literature is (at least somewhat) coherent -- that it is consistent enough to be useful among other adherents of the same tradition. The difference is that, in the end, there is an independent check on whether or not the methodology of the physicists produces "good" results -- non-specialists see that their methodology produces things like nuclear bombs and MRIs. This is why we non-specialists find the physicists so authoritative, to the point that it is appealing to make arguments about the field of literature by drawing comparisons to the field of physics (even among people who are not specialists in physics). Like I suggested before, the closest thing to an independent check that comes to mind for literature is whether or not people actually enjoy the literature that the specialists claim to be "good", so it seems that popularity should be a much more important factor in literature than in physics.
I agree than mathematic cannt help a study about literature and certainly is something we are giving to the critics of 100 years ago, because only Time do the test.
I think the indepence lies in the fact the tradition changes. I am sure about Homer, why? The number of cultures and traditions that reckonized him obviously form today a independent opinion. I am not sure about Joyce, even if I know he is technically great, they will be sure (or not) in centuries.
Yes, but those who stoped to follow the christian morals do not reckon it vallues anymore. We still, even if Dante have nothing to do with us, reckonizing Dante.Quote:
It is not clear to me that this serves as an independent check on the specialists of literature comparable to the independent check on physics I described above. Indeed, this standard seems to accord much better with religion than with physics. Christian morals, like Dante, has dominated the West, but it is not clear that this implies that the opinions of today's pastors and theologians should have the final say in morality for everyone.
Didnt mean that way, I mean we know Shakespeare capacity is good when we are think of literary merits, not that he is good for humankind, altough I think he does.Quote:
This might be the main point of difference between our opinions. I do not think these two situations are equivalent in this context. I think it is much more clear that being cured is "good" than that Shakespeare's success is "good".
No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right :DQuote:
Thanks for bearing with silly little me! :)
Surely this is much better than asking a question on Yahoo questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
How do you figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I've ignored the rest of your as not being worthy of answering. Some people would be quite insulted by the suggestion that they are struggling with basic philosophical positions, but I'm well able to shrug that off. I'm quite happy to leave people with their misconceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
The only interesting part to me, is why you'd swerve down that already-discussed avenue to avoid answering the question. The question is absolutely simple - what differentiates great literature from poor?
If your answer is as you state above, a consensus of subjective opinion, then we actually agree 100%.
Easy, eh? Could've left Plato with the kindergarten kids and posted the above eight words.
Spot on, excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
I'll just correct that one thing, if I may. There are actually many similar things in physics and medicine - they are both evidence-based sciences.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
This is an interesting analogy, but I think you'll find that maths actually can/does play a part in literature. Meter, phrase length, lack of repetition, lack of cliches, fresh metaphor, great grammar, all of those things are either worked in numbers or conform to patterns which can be broken into algorithm. (Which is exactly what the boys behind Google figured out.) All of those things have been pushed as a big part of literature, and I would agree that literary correctness - which covers all of the above - plot development and continuity are all quite quantifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Hell, I know people who have either lost god or found one, entirely on the internet.
Truths live in all sorts of places. Truth, as in "Truth", you're quite right. Won't find it anywhere else, either.
:)
Sheesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Ain't it obvious? The opinions here are far more valuable than those at Yahoo*
:lol:
*Worst company name, ever.
That's fine by me, you've just placed Frederick Forsyth among the greats!
I'm not sure if I have or if I haven't, I have not read any of his stuff so I don't know for sure. From what I have heard about him I doubt that I have in all seriousness, but I trust myself to make my own conclusions based upon what I read for myself so I will reserve judgement until that day, thanks all the same.
I just want to repeat this statement because I quite enjoyed writing it:
All texts are equal, it is just that some texts are more equal than others.
Sorry, but I thought that was quite witty, and I was feeling smug with myself for it, so I am sure you don't mind me repeating it. In all seriousness though I think your points are interesting and articulate but just "wrong".
John.
JBI:
Her anthologies are all, for the most part, great. I would recommend, in terms of an intro-work to her, either her selected stories, which combines stories from her earlier books, or for a more concrete introduction, the anthology, Who Do you Think You Are, which is the closest work she has to a novel, being that the short stories for the most part are interconnected.
Though, I would say her best work is probably Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You, which is a superb anthology. Seriously though, you can't really go wrong with her.
Thanks, I will look into this, I did so earlier and it seemed that she had a hell of a lot of short story compilations. Part of my wish to join such a forum as this is to come across "new" works though so thanks.
[QUOTE=The Atheist;634151]
Just like any science. Literary criticism, if we are going to call it science, is based on the evidence named the writing text. I would left to anyone the easy task to point out the obvious differences between medicine and physics, since one is just an application of another scientific areas (biology and chesmetry) and the other is the study of those areas, but hell, no. I am sure you can meet physicians that will point out how unlikely physics and biology can be.Quote:
I'll just correct that one thing, if I may. There are actually many similar things in physics and medicine - they are both evidence-based sciences.
There is a big difference between being able to test you results in mathetimatical systems like physics and using logical language that can be symbolized by mathematic. In one case, mathematics is the system used for study and the other it is the object of the study. Different things.Quote:
This is an interesting analogy, but I think you'll find that maths actually can/does play a part in literature. Meter, phrase length, lack of repetition, lack of cliches, fresh metaphor, great grammar, all of those things are either worked in numbers or conform to patterns which can be broken into algorithm. (Which is exactly what the boys behind Google figured out.) All of those things have been pushed as a big part of literature, and I would agree that literary correctness - which covers all of the above - plot development and continuity are all quite quantifiable.
Quote:
Hell, I know people who have either lost god or found one, entirely on the internet.
Truths live in all sorts of places. Truth, as in "Truth", you're quite right. Won't find it anywhere else, either.
:)
That is not what I mean because searching and finding god in the internet is just trying to fix in a group, not finding a god. but hellas, such is life.
The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.
Fortunately, for us, its not a myth. Luckily there are works of art of great beauty and depth that bring wonder, joy, pleasure, depth of feeling and thought... and beauty to a world that can be quite bland... and even ugly. The writings of Shakespeare and Dante and any number of other artists who represent some of the greatest of what humanity has to offer will continue to be read long after your sophomoric attempts at iconoclasm (still more gods to deny?) are forgotten. Anyone who has been on LitNet or any similar discussion board for more than a few weeks has come across endless "clever clever boys" (or girls) with some small knowledge of literature who set for themselves the laughable goal of undermining the whole notion aesthetic value, merit, and achievement. Yawn! Nothing more pathetic than those who smirk at that which they cannot understand. As much as it disturbs your pseudo-egalitarian nature (or perhaps throws a spotlight on your own fears of mediocrity) all people are not created equal... nor are all artists created equal. Personally I don't understand what you hope to gain... other than wasting a few moments of your day... by provoking others who obviously are involved in a literary discussion group because they believe great writing exists and is of worth to them as human beings. Obviously such is but one more thing in which you don't believe... and yet like a fundamentalist missionary you would convert those who don't lack such belief. But please feel free to continue arguing that Peter Orlovsky's Clean A*@hole Poems & Smiling Vegetable Songs, the manual for winterizing your home, the phone book, and any random teenage girl's diary are of equal aesthetic merit to Homer, Virgil, and Milton. Humor is something often missing from these boards... although be aware we are laughing at you... not with you.:D
To the Atheist.
Honestly, I'm just going to ignore your whole post, and bring up one line, of which you fail to budge on your opinion of "The question is absolutely simple - what differentiates great literature from poor?" - it contains something (sometimes something hard to describe in words) that penetrates. What makes things pleasureful? What makes living worthwhile? Hell, if there is no good and bad art, are there good and bad lives? Does life have a purpose? Is it worth living without pleasure, I.E. if everything was the same, without change, and without any form of enjoyment? Of course not.
You use no real arguments, and only resort to rhetoric. Your response to everything so far has been "You aren't answering my question" or "I don't believe you." which essentially is summed up by the phrase, "Look how smart I am - I am unbending on my opinion of art."
Cut the rhetoric, several answers have been given already; if you see them all unfit, provide one yourself, but simply denying what people says isn't productive, it is simply silly. You are saying "Haha, you are stupid because I don't believe you." and quite frankly, it's merely irritating.
Sorry if I may come off offensive, for Atheist is a very honorable man, I am sure, yet I just find it irritating how someone enters an argument with the sole intention of flexing his "logical powers" over everyone else, without the slightest intention of budging, or accepting what others are saying.
But what about, say soccer players? Which one is objectively best?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Oh! But can't you see the irony? See your comment at which this was aimed at.Quote:
Ah, but you've nade a supposition that anyone ever told me he was good. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. I fell in love reading Animal Farm long before anyone ever suggested it as a good read.
Quoting you:That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?
No.
Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.
I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.
So I take it you are the only freethinker here, according to you?
Yes, I see some people are challenging notions such how we can determine a moderm book is great or not, etc. But a superior book... that is too odd, superior relative to what? Longevity? Influence? Translations? Poetry language? Philosophical system in? Scientific vallue? Religious influence? Those will produce several answers, but we can say a group of books would answer those questions and that there is such superiority, but the rest is too vague and I am see only argumentative sophistry...