What CAN we write?

Very interesting discussion, and I'm glad it was resurrected so I could partake.

JBI and stlukesguild make some excellent points, however I remember reading in an introduction to a collection of Henry James stories that, according to the writer of that introduction, one of James's greatest strengths was that he didn't care about what people think or want, which also explains why his writing is so difficult at times. I think about it a lot as I read James, and I am slowly coming to recognize James as the greatest novelist ever (in my opinion, of course), so I take great interest in comments about his work. Perhaps not caring about your audience can lead to great works of art at times?

As for Denis Dutton: the man was a very interesting writer, and I strongly recommend his work, but let us not take him too seriously about sexual selection. The man was not a scientist, and this shows in his writing. The first sentence quoted by stlukesguild shows Dutton's ignorance: sexual selection is "another, lesser-known side of Darwinism"?? I'd be hard-pressed to think of something better known than sexual selection!

Quote:

---

Perhaps not caring about your audience can lead to great works of art at times?

---

When you say "not caring about your audience", are you refering to an artist that does not produce deliberately for a defined public, or do you mean one who is not preoccupied about producing something which could appeal for the common reader? William Blake for instance was unpopular in his time, the majority of his works being concerned with his personal mithology and unorthodox spiritual views, but I doubt he did not wrote his poetry with its aesthetic consistency in mind. Kafka and Dickinson wrote primarily for themselves, but even in their works there is an evident care with the form and the artistic coherence.

I believe James' case would also be the former rather than the latter. His writing was clearly experimental at times and he explored new literary techniques and genres, but it does not mean he had no interest in the presentation of his work to the public. Perhaps he was aware, as Stendhal was, that such an approach could not be exactly positive to his popularity, but it does not mean he did not thought of his novels as a form of performance. After all, he highly respected Madame Bovary, a novel known for its formal perfection, while Dickens's novels, created with the intent of appealing to a larger audience, were regarded by him as superficial pieces.

Even Joyce and Proust, known today as difficult authors, composed their masterpieces profoundly rooted in their respective traditions. Perhaps they were not concerned with being widely read by the general population as Dickens was, but they wanted to present their art as something relevant to the reader. The issue is that there are different ways to approach the presentation of artistic works, but the presentation tends to be always significant nonetheless. There is a great difference between someone who does not care about the public at all and someone who employs a different approach towards the reader in spite of the possible risks.