Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[Etienne]

Well JBI, I've been to quite a few places around the world, and I've always found the situation you describe, and I find myself extremely lucky then to live in Montreal, as there are many great bookshops, and a great load of second hand bookshops too.

[mayneverhave]

I make good use of my university's library as well.

The entire third floor of the library contains mostly classic/literary fiction. There is about an entire row or more of works specifically on Shakespeare, which is quite sad, as this section of the library is virtually untouched by over 90% of the student body. Even among my fellow English majors it is difficult to find anyone with even a remote interested in literary criticism.

Oh well, this is why I'm constantly on here talking to all of you.

[The Atheist]

If however, we can accept that people get something else out of reading, such as knowledge, wisdom, experience, cognition, etc. Then we must distinguish between which works give more, and which give less. I would think the more challenging (note, I do not mean more difficult books to understand), and more intelligent books give more to readers than the mediocre.

I really think that only applies if there are things to be learnt from books which cannot be learned in another way.

I agree that some books have more or less than others of those qualities you espouse, but on the basis of imparting knowledge, the handbook for a Bugatti Veyron would be the best and most valuable book ever written.

But the question remains, to what extent are the reader's aesthetic views developed?

And I'd just answer "So what?"

To what extent are my aesthetic views developed by looking at a Monet instead of this?

Literature is part of the arts and is accoringly always subjective as to its valuation. Certainly, lots of people (me included) value some works over others, but I can't accept that any book is intrinsically greater than any other. Messages contained in prose, poetry, art, sculpture and music are not always received in the same manner they are transmitted and not everyone sees the same thing.

....where he argues, splendidly, that poetry both teaches and delights, and the two are unseparable - it delights because it teaches, and it teaches because it delights.

That'd be lost on me. I hate poetry. I can't think of anything lacking in my life through avoiding poetry like it was norovirus, either.

If something only is meant to teach, it won't, because it will simply bore the reader, and therefore isn't really worthwhile. If something is only there to entertain, it fails again, because it doesn't teach anything, and therefore only wastes time, of which the person could have been doing other things.

Fortunately, almost no non-technical books are written to teach solely. As far as I'm aware, most of 'em were written to be sold.

If they teach very little, and delight very little, they simply aren't worth while. But if they do both at a high level, such as George Eliot's Middlemarch, or Adunis's poetry, then the work is superb.

This is crazy stuff.

Why is teaching valued over enjoyment? I'd rather read Frederick Forsyth and be thoroughly entertained than read some pap which is supposed to edify me in some way. I'm not claiming to know everything, but I don't believe there is any non-technical information I'm going to learn from books nowadays.

Their aesthetic taste is not developed, and therefore they aren't fit to judge what is before them.

Nope, the analogy fails. The 11-course meal may be high in TFAs and be poisonous long-term against spam. With eating, at least you can quantift the nutritional benefit. No such thing exists with written words outside of the subjective analysis of value.

I wonder if you could just (or someone) define what you are saying at little. Are you saying that all books are of equal value or just that all books are worth reading regardless of value? So are you really saying Mills and Boon are as good as Shakespeare, in terms of value and worth, or is it just that all books have value in some way?

Yes, all books are of equal value. Any placing of more value on one than another (which I do frequently, being an Orwell nut) is a purely subjective view.

It doesn't matter whether a book has 1 or 1,000,000,000 readers, it still has no more intrinsic value than the wood the paper was made from, just as a Picasso has no more intrinsic value than the canvas and paint. Interestingly, painters used to realise this by recycling older works of art to paint on.

[Etienne]

it still has no more intrinsic value than the wood the paper was made from, just as a Picasso has no more intrinsic value than the canvas and paint. Interestingly, painters used to realise this by recycling older works of art to paint on.

Why do you buy a book instead of a pile of blank paper then? It costs less and you get your paper one way or the other. If it's for the ink, this is quite cheap as well when you buy them in bottle.

[JBI]

Honestly, you theoretically cannot even prove your own existence to anyone but yourself (if you can even do that). This sort of arguing goes nowhere, and is merely nihilist rhetoric. It all will come down to - what is the point of living if you are just going to die. There is no answer, the same way there is no definite, unconditional answer that reading is worthwhile. We must accept certain assumptions if we are to get beyond pointless arguing over logical fallacies.

[Jozanny]

Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

[Etienne]

The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.

That was nicely put.

[Drkshadow03]

You, in fact, did miss it. Read the title of the topic, the discussion was at first on such "concrete" elements, but then apologists came and said that "at least it made people read" which drove the discussion to other planes.

What's the title have to do with anything? He was questioning whether Harry Potter had been Ghost Written. It had nothing to do with any those elements really.

If you want to make a concrete argument you should do the following. I believe Harry Potter is hackneyed. Now let me demonstrate where Potter is hackneyed: [Quote from book (i.e. concrete evidence)]. See how line X is similar to what writers J, B, and C (preferably with some quotes). See how idea Z is just rehashing of N. As we can clearly see Harry Potter's ideas are not original and just re-used tropes.

So where did anyone do anything remotely like that in the thread?

Well when exactly does the amount of books read stop so that one can judge a "genre"? The simple fact that it is classified in a genre (with possible exceptions) is a symptom that a work does not have the "strength" to be a "standalone" work of literature (which doesn't mean that every book not in the genre section is "good"). That means that the books would most probably be uninteresting by someone who is not interested in the particular genre.

For starters one should read the major writers of a genre.

Say I like literature, but I have no particular interest for fantasy. I like Calvino and Rabelais, but not because they write fantasy but because of their literary merits. Could someone, honestly, be interested in R.A Salvatore, for example, for his literary merits? Meaning that if he wrote some book which has nothing to do with fantasy or genre in general, you would still appreciate him as much? Good literature transcends it's subject matter for this very reason.

Who said I appreciate R.A. Salvatore? I appreciate authors who entertain me and keep me interested. Period.

Yes, I can agree with that, but read what you wrote again, "they generally focus on the work with real sociological value and interesting themes", which might be present, there is no doubt, but rarely will the aesthetic merits of the work, or it's contribution to literature as whole come into consideration.

a) not all literary works that are in the Canon have "contributed to literature as whole." SOME have. A work can rest on its meaningfulness and entertainment value and originality of content rather than on its contribution to new styles or aesthetic beauty.

b) aesthetic merits are important, but there not the end all, be all of literary works.

Aristotle would actually tell me: "One may string together a series of characteristic speeches of the utmost finish as regards Diction and Thought, and yet fail to produce the true tragic effect; but one will have much better success with a tragedy which, however inferior in these respects, has a Plot, a combination of incidents, in it."

Your moment of Zen.

[Etienne]

Oh well, I see you have misread over half of my post, but whatever, I'm done discussing this.

Just one example:

Who said I appreciate R.A. Salvatore? I appreciate authors who entertain me and keep me interested. Period.

No one said that... it was an example, and you completely ignored the point.

[JBI]

Strangely enough, one of the central facets of post-modernism is the undercutting, and mixing of genre forms, and literary types. Genre therefore can be seen as somewhat dated in comparison to multi-genre works, such as magical realism works like Borges, which blend realism, fantastical, and other elements, or historeographic metafiction, which blends history and other elements into one work. Of course, this isn't to say all genre works contain one genre in themselves, and don't branch out, it just says that most of them do.

Genre in itself can't be used to categorize literary works, since they mix genres, undercut genres, satirize genres, or offer something so unique that they can't be genrized. Stupidly enough, there is even a genre called mainstream, which means books that aren't genre, but aren't literary. How's that for a genre?

[stlukesguild]

This thread has been spawned by my Harry Potter thread which has been derailed to the unrecognisable, although an interesting point has been made which I wish to follow up on.

The theme seems to be:

Some novels are "worth" inherently more than others and we should not value reading unless something of "value" is being read."

I think this is a load of bunkum, myself.

I think any attempt to say otherwise is pure elitism and the exact equivalent of an art critic saying that one piece of art is inherently more valuable than my six-year old's scribbles.

Let's see if JBI wants to play!

Obviously the OP was designed merely to provoke us "elitists"... and yes... I have no problem admitting that I am an elitist. I do not for a single moment accept the notion of artistic/aesthetic relativity. All art is not of the same merit. Even among the "scribbles" by six-year-olds there are examples that are better and worse. As an art teacher I am made aware of this each and every day.

As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good. Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another. But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

We all make aesthetic decisions. We must. We cannot read and reread each and every book... thus we must make the decision as to which books bring us the greatest degree of pleasure. In that sense, aesthetic decisions are certainly individual and subjective. To state that I dislike this book or that this painting does absolutely nothing for me is fine. To point out that book X or painting Y has sold millions of copies is completely irrelevant to the question of its artistic merits. The popularity of a work of art is based upon the ability of an artist to fill a certain niche and to reach the largest possible audience. Popularity neither speaks for nor against the artistic merits of a work of art. Some works that achieve great popularity will stand the test of time... the vast majority won't. The fact that a given book is popular is about as useful a measure of artistic merit as he question of which book makes a better paperweight. When we begin to make broader statements declaring that this book is great or bad or this artist is far better than that one then we are no longer making a statement of personal preference... we are making a statement that is far more objective... a statement of fact.

The arts are certainly never going to be as objective as the hard sciences... and even they are not completely objective... theories sometimes become fact... and sometimes are overturned. The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off. Why then should it be surprising that the opinion of those having invested great labor in the study of art may hold a greater weight than that of the masses? Elitist? Yes. But there is nothing to stop anyone from putting forth a similar effort into the field. Perhaps their opinions about what art is or is not good will stay the same... yet with the ability to persuasively argue their point based upon examples/comparisons, etc... More than likely their taste will change as they begin to recognize that not all art is created equal.

Atheist: Humanity may create gods which merely suits its needs as the epoch requires, but aesthetic merit is actually authentic, even innate, to what makes us human. Yes, literary people will squabble, but you are so far out in left field that nothing we can post can help you catch your bearings. The woman you married was an aesthetic choice.



JoZ... is that marriage proposal still valid?

[librarius_qui]

Poetry and drama is separate. we have general fiction a-z. Irish fiction a-z. Crime, Sci-fi fantasy, kids and young adult, then loads of non fiction ones. I suppose we all do things differently in different countries.
bit strange not getting canadian fiction in a canadian bookshop....

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ...
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...


librarius

[Drkshadow03]

Sorry to interrupt it all with a silly interlude, but ...

since your location says
"By the Black Pools of Faerie"

I wander, "are there any bookstores in that country?" ...
Never mind about it, I was only thinking outloud ...

Ha Ha! That's where they shelves Harry Potter is in the realist section.

[JBI]

Reminds me of the time some girl I know called me boring for reading Saramago, and criticizing Twilight. I doubt she had even heard of Saramago before seeing me with a volume by him, and simply because he was a foreign writer, and a Nobel Prize winner, not to mention the name of the book was Balthasar and Blimunda, she concluded that I was boring for reading said work.

What a shame - Perhaps had she given Saramago a chance, assuming she could comprehend his brilliantly unique poetic-prose style, she could possibly had enjoyed something. As it is, her aesthetic focus is on Twilight, and Harry Potter. I don't think I'm boring for it, I think she is. What I get out of reading, for instance, As for me And My House by Sinclair Ross she can hardly fathom, since she simply doesn't know.

[Etienne]

Reminds me of the time some girl I know called me boring for reading Saramago, and criticizing Twilight. I doubt she had even heard of Saramago before seeing me with a volume by him, and simply because he was a foreign writer, and a Nobel Prize winner, not to mention the name of the book was Balthasar and Blimunda, she concluded that I was boring for reading said work.

Jumping out of topic a second, Saramago's books have been roaming at the tip of my fingers for a while at my frequent visits at the bookshops, which one(s) would you recommend?