I think that now that the children have learned how to read, the mongers should learn how to read the children or stay in the museum until they recycle.
Printable View
I think that now that the children have learned how to read, the mongers should learn how to read the children or stay in the museum until they recycle.
For the most part the literary world is a sterile factory that produces an endless diarrhea of airport novels, insanely boring literary criticism, and well-crafted "literary" fiction that is completely useless except for reading in bed to get one sleepy. In addition, the literary world is infected with endless politically correct prudes who are not much different than born-again Christians. These politically correct prudes are not much different than those who censored works like Lady Chatterley's Lover.
"Do you know how to eat a fig in society?"
The revolution has already taken place and the dynamics produce a staggering number of situations. The revolution is perpetual.
It seems from your replies to people here who've tried to give you their honest and sound reasoning on why your post is flawed (which is certainly my opinion as well) that you don't care about an actual discussion, but only about forcing your views down other people's throats. Your OP is filled with assertion after assertion - no evidence, no reasoning, no logic, just bold statements - and when someone tries to reply to it, your answer perpetually seems to be to reiterate what your post already said. What is the point of arguing with someone who refuses to see reason, who has already decided what they will believe, who will refuse to open his mind to any other viewpoints?
I also find it slightly pretentious that someone who (presumably) has never written a published work of fiction in his life thinks that he has the right to "demand" a change in literature. You should at least be at the forefront of that change, heading it, leading us forward, should you not? What makes you think an opinion like yours means anything, unless it comes from someone skilled enough (and we're talking world-class here) to make a difference to the course of literary fiction. Let me quote directly from you:
What are you saying? What gives you the right to insist that many (or any) of the English literary greats really didn't have talent, and then use that as a basis for furthering the "argument" you're trying to ram down peoples' throats, when you are, beyond any reasonable doubt, worse than any of them (this is not an insult, but rather a fact, and likely to be true for nearly every person ever likely to visit this forum: if I'm wrong and you are Seamus Heaney or something, then feel free to correct me and I'll back down lamely, but looking at your short story, I doubt it)? You are making an assertion that a huge number of people would disagree with, and then using it as a loudspeaker to cry out how sad you are that literature doesn't seem to require talent to grant success.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
Now, in short, I agree with a lot of the things you've said, but everytime you relate them to "needing a revolution" I completely disagree. In fact, you tend to talk very tangentially, and then only relate what you've said loosely back to the original point, and you leave me completely unconvinced that there's much wrong with the literary world at all. I feel perfectly comfortable with how literature is produced now, and I certainly don't think we need a "revolution": literature is literature and shall always be. The "revolution" is happening around you right now.
If I understand one of the above posters correctly he insists that any changes in literature be made by those authors who are traditionally published. So that means that only one in every 2,000 writers should bring about change in literature according to him, because only one in every 2,000 writers is traditionally published. And for every successful traditionally published author there are hundreds more whose books are out of print within a matter of a few years. So I guess according to an above poster only one in every 10,000 writers should try and bring about changes in literature.
Well, I disagree. I don't care much for the writings of airport novelists.
The same poster called for more "reason". If you're looking for "reason" I assure you that you're on the wrong planet. On this floating rock with 6 billion primates you won't find much in the way of "reason".
Aspirational has implied that all of the other posters have tried to "reason" with me regarding my "flawed" opinions. I don't understand why Aspirational thinks that he speaks for everybody else who has posted on this thread. There are lots of different opinions on this thread, but apparently Aspirational thinks that he speaks for everybody. I don't care. Aspirational is free to think whatever he/she wants.
Aspirational expresseses his satisfaction with the literary world in its contemporary state. I'm sure that the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his colleagues at the other six dinosaurs would be happy to hear that. Keep buying their airport novels and sleepy "literary" fiction and they will be very happy. They pay their workers peanuts, and they take the rest of the money to the bank.
Personally I am so tired of "literary" fiction where the author does little but contemplate his or her navel. At least when I contemplate my navel I do so in a VERY creative way, which no doubt angers the traditionalists immensely. But lately I've been distracted by the real world, as some of you may have noticed. Of course, the traditionalists will also criticize me for not contemplating my navel as a creative person should. But you know the real world is pretty interesting. You might want to check it out. Maybe you could even try writing about it. That traditional writing style should at least be good for writing about the real world. I assume it's good for something besides just airport novels.
I'm not saying that only one of the authors who is currently published. What I'm saying is that your bold statements hold no credence for me. Unless you're at the forefront of world literature at the moment (if you are, correct me, and I'll take back everything I've said), who are you to give your opinion (and expect it to be taken seriously) on what world literature should be doing and where it should be going? And how can you be dictating the route it should take and exposing problems in it when you have no experience of what it is like to be a top author in any field of literature?Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
At least now you've said you "don't care much for the writings of airport novelists". That is an opinion; it is thus perfectly acceptable to voice. It is not, on the other hand, worthy of discussion for someone who is not "even" an airport novelist to be saying, blankly, that airport novelists are bad. You do not have the right to condemn another person's talent, when you have demonstrated none of your own, as a fact, no matter what your opinions of whether or not they are talented are. If everyone agreed that airport novelists have no talent, then it's perfectly acceptable for you to openly say that you can do better than them, but since not everyone agrees that, it's not: your statements are opinions, not facts, and so we must move on to what reasoning you give to them.
Again, looking down on humanity? It really annoys me that you think you have a good grasp of what humankind is, how they work and what they are capable of; something like your last sentence there ("On this floating rock with 6 billion primates you won't find much in the way of "reason"") I would expect to be a trivial quote coming from a truly great man having a laugh, rather than from someone who has achieved nothing and yet likes to make generalized comments about a world that has achieved a great deal and which he seems to completely misunderstand, and yet likes to scatter opinions on.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
I am free to think whatever I want, not because I'm great or because of "my rights", but because it is you - someone posing under-qualified and unreasoned opinions without basis and asking for them to be considered - who is making a controversial point, and me who is asking for evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
As for whether or not I speak for everybody, I don't really care. Perhaps someone has brought this up before, and tried to argue (like me), but soon tired of your pretentious way of replying (wherein you don't consider what we say, but rather try to find ways to reiterate your point). Perhaps everyone else here is too polite to point this out? Perhaps I am making a mistake, in which case I hope someone else will correct me. But one way or another, I'm trying to show you the problem in your OP; that has nothing else to do with whether or not other people are in agreement with me, although I may occasionally make use of one of their posts as an example of how you don't really reply.
"Their workers"? Can I ask you, what kind of workers do you think airport novelists have?Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
Literature, the way I see it, does not include airport fiction. Murdoch is not a literary writer, in my opinion; if you want one of those in the modern day, go to Ishiguro. Is there a problem with Ishiguro? Have you ever even read him? Have you ever even read a true modern-day literary author? Or is the entirety of your post based on the number of airport novels you've read?
You do so in a "VERY" creative way, do you? Can I ask, then, why NO-ONE will publish you (again, I could be wrong, but I expect I'm not)? Tell me, if the whole world but you thinks that literature is where it should be and your ideas (and stories, in terms of creativity) are off-the-mark, who would you guess is right?Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
Not all air port novels are bad...I mean they import the same stuff from Barnes and Nobles don't they? Nicholas Sparks is quite great to me actually, I love reading his love stories, how romantic <3
Anyway Aspirational does have a point. I do like your openess to revolution and a whole viva la revolucion attitude but something isn't right here. Your rail against modern literature, capitalism... these are pointless. Capitalism has existed for 200 years, yet within this 200 years mark we've produced the greatest writers. Even within the iron fist of the communist regime, literary geniuses always find their voices and produce canonical works that pass the test of time. This proves something. It proves that regardless of what political party a nation is under, of what ideologies hold ascendance, books and literature will always stay alive.
On the other hand, if capitalism should collapse, and novelists have the free time and a pressure free atmosphere to work their novels, it does not guarantee a perfect result. Why? Literature, like any arts, evolve from pressure. It is a kind of evolution which needs an invisible hand to push it. Literature without pressure, without a need to survive, to strive, to evolve, to me is void of any beauty and asthestic value/
I stopped reading aspirational's last post halfway through. In the part I did bother to read he says almost nobody except a handful of people have the right to criticize the lack of originality in much of contemporary traditionally-published "literature". That's hilarious! People will say whatever they want regardless of whether or not they have aspirational's approval! Perhaps the point should be who is aspirational to decide who has the right to criticize and not criticize the six dinosaurs - oops, I mean six sisters?
In addition, Aspirational continues on with the personal attacks. Like a certain clique of censored on this website he engages in Cyber bullying. I don't bother with posters who engage in cyber bulling just like I don't bother with censored on the streetcorner who make censored remarks to the passerby. (Yes I have to censor my comments now! What a shame I can't say what I want in these posts. Except as others have also noticed a certain clique on this website sure gets away with saying also kinds of censored things that others are not allowed to.)
Oh yeah, we are all primates. Don't believe me? Go to the primate section at the zoo and see how much the primates in the cages look like us!
Evolution and revolution is what has made it possible for us to write literature. Otherwise we'd still be in the trees eating bananas.
Unfortunately, I can't discuss Black Cat's post because of certain censorship policies on this website regarding discussing certain issues. I told you the literary world was uptight! But then again perhaps these rules apply more to those who have unconventional views.
At this point I'd like to thank some of the other posters for putting up some rather imaginative works. I was up late last night reading them. It was a joy! Thanks again. It's writers with imagination like some of you that makes it all worth it. If I click on five boring stories where the author doesn't take any chances and takes the safe road but then I'm lucky enough to find just one exciting thing to read it really makes my day! I can remember sitting through looooong poetry readings with horrible conventional poets that sometimes even rhymed, but if just one person got up and read something unusual and totally different and new it would really make my day!
Don't bother with the conventionalists. All they do is endlessly repeat all the same rules that they learned in grammar school. Anybody can write a book and put the periods and commas in the right place.
And then the conventionalists try to lecture us about all the rules we learned in creative writing 101 back in college or high school. We literary adventurers know those rules too - and we've moved on to do new things! Better to try out something new and even fail in the attempt then to write the same old stuff that 1 million others have written! What's the creativity in that?
Of course, some of you that have embarked on a creative road may now regard me as a traitor, because I also write in the conventional manner when it suits me. And at the present time it suits me.
I think the main thing is that regardless of whether you're writing in a conventional or nonconventional manner you should never bore your reader! In addition, take risks, push the envelope! If you're gay or bisexual or into wife swapping or you have unusual views or unusual experiences to tell than even if you write in a conventional manner your writing will still be fresh and bold!
Oh no, I mentioned wife swapping. Gee, am I going to get into trouble again?
In something I wrote that involved two airplanes a skyscraper and the president a group of cyber bullies descended on the post and said all kinds of horrible things, and yet I was the one disciplined for using the word ignorant to describe their behavior! And everybody who saw the comments of that Lynch mob knows that they were being ignorant!
Can you imagine that?
The main tactic of the traditionalists seems to be cyber bullying. Who know why? Because traditionalism is bankrupt! Traditionalism is a rotten diseased rat carcass filled with maggots. And practically all of the "greats" that the traditionalists praise were the innovators of their day.
100% agree. If you don't enjoy what you're writing how can you expect anyone else to? If you don't surprise or even shock yourself then you're cheating your readers.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
Best wishes for a conventional 2012.
H
No...last time I checked the greatest epoch for literature was the renaissance. I mean do we really have anyone in the last 200 years that can stand toe to toe with Dante or Shakespere? Possibly Tolstoy or Proust, but even then, highly debatable. And Homer Virgil ect.? Why the bias for the last 200 years? I won't say the last 200 years have been great for all art, but the best? Sounds rather audacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCat
?Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCat
So Byron, Tolstoy, Proust, Fitzgerald are void of beauty simply because they never suffered from poverty and political oppression?
While I must profess respect for Alexander's knowledge and also his excellent creative writing I strongly feel that the best literature created by mankind will be in our future. There have no doubt been many greats in the past, but I believe it is in the future that mankind will achieve its greatest literary achievements.
In places like Cuba illiteracy has been virtually wiped out. When illiteracy is virtually wiped out on the planet the things that mankind will accomplish in literature will be phenomenal.
Mankind cannot fulfill its potential when half of the human race is living on less than two dollars a day. There are so many people who could be Shakespeares of the 21st century who instead are working long hours every day just to survive. And how many kids in Third World countries who could become future Shakespeares are instead on the streets shining shoes? Or even in some first world countries like America a significant part of the young people receive a rotten/mediocre education.
As Jack London said in the Sea Wolf "The seed will fall where it may." Many of those who have superior educations and the free time to write that comes from inherited wealth simply aren't up to the task of writing great innovative literature. In fact, the mentality of the privileged few is a conservative one, and inherently hostile to creativity.
This is not to say that some privileged country gentlemen in 19th century England didn’t manage to produce some decent literature. But the descendents of today's working class will produce literature of much more greatness.
For example, CCNY (a public university in New York City with open admissions known as the "poor man's Harvard") has produced more Nobel Prize winners then most of the Ivy League universities on the East Coast combined. (No doubt, the Ivy League universities are much injured by their "Legacy" program.)
Anyway, the golden era in literature is not in the past, it is in the future. The other night I discovered there are some very talented, very creative individuals on this very website who are writing innovative work better than some of the stuff in the Norton Anthology of Literature. That statement is both a compliment to some of the writers on this posting board, and also an indictment of the canon according to Norton. I read a fair amount of the Norton Anthology as it was the only book I had when I spent some months at sea on a commercial fishing boat.
If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo. While I respect some of the work in this canon I must say not all of it is impressive.
I have my suspicions that some of the best literary work of the past did not find its way into the canon, but found its way into the garbage can. Manuscripts that contained too much politics, contained unconventional or unpopular ideas, too much sex, too much homosexuality, or simply a writer didn't have the right contacts, or didn't come from the right class of people to have the right contacts - you can bet that any number of factors might prevent a great work from getting published, let alone getting into some canon.
Of those works lucky enough to get published you can bet that the conservative academic/publishing environment is not going to put something in the canon that's going to ruffle too many feathers. Of course, there are many great people in academia, I was lucky enough to have some great professors. But as many of you know when you start getting high up in the academic structure, when you encounter those in higher positions who are making the decisions, well you might find a lot of vultures who seem to be primarily concerned with covering their ***, amongst other things. And my guess is those people in higher positions have had a lot to say as to what goes in the canon. I doubt the average college professor has much say in what goes in the canon, and should you be lucky enough to be having a drink with a great college professor you might hear some amusing comments about the "canon".
However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon. I am of course talking about the canon of English literature, as I cannot even begin to comment on the literature of other cultures, as my education unfortunately overly emphasized the literary achievements of a rather backward island on the periphery of Europe. That same island is producing great contemporary painting today, and maybe producing great contemporary literary talent that far out shines it's more primitive past. If it is I doubt the publishing conglomerates will bring it to the light of day.
Just because some book is in your literature class in college doesn't mean it's good. Somebody on the bus next to you typing away on their "telephone"/computer might be writing something far superior. And what's amusing is that they might not even be trying to write great literature, they might be just writing a slang-filled grammatically-incorrect creative tidbit to a friend. But the seed falls where it may.
But the seed falls where it may, indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
I agree with you that the future will be where the greatest works come from,Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
but modern does not equal better.
But as you say, looking at the population in the future there will be many Dante's and Virgils and Homers. It is probability that is in our favor.
What works in the Norton Anthology do you find mediocre and unimpressive?Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfLarsen
I don't foresee this future golden age of literature. A large percentage of humanity will continue to be encumbered by necessity and even many of those with ample leisure time will go on squandering it with various distractions, such as television, video games, ect. Even with success at combating illiteracy we now have a plague of aliteracy, of people who are able to read but simply choose not to. We won't have a bunch of Shakespeare's popping up. Not everyone can be a Shakespeare. It takes the right genes, the right environment, a complex falling into place of numerous variables that can't and won't occur for many.
When I browse my copy of the Norton Anthology I am taken aback at the sheer wealth of astounding artistic achievement gathered therein.
I agree with this. A golden age of literature in the future is possible, but hardly something that anyone can see coming; it would most likely be largely coincidental and last for only one to two generations. In any case, WolfLarsen is hardly likely to be at the head of that golden age (and even if he is, without support from other super-talented literary writers he still won't be able to change the way literature is percieved and written, NOT that there is anything wrong with that way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88