Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[JCamilo]

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."

I fully agree. The opinions of those with the greatest experience are still subjective. Perhaps the way around this is to recognize that personal preferences are not the same as facts. To declare that James Joyce sucks, or that Harry Potter is greater than Joyce is a statement of fact. Personally, I have struggled to appreciate Joyce (although I greatly admired parts of Ulysses). I far prefer Kafka, Borges, Proust, Calvino, and many others, but I recognize that the fact that I prefer Calvino to Joyce is not enough to declare him to be the greater writer.

There is a difference of accepting the existense of a Canon and defining exactly what a Canon may be. Some people seems to attack the mere existense of such canon, as attacking tradition or some authority. Harold Bloom list (for example) is not the Canon , it is his list. I disagree with some options because I reckon for example that Bloom knowledge of english literature is far superior of his knowledge of south american literature. He is human, not good, as anyone will disagree if I create such list (I avoid lists anyways). But that does not invalidad the existence of such canon. That is like denying the immortality of Homer after so many years (We can tell objectivelly that Homer is part of the canon by his permanence) or how much influential Shakespeare is (much more than Alexander Pope, for example). Those things are objetive.
Plus, I found the attack on elites very funny. Those people when sick go after a crap doctor or they trust in the best possible doctor? Those people think Michael Jordan, arrogant as he may be, does not belong to elite for his own merits. Agreeing or not with Bloom, dont they think 40 or more years of study, a capacity to recite Proust from memmory, etc does not place him a elite for his own merit? It is necessary more than attacks on elitism to dismiss the guy, because frankly,in 100 we are going to be dead and Shakespeare not.

[JBI]

The problem with Bloom though, is the quality of work he has come up with has taken a beating over the years - he spends more time yelling at the "resenters" than he does talking about literature. As for the Bloom of The Visionary Company, or The Anxiety of Influence, I will admit he was groundbreaking, but the Bloom of How To Read and Why doesn't quite compare, in terms of the quality of the text. Of course, his focus is different now - he wants to sell more copies by reaching a wider audience - hence the list at the back of the Western Canon, which was more a sales gimmick than something meant to be taken seriously, and the catalogue books he is fond of writing now, yet he fails in the sense that he has let his scholarship slide.

The canon cannot be written down, because it isn't one list - it is a regional list, changing from university to university, from person to person. We merely can track similarities in lists, for instance, seeing that Don Quixote, Shakespeare, and Dante seem to be on all of the "literary canon" lists, amongst others. Yet the notion of the Western Canon is quite dated; it's only a matter of time before someone (or many people, as seems likely) tries to piece a world canon, taking from all over the world.

[Virgil]

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!

I understand where you're coming from A. We've (on lit net) had this discussion many times. There is some sort of balance that I try to achieve in these arguments. I agree that all works of creativity have merit and are significant to someone and that is their right and their pleasure. If it gives someone pleasure than the work has merit. That said, it is within the right of some readers, call them critics, who have come together and reached some conclusions as to what is exceptional art. Now they can be wrong and there can be differring and contrarian opinions. But I do think over time (say a century or so) that some literature (and this can apply to all forms of art) can be established to be superior, or if superior is the wrong word, of noteworthy and sustaining merit. That does not take away the achivement and pleasure of works that do not over time reach this status. I cringe at elitism too.

That said, I have not read through this entire thread. So if I've covered topics that have already been discussed, I apologise.

[Jozanny]

Meh, people just need to start more text-analysis threads, rather than the continuous context-driven threads. We tried to, of course, start one on the Poetry board, but for the most part, the discussion is rather minimal (as few people really joined in, and quite frankly, even I didn't join in as much as I would have hoped to).

Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.

Quite frankly, if someone really wants to discuss Potter, or any such author, they should start a thread about the books themselves, and go from there. But of course, that doesn't seem to happen. All we get is comments on the sales of books, the popularity of books, or the concept of reading in general. Or the value of the author (which of course, I know I contribute to as well).

JBI, I happen to agree with you here, but the problem, especially in a forum like this which claims over 50k posters of various skills and education, is the logistics. For example, Hayley started a thread on a particular Doris Lessing text.

I love Lessing, but have not read what Hayley wants to discuss, and think I am the only one who even bothered a reply, so I don't know how one coordinates it, and for me personally, it is too difficult for me to go chasing books I don't own just to participate.

[mayneverhave]

JBI, I happen to agree with you here, but the problem, especially in a forum like this which claims over 50k posters of various skills and education, is the logistics. For example, Hayley started a thread on a particular Doris Lessing text.

I love Lessing, but have not read what Hayley wants to discuss, and think I am the only one who even bothered a reply, so I don't know how one coordinates it, and for me personally, it is too difficult for me to go chasing books I don't own just to participate.

This is unavoidable. The fact that I have not read Lessing, as of yet, is a weakness in me and not in Lessing, or the thread. This is mostly true of contemporary writers, who - although fantastic - simply cannot expect such a wide readership as the classics. A thread focusing on Milton would generate more responses because generally more people have read Milton than Lessing - this not being a comparison of the two but a statement of the fact that Lessing has not been around as long as Milton.

[DisPater]

the fact that you are trying to classify literature using "genre" is a big mistake. in the case of poetry it may be possible (with fixed form poetry). we can call "the sonnet" a genre, although it is a forced taxonomy. but, in the case of prose, this cannot be done. all we can do is to classify prose according to themes (or in french "motifs"). let's take for example bulgakov's "the master and margarita". It is a horror story (satan himself is a character in it?? It is a sci-fi story (margarita uses a broom for flying)? cortázar' short stories where can be placed according to "genre"? or j.l. borges?

[The Atheist]

Failing to use sport analogy? I'm sorry but you haven't shown that my analogy was bad, you simply claimed it was bad.

I've told you several times why they are bad analogies - sports keep results and it's obvious that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter who's ever lived. No argument there.

Well you seem to have a hard time figuring the notion of value or worth as we use. We are not talking of money, we are not talking of technology. We are talking about art, some, you might say abstract notion. Well yes.

No, I don't have any problem with the notion - it's the why a work is considered to have literary value.

Even after 100 posts, we haven't got closer than "Because I/a consensus says so".

Please go ahead and get closer to your point if you're able.

Let me use your rhetoric again: You read George Orwell only because you were told it was good, you don't honestly like him.

Ah, but you've nade a supposition that anyone ever told me he was good. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. I fell in love reading Animal Farm long before anyone ever suggested it as a good read.

The question, with regard to literature, isn't what is better or worse for you. If you cannot grasp the language of Chaucer or Shakespeare they are obviously not good for you (at that given moment). What we are discussing is whether some literary works are better than others. My guess is that even your idealized "masses" would have no problem with answering that question in the positive. Anyone of us who has made any attempt at virtually anything realizes that there are times when we are on our game... and times when we are not. If all is but relative why make any attempt even as an individual at improvement. The slightest scribble of the rank beginner, after all, is no less than the greatest masterwork. All is relative... it is but thinking that makes it so. By the way... does that work in sports as well?

Nope. A n00b will lose every time.

This brings us right back to the training and competency argument. You seem to now be agreeing that training and study makes a great author, just as training and practice makes a great athlete.

Ah!! There we have it!! The sound of the elitist. Because of your experience in a given field you would suggest that you are better equipped to offer judgment. Is that not what an elitist in literature... art... music suggests?

I dunno how many times I can say this: sports results are not subjective.

Does the scoreboard tell all? How often have I heard sports fans arguing the merits of two athletes: Micheal Jordan vs Larry Bird vs LeBron James... Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds. I would assume that some opinions hold more weight than others based upon knowledge and experience.

Nope. Everyone has a different opinion - aside from who the greatest sportsman ever was - and nobody tries to suggest their opinion is anything more than that. There are elite sportspeople who become elite by proving they are the best, but there is no elitism in sports commentators. As soon as sport discussions enter the equivalent of an aesthetic argument - who was a better boxer, Ali or Louis? - the authority disappears and it become subjective.

You may disagree with it... but it is a fact.

No it is not, something which is evinced by your failure to provide anything other than failed analogies. Here's another:

The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends. The opinion of the persons who have invested a great deal of their time in understanding art or literature simply holds far more weight in discussion of those topics than the opinions of others. Certainly, they do not always agree... and certainly there are times when their opinions prove wrong (hell... even doctors were sometimes wrong!!) but the fact that an educated opinion is still subjective to a degree does not make it equal to worth to every last uniformed opinion.

Which is a return, yet again, to an argument that training maketh the artist/writer.

That's fine, but I will remind you of Orwell and Steven King. One has immense training, the other had none, yet I'd take a large bet you consider Orwell part of literary heritage and King pulp fiction.

Again... to do so demands specifics. Without such I can easily turn the question upon you: you suggest that all works of art are of equal merit... then prove it.

Admitting defeat already?

Sometimes... sometimes not. The opinion of the person who has put forth a great deal of effort in a given field is commonly going to bear far more weight than that which is uniformed and inexperienced.

I avoid this argument like the plague. On this basis, the world's expert on telepathy would be Dean Radin.

A tip: he isn't.

Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.

But still unable to quantify that literary greatness you've vehemently insisted exists?

Write away; I really would like to hear a coherent argument as to why you're right, but at this stage, all I see from the defenders of literature that "My opinion is right."

[SleepyWitch]

I know this is a bit random, but there's this popular crime novel I need to vent about. Harry Potter will look like Nobel Prize material in comparison to this kind of writing.
The book I mean is a German one by a woman called Charlotte Link.
The story/ plot is as follows

plot 1
a well-educated professional
middle class
woman is cheated on by
her husband and they separate

plot 2
one/ more woman/women
is/ are murdered.
(forgot how many)
oi confusion, who can be
the murderer?
..
...
...
plot 1

the middle-aged middleclass woman goes on holidays in Italy.
there she meets the black-haired,
green-eyed, well-built, oh so charming
dreamlover and they have a good time doing
clichéd things like having dinners and phenomenal orgasms.
(Ok, I admit I'M not sure I remember that last bit correctly )

then they go to live in Switzerland or some place and the dream lover
gets nasty.
The woman leaves him but he returns to murder her because he is a psychopath/ rapist/ whatever.
There are some gruesome scenes about either the woman/ the dream lovers other ex girlfriend being nearly slaughtered by him (I think it wasn't even the woman herself but another girl). But then she isn't killed and the guy kills himself and the woman goes home (not to her cheating husband, though).

oh, I forgot, the title of the novel is "The Admirer". hum? who on earth can be the murderer? is there an admirer in this book? surely she doesn't mean the black-haired, green-eyed, well-built pseudo-Italian dream-lover? *gasp*


leaving aside the question of what anyone can learn from this book (NOTHING, imho), what I fail to see is how anyone can be entertained by this?????
Seriously, I hardly ever read crime, but I knew that the dream lover was the murderer as soon as he started behaving funny, maybe even earlier, seeing as we need a male character to be the murderer of those girls in the other plot and he is neatly introduced and there are no other male main characters at this stage. I will not go down the "which-well-educated- professional-woman-would-be-daft-enough-to-trust-the-.....dreamlover"-road.
The language was fluent but nothing special. Just the normal everyday language you'd expect from a book like this.

This book was a bestseller and people from all backgrounds read it. Even one of my professors (physical geography) exclaimed about how rivetting this book was. ?????

So, what I don't understand about this kind of bestseller is how anyone with a brain bigger than an amoeba's [do they have brains?] can be entertained by such predictable, clichéd drivel?

[The Atheist]

This book was a bestseller and people from all backgrounds read it. Even one of my professors (physical geography) exclaimed about how rivetting this book was. ?????

Yep, there's that subjective opinion again.

So, what I don't understand about this kind of bestseller is how anyone with a brain bigger than an amoeba's [do they have brains?] can be entertained by such predictable, clichéd drivel?

No, amoebae don't have brains, but then, neither do some people.

I could think of several published authors who fit the same scenario, but I don't accept that because I think they're drivel that that means anyone else can't think they're brilliant.

[bluevictim]

You may disagree with it... but it is a fact. The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends.

Let me try again to point out why this analogy is flawed, since I don't think I was very clear in my last attempt. In both traditions -- physics and medicine -- there is a way to evaluate the validity of the tradition's tenets that is independent of the tradition itself. Another way to put it is that there is an ultimate purpose that "good" physics serves that non-physicists can understand, and non-physicists can evaluate whether or not the physicists are fulfilling this ultimate purpose. Namely, the physicists' theories enable engineers to do things like make more destructive bombs and image brain tumors. The same goes for medicine -- one does not need medical training to evaluate whether or not doctors are successfully treating patients.

However, there is no clear "ultimate purpose" of literature. The closest thing that comes to an "ultimate purpose" of literature is whether or not people enjoy it. While polling random people is not likely to be a good method of determining how to build a nuclear bomb, it is likely to give an idea of whether or not people enjoy a given work of literature.

I think, if you want to compare specialists in literature to specialists in another field, it would be better to compare them to specialists in the field of some religion. The main features that you built the comparison on are still applicable -- pastors and theologians (to use the titles of specialists in Christianity) spend a great deal of effort and time studying morality. Like specialists in literature, they expect non-specialists to regard their (the pastors' and theologians') opinions on morality as better than the opinion of a random person. Like literature, it is not very clear what the "ultimate purpose" of the tradition is, and indeed, it seems to engender some of the same sorts of arguments as we see here regarding what makes "good" literature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Athiest:
That's fine, but maybe you'd like to have a shot at describing what does constitute a great work of literary art?


Ok, then can you please try to articulate that?


Look, I'd be the first to agree that some books are better than others, and I've said as much throughout. The only difference between us is that I don't believe my opinion has any more validity than the dummies who write at Yahoo that Harry Potter is the greatest work ever.


People connect with different texts for a variety of reasons in a variety of situations. I wouldn't take anything away from someone who connected to a particular author, but preference is not the same thing as quality. You have to stand back from personal preference and see the broader picture. One of my favourite novels is Wilde's Dorian Gray but I wouldn't for one minute disagree that there are far better novels out there. The likes of Hardy, Austen and Emily Bronte, and many more besides, just in the English language, eclipse Wilde in the novel form fairly easily. But preference has nothing to do with quality.

Everyone is entitled to preference and can enjoy what they like, but it does not qualify them to raise Dan Brown above Hardy.

Generally speaking the quality of writing can usually be found within the first ten pages or so. This is the process of elimination at the BBC and at other publishers. Of course they have other agenda’s such as the marketing of a particular piece, audience, the suitability of it in terms of sales, etc, so this is not perfect, but overall quality can be sampled within a short time. It is not possible to spot many things within such a short space, in particular character development and integrity, but it is quite easy to spot poor writing within such a space of time, clichés, poor structure, obvious motifs, poor descriptive quality, cheap narrative tricks, all shout out of the writing - loudly. I remember being forced to read a popular detective novel for a module at uni, it took till page two for the detective to bring out the coffee and donuts!

All texts are equal, it is just that some texts are more equal than others.

I would like everyone who hasn't to read, for instance, Alice Munro.

Anything in particular?

[JCamilo]

Let me try again to point out why this analogy is flawed, since I don't think I was very clear in my last attempt. In both traditions -- physics and medicine -- there is a way to evaluate the validity of the tradition's tenets that is independent of the tradition itself. Another way to put it is that there is an ultimate purpose that "good" physics serves that non-physicists can understand, and non-physicists can evaluate whether or not the physicists are fulfilling this ultimate purpose. Namely, the physicists' theories enable engineers to do things like make more destructive bombs and image brain tumors. The same goes for medicine -- one does not need medical training to evaluate whether or not doctors are successfully treating patients.

I do not think you understand well. In the Internet you are not goint to find people who can tell why Yeates poetry is superior to my poetry and give you the reasons. It is harder, but it can be done using objective approach - his use of the vocabulary, his use of cliches, the metric and rythim, etc. It may be not precise as physics - nothing "is" - but saying there is no objective way to analyse a artistic work is ignoring the fact all artists are trainned with objective techniques and must apply it correctly.
As "ultimate purpose"? You cannt tell that Dante achive his "ultimate purpose" right now? His work (fact, not subjective opinion) read since ever by all kind of cultures, Beatrice is the most famous muse in the history of literature, the italian is a stabilished idiom, etc. Just because it is needed more time to analyse and we can not be sure about predictions, this does not mean the reading of the history is flawed as you suggest.
No one needs magical training to tell Shakespeare was a success. You do not even need to read him. I can not explain why the doctor cured me, but I can tell he does. I can not tell why Shakespeare is so good, but we can tell he is good.

However, there is no clear "ultimate purpose" of literature. The closest thing that comes to an "ultimate purpose" of literature is whether or not people enjoy it. While polling random people is not likely to be a good method of determining how to build a nuclear bomb, it is likely to give an idea of whether or not people enjoy a given work of literature.

"Ultimate purpose" is your creation. It is not like every biologist started studying a subject and rejected anything else than his ultimate purpose because of that, otherwise the most important theory of biology history would not exist, since Darwin had no interest to study animals, he was basically just collecting species for Lyell. In the end Ultimate Purpose of both is finding the truth - a philosophical aspect - and nothing relevant for the results and impact.
The same people who can randomly like a book that is not reggarded as good is able to come up with great medicine. For example, my father's wife have great stuff to cure a flu. Some random people are creationists also. They even think it is scientific. You can not stop the folk lore, can you?

I think, if you want to compare specialists in literature to specialists in another field, it would be better to compare them to specialists in the field of some religion. The main features that you built the comparison on are still applicable -- pastors and theologians (to use the titles of specialists in Christianity) spend a great deal of effort and time studying morality. Like specialists in literature, they expect non-specialists to regard their (the pastors' and theologians') opinions on morality as better than the opinion of a random person. Like literature, it is not very clear what the "ultimate purpose" of the tradition is, and indeed, it seems to engender some of the same sorts of arguments as we see here regarding what makes "good" literature.

That is silly. Scientists do not even bother to reggard the opinion of anyone who is not a specialist in their field, they also expect to have their opinions reggarded as true, because any specialist in the field of art, they have spent years building such knowledge. Elits are build this way and trying to imply there is not an human elit among scientist is out of place.
Just like everything, every single individual will have his opinion, this opinion will be "tested" by the body of knowledge of all humankind. Ezra Pound didnt like Virgil, Voltaire didnt like Shakespeare. Imagine if their individual wills (strong as they were) would be able to destroy the so claimed subjective of art analyses.

The problem with Bloom though, is the quality of work he has come up with has taken a beating over the years - he spends more time yelling at the "resenters" than he does talking about literature. As for the Bloom of The Visionary Company, or The Anxiety of Influence, I will admit he was groundbreaking, but the Bloom of How To Read and Why doesn't quite compare, in terms of the quality of the text. Of course, his focus is different now - he wants to sell more copies by reaching a wider audience - hence the list at the back of the Western Canon, which was more a sales gimmick than something meant to be taken seriously, and the catalogue books he is fond of writing now, yet he fails in the sense that he has let his scholarship slide.

Agreed, I would say he is suffering with his anxiety because he discovered his is a neo-marxist and he hated it
Serious, he suffers a Richard Dawkinism, his objectivity damaged by the holy war he is fighting. Still able to convice anyone to read Emily Dickinson. So, a good critic.

The canon cannot be written down, because it isn't one list - it is a regional list, changing from university to university, from person to person. We merely can track similarities in lists, for instance, seeing that Don Quixote, Shakespeare, and Dante seem to be on all of the "literary canon" lists, amongst others. Yet the notion of the Western Canon is quite dated; it's only a matter of time before someone (or many people, as seems likely) tries to piece a world canon, taking from all over the world.

A canon is a thing that happens to be. Perhaps we can all "It" like the Adams Family creature...

[Jozanny]

But still unable to quantify that literary greatness you've vehemently insisted exists?

This question is very nearly obscene. One does not quantify the arts the way one quantifies the spectrum of colors in light. I do not know what you are trying to destroy here, but you are looking at it in the wrong way. What is it about being the human animal we are that makes the way aesthetic choice operates so powerful?

A, you can have any opinion you want about the choices you make, this isn't what upsets me. Your determination that the arts are useless does. Why not go to a science forum then? Indeed, why be here, in a literary network forum? Even in a strictly material sense, and I told you before, my philosophy studies have shown me the problems with being a strict materialist, but even if one takes this position--our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art; one can even imagine that training in superior aesthetics is an evolutionary advance over those who have no aptitude to make such discriminations.

You aren't killing off fake gods--though seemingly this is the thrust of your position. I regret the loss of any further confidence between ourselves. Good luck to you.

[The Comedian]

but preference is not the same thing as quality.

This the key distinction in this whole argument, a distinction with which I completely agree.

Heck, I would prefer a half-dozen double-stuff Oreos for breakfast, but I chose whole wheat toast with light cream cheese for its quality contributions to my health and well-being. In this case I chose the better breakfast, just as when I chose to read Thoreau instead of People magazine I chose the better writing.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I choose light reading and heavy snacking over more healthy options. But I know that the only good thing about an Oreo is the taste.

[Jozanny]

This is unavoidable. The fact that I have not read Lessing, as of yet, is a weakness in me and not in Lessing, or the thread. This is mostly true of contemporary writers, who - although fantastic - simply cannot expect such a wide readership as the classics. A thread focusing on Milton would generate more responses because generally more people have read Milton than Lessing - this not being a comparison of the two but a statement of the fact that Lessing has not been around as long as Milton.

Hey, I hear you, but as health and opportunity allows, I am about 100% aligned with JBI and Drkshadow. These large and overbearing abstract contentions are boring me, and I think from now on I want to look at the authors and poets themselves, when I care to invest the time to do so. I cannot with Montale over in the poetry thread, unfortunately. quasi and luke have been dear helping me with access to samples, but I have to actually get my hands on the texts themselves and study a little. The weather is bad, and menopause is trying to kill my poor little crippled body, at least in this cycle!