We Need A Revolution In Literature!

[WolfLarsen]

09 argues his point very well but there is still disagreement between us. Disagreement is good and natural - if we all thought the same what a boring place the world would be.

There are times where grammar is not necessary at all. I discovered this a decade ago when I wrote a 70,000 word run-on sentence called The Exclamation Point! There are whole pages where there is not one single comma, period, dash - nothing.

Those pages without grammar are sustained by rhythm - perhaps the pounding rhythm of Afro-Brazilian drums or free jazz or just the rhythm of the run-on sentence rushing forward.

I feel that grammar can be tossed aside entirely - it all depends on what you are writing. A lot depends on what the writer is capable of. But to be capable of doing amazing new things the writer has to be able to imagine them, and therefore cannot be chained to tradition. A person of slightly above average I.Q. will often write a far better work than a person of very high I.Q. if the former has a free imagination and the latter is a slave to tradition.

Cheers!

Wolf Larsen

[WolfLarsen]

Hello Cows. Thank you for your comment.

You know - I don't know what cows means by "Literary revolution is right here, right now, tangible..." Really? Where? I don't see it. I feel extremely discontented with the literary world. I am so HUNGRY to read something that's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than everything else I've read.

Cheers!

Wolf Larsen

[VulpineDragon]

Well, when you're talking about proper grammar you have to remember that art itself is communication, and communication in society has standards to make it easier for people to communicate with each other. Specifically, in the world of written language, there are rules for pronunciation, spelling, grammar, usage, and all those other wonderful rules we all love and that are insisted on nearly everywhere. Such standards were designed for (and work best in the context of) communication for everyday purposes. And, the heart of creative writing (or any other form of art) as communication is to get one's ideas out there. If the artist wants to say something that's been said before, or communicate their ideas in a clear manner, all they need to is to follow the standards set before them.
But what if the artist wants to break a mold and put forth their ideas in a completely different manner? Or, what if they feel that what they have to say cannot be put into standardized syntax? Rules are made to be broken, so to speak. The danger with deliberately breaking rules of grammar is that it makes your writing hard to understand. Of course, this is cool if you want to make your audience work a little before they understand the work. But there can be such a thing as going too far. Will readers be able to get the message that you are trying to get out, or will they dismiss it as half-witted and meaningless? How far can you go before your art goes from being a cleverly expressed statement to a convoluted mess of letters and words that no one, not even the most tolerant and open-minded of readers, can sort out and gain enjoyment from?
More importantly, how are you supposed to sort out this kind of art from mediocre writing that is just plain bad? Tying in with the issue of mediocrity, there are so many writers out there (or people who have so little talent that they can't even be considered writers) who plain just can't write at all. With the really weird stuff, sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference. And, there are probably a few authors out there that are "ahead of their time"... their work is incomprehensible to people now but someday, when a few things about our culture are different, people will have a new context to put it into where it will finally make sense.

And there's also the issue that avoiding the rules of grammar can very easily destroy a piece as opposed to doing anything else.

[jon1jt]

Francis Fukiyama pronounced an "End of history" after the fall of the Berlin Wall. similarly, the end of writing came at the hand of Derrida's deconstruction. writing is a nice idea, so just enjoy it.

[Aiculík]

I don't agree. Thre are some interesting points, but I don't like the way you present it. You know... maybe I’m wrong (in fact I hope I am)... but this all sounds to me as if you tried to publish something and was refused, maybe even told that your work is not good enough. And so now you’re angry with all stupid publishers who preferred mediocre junk to your work.

The writer enjoys little independence. He is dependent on publishing corporations to help him reach a large audience seeking cheap entertainment. Hence, in order to make a living from his craft the writer often has no choice but to write mediocre and non-innovative “literature” that will be acceptable to conservative publishing conglomerates. In addition, since “success” is defined by how many copies are sold, the emphasis is on producing cheap mass entertainment.

Mediocre like who? You make it sound as if publishing corporations never published any work that wasn't mediocre. And that is not true.

Another conservatising influence (yes I probably just made up a word – good! We writers should make up words more often).

Creativity is one thing, hiding poor vocabulary by “inventing new words” another. Sorry.

another conservatising influence on the literary world is the whole prestige game. You get your work in certain prestigious “literary” magazines, get nominated for certain prestigious “literary” awards, etc. – and suddenly you’re considered a “great” writer/poet.
The pages of many (not all) of the most prestigious literary magazines are filled with excrement masquerading as great literature that doesn’t even qualify as mediocre – it’s just plain bad, conservative, and bland..

Or it's just you, who is just ignorant of literature. You just take your prejudices and form a position of ignorance and prejudice. You proclaim everything that doesn’t conform to your ignorant and prejudiced misconceptions of literature to be bad and mediocre. (Sounds familiar?)

There is no correct way to write – at least in the creative sense. The very essence of creativity is to write without rules. In the arts there is no correct ism – except INDIVIDUALISM. Hopefully, you are a unique person. And if there’s no one else in the world like you why should you write like anybody else?.

Right, there is no correct way to write. Which means there is no wrong way to write, either – including traditional way. Everyone is free to write as he considers best.

I am not against conventional writing. It has its place. I have utilized it for essays and autobiographical novels. But I reject the idea that everything – particularly creative literature – must be written in a conventional manner according to any set of rules, including grammar. There is no correct way to write creative literature! As writers we should SMASH TO PIECES any obstacle to individual expression – especially in literature – which has been chained to tradition and convention for far too long..

If well you not do grammar use it like why you. how See your will works be using grammar without popular.

The main function of the language is communication. And also literature is about communication – between author and readers. While you can sometimes break grammar rules to make your work innovative, you can’t just ignore it. There is nothing creative in the way I wrote two sentences above. Grammar is not something that was invented by mad linguists who only have one goal in their life, to destroy all creativity in people, you know. It's what helps language to work.

[blackowl]

I am glad to see a person understanding (REALY) that saying 'literature for public (folk)' especially Europen. Of course you are from north and much travelled. You know that you are living and poor or reach you will be always happy. I would like to discuss with you abt culture and cultures under attack. Have you ever read Wolfgang Borchert?

[Derringer]

I'm sorry to say this, but your essay made little sense. So the 'greats' were not original? Shakespeare was not original*?

But academia is primarily interested in promoting the “great” writers and poets of the past and those who today imitate them

Postmodern 'belatedness' suggests the use of reworking old ideas, but recent artists are not imitating- they are building and creating new things.

By a young age Picasso had assimilated the “masters” of the past – and he went on to create new brazen works of art – he departed from the past – and created wonderful CONTEMPORARY masterpieces. Mozart also mastered traditional styles of classical music – and he went on to create music that at his time was INNOVATIVE.

Well now we've jumped into Modernity. You would be very interested in Fredrich Jameson here, who has claimed that Modernity is not approved of by pop culture. I agree, to an extent. But, it is generally 'liked' in the 'Academic world' -- go check out a local university and I guarantee you will find a prof who loves modernist art.

Hence, the truly great masters of the recent past – in music (Stravinsky, Mahler), painting (Dali, etc.), sculpture (Rodin) – produced great works that were INNOVATIVE and hence FRESH and EXCITING. In contrast, those that worship the past tend to produce works that are stale and flat. Sure, there are adequate writers, painters, sculptors, and composers who can blindly copy the “greats” of the past – but by copying what’s already been done they are contributing nothing to the arts and literature.

This is just ignorance. Please joing your local art community.

There are those that argue that first you must learn tradition to be a great writer. By all means I agree you should read as much “great” literature as possible – both traditional and contemporary. But then some of these same people will go on to say “learn the rules before you break them.”

Forget learning the rules unless you plan to write a conventional essay or a guide to used car repair. In creative literature go ahead and unshackle yourself from all rules! SMASH any and all rules with a sledgehammer, a wrecking ball, or better yet with a pen or a paintbrush! Works of literature, music, painting, etc, should obey no conventional rules whatsoever. If you feel the urge to have rules invent your own! Look at Schoenberg’s 12 tone scale! Wow!

So you intend to become a greater writer with no knowledge of the language? I don't think anybody has ever said there are rules for art. There has suggestions of what the PURPOSE of art is --> what is the point of meaningless art? What is the point of 'breaking the rules' if you have no idea what you are doing? Purposeless art isn't art, its rubbish.

Instead of studying art (which they don’t) they take their prejudices (which are pro-representational and pro-realism) and from a position of ignorance and prejudice they proclaim everything that doesn’t conform to their ignorant and prejudiced misconceptions of art to be bad. In the world of literature it is even worse. Those who are ignorant, prejudiced, and close-minded stand in judgment of what is “good literature”.

This makes no sense whatsoever. So people in the 'world of literature' don't study art?

But let us suppose the writer is either not employed by academia or is employed in academia but could care less what some of his “colleagues” in the English department think – in other words he has a decent day job and thus doesn’t give a damn about making money from his writing. Such a writer may be influenced by such innovators as Baudelaire, Rilke, Octavio Paz, Anne Sexton, etc. and less influenced by the “greats” of the publishing conglomerates (the best-sellers) and the “greats” of the academic world (people who have been dead a very long time).

Whoa! Slow down! So you shouldn't care about critique? Gah? 'Baudelaire, Rilke and Paz are not the 'greats' of the academic world? Then what the hell did I spend all my money on?

Many of the “great works” of English literature in the canon were written by “gentleman” with disposable income (that they didn’t have to work for) and lots of free time, as well as the high social connections to insure that their work was published. Not all of them were talented or had much to say. Is a writer/poet’s work “great” just because it’s included in the Norton Anthology and the professor taught it in your literature 101 class

Ok. So now you have turned against Baudelaire -- who lived the BOHEMIAN LIFESTYLE! Many of the artists you have mentioned fit the bill here. Your just being ignorant here. You are writing poorly by making sweeping generalizations. A writer in the Norton with not much to say -- now im not going to defend everything, but something says that you didn't understand the work. Doesn't sound much better to pop culture not recognizing Modernity.

Literature has not even begun to reach its potential. In fact, literature will not even begin to reach its potential until all of humanity has ample food in its stomach and plenty of free time

What? I thought you didn't like artists that are well off and have free time. Literature has no 'potential' - it will always be necessary.

The seed of talent falls where it may. Most of those who have disposable income without having to work for it and thus have plenty of free time to write are inborn, have little or no work ethic, and are of mediocre abilities – like the president of my country George Bush. Besides, the outlook of the leisure class is often conservative, so it would not occur to them to write literature that is innovative

This doesn't help your essay at all. Ad hominen's against hasty, ignorant, unproven generalization. You sound like a jerk here.

Most people are so engaged in the struggle for survival that they do not have the time to create innovative literature. When humanity is freed from its bondage to an economic system that benefits only a privileged few than a shorter workweek for all will make it possible for more people to create great works of literature, painting, sculpture, etc.

I never knew Cesar Vallejo had the Internet.

If the world of painting can constantly evolve and change – why not literature?

Honest to goodness, you can not be serious here. This is just rubbish now.

Literature is backwards. You need to read more books. Seriously. Really quickly.

it’s just plain bad, conservative, and bland

Most essays I read make sense.















* well maybe not in story , but in use of language, stage dircetion...

[Derringer]

I appreciate that you want people to be original, but I really don't think you understand what original art is in the first place-- it has nothing to do with simply 'throwing away grammar' - and your attack on current artists is not necessary. Artists think about the art they make. They really think about the art they make. It is very important to them. It has a purpose. It's all right to disagree with what they are saying, but don't throw away the literary world as bland and uninnovative because that is not true.

If a person is going to school to be a writer, then they are not going for money. Otherwise they would be an engineer or someone who has a job.

[Captain Pike]

Please print something here which is outside of {poetry, short story, novel, playscript }

Perhaps I missed the point. Oh yeah, a blog...

[Adolescent09]

I appreciate that you want people to be original, but I really don't think you understand what original art is in the first place-- it has nothing to do with simply 'throwing away grammar' - and your attack on current artists is not necessary. Artists think about the art they make. They really think about the art they make. It is very important to them. It has a purpose. It's all right to disagree with what they are saying, but don't throw away the literary world as bland and uninnovative because that is not true.

If a person is going to school to be a writer, then they are not going for money. Otherwise they would be an engineer or someone who has a job.

You took the words out of my mouth... or if we're speaking it literal terms, the typed words out of my fingers. Although I, for one appreciated the OP's topic based on his perception of literature, I believe that blatantly overlooking the importance of grammar in writing is not a technique that should be readily condoned.

[SteveH]

The best literature is the kind without a price tag. The goal of writing should not be to sell books, but to write the most innovative and exciting literature imaginable.

That's what I always tell myself when I get another rejection letter. You too, eh?

[Turk]

It's clear we need a revolution in literature. But it's clear we need a revolution in all forms of art plus we need a revolution in the world too.

[NickAdams]

True originality is tough. Unless you are familiar with every book ever written how would you know you are original? How would you avoid reusing metaphors and similes? To be original I believe one must avoid used symbols and all allusions.
Still, one doesn’t create the language that they use, so they can’t be original in that sense. Tolkien created his languages based on others, so was he original or creative? If one can find a way to be original in the way they tell a story, what if the story is not original? The opportunity to be original has passed; only creativity is left. Creativity is a cave filled with echoes from generations of voices merged into the head of the writer, whom writes with one voice.

How about a semi-revolution?

[SleepyWitch]

Wolf, I haven't read your essay, but from what I've seen in quotes so far I think your idea of creativity is misguided.
psychologists distinguish between a whole array of different types of creativity (something like 5 or 7?? I can look it up later if you're interested). one of them is to apply established techniques correctly. another is to extend known principles or apply them to new situations... the type of creativity that involves inventing completely new principles is only one of many and, personally speaking, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the rarest type.

[SleepyWitch]

Look at all the endless varieties of music! It almost seems that there are as many kinds of music as there are drops of water in the ocean!

that depends on what kind of music you listen to. if you tuned in to a teenie pop station, you'd come to the conclusion that there is no variety in music at all.