Quote:
Originally Posted by
WolfLarsen
I must profess my respect for the knowledge and excellent debating skills of some of the other posters here. After reading some of these posts the only thing I'm really convinced about is that there are some very intelligent people on this posting board. However, I still think that any number of factors might help prevent a great author from getting his or especially her works published. As I said before one of those factors might be a writer’s sexual preferences, amongst others.
You are seriously mixing modern publishing busines with Literature. Take even Shakespeare, a non-published genius. Because, well, it was not his point while being published is quite the point of today.
I have no doubt, as anyone else here, that many factors can prevent a author to receive his glory for while. No doubt, Oscar Wilde example may be one of those. Obviously, Dante was one of those. Shakespeare (he was just a playwritter), Homer (the greek language he used was quite gone), Emily Dickinson (never even tried) and there may be even some genius unheard. But those factors, all, are not eternal. You only need a society change, new winds, and sundenly a work is recovered. Take Sappho - she suffered a lot of those factors and in a time when the physical register was ridiculous and yet, she is one of the muses, etc.
Simple as put, every kind of writer has his readers. Those readers will eventually in the history curse have a strong voice. Even if for 15 minutes, even if they are underground, etc. And they will transform those authors, like for example Baudelaire was transformed in some short of sensible dandy, and this will increase the interest for this author. And this process is irreverssible.
Quote:
As other posters have pointed out many gay and bisexual writers have been able to overcome tremendous obstacles of discrimination. However, remember the sexual preferences of an author may not have always been obvious to all of his contemporaries. Some biographer may later find out that such and such a writer was gay or bisexual, but while that person was living not everyone may have been aware of a particular author's sexual preferences. However, the more obvious it is that a man is gay or bisexual the more likely he is to experience discrimination.
Look what happened to Oscar Wilde when his sexual preferences became public. It was not pretty.
Oscar Wilde would have another face had him not blantanly lied in a court. But what happened with him? He is now worshiped, perhaps even beyond his own talent, as a witty man, as a stilized critic, as some short of freedom fighter. He got the repulse of his time, but certainly not of all time.
Quote:
To argue that the academic world is free of prejudice is flawed. Well into the 20th century, for example, there were racial quotas at Ivy League institutions that restricted the number of Jews admitted. Whites with Anglo-Saxon names were given preference over Catholics, blacks, etc.
To argue that the literary world itself is free of prejudice is flawed. The experiences of some of the Harlem Renaissance writers and poets are a testament to that. Imagine the movers and shakers of the literary world having an event to honor your writing but not inviting you because you're black.
Nobody is arguing that. Good writers overcome even language barrier, after all look the huge influence of writers from Russia, a country of barbarians according to western europe, either be czarists or communists. At the long run, the prejudice against black writers is slowly fading, as you cann't certainly admit all world is racist.
Quote:
Yes, many writers have managed to overcome these obstacles of discrimination, but I doubt that that all great writers who were black, gay, Jewish, etc. were able to overcome these obstacles of discrimination. But for every great manuscript by a black, gay, immigrant, Catholic or Jewish writer that found its way into the canon we cannot discount the possibility that many more great manuscripts found their way into the garbage can after the author died.
If this happens, it is more because his own peers didnt saw this talent, maybe himself. Just imagine how women overcome a similar scenario. It is possible that some potential was lost, just was lost because a car accident or a law school.
Quote:
We are supposed to believe that the canon (according to Norton or some other authority) is somehow a flawless representation of the best literature written. I doubt that's true. I think it's much more random than that. A number of factors might help a work to become published (like the author having the right connections). Any number of factors might make it less likely that a great work gets published.
The Canon cann't be actual and has nothing to do with the publishing of the work as we think now. And nobody thinks the canon is perfect.
Quote:
Look at the publishing world today. It's a big diarrhea factory, but some people (like Rupert Murdoch) are making lots of money from it. The publishing world of centuries ago was different in some ways perhaps. But to argue that all the best works of the past were actually published and later included in some canon seems far-fetched at best.
I wonder why? Writting was such rarity then, writting as well as you claim, that think many great writers were lost seems like the far-fetched idea.
Quote:
Of course, what some posters will then do is recite various names of writers/poets in the canon as if that proves anything. Prove to me and everybody else that every single writer/poet in Norton’s anthology was great. I think the quality of work in the Norton anthology is much more uneven than that. I doubt that every single person listed in the canon is a god of literature.
Is there anyone arguing that all poets in Norton anthologies are great?
Quote:
Take William Wordsworth for instance. Don't get me wrong, I love his poems! What's there not to like about them?
But you know what? He's kind of light reading. Not that that's bad. Why not read Wordsworth to fall asleep at night? You're bound to have some pleasant dreams! But frankly there are people posting on this website who are contributing more to the advancement of literature than Williams Wordsworth.
This is funny. Because the claim that there may be a poet here as good as Wordsworth is a possiblity, but the claim that people in this site are giving greater contributions to literature than he did is not. You know,because contribution to literature is more like History than opinion. You get any poster here who gave such contribution to literature that is able to have new words, sentences, ideas, lead an aesthetic movement, give impulse to other writers, have poems remembered and you have someone which contribution is that big. Is there such person? Put in mind, you have to argue against history (does not matter if Wordsworth was white, tall, british, tory) of a guy who lived for quite a time and people here who are just starting.
Quote:
It's difficult for me to admit that Wordsworth is less than a literary god not only because I enjoyed William Wordsworth' s poetry, but also because I was fortunate enough to have a Professor Wordsworth for a semester. His descendent is an excellent professor who I very much respected.
Anyway, just because there are people on this website who are more talented than Wordsworth (the Romantic poet, certainly not the professor) doesn't guarantee that their work will ever be included in some canon. In fact, no matter how good you are the odds are you will never be in any canon unless you know the right people, because your work will probably never be widely distributed and published if you don't know the right people.
Publishing today is more easier than during his time. The audience is like 1000 bigger than his time. The visibility is much bigger. Why not? And who are those right persons? They must know the lake poets? What puts in your mind that Wordsworth was idely distributed and published? There is probally more members in this site than the first 5 pritings of Lyricall Ballads. I am sorry, but if people are not famous today, it may just because they are bad.
Quote:
More likely the work of Allen Ginsberg will be included in some canon then anybody on this website. What a shame! Much of Allen Ginsberg’s material is not even half as good as some of the stuff on this website. Of course, his famous poem "Howl" is pretty good, but "Mein Kampf" by the Jewish poet David Lerner is much better. (Great poem. Horrible title.)
Considering the title is part of the work, probally you see a problem. But of course, I am sure Ginsberg is a good example of a guy with the right conections and all popularity. He certain was in the top of the mainstren America.
Quote:
And of course many of you have heard about a book by Saul Bellow called Herzog. I believe it's received some fancy-dancy award of some kind. Herzog contributes very little to literature in my opinion. There are people on this website who are taking far greater risks and being far more creative and therefore contributing far more to the advancement of literature then Saul Bellow's Herzog. But the sad fact is Saul Bellow's Herzog is much more likely to be included in some future canon than some of the very talented writers on this website. And frankly, all over the Internet you will find writers creating far greater literature than Saul Bellow's Herzog. Virtually all of these individuals are very un-famous.
People do not consider Pericles a great play, it was written by Shakespeare. Of course, people who study Shakespeare like to read it, but the play itself, is not canonized. And there is a considerable amount of great authors works that are forgotten and not even published anymore.
Quote:
This is not to say that Saul Bellow’s Herzog is an incompetent work of literature. Just like a competent carpenter can hammer a nail into place the sentences in Saul Bellow's Herzog are decently written. But that's about it. There are competent carpenters, and there are master craftsmen who can do beautiful creative things with wood. There are people on this website (and other websites) who are doing beautiful creative things with words. And frankly, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface here. Unfortunately, it can be rather time-consuming finding the most creative works, because there are plenty of other works that are more of the quality of Saul Bellow's Herzog. That is, competent works that show little creativity or don't really have much to say except that author seems to know where the commas and periods go. Who cares if you know where the commas and periods go? You learn that in grammar school. It's time to do something besides just put the commas and periods in the right place. Maybe for variety you should try putting them in the wrong place. Whether you write in a creative or conventional style do something unique! Do something different than everybody else! Why should I or anybody else read your work if you're not writing something unique? When I say you I don't mean any person in particular I mean everyone that writes.
The time has come to question many of the assumptions about the literary world. Why should we blindly accept every author/poet in the Norton anthology or any other canon as being great? Why should we accept things without questioning them? Why shouldn't we think for ourselves?
Dude, I am in Brazil. Nortons editions have no saying in the world of literature, just in some market in one country. If you need a revolution to get down with Norton, you just need money to buy the damn thing, Not a revolution. At all.
Quote:
The works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot are certainly above average. But these people are all primates, albeit advanced primates. There is no reason why other talented members of the same species can’t write works of equal quality, or perhaps do even better.
In this universe is estimated that there are billions of galaxies. Out there in all those billions of galaxies may be species who are far more intelligent and/or economically and culturally evolved than us. Perhaps their literary achievements make the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot look like monkey scratchings in comparison.
Don't take anything for granted. Form your own opinion.
If you are talking about literature, you are talking about influence. Your mind is not so free as you think, neither your opinion so relevant and independent (in fact, you are repeating a lot of other writers), but really, if you think you need to debauche the past to be great, you are just being romantic. Like Wordsworth.
