Is literature dead?

[mal4mac]

... I will gladly admit that I am an "elitist". I am an "elitist" in that I absolutely reject the notion of artistic or cultural relativism which declares that there is no good nor bad art... but thinking makes it so... that all is pure subjectivity.

A non-elitist does not necessarily think there is no good or bad art, but that the seat of judgement must lie in the person appreciating the art. If someone dismisses a work of art too readily, then it would not be elitist to cajole them into trying harder. But if they do try hard, and still don't like the work, then there is nothing to say they are somehow inferior. It's just that they and some particular art form don't get on together.

On the other hand, I most certainly will not not agree with any notion that no one is writing good books anymore. There are any number of living writers whom I feel are certainly good... perhaps great (Cormac McCarthy, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, John Ashberry, Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and many others immediately jump to mind). Of course it is always more difficult to judge contemporary work of art than one in that has been absorbed into the culture. It can be challenging to discern true formal originality...

What's so great about "true formal originality"? I tend to read realist novels without much formal originality - Simon Raven's "Alms for Oblivion" sequence is my latest discovery here! It's a great example of superior modern writing in the old, realist style. It shows little formal originality, but remains within the formality defined by Dickens and other greats of that ilk. I prefer Raven to Proust, Marquez, Joyce, and other modernists/magical realists.

... recognize the difference between what may be merely timely but soon to relegated to the category of "period pieces" from that which is bears a timeless relevance.

I agree timeless relevance has to be a factor. But this has nothing to do with 'formal novelty'. Dickens is, surely timeless. Raven might be - several of his novels have the Suez crisis as the centre of interest, which has obvious parallels to the Iraq crisis and surely will always have something to say about how politician get into, and out of, ridiculous, large scale, errors of judgment.

Literature... art as a whole... is largely seen as mere entertainment by many and the art which can entertain the largest audience gains the largest audience.

Entertainment doesn't have to be "mere". I'm entertained by political machinations about the Suez crisis, and debates about how one can live with failure in one's chosen career. Certainly Raven combines depth and "basic entertainment" when discussing these topics!

I dislike works that try too hard to be different and turn art into some kind of puzzle (Marquez, Joyce...) - just my personal preference. I also think these "puzzle" works don't go any deeper into "big issues" than serious writers in a more transparent genre, like Tolstoy or Raven. Tolstoy is not generally thought to be a lesser writer than Joyce, so unless you like modernist puzzle solving, why bother with Joyce and his ilk?

Perhaps it merely demands more of an effort upon the part of the audience to seek out the best of contemporary art...

Or perhaps it doesn't - I picked up Raven, and other recent favourites, on the library "New books just in" shelf. The Victorians didn't need much effort to find Dickens - you would expect great, modern authors to still be selling quite well and fairly easy to find. Although I wish the library would try slightly harder, the "Dan Brown: Simon Raven" ratio is too high...

[nancybella]

Mac, if you've no time for self-appointed elites, why bother shooting yourself in the foot, after making some good points, by saying why bother with Joyce?

Plenty of intelligent people do bother with Joyce. No argument is strong enough to defeat that fact. It's a reality and reality is to be respected. If you don't agree with it, then disagreeing with it isn't the way to come to terms with. Simple avoidance (of what you don't like) is the way to come to terms with it, spending time with the things you do enjoy.

And you're a lucky man, your cup is full, if you like Tolstoy.

Tolstoy himself is a case in point. He wrote a good essay disparaging Shakespeare's writing ability. Some excellent points. But his essay achieves nothing, and nor should it. Other intelligent people intelligently like Shakespeare and that's stronger than the most insightful argument.

[nancybella]

But you're right as well, we have to say what we don't like, just as it was worthwhile for Tolstoy to write his essay.

Our voices of dissent are important, but it's not when we're at our best and a life spent in intellectual dissension is wasted. Though I know you were doing no such thing.

It's like Tolstoy's message of love. We're at our best when we're in the company we love, whether people or, in their absence, books.

[mal4mac]

Mac, if you've no time for self-appointed elites, why bother shooting yourself in the foot, after making some good points, by saying why bother with Joyce?

I shot myself in the foot and didn't even feel it! Still don't - can you spell out why you think there's a bloody hole in my foot? Maybe I wasn't clear, I'll try and be more clear...

Why should you bother reading Joyce if you don't like modernist writing? There are enough realist novels for a lifetime's reading. I'm not trying to form a realist elite by suggesting that modernism is inferior - simply that *I* prefer realism, and prefer avoiding modernism.

I admit "plenty of intelligent people do bother with Joyce". Plenty of intelligent people train dogs to perform at dog shows - but I prefer to avoid that activity. I'm certainly not arguing that Joyce and dog-training should be avoided by everyone.

[Darcy88]

No. Its alive and well.

[MarilynMonroe]

mal4mac, when you talk to people, I'd say they give a big smile and think 'idiot' and 'here we go' :-)