Judging people by the art they (mostly) consume

[Kalinychta]

How do you know that all of these people don't like adult novels.

All of which people?

 

[BrokenBoy]

All of which people?

You said all adults don't care about novels for adults. That's not true. It if was then those books wouldn't sell, which they do.

 

[Kalinychta]

You said all adults don't care about novels for adults. That's not true. It if was then those books wouldn't sell, which they do.

Oh I see. Yes, you’re right. I made a sweeping generalization.

 

[Kalinychta]

That's a sweeping generalization which is obviously false.

Consider for example literary fiction:



And it is precisely one of the points of my criticism in regards to the consumption of art. If a person reads a book like a Ulysses, or watches a film like Persona, and says about them that their point is to entertainment, then the whole book/film went over their heads, watching Persona just as they might watch Jerry Springer. This is not always their fault, often people have been educated to consume this, whether because they don't read literature or because the culture in which they grew up promotes it for obvious reasons (profit).

Persona the Ingmar Bergman film? It’s exactly true what you say. Most people, I fear, would find Ingmar Bergman boring, preferring Transformers or the latest juvenile disaster movie. Even talking about reading in the first place saddens me because it’s rare to find people who actually do it, let alone lovers of literature or even non-fiction. I think of literature as philosophy in narrative/fiction format. Films, too (film-as-an-art-form films, that is).

 

[Trophonius]

Persona the Ingmar Bergman film? It’s exactly true what you say. Most people, I fear, would find Ingmar Bergman boring, preferring Transformers or the latest juvenile disaster movie. Even talking about reading in the first place saddens me because it’s rare to find people who actually do it, let alone lovers of literature or even non-fiction. I think of literature as philosophy in narrative/fiction format. Films, too (film-as-an-art-form films, that is).

Yes, that's the film; it was just an example.

I agree with what you say about literature. I think of it as an expression of philosophy, psychology, social and historical critique, and playing with the concept of literature and writing itself. Many of these can, because of being presented as a narrative form, reach more people than academic essays — many philosophers wrote dialogues or novels based on their ideas, so the connection between the two is a long-standing one.

How do you know that all of these people don't like adult novels.

Statistics and experience? Definitely doesn't apply to all people, but we can sell what books sell the most, check the most read books, and talk to other people to learn what they read (as I did sometimes in the first book club I went to). It's apparent that (1) There's a massive consumption of "bad" books (superficial psychology, common stereotypes, simple predictable plot, poor and repetitive prose), (2) There's a belief that many these are masterpieces in the history of literature (opinion of this sort I've heard about John Green and Paulo Coelho), (3) Many of the books held as great works for centuries are bad (not that they dislike them, but that they are in fact bad books; this I've heard about Alice in Wonderland, Joyce's Portrait, Kafka's The Trial, among others).

There's a fragment in T.S. Eliot Four Quartets which reads:

Neither plenitude nor vacancy. Only a flicker
Over the strained time-ridden faces
Distracted from distraction by distraction
Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
Tumid apathy with no concentration
Men and bits of paper, whirled by the cold wind
That blows before and after time,
Wind in and out of unwholesome lungs
Time before and time after.
(Burnt Norton III)

This is a powerful phrase: Distracted from distraction by distraction, which describes the state of consciousness when watching (most) television shows or reading (most) popular fiction. It's not as much as an entertainment as it is a forgetting of the self, of the conscious state, while this lasts. The fact that this occurs is not the issue, but how often it does is: Eliot considered back then to be entering an era which people's main purpose is to be distracted, looking for distraction not from something but in itself, like zapping through tv channels until finding something ok, watching it without much attention and certainly not purpose, and forgetting it all shortly after. Some kinds of fiction (although to a lesser extent than television) are now fulfilling the same purpose.

 

[Kalinychta]

Yes, that's the film; it was just an example.

I agree with what you say about literature. I think of it as an expression of philosophy, psychology, social and historical critique, and playing with the concept of literature and writing itself. Many of these can, because of being presented as a narrative form, reach more people than academic essays — many philosophers wrote dialogues or novels based on their ideas, so the connection between the two is a long-standing one.


Statistics and experience? Definitely doesn't apply to all people, but we can sell what books sell the most, check the most read books, and talk to other people to learn what they read (as I did sometimes in the first book club I went to). It's apparent that (1) There's a massive consumption of "bad" books (superficial psychology, common stereotypes, simple predictable plot, poor and repetitive prose), (2) There's a belief that many these are masterpieces in the history of literature (opinion of this sort I've heard about John Green and Paulo Coelho), (3) Many of the books held as great works for centuries are bad (not that they dislike them, but that they are in fact bad books; this I've heard about Alice in Wonderland, Joyce's Portrait, Kafka's The Trial, among others).

There's a fragment in T.S. Eliot Four Quartets which reads:

Neither plenitude nor vacancy. Only a flicker
Over the strained time-ridden faces
Distracted from distraction by distraction
Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
Tumid apathy with no concentration
Men and bits of paper, whirled by the cold wind
That blows before and after time,
Wind in and out of unwholesome lungs
Time before and time after.
(Burnt Norton III)

This is a powerful phrase: Distracted from distraction by distraction, which describes the state of consciousness when watching (most) television shows or reading (most) popular fiction. It's not as much as an entertainment as it is a forgetting of the self, of the conscious state, while this lasts. The fact that this occurs is not the issue, but how often it does is: Eliot considered back then to be entering an era which people's main purpose is to be distracted, looking for distraction not from something but in itself, like zapping through tv channels until finding something ok, watching it without much attention and certainly not purpose, and forgetting it all shortly after. Some kinds of fiction (although to a lesser extent than television) are now fulfilling the same purpose.

The Trial! They’re wrong! Kafka’s novel is great. As is Orson Wells’s film adaptation of it. Have you seen it? It’s one of my absolute favorite movies, and Orson Wells said it was the best film he ever made.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is also great beyond a shadow of a doubt, albeit not literature, which as I’ve said makes it no less relevant or fantastic in my mind. Virginia Woolf dented Robert Louis Stevenson‘s career by criticizing his non-literature writings, and I’ve honestly never been able to enjoy her novels because of it. She’s a snobby cow as far as I’m concerned.

I completely agree with T.S. Eliot, however, that there’s a difference between distraction and entertainment. Treasure Island (my love) is entertainment. Jules Verne (my other love) is entertainment. But so many of the television shows and movies people watch are simply mindless distractions, not worthy of even being considered entertainment. They’re more like drugs meant to unwind people from the tediousness and meaninglessness of everyday life.

 

[Trophonius]

The Trial! They’re wrong! Kafka’s novel is great. As is Orson Wells’s film adaptation of it. Have you seen it? It’s one of my absolute favorite movies, and Orson Wells said it was the best film he ever made.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is also great beyond a shadow of a doubt, albeit not literature, which as I’ve said makes it no less relevant or fantastic in my mind. Virginia Woolf dented Robert Louis Stevenson‘s career by criticizing his non-literature writings, and I’ve honestly never been able to enjoy her novels because of it. She’s a snobby cow as far as I’m concerned.

I completely agree with T.S. Eliot, however, that there’s a difference between distraction and entertainment. Treasure Island (my love) is entertainment. Jules Verne (my other love) is entertainment. But so many of the television shows and movies people watch are simply mindless distractions, not worthy of even being considered entertainment. They’re more like drugs meant to unwind people from the tediousness and meaninglessness of everyday life.

I still have to watch that film, The Trial. I haven't seen any movies with Orson Well, with the exception of Citizen Kane.

I don't think Virginia Woolf problem was being too snobby, but that she was plainly a poor critic, considering she also had a poor opinion of Ulysses when it was published and it's unlikely you can get a book more highbrow than that.

Woolf wrote to T. S. Eliot: “Never did any book so bore me.” She had dismissed James Joyce as “a self-taught working man … egotistic, insistent, raw, striking, & ultimately nauseating.” “When one can have cooked flesh,” she wrote, “why have the raw?”

 

[Kalinychta]

I still have to watch that film, The Trial. I haven't seen any movies with Orson Well, with the exception of Citizen Kane.

I don't think Virginia Woolf problem was being too snobby, but that she was plainly a poor critic, considering she also had a poor opinion of Ulysses when it was published and it's unlikely you can get a book more highbrow than that.

Woolf wrote to T. S. Eliot: “Never did any book so bore me.” She had dismissed James Joyce as “a self-taught working man … egotistic, insistent, raw, striking, & ultimately nauseating.” “When one can have cooked flesh,” she wrote, “why have the raw?”

Orson Welles directed The Trial and wrote the screenplay, but as an actor he plays only a very small role in it. You must watch it, and I’m not even kidding. Aside from being an excellent story, the cinematography is exquisite, and this is coming from someone who for the most part is unmoved by the visual arts. Watch it.

I do think Virginia Woolf actually was being a snobby cow re: Robert Louis Steveson, I’m afraid. She was completely enamored of modernism, and she—as well as E.M. Forster and also Mencken and others—decreed Stevenson as a second-rate author. I completely understand the monumental importance of modernism, and I admire the way Woolf wrote, but I haven’t been able to stomach any of her novels since I learned about her harsh criticism of Stevenson. I’ve recently felt that the less I know about authors/musicians/artists, the more I enjoy their novels/music/art. Ugh.

I’m rather embarrassed to admit it, but I’ve never read Ulysses. It’s weird, I’ve had a copy of it for ages and have been circling it like a caged wolf (in my mind), but... Have you read it, and if so, what do you think of it? I don’t know what I’m waiting for. Although I did the same thing with William S. Burroughs’s Naked Lunch. Took me aeons to pluck up the courage to read it (it’s strange because with most other books, including far, far, more subversive/controversial ones, I’m all over them like white on rice).

 

[kettenkrad]

No disrespect. The point I’m making is that when we have a nation of adults who can only handle/appreciate novels written for children and young adults, this may be something to be incredibly alarmed about.

No. What you should be alarmed about is that most popular fiction aimed at adults is worse and has been for a long time. Just try reading a Clive Cussler novel - you'll quickly appreciate how intelligent the average YA book is. (Well, based on the 2 or 3 I've read.) I had literally no idea how stupid a publishable book could be until I tried reading a Cussler - and they've sold massively. And I don't have any particular reason to believe that they're exceptional for their genre.

 

[kettenkrad]

I don't think Virginia Woolf problem was being too snobby, but that she was plainly a poor critic, considering she also had a poor opinion of Ulysses when it was published and it's unlikely you can get a book more highbrow than that.

"Highbrow" does not mean good, or even that a book necessarily possesses any good qualities. It's simply a near-synonym for "inaccessible" - in particular in a way that agrees with the values of a particular group. It doesn't actually imply that a book is good at all, so condemning someone because they didn't like a "highbrow" book is completely meaningless. Canonical examples of a really bad highbrow book would be Infinite Jest or Nabakov's Ada. Otoh no one would say that Lord Jim, Huckleberry Finn, or Animal Farm are especially highbrow - they're extremely accessible - but few people would say that they are shallow.

Also: I agree with VW. (Ullysses starts wonderfully but then it bogs down in GOTR levels of padding, although I doubt she made that comparison.) And no, Ullysses is not especially "highbrow" anyway. It's much more accessible than, say, Finnegan's Wake or Samuel Delaney's Dhalgren.

 

[kettenkrad]

That a novel must have a lasting artistic and intellectual value to it. Definitely Fahrenheit 451 qualifies. Without a doubt. But I don’t think most of his novels count as literature, such as Something Wicked This Way Comes, which in my mind doesn’t in any way diminish its value or relevance.

I've no idea why you feel this way. Other than that F451 has an obvious theme (it's a very dumbed down 1984) and that Wicked possibly doesn't - but is that really a good thing?

Re: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: most definitely not literature. It was basically a penny dreadful-type of novella when it was published.

Why should one thing be related to the other? JaH established a powerful metaphor. Isn't that one of the highest aims of literature - to provide new ways of thinking and feeling and communicating? The market a story is written for is irrelevant. And even verbal surface isn't that important compared to the ideas a story contains. JaH established a literal modern myth. That's a huge and serious achievement.

 

[Trophonius]

Also: I agree with VW. (Ullysses starts wonderfully but then it bogs down in GOTR levels of padding, although I doubt she made that comparison.) And no, Ullysses is not especially "highbrow" anyway. It's much more accessible than, say, Finnegan's Wake or Samuel Delaney's Dhalgren.

Many books have been published since, many of which would (probably) not exist without Ulysses.. Even if there are some books far more complex now (which, considering it's just a handful, I would argue it's not true that Ulysses is not "especially" highbrow), in particular when considering some of the major postmodern works, back when it was published it was unlikely to find books that could get close in complexity to Joyce's work.

I don't think Infinite Jest is a bad book, nor Nabokov's Ada (though not my favorite of his works, my fav is Pale Fire).

 

[BrokenBoy]

I don't think Infinite Jest is a bad book

Dude it's so bad I couldn't get past the first chapter.

 

[BrokenBoy]

Infinite Jest is the horribad version of Evangelion. They have the same message (Escapism is bad) but Evangelion handles this theme in a good way and Infinite Jest does not.

 

[Kalinychta]

Many books have been published since, many of which would (probably) not exist without Ulysses.. Even if there are some books far more complex now (which, considering it's just a handful, I would argue it's not true that Ulysses is not "especially" highbrow), in particular when considering some of the major postmodern works, back when it was published it was unlikely to find books that could get close in complexity to Joyce's work.

I don't think Infinite Jest is a bad book, nor Nabokov's Ada (though not my favorite of his works, my fav is Pale Fire).

I completely agree with you. Even if some feel that the “founding” modernist and postmodernist books were not good, I nevertheless insist that they bridged the way for many,—arguably EVERY,—book that came after them.

 

[Kalinychta]

I've no idea why you feel this way. Other than that F451 has an obvious theme (it's a very dumbed down 1984) and that Wicked possibly doesn't - but is that really a good thing?



Why should one thing be related to the other? JaH established a powerful metaphor. Isn't that one of the highest aims of literature - to provide new ways of thinking and feeling and communicating? The market a story is written for is irrelevant. And even verbal surface isn't that important compared to the ideas a story contains. JaH established a literal modern myth. That's a huge and serious achievement.

Well this is an extremely damn good point. Maybe I’m more like Virginia Woolf than I’d like to admit. It does really seem elitist to classify writing as literature and non-literature, like a hierarchy or something. Perhaps the impact is really what matters. Robert Louis Stevenson is one of my absolute most revered and favorite authors, and I would never/never say that his novels are any less important or relevant or impactful than those of James Joyce (for instance) or Shakespeare, etc.

But neither would I ever say that they’ve moved me on an existential or intellectual level. I think the point I’m really making here is that people-in-general these days can’t handle novels that require extensive thinking. Dr. Jekyll is pretty darn straightforward, no thinking required. The same goes for Treasure Island (my most dear RLS love). If most people dig Twilight and Harry Potter but can’t handle Nabokov’s Lolita (for example), then I think we have a huge problem as a species that will have repercussions in every area of reality.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

What inspires you on an intellectual level varies from person to person though. For example Harry Potter, which can be enjoyed by children or easily read for shallow entertainment, inspired my interest in moral philosophy. I can both enjoy an exciting story, and spend time considering the ethics of purportedly "good" characters and how that translates to the real world, or the psychology and development of "evil" and how that corresponds with how we treat different types of criminality.

I wouldn't consider not being able to handle Lolita a negative. It is incredibly well written but it is also a profoundly disturbing book, I couldn't get more than halfway through it because it made me feel physically sick. And I think it is actually still a pretty popular book, I certainly know lots of people who have read it.

 

[kettenkrad]

Well this is an extremely damn good point. Maybe I’m more like Virginia Woolf than I’d like to admit. It does really seem elitist to classify writing as literature and non-literature, like a hierarchy or something.

Woolf was fairly open to writing that wasn't part of the conventional literary hierarchy. She was a big Olaf Stapledon fan for instance. (Odd John is the best book to start with if you're curious.)

Perhaps the impact is really what matters. Robert Louis Stevenson is one of my absolute most revered and favorite authors, and I would never/never say that his novels are any less important or relevant or impactful than those of James Joyce (for instance) or Shakespeare, etc.

But neither would I ever say that they’ve moved me on an existential or intellectual level. I think the point I’m really making here is that people-in-general these days can’t handle novels that require extensive thinking. Dr. Jekyll is pretty darn straightforward, no thinking required. The same goes for Treasure Island (my most dear RLS love).

You can read TI without thinking hard. But does that mean that it is shallow? One use of a novel is as emotional exercise - to extend and train the reader's emotional palette - and doesn't the book do this? An orphan finds and is betrayed by a new father, then partially reconciles? This is a deep emotional experience - can you be sure that it didn't really affect you? I'd say that the - subtle - message is that life requires you to be able to love and distrust someone at the same time, because love is based on need and trust on judgement.

If most people dig Twilight and Harry Potter but can’t handle Nabokov’s Lolita (for example), then I think we have a huge problem as a species that will have repercussions in every area of reality.

But people also watch Deadwood and Breaking Bad. And Lolita has sold a serious number of copies. And so have novels by Philip K Dick, James Ellroy, Jim Thompson, Mary Renault - because a novel is classed as "genre" doesn't mean it is shallow or easy to read. (I especially recommend Dick's Flow My Tears The Policeman Said.)

One problem with contemporary "serious" literature is that the CIA interfered with it badly during the Cold War to depoliticize it:

The CIA Helped Build the Content Farm That Churns Out American Literature

...This meant that we got an awful lot of "serious" novels about professors of English literature having mid-life crises. Which nobody except other professors of English literature wanted to read.

 

[kettenkrad]

What inspires you on an intellectual level varies from person to person though. For example Harry Potter, which can be enjoyed by children or easily read for shallow entertainment, inspired my interest in moral philosophy.

I think something can act as a source of inspiration without being an important piece of literature. For example, Newton and the apple. With Potter, like LOTR and Star Wars, I'd say that there isn't a deeper layer there. The message of the book is that obviously bad people are bad and it doesn't go beyond that. Unlike, say, The Moomins, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, and Gurren Lagann, to take other media aimed at a similar age range. (An anime that's a metaphor for fighting depression, that has an explicitly Hegelian structure, and draws on the early history of the Christian church and the myth of the Second Coming. With giant robots.)(Although the Moomins gets almost as weird - the final book in the series is inspired by Waiting For Godot.)

I wouldn't consider not being able to handle Lolita a negative. It is incredibly well written but it is also a profoundly disturbing book, I couldn't get more than halfway through it because it made me feel physically sick.

I think K's point is that it is alarming if people can't handle Lolita intellectually. That you reacted so strongly isn't the problem she's talking about. (And I completely understand your feelings and I think Nabakov would have taken them as a tribute.)

 

[kettenkrad]

in particular when considering some of the major postmodern works, back when it was published it was unlikely to find books that could get close in complexity to Joyce's work.

Except, you know, obscure people like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Maupassant, Sterne, Stendhal...

And also, no, this wasn't the point you made and you can't defend it that way.

I don't think Infinite Jest is a bad book, nor Nabokov's Ada

Yes. But you also think that "highbrow" is a synonym for "good." So while I acknowledge your right to have an opinion, I have to say that hearing it is unlikely to in influence me significantly.