|
Does literature change your life? Should it try to? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| phyrrus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
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. |
true but I was thinking more along the lines of the way those three (mostly the Aeneid because it was written in Latin) are alluded to themselves, not their structure.... for example the first line of the Aenied (I sing of arms and the man) is constantly referred to by Renaissance authors like Ariosto etc. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by phyrrus
true but I was thinking more along the lines of the way those three (mostly the Aeneid because it was written in Latin) are alluded to themselves, not their structure.... for example the first line of the Aenied (I sing of arms and the man) is constantly referred to by Renaissance authors like Ariosto etc. |
Well the Italian Renaissance in general had a huge hardon for the Roman Empire. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Should authors try to write books *for the purpose* of sending a message that will change lives? |
why should authors feel the need to do so when the subject at hand is most likely covered in greater depth on the non-fiction shelf? literature is no different to any other form of entertainment and i would argue that forcing some kind of social science into the narrative would normally make something feel quite contrived.
this isn't to say that they can't both entertain AND inform, but the latter is hardly necessary. |
|
|
| nefardec |
I think any form of art should have spiritual content.
'entertainment' sickens me |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
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? |
I strongly believe that narratives in general are the best way to refine one's morals (by narratives, I mean both fictional and non-fictional stories, regardless of the media).
I don't think we should restrict ourselves to books in this discussion though, because any narrative can become an important lesson. The fact is that, even if the authors give up entirely the idea of putting a message, there will be some information in the narrative that can be useful to the hearer/reader/viewer, and because narratives deal with facts, it's hard to separate the most aesthetic description of facts from real life. Thus, it's hard to believe it can avoid any sort of "didacticism". |
|
|
| bas |
| I just read Watchmen and now I want to be a vagabond in a mask beating up thugs in a ty dive bar. Hell yeah Rorschach. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Something "with a message" is not art. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Something "with a message" is not art. |
I tend to agree with you.
I generally don't like politically motivated songs or paintings, but just because something has "a message" doesn't mean it isn't aesthetically, acoustically or intellectually pleasing, which I would define as the number one criteria for something to qualify as "art".
I don't know anything about art as a whole, but I think that most people would argue that anything that does not have a message is not art. You know that old phrase: "what do you think the artist was trying to tell us?" |
|
|
| Konijn |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
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? |
of course books change lives... and the inclusion of a "message" needn't make a book didactic or less artful. if that were true, orwell, vonnegut, melville and swift would've all been purged from the canon.
what sort of author, apart from the silly self-help variety, would consciously write something with a stated goal of "changing people's lives"? books, like everything else, should be created -- and judged -- on their own terms. authors that are so presumptuous as to regard their work as life-altering before the ink is dry are setting themselves up for failure (and probably suck at their craft).
good authors simply let their work stand as is and if they happen to blow your mind, so be it. they recognize that irrespective of intent, we're going to going to bring our own biases, perspectives, expectations and understandings to a text anyway. in critical/literary studies this is known as "reception theory," a concept with near-universal applicability pioneered by hans-robert jauss. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I tend to agree with you.
I generally don't like politically motivated songs or paintings, but just because something has "a message" doesn't mean it isn't aesthetically, acoustically or intellectually pleasing, which I would define as the number one criteria for something to qualify as "art".
I don't know anything about art as a whole, but I think that most people would argue that anything that does not have a message is not art. You know that old phrase: "what do you think the artist was trying to tell us?" |
Well I didn't necessarily mean that a work with any political or otherwise commentary automatically forfeits its merit as a work of art. More so, I meant that any work with the sole or primary intention of rhetoric merely to satisfy some non-personal agenda really isn't art, and not merely for the fact that interpretation is the crux of the observer; "true" art is not burdened with time-relevant sensationalism, devoid of subjection, and an irresponsible commandment, calling ego to arms. Nor is it necessarily the polar opposite of these things. It's slippery, and art can very often be the inspiration of political or religious musings, but I would be quite suspect of any work which considers only its effect upon the recruitment of mindset perpetuation. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Well I didn't necessarily mean that a work with any political or otherwise commentary automatically forfeits its merit as a work of art. More so, I meant that any work with the sole or primary intention of rhetoric merely to satisfy some non-personal agenda really isn't art, and not merely for the fact that interpretation is the crux of the observer; "true" art is not burdened with time-relevant sensationalism, devoid of subjection, and an irresponsible commandment, calling ego to arms. Nor is it necessarily the polar opposite of these things. It's slippery, and art can very often be the inspiration of political or religious musings, but I would be quite suspect of any work which considers only its effect upon the recruitment of mindset perpetuation. |
Well that eliminates anything painted with the purpose of glorifying God as "art" - art is intrinisically linked to the promotion of ideals, values, or philosophies. Being aesthetically pleasing is often just a means to the end desired by the artist or author, as it makes the worldview put forward all the more convincing or alluring. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn
of course books change lives... and the inclusion of a "message" needn't make a book didactic or less artful. if that were true, orwell, vonnegut, melville and swift would've all been purged from the canon.
what sort of author, apart from the silly self-help variety, would consciously write something with a stated goal of "changing people's lives"? books, like everything else, should be created -- and judged -- on their own terms. authors that are so presumptuous as to regard their work as life-altering before the ink is dry are setting themselves up for failure (and probably suck at their craft).
good authors simply let their work stand as is and if they happen to blow your mind, so be it. they recognize that irrespective of intent, we're going to going to bring our own biases, perspectives, expectations and understandings to a text anyway. in critical/literary studies this is known as "reception theory," a concept with near-universal applicability pioneered by hans-robert jauss. |
Well put. |
|
|
|
|
