|
Does literature change your life? Should it try to?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
How should fictional literature relate to the lives of its audience?
One school of thought says that literature should stand all on its own. People who read novels to enlarge their view of the world, develop their moral sense, or "improve" themselves in some other way are just missing the point. Such people are using literature as a mere tool, not really enjoying it *as literature*; they are treating it as a self-help guide or as a work of moral philosophy. In doing so, they miss out on what Nabokov called "aesthetic bliss," the pleasurable sense of being taken from the boredom of the everyday into a more exciting, more beautiful place where states like "curiosity, tenderness, kindness, and ecstasy" are "the norm."
Even worse, says this school, is to use literature as a way to climb the social ladder. Virginia Woolf's idea of a "middlebrow" is someone who relies on others to form his tastes -- he reads mostly "classics" simply because they are called "classics" -- and who reads to improve his status in the eyes of others. He wants to be seen as well-read, so he dutifully picks up the books that he thinks a well-read person "ought" to have read.
Another school of thought says art that tries to stand apart from the lives and behavior of its audience is useless or even pernicious. "Aesthetic bliss" divorced from any moral aim is, at best, mental masturbation. It is irresponsible for a writer to stick to private reveries of "beauty" and never pass judgment on moral or social problems, or to write as if such problems do not exist, for to do so is implicitly to support the status quo. The rich and idle may chatter about art and recite poems in salons, but an author has a duty to address the important issues of his day.
Most people probably sit somewhere in the large middle ground between these two extreme views about the relationship of art and life.
So, what do you think? Do books change your life? Should authors try to write books *for the purpose* of sending a message that will change lives? Or does putting a "message" in a work turn literature into mere "didacticism," divorcing it from the true purpose of art? |
|
|
| walcott |
Literature like every other art form is the expression of self and abstract thought. I read alot, but I usually try to distance myself from the piece...
literature can take you places you might not be ready to explore... |
|
|
| Utencil |
| Would you consider my Molecular Biophysics textbook as literature? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Utencil
Would you consider my Molecular Biophysics textbook as literature? |
I should have specified that I was talking about fiction. :p |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I rarely read fiction, but if I were going to then I would rather read fiction which does not entertain the pretense of conveying some particular insight. Granted, there may be some few works of fictional literature for which this would be more than a pretense, but overwhelmingly that is not so.
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Another school of thought says art that tries to stand apart from the lives and behavior of its audience is useless or even pernicious. "Aesthetic bliss" divorced from any moral aim is, at best, mental masturbation. It is irresponsible for a writer to stick to private reveries of "beauty" and never pass judgment on moral or social problems, or to write as if such problems do not exist, for to do so is implicitly to support the status quo. |
This is the kind of non sequitur that really grinds my gears. It's also an example of the fact that some (most) people pretty clearly have nothing to contribute when it comes to moral or social problems. They simply lack the analytical rigor that the complex nature of such problems requires. Indeed, the incessant participation of such persons in moral or social dialogues is likely to retard progress toward solutions for such problems, to the extent that solutions exist (and particularly in the moral realm, they probably don't in any objective sense.) If anything supports the status quo, it is precisely that... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
This is an excellent question.
Fiction, to me, can serve several purposes. To merely entertain, as most dime novels are designed to do; to expose the reader to a new perspective or concept that they would not otherwise come across in daily life - an act of discovery through reading, if you will; to impart some moral lesson through narrative; or to accomplish some combination of the above.
For myself, a book that professes a moral lesson without narrative rarely sustains my interest - I need a rich narrative to deliver it.
Literature for me is by and large entertainment - a departure from the world I live in and the chance to immerse myself in someone else's for a short time. But a novel that is capable of also imparting some lesson - about self, the world, or any philosophical concept it undertakes - is even better.
A good work of fiction must have a story capable of holding the attention of the reader - but a great work is one that stays with you long after you've put down the book.
Now, this conversation strikes me as one of content rather than form. I have to add, though, that form is important to me on a superficial level, which is why I will probably always have a preference for Fitzgerald over Hemingway or Tolstoy over Salinger. |
|
|
| walcott |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
This is an excellent question.
Fiction, to me, can serve several purposes. To merely entertain, as most dime novels are designed to do; to expose the reader to a new perspective or concept that they would not otherwise come across in daily life - an act of discovery through reading, if you will; to impart some moral lesson through narrative; or to accomplish some combination of the above.
|
Excellent. In addition, when I wrote 'there is literature that can take you places you're not ready to explore', I mean't what I wrote. To prove my point I will give you an example of a classic novel that will probably change your perception of sexuality & maturity (or aging for that matter) such is the case with Thomas Mann's "Death In Venice".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Venice-...25048824&sr=8-2
Death in Venice (1911): While vacationing in Venice, the aging, highly respected author Gustave Ashenbach becomes mesmerized by a young boy staying at the seashore with his Polish aristocratic family. Although intellectually aware of his growing obsession, Ashenbach is unable to break away. This somber portrayal of a troubled man is a masterpiece of subtle nuances that illustrates Thomas Mann's ability to create layers of meaning
themes: pedophilia, sexuality, growing old...very complex
now, if you're an intellectual you must know who Thomas Mann is and for me this novel was amazing. I never expected this to unfold the way it did.
Re:Tolstoy
be careful, when I read "Death of Ivan Illych" it really got to me and I started acting like Ivan Illych himself. I was trying to break away from the ties of material excess.
Read, but be aware that these novels are classic for a reason, and they should be guided through by a teacher or someone who's read them before. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by walcott
Re:Tolstoy
be careful, when I read "Death of Ivan Illych" it really got to me and I started acting like Ivan Illych himself. I was trying to break away from the ties of material excess. |
It's excellent on stage as well. |
|
|
| phyrrus |
| I read classics, but I sure as hell don't read them for their "aesthetic bliss." since Western literature basically retells the Odyssey/Iliad/Aeneid over and over, it's probably sort of important that I read them. |
|
|
| walcott |
| quote: | Originally posted by phyrrus
I read classics, but I sure as hell don't read them for their "aesthetic bliss." |
I was going to point that out but I didn't want to be rude.
touche :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by phyrrus
I read classics, but I sure as hell don't read them for their "aesthetic bliss." since Western literature basically retells the Odyssey/Iliad/Aeneid over and over, it's probably sort of important that I read them. |
And The Odyssey was a replay of Gilgamesh, yadda yadda yadda. The archetypes aren't important, as there are only so many to choose from - it's variation in form and content of the narrative that is more important than basic structure, as we already know there are only several arrangements of conflict to choose from. Man v. Self, Man v. Man, Man v. Nature, Man v. Cosmos. It's not the structure that makes a novel - it's what the author does with it. |
|
|
|
|
