New horizons for literature??

All of us have been reading literatures genratios after generations. At times a question arises in the mind what is the road ahead? where are we moving. what should be the objective of the literature while we reside in the 21st century?

All of us know that we live in a society where objectivity is the core of the affairs of the society. Materialist approaches govern everything and authors and litrerst are no exception. We produce only that which can sweep the market . High returns are the priority, if you disagree take the example of Herry porter. Idealy what an author should be producing? should he be intrested int the aesthatics of his readers ( for that matter he/she has to take into account the diversified intrests and level of aesthatics in the potential market) or he should say what ever comes out as a result of structural coupling of his experiances in the envoirment he lives in. The integrity of the author is in question, what is he producing and should he be producing it or not? what factors are there to affect his creativity.\
Basicaly the idea behind authintic litreature ( Any thing which comes out of the inner, whihc is un biased and pure, i call it authintic literature) is that u have the flame of inspiration ignited inside and then the Candle burns itself to produce the light of authintic literature, now is it happening or its only words that they sell to us.
My question is while we live in a stock exchange governed society where economics has emerged as the single most reality, what is the future of the pure authors. what are the new horizons for authintic literature???

"Basicaly the idea behind authintic litreature ( Any thing which comes out of the inner, whihc is un biased and pure, i call it authintic literature) is that u have the flame of inspiration ignited inside and then the Candle burns itself to produce the light of authintic literature, now is it happening or its only words that they sell to us."

im still not sure what you mean by authentic literature.

as for new horizons for literature, people should be writing about whatevers going on in the world today, new horizons dont necessarily mean new techniques in literature only new ways of telling old stories.

i see what you mean about a sort of cynicism toward selling more books but dont forget publishing is a business and theyre out to make money, not to satisfy the snobbish elite of literature (no offence). as for harry potter, well, magic etc wasnt really that popular before harry potter, with the obvious except of tolkien, but fantasy wasnt mainstream and now all of a sudden it is. well phenomena happen but i think credit ought to be given to jo rowling for writing an excellent series because shes the one who started off this trend by showing originality, skill and charm.
neither does mainstream literature, eg selling a lot of books, mean that those books are necessarily bad, with the obvious exception of dan brown. yuck.

all of those other things you mentioned, materialism, money concerns, etc have been around forever and are in no way new to our generation/time.

as for what should a writer be producing? ideally? a writer should, in my opinion, be writing for themselves not for money, fame, etc, but to improve their own lives and the lives of their readers. any other approach and i think the writing suffers and we get more claptrap in the market. so what should we write about? whatever interests us, there is no ideal topic a writer should be writing about (though human interest/ human condition stories tend to be rather highly thought of) just so long as the writing is good then i think the topic is moot.

and the objective of literature should be what it has always been. to enlighten people and open their minds to compassion empathy and understanding, to improve the way we live and make our lives more fulfilling, to encourage discussion about topics, and of course to entertain because thats why i read and why most people read- for escapism, for fun.

bottom line: dont stress about the what the public will think about your writing (because lets face it most of us wont be published and/or widely read) but write for yourself and for what youre interested in. writing isnt a way of life but its a way of enjoying life more.

:banana:

I entirely agree with you mister_noel. I think that literature and business, in terms of publication trends, will never equal each other; few writers create the 'trends,' but most seem behind a 'trend' or two. With the most popular books of our time, I have noticed a new breakthrough with spirituality and metaphysics, the future of which rely on books, both fiction and non-fiction, like The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, Life of Pi by Yann Martel, The Power of Now by Eckart Tolle, and The Celestine Prophecy/Vision-The Tenth Insight series by James Redfield.
In my opinion, some of the best books seem those unknown - not quite anti-trend, but just more talented works.
With the recent upheaval and bringing back of older works, mostly due to film adaptions, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkein, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Raold Dahl, and a few selected African-American works, like Zora Neale Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God from Oprah Winfrey's book-club, have made a large re-appearance most admirably. This certainly proves that originality must begin somewhere, and concepts such as inspiration move in cycles, recycling certain thoughts, and putting others aside for another generation.

and yet, is there any modern author who writes not because he wants to make money, not because he's trying to shock, not because he wants to gain recognition, but because he needs to? beecause he can't live without releasing the world that's trapped inside him? because he really feels that he's got something important to say, something that people will relate to and that will help to find answers or to raise other questions?

Well said, frozenlight. I would hope for many, but few exist, at least any well-known ideal authors as such.

thats true, i suppose i was being idealistic/naive about peoples intentions regarding writing.
i think it was foucault or someone who said that everything we do is to attract the attentions of the opposite sex, so based on that assumption we never do anything without wanting a reward just like we hunger for recognition/money/etc when we write.
but the very fact that we choose the medium of writing shows that theres something more than materialism there, that there is a deeper delight we take in writing.

:banana:

A writer is someone who writes. Seems simple doesn't it? But the vast majority of writers, most of whom have here been catagorized as 'probably never going to be published', do not write purely for the purpose of some kind of edification of the masses, though of course many do. Most writers do not write to produce a 'classic' of literature, nor to elucidate some nugget of spiritual truth. No, most writers put pen to paper, or finger tips to keyboard because they must. They are compelled.

Poets, painters, sculpters, writers, dancers, actors, any artisan as matters of fact are compelled to perform, compelled to express an innate gift that will out of its own accord. Art is a power in itself.

Sure, some artists are wildly successful, world renowned in their own right, and some capitalize on the nature of our material world. This does not lessen the quality of their art. For every successful artist/writer/actor there are tens of thousands of artists whose work will never see the light of day. But their performance of the act of creation is not dependent on commercial success. They sill not stop producing their art, their creations, even though none but a few may ever see it.

Need proof?? Ask any one of the contributors to this forum's poetry sections to desist from writing poetry, or to cease writing all together.

Lacking an outlet for one's art does not stall or inhibit its performance. The art will still manifest itself. Art is inevitable.

Materialistic wants are personal. Art thrives on a concrete and spiritual plane entirely of its own.....all it needs to exist is its creator.

"No, most writers put pen to paper, or finger tips to keyboard because they must. They are compelled."
So true baddad. I write when I am walking my dogs, when I am cooking, cleaning, etc. I am not in the midst of writing the book of the century, nor to earn money (yet), nor to even get published (yet). I think, like most authors, of different subjects, times and characters, which would never mesh together on one page, never mind one book. Ideas are constantly flowing, like when I draw. Maybe that's why I like to exhaust one author, their next book, then their next. To see where they've gone, mentally, how they've changed themes or even kept them. Like musicians, I recognize the same background, but the words change. I feel, when walking into a book store, like there is so much more opportunity, I sometimes lose my breath when having to make a decision as to which book to take home. I am comfortable with the "pickings" of present day literature, I can mix it up with classics, squishy mind-numbing babble and even see people talk about it on t.v., the newest wonder. And I don't give a rat's tail why they wrote it, if it seems monetary or self-absorbed, as long as I entered that world for a little bit to stop the voices in my head of my own stories.

Amen lhaebar!! The only time I'm not composing is when I'm asleep. And even then I can't be too sure..........

Beware the intentional fallacy! We can NEVER know a writers true intentions just from reading his works. Often writers don't even know thier own intentions and are pleasantly surprised when they produce something deep and insightful. What you take from a piece you've read is completely independant of what the author put into it.

Si amigo, this is so true. It is difficult (as a writer) to know when or where a tale will end. This may seem unorthodox, but what artist knows what the final piece will really look like?

.....Love the phrase, 'intentional fallacy'... it has a nice flow to it.......kinda softens the blow that is its truth.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

No, most writers put pen to paper, or finger tips to keyboard because they must. They are compelled.

---

Tee hee! This reminded me of something a friend told me once. She was in the kitchen and suddenly was inspired to write a poem. She knew that she must write it right then and there otherwise it would leave her head. The fastest thing that she could grab was a bottle of mustard with a squirting tip, so she began to write it on the floor. Her mother walked in just then and thought she was going crazy! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frozenlight

and yet, is there any modern author who writes not because he wants to make money, not because he's trying to shock, not because he wants to gain recognition, but because he needs to? beecause he can't live without releasing the world that's trapped inside him? because he really feels that he's got something important to say, something that people will relate to and that will help to find answers or to raise other questions?

---

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. And again, Yes (all artists feel that way, only the medium changes). Further to your questions, yes, yes and yes. *experiencees 'yes' become suddenly meaningless*........wow....

IMHO..... *rebuttal*....anyone who commits/records/writes aspects of their own perspective to a medium as easily accessable as the written word intends a sharing of perspective. People want to reveal perspectives, they want a share, a voice in adding their own little cut, their own little piece, or pieces, of the puzzle that in aggragate constitute our very existence.

Writer/artists want to say it all!!!....Show it all!!!!.....Lay bare the truths!!!!......It is only the outsider's response to a perception that some writers fear.

Having said THAT, ....... in my opinion....most of the greatest writing in the world will NEVER be exposed.........a glimpse of many truths is all we'll ever get, and those only revealed by personal experience, or by the odd author capable of encapsulating what so many may feel.

........*yawn*....*Jeez......now I'm boring myself*......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

IMHO..... *rebuttal*....anyone who commits/records/writes aspects of their own perspective to a medium as easily accessable as the written word intends a sharing of perspective. People want to reveal perspectives, they want a share, a voice in adding their own little cut, their own little piece, or pieces, of the puzzle that in aggragate constitute our very existence.

Writer/artists want to say it all!!!....Show it all!!!!.....Lay bare the truths!!!!......It is only the outsider's response to a perception that some writers fear.

---

Agreed, baddad. Immanuel Kant, in his one aesthetics philosophical work, Critique of Judgment, could not have said it better. I try to appreciate all arts, but I often admire the thought that he considered literature and poetry the 'superior' of arts for the precise reason you indicate, of expressing one's self in language, and usually, depending on who you read, seeming the least abstract, as opposed to painting, sculpting, music, etc.
I still debate within myself whether I agree, but Kant certainly admits an interesting opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

Having said THAT, ....... in my opinion....most of the greatest writing in the world will NEVER be exposed.........a glimpse of many truths is all we'll ever get, and those only revealed by personal experience, or by the odd author capable of encapsulating what so many may feel.

---

Sadly, I must agree with this too. Out of all of the literature written internationally, I also get the intuition of seeing VERY little of it, depending primarily on the 'trend' limits to publication. Brilliant minds seem not always those that get exposure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

.....Love the phrase, 'intentional fallacy'... it has a nice flow to it.......kinda softens the blow that is its truth.......

---

Comes from the earliest of modern literary theory essays, 'the intentional fallacy' and 'the affective fallacy' by Wimstat and Beardsly. The intentional fallacy refers to what I was just talking about, that you cannot presume to know what the author was intending to communicate. The affective fallacy warns against judging a work by the feelings it invokes in the reader. eg. one reader may respond differently to a piece than another. An anti-semetic joke may piss off a Jew, but that doesn't make it an angry piece; a neo-nazi might love it and laugh his head off.

And as far as not knowing where your story is going :mad: , I once wrote a 3 page short story because I had a great ending in mind, but I couldn't make the ending happen. It ended up being a completely different short story than I intended it, AND IT WAS ONLY 3 PAGES!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

And as far as not knowing where your story is going :mad: , I once wrote a 3 page short story because I had a great ending in mind, but I couldn't make the ending happen. It ended up being a completely different short story than I intended it, AND IT WAS ONLY 3 PAGES!!!

---

Interesting, Kik. This example of 'intentional (affective) fallacy,' which I had only previously known the concept, but not the term, makes me wonder how many writers actually compose their work spontaneously, how many plan their work out, then write it as thought, and how these comparisons result with a reading audience.
I can honestly say that I fit in both categories, but more so the latter; I often premeditate what to write and compose it mostly as I had thought, but with a few exceptions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Interesting, Kik. This example of 'intentional (affective) fallacy,' which I had only previously known the concept, but not the term, makes me wonder how many writers actually compose their work spontaneously, how many plan their work out, then write it as thought, and how these comparisons result with a reading audience.
I can honestly say that I fit in both categories, but more so the latter; I often premeditate what to write and compose it mostly as I had thought, but with a few exceptions. :)

---

right. and for the horse that died for the rabbit you are a genious. why do we go through all the pain of hurting ourselves to find answers when we just have to look? because it is the pain that makes us stronger as we ask more and more!

I have a question pertaining to the focal point of writing a book,its purpose rather, as a whole. What of the memoirs? How do you feel (I'm pointing to no one in particular) of the books which are first person, of actual events they experienced? I'm not talking about Scott Peterson's sister, or such, but of the "I had a rough life, creative non-fictions"? The book I am trying to finish (not able to, don't know why) is "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" and he, in his forward,meets up with a colleague and is hesitant to tell him what he is writing about. He writes -
"Even if the idea of relating a true story is a bad idea, and even if the idea of writing about deaths in the family and delusions as a result is unappealing to everyone but the author's high school classmates and a few creative writing students in New Mexico, there are still ideas that are much, much worse." I absolutely love him saying this, because it's true of so much more, just write, damnit!
He also writes, when speaking of "The Knowingness about the book's self-consciousness aspect";
"...because telling as many people as possible about it helps, he thinks, to dilute the pain and bitterness and thus facilitate its flushing from his soul..."
He's so brilliant, in his forward (which is broken up into themes and rules/suggestions as to how to enjoy his book) that I can't get past it.
So, to repeat my question now that I've travelled completely stage left, is, what is the thought of the reasoning for writing a memoir, involving tragedy and so fourth, as they inevitably all do.

If I were to write a memoir it would be to tell the reader what I think about just about everything. In fact that would be the title: What I Think About Just About Everything by Mike Dillon. Or to simply tell my life story because I think its interesting and hopefully some one else will too, and just mabye I can get a few bucks from it in the meantime. I can't tell you what the though of the reasoning fro writing a memoir involving tragedy and so fourth [did you mean forth?] would be for someone else without commiting the affective fallacy.

Incidently, you can read both of Wimsatt and Beardsly's essays at: http://www2.cumberlandcollege.edu/ac...ry/wimsatt.htm

I love that title. There is a book, by Bill Bryson, titled "A Short history of nearly everything" or something like that, on my bookshelf. I got it as a gift from somebody who probably thinks I tell them what I think about everything too much. To write a book like that and then just give it to people would be lovely. I think I would title my own memoirs, in fact I had a journal while I was in school, titled ".....stain." It is another word for your location detail. Don't think a publisher would want it on the cover though.

Thanks for the link Mr Happy Button....

We can 'presume' to know if the author tells us. Authors, even good ones, can fail to communicate their intentions clearly. The idea perhaps is that the sum of the created parts may be greater than the author's stated intention, even when the author states her intention clearly in letters, interviews etc.
Slight digression. Once years ago having come ashore in Victoria when I was sailing with the NZ Shipping Co I met a very attractive cousin who had come through from Jasper (Yes a long way but we were very close friends) and we went to a loud bar/discotheque where we met an American student from Seattle. I was a sailor and read sometimes at sea when off duty. He was a student of literature and read a great deal. Indeed he had set himself the task of reading from the beginning of English literature to modern times everything that was significant (Aye a right megalomaniac task!). He claimed that what he liked in reading was getting into the 'cerebrealism' of another. I'd never heard the word before (or since) but it stuck in my head. He wanted to understand how other people saw the world. Presumably he had the notion that it was not too hard to work out an author's intentions. I wonder where he's reached now in his epic task! He was a nice interesting fellow and had obviously taken a shine to Val and stuck with us for a long time until she had danced with him several times.