Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[dogar sahab]

CLASSICS are still unparallel and I myself have forgotten how many times have I read HAMLET ,MACBETH and OTHELLO!!!!!???

[JBI]

Anything in particular?

Her anthologies are all, for the most part, great. I would recommend, in terms of an intro-work to her, either her selected stories, which combines stories from her earlier books, or for a more concrete introduction, the anthology, Who Do you Think You Are, which is the closest work she has to a novel, being that the short stories for the most part are interconnected.

Though, I would say her best work is probably Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You, which is a superb anthology. Seriously though, you can't really go wrong with her.

[The Atheist]

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.

Ok, at least you've made a start here.

You are proposing that quality of writing - character development, integrity, lack of cliches, clever narrative, good structure and descriptive quality make a great work.

That's fine by me, you've just placed Frederick Forsyth among the greats!

This question is very nearly obscene.

To you, sure.

One does not quantify the arts the way one quantifies the spectrum of colors in light.

Well, this is exactly what I've been saying - that all opinion is subjective. Wasn't that hard to agree with me, was it?

I do not know what you are trying to destroy here, but you are looking at it in the wrong way.

The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.

What is it about being the human animal we are that makes the way aesthetic choice operates so powerful?

Why does a magpie pick up bright objects to decorate its nest with? The origins of aesthetics are purely evolutionary - we pick good-looking (to us) mates in order to strengthen our genes. We pick good-looking vegetables because we feel they will be th freshest and most nourishing. Because we're a little smarter than the magpie, humans have broadened aesthetics to cover abstract concepts. As we've been saying, because people have different tastes in partner, it's pretty clear that we'll have different tastes in every form of aesthetics.

That stays true until people start to believe that one work has inherently more "worth" than another.

Why does everyone think his/her own children are the most beautiful, wonderful children ever? We cleave to what we know, and in the case of literature, our "knowledge" is gained through studying, which leaves the way open for confirmation biases to grow.

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?

Where have I said that the arts are "useless"? They aren't necessary for survival, but they certainly have their uses. My only contention is that no one piece of art is worth more than another. (Discounting the obvious market value of pieces, which again, is no more than personal preference.)

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.

Again, you're making my case for me. "Our brains are conditioned to respond and react to art..." Sure they are - but in exactly the same way many other human constructs have become culturally essential. If you can see where aesthetics in art and literature might have an evolutionary advantage, please let me know how/where/why, because I don't agree at all.

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.

Any myth is a good myth to explode, in my opinion. I'd thought this one could be dealt with on a very friendly basis because there didn't seem to be any sacred cows involved in the proposition - we're talking about books at a forum dedicated to the subject of books. If you're getting upset by it all, just ignore my opinion, since it's just that - my opinion.

[JBI]

CLASSICS are still unparallel and I myself have forgotten how many times have I read HAMLET ,MACBETH and OTHELLO!!!!!???

Classics aren't unparalleled. Contemporary literature has just as strong merits. Perhaps Shakespeare is unparalleled, but many contemporary works are just as strong as classic books.

Honestly, Atheist, you are having a solipsistic argument with yourself whether good things exist, or whether they are good because you think they are good. It comes down to Plato - Is a book good because we think it is good, or do we think a book is good because it is good.

Either way though, that doesn't disqualify the notion that they are good. Whether they are for one reason or another, they are deemed good or bad, and therefore represent quality, and more value. Subjectivity is a value system, and it works. You're just shoving in a misreading of the basics of philosophy into a pointless argument over whether or not something can be called better or worse.

I bring it back to this, if all roads lead to death, why live? That's right, until you can answer that, without something like "why not?" than there is no basis for argument. In that sense, if there are reasons we live our lives, one of them, or perhaps the most important, is a desire for pleasure. And certain things are deemed by us better deliverers of that pleasure. Therefore, reading certain books are better than others, because they give more.

Note, I use pleasure for lack of a better term, things like clarity, experience, and other such terms are also interchangeable, I cannot think of a header term, I just wanted to through off the nihilist argument.

[bluevictim]

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.
...
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.

Thanks for responding. I essentially agree with these points, and I don't think they contradict my point. My point is not that there are no similarities between the field of literature and fields like physics and medicine. My point is that the dissimilarities make the analogy unconvincing for the claim that popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a piece of literature is good. I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.

You make good points, and they bring the discourse to a deeper level in the analogy. You're right that literature is not entirely subjective. The specialist in literature can argue that a poem is good using standards based on his use of vocabulary, cliches, and meter, just like a specialist in physics can argue that spacetime is compact based on general relativity, and data from experiments. You're right that neither of them needs to consult non-specialists in these endeavors. But so far, all this really shows is that the methodology of the specialists in literature is (at least somewhat) coherent -- that it is consistent enough to be useful among other adherents of the same tradition. The difference is that, in the end, there is an independent check on whether or not the methodology of the physicists produces "good" results -- non-specialists see that their methodology produces things like nuclear bombs and MRIs. This is why we non-specialists find the physicists so authoritative, to the point that it is appealing to make arguments about the field of literature by drawing comparisons to the field of physics (even among people who are not specialists in physics). Like I suggested before, the closest thing to an independent check that comes to mind for literature is whether or not people actually enjoy the literature that the specialists claim to be "good", so it seems that popularity should be a much more important factor in literature than in physics.

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.

It is not clear to me that this serves as an independent check on the specialists of literature comparable to the independent check on physics I described above. Indeed, this standard seems to accord much better with religion than with physics. Christian morals, like Dante, has dominated the West, but it is not clear that this implies that the opinions of today's pastors and theologians should have the final say in morality for everyone.

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.

This might be the main point of difference between our opinions. I do not think these two situations are equivalent in this context. I think it is much more clear that being cured is "good" than that Shakespeare's success is "good".

As a side note, let me address this point:

"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.

You're right that "ultimate purpose" is a term I made up. I don't mean by that term some ideal that individual specialists strive for; I don't mean "ultimate intent". To exagerrate the point a little, by "ultimate purpose" I mean, not what the specialists want for their field, but what the non-specialists want from that field. I was basically just trying to express the independent check I described above.

To sum up:

I am not claiming that there are no similarities between the field of literature and the fields of physics and medicine.

I am not claiming that literature is completely subjective.

I am claiming that there are dissimilarities between the field of literature and the fields of physics and medicine that results in a bigger role for popularity in literature than in physics and medicine.

I am suggesting that it would be more apt to compare the field of literature to a religion than to physics and medicine.

Thanks for bearing with silly little me!

[JCamilo]

Thanks for responding. I essentially agree with these points, and I don't think they contradict my point. My point is not that there are no similarities between the field of literature and fields like physics and medicine.

I have no problem with that, I would just point that there is also no similarity between medicine and physics either. Or sociology and physics, etc.

My point is that the dissimilarities make the analogy unconvincing for the claim that popularity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a piece of literature is good.

I do not think it is necessary any analogy. Knowledge is (even in traditional cultures) elitist because not everyone have the time, education and traits to be dedicated to a intelectual life (and here, I am calling shamans and old storytellers intelectuals).
Also, the reasons why something turn to be popular are not always independent to outside factors. Today we have market and cultural domination. In the past the influence of important hystorical events could create booms of popularity (like books about the Second World War), and popular figures may create popular products (a book by Madonna for example). Fashion is decisive as well. Those factors certainly cann't tell anyone about the quality of the artwork because they do not last much.
But of course, Dickens was popular and is good. So, something popular may be good, and that is why I think we should pay attention to booms of popularity, after all it can be good (which is why it is silly when people complain about someone talking or reading a book they do not like).
I would say that something right is done when a book is best-seller. We just must see if what he is doing right is creating a profitable product or a artistic masterwork. I would say those are merits, but not the merit I like to see.

I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.

I would say that ok, Art experience is closer to religion experience. But I would say that the study of art often is less philosophical than Religious study.

You make good points, and they bring the discourse to a deeper level in the analogy. You're right that literature is not entirely subjective. The specialist in literature can argue that a poem is good using standards based on his use of vocabulary, cliches, and meter, just like a specialist in physics can argue that spacetime is compact based on general relativity, and data from experiments. You're right that neither of them needs to consult non-specialists in these endeavors. But so far, all this really shows is that the methodology of the specialists in literature is (at least somewhat) coherent -- that it is consistent enough to be useful among other adherents of the same tradition. The difference is that, in the end, there is an independent check on whether or not the methodology of the physicists produces "good" results -- non-specialists see that their methodology produces things like nuclear bombs and MRIs. This is why we non-specialists find the physicists so authoritative, to the point that it is appealing to make arguments about the field of literature by drawing comparisons to the field of physics (even among people who are not specialists in physics). Like I suggested before, the closest thing to an independent check that comes to mind for literature is whether or not people actually enjoy the literature that the specialists claim to be "good", so it seems that popularity should be a much more important factor in literature than in physics.

I agree than mathematic cannt help a study about literature and certainly is something we are giving to the critics of 100 years ago, because only Time do the test.
I think the indepence lies in the fact the tradition changes. I am sure about Homer, why? The number of cultures and traditions that reckonized him obviously form today a independent opinion. I am not sure about Joyce, even if I know he is technically great, they will be sure (or not) in centuries.

It is not clear to me that this serves as an independent check on the specialists of literature comparable to the independent check on physics I described above. Indeed, this standard seems to accord much better with religion than with physics. Christian morals, like Dante, has dominated the West, but it is not clear that this implies that the opinions of today's pastors and theologians should have the final say in morality for everyone.

Yes, but those who stoped to follow the christian morals do not reckon it vallues anymore. We still, even if Dante have nothing to do with us, reckonizing Dante.

This might be the main point of difference between our opinions. I do not think these two situations are equivalent in this context. I think it is much more clear that being cured is "good" than that Shakespeare's success is "good".

Didnt mean that way, I mean we know Shakespeare capacity is good when we are think of literary merits, not that he is good for humankind, altough I think he does.

Thanks for bearing with silly little me!

No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right

[mayneverhave]

No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right

Surely this is much better than asking a question on Yahoo questions?

[Drkshadow03]

Surely this is much better than asking a question on Yahoo questions?

How do you figure?

[The Atheist]

Subjectivity is a value system, and it works.

I've ignored the rest of your as not being worthy of answering. Some people would be quite insulted by the suggestion that they are struggling with basic philosophical positions, but I'm well able to shrug that off. I'm quite happy to leave people with their misconceptions.

The only interesting part to me, is why you'd swerve down that already-discussed avenue to avoid answering the question. The question is absolutely simple - what differentiates great literature from poor?

If your answer is as you state above, a consensus of subjective opinion, then we actually agree 100%.

Easy, eh? Could've left Plato with the kindergarten kids and posted the above eight words.

I suggest that a much better correspondence can be obtained by comparing the field of literature to religion than to physics and medicine.

Spot on, excellent post.

I have no problem with that, I would just point that there is also no similarity between medicine and physics either. Or sociology and physics, etc.

I'll just correct that one thing, if I may. There are actually many similar things in physics and medicine - they are both evidence-based sciences.

I agree than mathematic cannt help a study about literature ...

This is an interesting analogy, but I think you'll find that maths actually can/does play a part in literature. Meter, phrase length, lack of repetition, lack of cliches, fresh metaphor, great grammar, all of those things are either worked in numbers or conform to patterns which can be broken into algorithm. (Which is exactly what the boys behind Google figured out.) All of those things have been pushed as a big part of literature, and I would agree that literary correctness - which covers all of the above - plot development and continuity are all quite quantifiable.

No worries, I do not think we are going to find truth in a internet forum, much less this kind of truth... Altought I am sure I am right

Hell, I know people who have either lost god or found one, entirely on the internet.

Truths live in all sorts of places. Truth, as in "Truth", you're quite right. Won't find it anywhere else, either.

How do you figure?

Sheesh.

Ain't it obvious? The opinions here are far more valuable than those at Yahoo*




*Worst company name, ever.

[LitNetIsGreat]

That's fine by me, you've just placed Frederick Forsyth among the greats!


I'm not sure if I have or if I haven't, I have not read any of his stuff so I don't know for sure. From what I have heard about him I doubt that I have in all seriousness, but I trust myself to make my own conclusions based upon what I read for myself so I will reserve judgement until that day, thanks all the same.

I just want to repeat this statement because I quite enjoyed writing it:

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

Sorry, but I thought that was quite witty, and I was feeling smug with myself for it, so I am sure you don't mind me repeating it. In all seriousness though I think your points are interesting and articulate but just "wrong".

John.

JBI:
Her anthologies are all, for the most part, great. I would recommend, in terms of an intro-work to her, either her selected stories, which combines stories from her earlier books, or for a more concrete introduction, the anthology, Who Do you Think You Are, which is the closest work she has to a novel, being that the short stories for the most part are interconnected.

Though, I would say her best work is probably Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You, which is a superb anthology. Seriously though, you can't really go wrong with her.

Thanks, I will look into this, I did so earlier and it seemed that she had a hell of a lot of short story compilations. Part of my wish to join such a forum as this is to come across "new" works though so thanks.

[JCamilo]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;634151]

I'll just correct that one thing, if I may. There are actually many similar things in physics and medicine - they are both evidence-based sciences.

Just like any science. Literary criticism, if we are going to call it science, is based on the evidence named the writing text. I would left to anyone the easy task to point out the obvious differences between medicine and physics, since one is just an application of another scientific areas (biology and chesmetry) and the other is the study of those areas, but hell, no. I am sure you can meet physicians that will point out how unlikely physics and biology can be.

This is an interesting analogy, but I think you'll find that maths actually can/does play a part in literature. Meter, phrase length, lack of repetition, lack of cliches, fresh metaphor, great grammar, all of those things are either worked in numbers or conform to patterns which can be broken into algorithm. (Which is exactly what the boys behind Google figured out.) All of those things have been pushed as a big part of literature, and I would agree that literary correctness - which covers all of the above - plot development and continuity are all quite quantifiable.

There is a big difference between being able to test you results in mathetimatical systems like physics and using logical language that can be symbolized by mathematic. In one case, mathematics is the system used for study and the other it is the object of the study. Different things.

Hell, I know people who have either lost god or found one, entirely on the internet.

Truths live in all sorts of places. Truth, as in "Truth", you're quite right. Won't find it anywhere else, either.

That is not what I mean because searching and finding god in the internet is just trying to fix in a group, not finding a god. but hellas, such is life.

[stlukesguild]

The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.

Fortunately, for us, its not a myth. Luckily there are works of art of great beauty and depth that bring wonder, joy, pleasure, depth of feeling and thought... and beauty to a world that can be quite bland... and even ugly. The writings of Shakespeare and Dante and any number of other artists who represent some of the greatest of what humanity has to offer will continue to be read long after your sophomoric attempts at iconoclasm (still more gods to deny?) are forgotten. Anyone who has been on LitNet or any similar discussion board for more than a few weeks has come across endless "clever clever boys" (or girls) with some small knowledge of literature who set for themselves the laughable goal of undermining the whole notion aesthetic value, merit, and achievement. Yawn! Nothing more pathetic than those who smirk at that which they cannot understand. As much as it disturbs your pseudo-egalitarian nature (or perhaps throws a spotlight on your own fears of mediocrity) all people are not created equal... nor are all artists created equal. Personally I don't understand what you hope to gain... other than wasting a few moments of your day... by provoking others who obviously are involved in a literary discussion group because they believe great writing exists and is of worth to them as human beings. Obviously such is but one more thing in which you don't believe... and yet like a fundamentalist missionary you would convert those who don't lack such belief. But please feel free to continue arguing that Peter Orlovsky's Clean A*@hole Poems & Smiling Vegetable Songs, the manual for winterizing your home, the phone book, and any random teenage girl's diary are of equal aesthetic merit to Homer, Virgil, and Milton. Humor is something often missing from these boards... although be aware we are laughing at you... not with you.

[JBI]

To the Atheist.


Honestly, I'm just going to ignore your whole post, and bring up one line, of which you fail to budge on your opinion of "The question is absolutely simple - what differentiates great literature from poor?" - it contains something (sometimes something hard to describe in words) that penetrates. What makes things pleasureful? What makes living worthwhile? Hell, if there is no good and bad art, are there good and bad lives? Does life have a purpose? Is it worth living without pleasure, I.E. if everything was the same, without change, and without any form of enjoyment? Of course not.



You use no real arguments, and only resort to rhetoric. Your response to everything so far has been "You aren't answering my question" or "I don't believe you." which essentially is summed up by the phrase, "Look how smart I am - I am unbending on my opinion of art."

Cut the rhetoric, several answers have been given already; if you see them all unfit, provide one yourself, but simply denying what people says isn't productive, it is simply silly. You are saying "Haha, you are stupid because I don't believe you." and quite frankly, it's merely irritating.


Sorry if I may come off offensive, for Atheist is a very honorable man, I am sure, yet I just find it irritating how someone enters an argument with the sole intention of flexing his "logical powers" over everyone else, without the slightest intention of budging, or accepting what others are saying.

[Etienne]

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.

But what about, say soccer players? Which one is objectively best?

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.

Oh! But can't you see the irony? See your comment at which this was aimed at.

Quoting you:That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.

So I take it you are the only freethinker here, according to you?

[JCamilo]

Yes, I see some people are challenging notions such how we can determine a moderm book is great or not, etc. But a superior book... that is too odd, superior relative to what? Longevity? Influence? Translations? Poetry language? Philosophical system in? Scientific vallue? Religious influence? Those will produce several answers, but we can say a group of books would answer those questions and that there is such superiority, but the rest is too vague and I am see only argumentative sophistry...