Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[JBI]

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?

Only read this one, and it was great. I don't know what the French title of the book is, if you are wondering, and the Portuguese title is Memorial do Convento, which isn't the same as the English

[bluevictim]

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.

The fundamental deficiency that I see with these analogies is that one doesn't need to be a doctor to evaluate whether or not a doctor has done a good job treating your ailment, nor does one need to be an electrician to evaluate whether or not good work has been done on the breaker box. If a bunch of highly trained doctors say Dr. Abe is the best doctor and Dr. Bob is a terrible doctor, but every patient of Dr. Abe dies under his care whereas every patient of Dr. Bob makes a full recovery, little ol' me with no medical training can still conclude that the highly trained doctors' opinions are wrong, or at least they have a different definition of "good" than the one I'm interested in.

I think a more apt comparison can be made to the religious elite. A regular guy might well wonder why cussing is wrong, but defer to the opinion of his pastor because, after all, the pastor is the "expert" on morality, and there isn't really a clear alternative authority.

A problem that elitists face in every age is that they have to simultaneously distinguish themselves from everyone else to establish their superiority, and at the same time find enough common ground with everyone else to keep their superiority relevant. So, if the elites continually call books "great" that people don't enjoy, and pan as "trash" the books that people do enjoy, the rational thing for non-elites to do is to perform a little bit of simple code-breaking and conclude that they should read the "trash" and skip the "greats".

It may indeed be the case that, by investing the resources to get initiated into the elite, one will enjoy some of the "greats" that he/she didn't enjoy before. This raises the question, how important is this additional elite ability? If it really is the case that the experience of the masses have no relevance to the standards of the elite, then inevitably the standards of the elite have no benefit for the masses and therefore this additional elite ability isn't very important at all.

It seems to me that long term popularity is one of the most reliable objective indicators of a book's worth available. You (stlukesguild) almost concede as much when you use as a criterion whether or not the work stands the test of time.


As to the larger question in this thread about "genre fiction" versus "literary fiction", some of you might be interested in these tidbits I've come across from Neal Stephenson.

The first is his answer to the second question in this interview on Slashdot (look under "2) The lack of respect ... - by MosesJones"). He talks about the differences in "accountability" between different kinds of writers.

The second is this talk he gave, which I found on boing boing (warning: it's about 40 minutes long). Here he mainly makes observations about the state of "speculative fiction".

[librarius_qui]

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?

José is kind'a tricky ... Try to take a look at all the titles, and search for the one(s) you think might interest you better.

I haven't read him up till now, but I itch for reading the History of the Siege of Lisbon, because of my background. (I lived in Portugal, I like History, I wish to begin reading Saramago and I have to choose a door ...)

But maybe someone who's read many of his books already will give you better directions.

These are two ways of finding out where to begin from, I think.


librarius

[Etienne]

Only read this one, and it was great. I don't know what the French title of the book is, if you are wondering, and the Portuguese title is Memorial do Convento, which isn't the same as the English

Heh, the French title is Le dieu manchot (something like the one-armed god or the penguin god, not sure which meaning they want to give).

Those crazy translators...

[librarius_qui]

Heh, the French title is Le dieu manchot (something like the one-armed god or the penguin god, not sure which meaning they want to give).

Those crazy translators...

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius

[Etienne]

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius

Not really, since the English title is also far from the original translation. It always depends on the works. I'm not sure it has anything to do with tradition, you know.

Translating is not always an easy matter, recently I became aware of the translation of the title of a book by Saint-Exupéry. The title is Terre des hommes. Something like Land of Man, but Terre in French means both Earth and land and both meanings are important. The universal exposition in Montreal had as title Terre des hommes, which they translated in English as Man and his Land (Land of Man is still the best bet in my opinion). Not very good translation, in my opinion. The title of the book in English is so bad though, it's: Wind, Sand and Stars... ugh... but this book is absolutely amazing, by the way, I could not recommend it enough. Probably one of the most beautiful books ever written.

[librarius_qui]

Not really, since the English title is also far from the original translation. It always depends on the works. I'm not sure it has anything to do with tradition, you know.

You'r~ right ... Maybe it doesn't. It's a hypothesis. "Every hipothesis needs material data to be proved or refuted" (...).

I've only put a general feeling I have on the matter, based on other cases, better not to mention here, cause it'll go waaaay off-topic.

We might open a thread (or ressurrect one?) on translation.


lbr_q

[The Atheist]

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.

You obviously missed my point - I clearly stated that each and every opinion on a particular book is a personal, and entirely subjective opinion.

Can I be clearer?

I read the books I choose to because I rate them far higher than other books, but that is purely my opinion. Other people will have different opinions (and abilities) and suggesting that one book is better than another for someone else is silly.

Honestly, you theoretically cannot even prove your own existence to anyone but yourself (if you can even do that).

Hell, I constantly remind people that solipsism is both ugly and stupid. What it has to do with the topic, I have no idea, but I'm with ya!

This sort of arguing goes nowhere, and is merely nihilist rhetoric.

Well, you seem to be making a good attempt at turning into nihilistic rhetoric, but I doubt that I'll help you on that.

It all will come down to - what is the point of living if you are just going to die.

Considering I was talking about reading, I really don't see the connection to my argument. Or anyone else's for that matter.

There is no answer, the same way there is no definite, unconditional answer that reading is worthwhile.

I disagree with that entirely; in fact, I thought I'd mentioned that reading was a survival tool. (I did, back a few posts.)

Odd that on one hand you're arguing the worth of one piece of writing over another, but you can't decide whether reading itself is inherently useful.

We must accept certain assumptions if we are to get beyond pointless arguing over logical fallacies.

Nicely put!

May I paraphrase?

"I say that these are Teh Rools and any argument to the contrary is fallacious."

Hmmmm...

Seen better attempts to justify a position.

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.

Again, I have actually said just that.

Your choice of wifely aesthetics backs me up beautifully!

Unless you want to argue that certain traits of humans are aesthetically more pleasing/attractive than another, it makes my point for me.

Obviously the OP was designed merely to provoke us "elitists"... and yes... I have no problem admitting that I am an elitist.

I hadn't particularly aimed at any sector, but yes, I did have a small suspicion that those who class themselves as lietarary elitists would have a word or two to say!

I do not for a single moment accept the notion of artistic/aesthetic relativity.

Well, you wouldn't, would you, you're an elitist!

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.

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Let's play.

In what way are the drawings of some six-year olds better than others?

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.

As you can see above, I agree with you 100%.

But on your basis, because she's an outstanding and most beautiful woman, that she must therefore be as good a wife for anyone else! You know that's not right, which means that, like Jo, you've just made my argument for me.

Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another.

Nah, leave the sports analogies to me.



Shocking analogy, by the way. In sport, we have a thing called a scoreboard. Each match, the scoreboard shows a winner and a loser. These are indisputable facts, which cannot be subject to any opinion at all.

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.

Well, you're talking to someone who is an elitist intellectually, so I can understand you position.

I don't agree with it at all, though.

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.

Couldn't disagree with a word of that. I said as much a couple of times already.

To point out that book X or painting Y has sold millions of copies is completely irrelevant to the question of its artistic merits.

Agree again. Hell. I'm an atheist - I don't do arguments from popularity.

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.

Then make that argument!

Since you can state why one piece of art or literature is better than another, go ahead. Don't just tell me it happens, show me how you arrive at the assessment of greatness objectively.

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.

Breaking this down, using your own analogy, you're saying that people who study hard are the ones of value - like elctricians. If they are able to complete the intrinsic technical elements of the job, then that person is of great value.

A great artist then, will be one who makes no technical mistakes and a great novelist will be one with a PhD in English Literature and perfect grammar. The bad news is, from a literary sense, that Steven King is the Lit Prof, while Orwell was essentially a drop-out.

I'm glad you prefer King to Orwell. I have it the other way around myself, but hey, either/either.

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.

Nor is all wiring, which is why some houses burn down and others don't.

I'm glad we've sorted all this out, and I thank you for your help.

Greatness is achieved through hard work, not talent. He who worls hardest is best. Very Boxer-like in the end.

[Petronius]

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.

The problem with this is that the purpose of art is to be experienced directly, not analyzed. The latter is a deviant approach that many writers (such as Fowles) disapprove of. While I understand the purpose of such behaviour in our culture, I do find it distasteful. How can we speak of aesthetic choice, when we then come back and center art on technicalities? It's like, rather than observing an animal in the wild, we choose to disect it. While that may help us understand in more detail how that organism works, one can not retrace the steps and make it alive again.

But my greatest problem with literary elitism are the strong conservative nuances, hinting at intellectual inbreeding. Most "quality literature" comments refer to canon authors, which makes weak points against popular literature (and I hate most popular literature), because there's little difference between the sides. Influential, after all, is simply popular within a limited group, while the fanboy and the snob are the same ape in a different suit. Shakespeare is poised so high on the standard of western culture that even a five year old can say "Oh, this is no Shakespeare" about another work, maybe even quote something he heard somewhere else, and get away with it. On an intellectual level, it tries to impress and fails.
Realistically, as good as they were, most canon works are dipped and broiled in outdated world-views (hence, the "difficulty" and need to study in order to find meanings) and they belong in a box with today's artists and art-lovers outside, unless they are specifically drawn to the era afferent to a certain author.

[Niamh]

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

Where i actually live is in that sentance i'll have you know. Black pool in Irish is Dubh Linn and my city is Dublin which means the black pool. The whole faery bit is because i usually have a faery avatar. Not to forget also that my country has a large collection of faerie myths, legends, folklore, locations associated with faeries and literature. So dont you think that the Black pool of faerie is quite fitting for Dublin, Ireland?

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

yes very funny.

[JCamilo]

Genres distinctions are ridiculous, science fiction, policial, fantasy are almost only usefull for the organization of shelves in libraries. As I said before, if we consider Fantasy was and is the only genre that matters. And it wont show anything about quality, c'mom, Paulo Coelho have stories that have the same argument of Khalil Gibran and Jorge Luis Borges. What does it matters.

The only reason people should be educated to read is to have access to a knowledge that was once a privilegy of a few classes, not to read just to read and die happy because they could spell their names. Of course, not everyone will turn to be such specialized kind of writer than will go reading Finnegans Wake in subway. But there is considerable more options and she must at least move there once or while (I disagree with the notion that after reading Dante would make impossible to enjoy any inferior work, even because we must re-read it. Since I consider the Comedy the greatest work ever and I have read it when I was very young, my life would be quite painfull. "Ack, Brothers Karamazov, how inferior to Dante it is. I feel painnn!") and I think the average work help to keep the market and all alive.
The problem is how the market is today, massive propaganda for one model - In less traditional markets (such as Brazil, where the "academy" does not have stronger roots due to a older literary tradition) the damage is considerable.

[JCamilo]

French tradition. Brasilian goes after it. I like 1000 times better the Portuguese way of translating things, because they actually TRANSLATE, and don't keep trying to find meanings to give to what already has meaning ...

Tough matter to discuss, this one, though ...


librarius

Blame Machado de Assis for this, but really brazilians can be rather original with translations as well, all the market consideration and all...

[muhsin]

Nice thread.

[Etienne]

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

Well a kid with a leg missing won't run as fast, isn't it?

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Well you can always give merit based on effort, but whatever you want it to be, the kid just won't run as fast.

[JBI]

Effort isn't the only factor. You are forgetting inspiration which is even more crucial than natural ability.