Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[JCamilo]

Do not forget the part that the basic reading capacity is also the same capacity used to read Shakespeare as if the majority of readers today are used to read plays in verse and not the typical prose or journalism.

[The Atheist]

The point remains though, that to study texts you must have texts that can be studied, and therefore you will get a list of books that people deem as being worth studying.

Yep, that's what I intended to point out.

You would know that lists, even for the same class, are subject to change, year by year, and teacher by teacher.

Sure, in individual classes, but I wasn't meaning that kind of physical list, because aside from a very select few, the number of "classics" currently considered classics is in a mild state of flux. I guess this comes back to where the line is drawn. I doubt even the most ardent literature fanatic wouldn't draw a line and say, "This is where literature stops and garbage starts." By "list of classics", I'd mean books which would have a majority of Lit students feeling the book is worthy of classical or important status.

And P.S., Forsythe doesn't have the basics mechanisms of writing down pact - few do, even canonical writers don't have the mechanisms down perfect the whole time.

"Down pat" is the cliche I think you're looking for.

I'd agree with what you say, because the point of my comment was that Forsyth - please do the man at least the favour of getting his name right, whether or not you've read any of his books, you know very well who he is - in terms of his writing ability in the mechanisms of writing, is at least as accurate as any author who would be considered a literary giant. And better than many.

That is not true. The amount necessary for reading and understanding any book is variable. There is more levels of "reading capacity" than you seem to admit. Most people can not understand Shakespeare well.

No, I admit there are huge differences in reading levels, which is why I used a high level as the cut-off point. If a person is physically unable to understand a book, then they clearly aren't going to be able to rate it.

Here is another problem. Literature, as art, follow no such compromisse. If you are going to present a theory of literary worth you must assume Mallarmé and Joyce played the same game of Flaubert and J.K.Rowling. Do not excuse objects of study because they do not fit in your theories.

No; you're well off track here. As I've established a level of comprehension, clearly there is a difference between word salad and Orwell. A book has to at least conform to minimum standards, and in these days of independent publishing, editors can;t be relied upon to weed the word salads out.

You need more than trying to imply a illuminati.

I'm not and haven't. I've pointed out cultural bias, not a conspiracy.

Meh, when it comes down to it also, a lot of books are enduring, because they are enjoyed by people outside of academia. Sure, many of us on these boards are English students, but many aren't. Why do those people read then? Could it perhaps be (gasps!) the fact that books give something to the reader, emotional reaction perhaps, or other such effects? Could it be that people actually respond to reading, and other forms of communication? Could it be that people gain meaning in their lives from these sorts of things, in the Sartian sense? Or perhaps it could be simply, that a book is an outlet to explore oneself, and come to a better understand of ones life. That too is a possibility.

This seems to support my argument more than yours, in fact, I'm pretty sure my last post pointed very much the same thing out - that people can get value from all sorts of places, it's individual.

These two elements make all books of equal quality/prove that literary "worth" does not exist.

No, I was establishing parameters.

If I am correct in summarizing your position, and please correct me if I am not, then while your argument that literary worth is subjective has a lot of weight, I just don't see how you prove that worth/greatness doesn't exist at all unless you underpin it with the idea that all immaterial things either don't exist or have equalized value.

I did use the example of art - but I'll confirm that I rate non-material artifacts at equal value. My own opinion rates some more highly than others, to me, but I don't believe than any has a greater value than another.

[JCamilo]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;634830]
No, I admit there are huge differences in reading levels, which is why I used a high level as the cut-off point. If a person is physically unable to understand a book, then they clearly aren't going to be able to rate it.[quote]

You didnt use high level reading level ,you used basic and low. That is why your books must follow some standards. Because they are meant for basic understanding. Joyce Alone would destroy your arguments because he is almost impossible to understand.
As the rest, Then we must agree - Art is hard to understand, that is why it is hard for anyone just to rate it.

No; you're well off track here. As I've established a level of comprehension, clearly there is a difference between word salad and Orwell. A book has to at least conform to minimum standards, and in these days of independent publishing, editors can;t be relied upon to weed the word salads out.

You havent. What is the distinction? Semantic Level ? Symbolism? Philosophical... you just put together shakespeare and basic level of reading, that is like saying a dwarf can play in the NBA.

I'm not and haven't. I've pointed out cultural bias, not a conspiracy.

You have not pointed a cultural bias other thna dominating groups keeping certains books alive. You are unable to tell me why Voltaire attacks on Dante and Shakespeare have not destroyed those two neither how Oscar Wilde could survive being antagonist to the dominant society of his nation.

This seems to support my argument more than yours, in fact, I'm pretty sure my last post pointed very much the same thing out - that people can get value from all sorts of places, it's individual.

And many people can explain the origem of life diversity, few are right.

[JBI]

dslkfj ldskfj lldskjf lksd lsdkjf llsdk jlksd lkjd lkfjl ksdjf lkjsdflk jlsdkj lksdjlkfjl skdfj lksdj

Get value out of that.

Now, you can understand me, I am making a coherent sentence, and therefore, am communicating something. The question is though, a) what am I communicating, and b) how am I communicating it.

In other words, what does a text mean, and how does it mean. Some meanings, and deliveries are better than others. Some books create consistent reactions. The thing is though, some people act in similar fashions to certain texts. For instance, one feels sad at the end of a Hardy novel, or one laughs at the jokes in Tristram Shandy. The point is, these given reactions, though all slightly different, are enacted across the board by people who are trained professionally how to read, and what to look for. When that happens, they basically say - wow, what a great book. And when enough people say that, they keep the book from distinction. It isn't enough that they react - but that reaction is important, and board spanning.

Then when the question of canonization occurs, academics ask themselves - how well does this work transcend its original audience - can people still react to this text today in a similar, or significant way, in comparison to the original audience? Can Shakespeare still make people cry, laugh, etc.? If the text can, and transcends well, they keep it alive by teaching it, otherwise it's abandoned. Some texts don't talk much - ask Petrarch's Love, I'm sure she can list countless bad plays and sonnets from the Renaissance. The point is - they don't last.

You simply are calling me an idiot, without contradicting, or offering a counter-argument. All you do is bicker, and quote, but never take time to read, or offer a solution - you try to play Socrates, but don't actually want a synthesis, you come in with your "answer" and try to mould everything, and twist everything rhetorically to support your viewpoint, without taking into account anything anyone else is saying. That's the tyranny of the boards - one simply doesn't need to address everything, and therefore if one is arguing, they can simply ignore the comments that best defeat theirs.

Let's be honest - it isn't some bourgeois conspiracy that keeps certain works alive - otherwise, as JCamilo has pointed out, certain anti-bourgeois writers wouldn't have survived.

It isn't just academics who read the classics, or literary works for that matter. Penguin sells copies of everything around the world - from Tourist Shops to second hand stores, you can find the classics being read, and exchanged, and it is not just because the Bourgeois say they are good. People like reading Jane Austen. People like reading Charles Dickens. People - that's right - masses.

The reason? it varies from text to text - the paradox of art is that value is gained by changing, sometimes drastically, the perception of values. We value things highly if they are original and therefore, it is impossible to create a formulaic, mathematical equation for artwork.

That being said, psychologists have studied the way we react to artwork. Even something as abstract as Jackson Pollock has been studied - and psychologists have determined that there are patterns within said works that evoke certain perceptive reactions in the viewer, which trigger responses. There are responses - people don't just look at something - their brain processes it. Now, studying these sorts of things add awareness, sort of like looking at a picture in a lit room, verses a dark room, and it allows the viewer to understand more things.

So when Milton says

Of Man's first disobedience and the fruit

A trained reader can pick up on the substitution in the second foot, and thereby comment on what effect it has on the feel of the line, and the way the message is conveyed. Or if, for instance, a poet drops a pun. A trained person can comment on its effect to meaning/comedic aspects.

A trained person can decode the imagery, or patterns in a way that an untrained person cannot. Even trained persons can find different things - some texts are yielding - they satisfy that many readings - the point is, the more experienced someone is, the better they are at finding certain things.

A musician, for instance, would be better trained to hear a shift in tempo, dynamic, or would flat out notice if a player didn't tune up, and is therefore playing out of key. An untrained listener may not - they may react somehow, but chances are they won't know why.

A trained person can even go beyond that - think of listening, for instance, to Glenn Gould's interpretation of Bach, verses Angela Hewitt's - they are different - they are personal, and they take different shapes. Now compare those with the playing of a 6 year old kid at his first recital, playing Chopsticks - there is a difference - the playings are different, and we can compare them. We can ask ourselves what reactions we got, and which one is better, and then we can evaluate the players accordingly.

I have fallen asleep in bad concerts before, where the soloist or conductor couldn't preform as well as I would have liked - I have been to concerts where people have walked out, in droves, because the music wasn't up to par - what told those people the music wasn't good? Could they possibly (gasp!) hear it, and judge that something wasn't right? It depends on how bad it is, but usually, most people can, even without training, get a feeling something isn't right - the training part is generally what tells you what is wrong, or what is right. The point is - people can judge - if judgment is possible, it means that there must be good and bad - different reactions. If there are different reactions, some reactions can be taken to be more favorable than others.

That is why Yitzhak Pearlman sells a full house worth of tickets, and some other mediocre violinist doesn't make it on stage.

If we apply that to literature, than we can say as follows - certain books give certain reactions - certain reactions to books are more favorable than others - and certain people can tell what is really going on - can understand how certain works communicate better, and therefore understand them more depth.

I see nothing wrong with that - a mechanic can tell you why your car makes a funny noise, as apposed to you, who can only hear the funny noise. An economist can tell you why the markets are fluctuating, and political scientist why people are voting a certain way - the point is, observation and understanding are different.

Thereby, critics, who are trained to read, or view art, or listen to music, or taste food, can tell you what is better, and why it is, whereas the average reader/viewer/listener/taster may not be able to. So when I say, for instance, Rowling uses too many redundant adjectives, and cliché stock phrases, I am making a valid statement, because I know what the effect of such things are, and how to spot them.

[The Atheist]

You have not pointed a cultural bias other thna dominating groups keeping certains books alive.

Can't see much more is needed.

dslkfj ldskfj lldskjf lksd lsdkjf llsdk jlksd lkjd lkfjl ksdjf lkjsdflk jlsdkj lksdjlkfjl skdfj lksdj

Get value out of that.

I did make that exact point.

In other words, what does a text mean, and how does it mean. Some meanings, and deliveries are better than others. Some books create consistent reactions. The thing is though, some people act in similar fashions to certain texts. For instance, one feels sad at the end of a Hardy novel, or one laughs at the jokes in Tristram Shandy. The point is, these given reactions, though all slightly different, are enacted across the board by people who are trained professionally how to read, and what to look for.

(bolding mine)

QED.

[JBI]

What, because someone gets payed, they are wrong? OK, so don't trust your mechanic, or your Doctor - he gets paid to diagnose.

Just because people get paid doesn't mean they are wrong - it means they make a life out of it.

Now you are just resorting to pure rhetoric, because you know your argument is flickering into non-existence. You've been Broken, Blown and Burnt.


Now, how many of you got the reference to John Donne's Holy Sonnet? Doesn't the effect change on how you read it, depending on whether or not you had come across the original.

And just so you know, critics are rarely rich, and most are just getting by. There's no need to challenge their credibility just because they want to get paid, and support themselves. Let's be honest, it takes so much time and effort to properly critique stuff - how is it possible to do so without getting paid for it.

You perhaps don't know, but criticism isn't easy - you need library access, which still today, even in the age of the internet, means you need to surrender your mobility, and you need time to sift through almost countless volumes. Even just sticking to a text takes time - to critique War and Peace, even if you read it once, which I doubt you would, you need to at least read 1400 pages. It stops being free time at that point, and starts being a life.

That being said, that is going easy - some critics physically have to move around. Many medievalists and people dealing with older texts actually need to go to archives across the world in order to get information. Good luck doing that unless you are paid for it.

Research isn't free, and art isn't either. It's part of the process that people get paid for their work.

[Tallon]

I went to a rather large local library this week, it had a massive Mills & Boon section but absolutely no section for classics. I was appalled and thought of this thread

[Drkshadow03]

And just so you know, critics are rarely rich, and most are just getting by. There's no need to challenge their credibility just because they want to get paid, and support themselves.

I would just add one note here. I wouldn't say most professors are exactly living in squallor or "just getting by" as you put it. Sure, it partially depends on which university you get a job at and partially on how long you've been working there, but I know it's more than possible for a professor to be getting close to six figures, if not making six figures by the end of their career. Plus from what I've seen, salaries have never stopped my professors from going out to fancy restaraunts in the city after department events.

Let's say that by the time you're a full professor and have put in a number of years you should be making a decent enough salary.

You perhaps don't know, but criticism isn't easy - you need library access, which still today, even in the age of the internet, means you need to surrender your mobility, and you need time to sift through almost countless volumes.

I recommend archive.org . My friend was able to do an entire paper on Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse that required out-of-print books and earlier versions of the manuscript. He was able to get everything he needed without having to spend any money or going to visit special collections in person through archive.org

It's great. Basically the whole collection consists of materials scanned from university library's special collections across the globe. They don't have everything (as material gets scanned daily), but they have a lot.

[Jozanny]

I recommend archive.org . My friend was able to do an entire paper on Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse that required out-of-print books and earlier versions of the manuscript. He was able to get everything he needed without having to spend any money or going to visit special collections in person through archive.org

It's great. Basically the whole collection consists of materials scanned from university library's special collections across the globe. They don't have everything (as material gets scanned daily), but they have a lot.

Drk, thanks for these resources, as I hope to publish one or two critical papers before I become too far impaired. I think you made an error in posting the url, and I attempted to correct for that. It was a tad expensive, btw, but I went ahead and bought a used copy of Plotting The Past, so I had the text to use along side of the standard translation of Lampedusa in English. If I do complete anything to my satisfaction, I am not expecting to get paid for it, unless I lose the notes for those excellent lay reader essays in American Scholar or TNR. Which means maybe I can get paid, actually.

Sorry to barge in, but the OP, at this point, is ceasing to make any sense to me.

[JCamilo]

Can't see much more is needed.

I am sure one can say that Eistein is only respected because a cultural group is dominating. This group is made of idiots picked him because he would be a good mask and his ideas have no vallue to sustain themselves.

That is getting ridiculous, atheist, the groups that dominated the Intelectual world in the early XX are all gone. Most of us would shiver to be even related to them. Or even worst, in the middle XX being a left would be requiered to all intelectuals (in a marxist, or new-marxist, or critical marxist, any disguise it would take), and today that is quite ridiculous. That Cathedral ruinned.
Do you really think free thinking people (real intelectuals are often individualists when related to their ideas) would just be sheep and not have any different ideas. Imagine that, the entire bias of the romantics against the classicists is just ignored by you. Read Baudelaire art critism and see if that guy is manipulated by such cultural groups (also a good example of someone completely out of the academy).
Or what about the guys like Ovid or Cicero who are persecuted by the powers (Ovid upset the Roman Emperor! Cicero acted against Cesar and Octavio. If it was a matter of manipulation those two would not be placed alongside Virgil and Horace, thousand years after as the best of latim language could offer. With thousands of otter writers, the emperors would just impose their views and other names. They could not because some quality is required for immortality).
Even, what when the powers have ambitions? Richelieu, at his time the most powerful politic of europe, had such ambitions as writer. But not even him could convice the others - I am sure the local ball licker said he was the best writer since God - that he was that good, despite his power and despite being a great thinker when the subject was politics.
What you suggest is that a group of people have been manipulating us for 3000 years, convicing us that Homer (who we have no real clue about him) was a great writer, just out of blue. And that not only Greece, but all cultures in the world accepted it (some cultures trying to impose their domination on the world, instead of producing their own Homer, just accepted him) for all this time. And not only this, because it is not just in the academic circles, or powerful circles. Homer returned to the popular world, several of his verses were turned into popular lines repeated until today. A few sittuations he described are found in the oral stories. You can even have a group that try to impose cultural views (it exists) but their power do not last. And unless they hit the nail and the product they impose can sustain years of criticism from all sides those groups are going to be forgetten. In the story of literature we are full of those guys - I have already mentioned Voltaire, which you ignored. The guy is one (if not the) most influential french thinker of his century (or even europe). He was not just a philosopher but an artists - his fame came from his plays (today, almost forgotten, despite the opinion of Voltaire himself) so his artist critic was very important (even because he worked to renew and protect france art). And Voltaire attacked Shakespeare, saying he was too insular (now I remember the nobel judge thing about US. ) to be remembered for long because in the europe, he would never have success. And he listed a couple of playwriters who he considered were better than him and frankly, I do not remember any of them. Really, not just a way to say they are forgotten. If it was a matter of dominating group, Shakespeare cult would be dead. But time proved Voltaire wrong and Shakespeare qualities sustained his work. It happened with him because his texts must have something good to endure. It can not be just a matter of will.
Some books are just better than others - And we do not need even to change the author. Shakespeare wrote some bad plays too.
Unless you give a reason why we have Homer until today and how Voltaire didnt blast Shakespeare to oblivion, insisting that the classics only survive because the opinion of manipulative intelectuals is like those who insist that evolution does not exist.

[Jozanny]

Excellent and impassioned arguments both from JBI and JCamilo, but maybe we should keep an eye on needlessly raising our blood pressure. Atheist may have a big heart, indeed, I thought he and I would get along even though he made some errors about what I do as a freelance writer. I let these things glide, as, after all, not every poster can understand the intricacies of actually publishing, but it seems obvious to me that Atheist is indifferent to literature and fine arts, and his indifference is thereby a springboard for his imposition, nay, insistence, that discrimination in this area is meaningless, and no amount of knowledge or training, or example on our part will change that. To me it is a foolhardy, and in some ways, extremely sad position to hold, and is contradicted even in his enthusiasm for Orwell's works, as his love of Orwell is not valueless to him, else he wouldn't participate in the Orwell thread. Orwell's work, therefore, is more important than Orwell's forgotten contemporaries. I do not see how he gets around that argument, nor any others you and JBI countered.

To add somewhat more force here, it is perfectly fine to be indifferent. I am indifferent to some individual artists, as any of us may be. I fail to see the enthusiasm for boxing, but I respect the experts who treat it and discuss it as a sport, with both ancient and modern traditions. I am puzzled as to why fans riot at soccer matches--but I do not beat my chest and say that sports have no intrinsic value.

Ridiculous is right.

[JCamilo]

I have no personal feelings towards Atheist, polemics are polemics and that is fine. I just think he see no poetry on language, as you put, and thus his view. A Mistake, but I not enough to to bring weapons for a duel instead of food and good wine.

[Scheherazade]

.
Please remember that we are here to discuss various opinions and comments, not the members themselves and refrain from personalising your comments.
.

[The Atheist]

What, because someone gets payed, they are wrong? OK, so don't trust your mechanic, or your Doctor - he gets paid to diagnose.

Same mistake again. Doctors and mechanics are a poor analogy for your case, because the things they learn are physical and demonstrable. A mechanic is trained to know that if you put water in the oil filler, you will destroy your motor, just as a doctor knows not to prescribe aspirin to haemophiliacs.

....and is contradicted even in his enthusiasm for Orwell's works, as his love of Orwell is not valueless to him, else he wouldn't participate in the Orwell thread. Orwell's work, therefore, is more important than Orwell's forgotten contemporaries.

Glad you raised this point again, as I have now made it numerous times - that I'm quite happy to subjectively make my own list of worthwhile literature, but that's as it applies to me. Why on earth does this point keep getting missed?

No matter, as JBI said, it's not a subject worth swords at dawn.

Pencils at midday, maybe? First to complete a page? I'll choose dirty limericks as my method.

[Jozanny]

Glad you raised this point again, as I have now made it numerous times - that I'm quite happy to subjectively make my own list of worthwhile literature, but that's as it applies to me. Why on earth does this point keep getting missed?

It isn't all that subjective if Orwell has the degree of recognition that he does for the power of his ideas. I don't get your argument, and don't really believe you're making a sound one. All I hear coming out of this is that you are indifferent to meritocracy. Is this the case? And if it is, what then?