Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[The Atheist]

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Realistically, as good as they were, most canon works are dipped and broiled in outdated world-views (hence, the "difficulty" and need to study in order to find meanings) and they belong in a box with today's artists and art-lovers outside, unless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.

Very nicely put.

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

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

Correct.

Because in sport, the facts are absolute. A runner with one leg cannot run as fast as one with two. That's why we have the Paralympics.

If sport were judged on aesthetic qualities, a disabled person would have the same chances as an able-bodied one. because sport is about physical comparisons, obviously a one-legged person cannot compete.

Those sports analogies just aren't doing it for you.

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

That would then make J K Rowling an outstanding author. She's certainly put in the effort, taking many years to get from idea to publishing, and regardless of how her books are seen, they are certainly inspired. I don't think there's any other way to describe a plot which has enabled its author to become a billionaire. J K Rowling has oodles of inspiration. And if you meant inspirational authors, I'd have a two word reply:

John Kehoe.

I don't believe either the inspiration behind the book/s or the inspirational nature of the text supports your belief at all.

Seems to me that your defence of labelling of "great" literature comes down to no more than your personal preference, based upon your own aesthetic tastes and cultural/educational background.

[Jozanny]

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.

No it doesn't. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are things any philosophical inquiry or criticism can say about the beauty itself. One of them, in literature or art, is universal appeal.

Let me take De Kooning, which was one of the few splendid discussions we had on DIA:

Re: [DisabilityinArts] De Kooning


Very well. I am pleased that visual art has made its way into the discussions. It is such a subjective form of art and I am sure everybody will have an opinion to share with the group. Abstract art is not an easy area to understand as it focuses the viewer on the medium: paint, canvas, the tactile quality of the work and not so much on a definate object other than the painting itself.

There are many areas on the internet that discuss Willem De Koonings late paintings. A quick google will suffice. However the curator and writer Robert Storr from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) has written an in depth study of the late paintings with reference to other famous artists late paintings. In the book to accompany the exhibition that has traveled across America and Europe Robert storr gives a lengthy account of the works and gives interesting details on De Koonings studio practise while painting the late works. An excerpt of which is here: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1997...ing/essay.html


I will follow up this email with some more information about abstract painting and be posting a few images of paintings done by De Kooning at different stages to discuss. The history of the Abstract school, as the main group were known, is very interesting and eventfull. Willem DeKooning was considered on of the leading lights of this movement. At the time of revolution of abstract expressionism in the 50s people were still very sceptical, expecially in Europe about the new move away from realism to what seemed like just splashes or doodles on canvas. Sometimes leaving parts of the canvas showing. This sceptisisim has reemerged in a different form again as Dekooning, the aging abstract artist, changes his painting methods and style. Seemingly due to deteriation as a result of alzheimer's desease. How now do we assess his work. Are the late works valid De Kooning paintings? How do we assess DeKoonings identity as a painter.

The member who got this topic voted in was a rare find, a special education teacher in England who actually had an education, unlike most of my American members who wanted to turn blue in the face about ADAPT radicalism.

I do not have a great deal of art world training, but I have enough to see that what makes De Kooning De Kooning, even after he was dying of Alzheimer's, is his use of color and line to appeal to our basic emotions with a coy playfulness. Every artist, every writer who makes it, has some trait of this universal appeal, regardless of culture or point of origin, something that touches and says "Yes, I can identify with that!" So that we may learn something about ourselves, or the world around us, refreshing vigor and will, and the sheer joy of living.

And this is my last engagement with YOU about aesthetic uselessness. You have my pity.

[JBI]

They aren't inspired by the right things. She refurbished things. When I talk about inspiration, I mean it in the Wordsworthian sense, in the channeling of Raw emotions. Rowling I don't think is very inspired - a mere beginners level of Greek mythology, and a boring reading of cliché works isn't inspiration.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Atheist, I am interested in your points throughout this thread, but for me I have to side with the "elitists," some books are simply better than others.

[The Comedian]

My response to this thread is based on perspective, but the short answer is, "yes"; some books are better than others.

One legitimate way of looking at book is by way of craft. Just as some houses are better than others (they may use higher quality materials, make more efficient use of space, etc), so too are some books simply made better than others. Characters are complete, language is accurate and precise, form is challenged or perfected in purposive ways.

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My response to this thread is based on perspective, but the short answer is, "yes"; some books are better than others.

One legitimate way of looking at book is by way of craft. Just as some houses are better than others (they may use higher quality materials, make more efficient use of space, etc), so too are some books simply made better than others. Characters are complete, language is accurate and precise, form is challenged or perfected in purposive ways.

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

[Etienne]

Because in sport, the facts are absolute. A runner with one leg cannot run as fast as one with two. That's why we have the Paralympics.

And there are absolutes in art. Those absolutes are perhaps less clear or fixed, but they are there. That for example, a football player is better than another, does not mean that you do not prefer another one than the best, either, you see?

If sport were judged on aesthetic qualities, a disabled person would have the same chances as an able-bodied one.

And if each book was judged on their speed of running, all bad book would have the same chance as a good one. Are you having a hard time putting comparisons in their contexts?

because sport is about physical comparisons, obviously a one-legged person cannot compete.

And because art is about aesthetic comparison, Harry Potter cannot compete with, say, War and Peace.

[Drkshadow03]

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

It's true that some books are better than other, but simply because such a truth is valid doesn't necessarily mean personal tastes still aren't a huge factor in deciding which books deserve more merit and also that "good books" exist that may not quite be the "best books."

The problems I think with the "elitist" position whatever the heck that is as I've seen a variety of positions is:

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

It also assumes that because you did X, everyone will come to the exact same conclusions you did. If they aren't spouting the exact same conclusions than they must not have read X. Yet I am pretty sure everyone here has had a healthy dose of the classics, we all are fairly articulate and have wonderful contributions to make about literature in general, but heaven forbid if someone happens to rank Harry Potter too highly. Now we have to whip out the loaded metaphors about food critics, and how if only you had tasted ambrosia you would see how poor that other meat really is. Except the problem with these loaded metaphors is that everyone has in fact tasted ambrosia and hasn't come to the same conclusions!

[mayneverhave]

Honestly, I find art - specifically literature - to be entirely subjective in its overall quality.

That being said: certain works of art inspire a greater depth of appreciation, understanding, and emotion. Poetry does not necessarily require completely understanding in order to enjoy - although understanding helps. The Waste Land of T.S. Eliot does not necessarily require a thorough understanding of Grail myth in order for me to simply enjoy the imagery and the vibrancy of the language. Similarly, a reading of Paradise Lost does not require a complete knowledge of Greek mythos in order to simply be awed by the language and the grand nature of the epic.

Great literature requires imagination of its reader; it draws its reader and in invites them to be a part of the imaginative effort of art. There are no set requisites for art to be considered great, but it so happens that great art has ambiguity and beauty that inspire in us our own creative cognition.

Lesser literature simply does not. We read the story, understand the language, and that is the end. There is no transfer of emotion, there is no, dare I say, spiritual appreciation; there is simply the transferal of a story and the reception of information.

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

To reply to this briefly:

This is not to say one cannot enjoy Stephen King after one has read Faulkner. There are books, just as there are movies, made simply for entertainment, and do not aspire to a greater level of artistic innovation. Oft times I don't feel like wracking my brain over poetry, so I'll read a newspaper or magazine.

But going on that note: there should be no reason why these novels written plainly for entertainment should be compared, in away, to Art that truly aspires to be Art. I somewhat pity J.K. Rowling (but given her millions, this doesn't go too far), because she never set out to be the next Shakespeare, and never aspired to be critically analyzed by centuries of literary criticism, but because of her worldwide readership, this burden has been thrust upon her.

There is nothing wrong with simple entertainment, but don't compare it to the greats.

[JBI]

But there is more to it than personal taste as you commented upon in your second paragraph.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

I do think there needs to be a little more flexibility around "the cannon" but I still would stand by the vast majority of it as great literature. Also it should be noted that some of "the classics" are so because they are the first of something and should not just be taken as a label to their quality automatically. Take for example some of the early novelists, Behn (not really a novelist as such but on the road to its development) and the likes of Richardson are “classics” but their writing at best is average (well I think so).

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

The canon was never a solid, thing it is only used to judge old works. Even modernism quite frankly can't be put into the canon. The books that are taught vary between countries, and quite frankly, there is no definitive list.

Even Harold bloom doesn't think there really is a list - his list a mere sales gimmick - and to put it bluntly - a very successful one.

There are canonized authors, who will not budge, or will not budge for some time, but like literature, the canon is fluid, and always changing. Books fall in and out of favor, and regional attitudes, not to mention personal attitudes vary.

In terms of what is taught - it's true, most of that is fixed, but for good reason. Much of literary schooling is in classical texts, for instance, Victorian Poetry and Prose, or Renaissance Drama, and I don't think there is room for those texts to move around much - besides the odd random poem that gets thrown in for one reason or another.

There is no canon, because not everyone speaks every language. Perhaps there is an English canon, but I'm sure Australians, Canadians, Americans, Caribbean Island peoples, British, Irish, Scottish, and others see the canon very differently.

[Jozanny]

Yes, but Atheist's contentions are more radical than the ever typical argument about the canon's usefulness, and as a writer who has spent my life in the service of aesthetic vision, I am, quite frankly, offended to be made entirely irrelevant by someone who cannot see the *value* of literature. We will have debates about the pecking order of our artifacts for as long as we have society and culture, but for someone to assert those artifacts have no value, and no measure of superiority, this is, for me, beyond the pale.

[Joreads]

Seems to me that your defence of labelling of "great" literature comes down to no more than your personal preference, based upon your own aesthetic tastes and cultural/educational background.

Well said. People read for many different reasons and so they should. I have said it before if we all read the same books and agreed on everything this there would be no need for this forum.

If you decide not to read certain types of books because they don't appeal to you then great but don't just decide that the books have no merit because they don't appeal to you.

Not every book that I read needs to be a master piece sometime I just like a good enjoyable read.

[Etienne]

Do people realize that this is not about cannon, lists, ranking or whatever? Doing this is like trying to pick water with your hands. It's not even so much as comparing two works together.

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

But anyways I just feel many people are just going to misread my post and it's going to open a can of worm, so I won't be going farther.

[Jozanny]

No Etienne, I do *get it* and such a cavalier attitude has made me angry, to the point that you and I are on the same side on this, which I suppose could be considered amusing.

I had to stop myself from stomping off and not coming back, and at least managed that much.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Do people realize that this is not about cannon, lists, ranking or whatever? Doing this is like trying to pick water with your hands. It's not even so much as comparing two works together.

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

Of course taste needs to be cultivated that is very true. If I hadn't have read so much crap in the past then I wouldn't be able to appreciate the things that I now do. With that said I am painfully aware of my gaps and inadequacies in the field of literature, it is part of the realisation of reading that the more you read, the more you realise there is to read, and the little that you really know.

The only reason that I mentioned the canon was that in the past it has ignored women writers for instance and as such some texts need to be re-examined. For example I have a tutor who has recently brought Eliza Parsons back into print - it is things like this that I was referring to earlier, though JBI made some true and fair points upon the matter.

Of course Etienne is correct this has nothing to do with cannon at all and I somewhat apologise for bringing it up.