'Real' literature

[rgraham666]

I've noticed several times over the last week or so comments on stories or postson threads that imply the stuff we write isn't 'real' literature.

Personally, I can't see it. We're trying to tell stories which is what all literature does. Perhaps the subject matter is a bit 'outside' the 'normal' concerns of people, but we're still just trying to tell a story.

So why the attitude? Is it chauvinism? Envy? Puritanism? All of the above? Something else?

Discuss.

 

[CrazyyAngel]

So why the attitude? Is it chauvinism? Envy? Puritanism? All of the above? Something else?

I'd say its because it is generally seen as porn. And as we all know making a porn movie isn't rocket science. So people tend to apply the same rules to written porn.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Is this a topic in the GB, right after....."do you floss after you've given head?"

 

[LadyJeanne]

It depends on our definitions of literature. Some see literature as any writing; others define literature as much more than that. I see literature as writing that not only tells a story, but has something to say about the story, about life, human nature, something more to it than the story itself.

 

[NoJo]

I've noticed several times over the last week or so comments on stories or postson threads that imply the stuff we write isn't 'real' literature.

Personally, I can't see it. We're trying to tell stories which is what all literature does. Perhaps the subject matter is a bit 'outside' the 'normal' concerns of people, but we're still just trying to tell a story.

So why the attitude? Is it chauvinism? Envy? Puritanism? All of the above? Something else?

Discuss.

It's more a question of amateur/professional rather than porn/real literature to me.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I've noticed several times over the last week or so comments on stories or postson threads that imply the stuff we write isn't 'real' literature.

Personally, I can't see it. We're trying to tell stories which is what all literature does. Perhaps the subject matter is a bit 'outside' the 'normal' concerns of people, but we're still just trying to tell a story.

So why the attitude? Is it chauvinism? Envy? Puritanism? All of the above? Something else?

Discuss.

'Real' literature is something which is subjective even out of the 'porn' arena. Some people think novels like 'The Da Vinci Code' is not real literature but pulp fiction and only the canon of accepted writers is literature. Of course we know that is not the case - there is good and bad writing in all genre. Anais Nin is an accepted writer of erotica ( or porn, depending on your view point) for example!

 

[ABSTRUSE]

literature, art and music are all modes of expression which can be judged by opinion....ya like it or ya don't.

My interrpretation of good may differ from someone else's.

 

[Guest]

"Real" literature is usually considered as mainstream bollocks; not genre, at all. And it's all about elitist snobbery - belonging to "the club". We'd never see any of that around here, so that's why what we write isn't literature.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Okay. It's not very popular these days to take the stance that there is such a thing as "real" literature as opposed to just stories and entertainments, but I'm one of those people that does take that position.

The things we value as literature are those that generally give us some insight into the experience of being human. Not just descriptions of it, but insight and understanding. Very often the stories are emotionally moving and involving in ways we find hard to understand or express. Literarure lifts us up out of ourselves and lets us see life from a new perspective, and lots of times it changes us.

The language of literature is special too: unusually beautiful or striking. Phrases and ideas stay with us. We can roll little expressions or combinations of words around in our mind like little jewels. They're just beautiful to behold. The words say things we didn't know how to say before, or force us to see things we never even noticed, or ring with some sort of power we can't quite understand.

A lot of popular fiction does none of these things. No matter how much a bodice-ripper or horror yarn may grip you and keep you turning the pages, or make you weep at the happy ending, you rarely come away from them changed or with a new perspective, and they tend to manipulate emotions rather than evoke them. That's why we snobs consider them entertainments rather than serious literature.

So most porn falls squarely into the entertainment camp. That's not to say that literature can't be pornographic too, but it has to leave us with more than a dirty tissue and the impression that waitresses with big tits like to take it up the ass.

Now flame me all you want, but that's where I stand.

---dr.M.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Okay. It's not very popular these days to take the stance that there is such a thing as "real" literature as opposed to just stories and entertainments, but I'm one of those people that does take that position.

The things we value as literature are those that generally give us some insight into the experience of being human. Not just descriptions of it, but insight and understanding. Very often the stories are emotionally moving and involving in ways we find hard to understand or express. Literarure lifts us up out of ourselves and lets us see life from a new perspective, and lots of times it changes us.

The language of literature is special too: unusually beautiful or striking. Phrases and ideas stay with us. We can roll little expressions or combinations of words around in our mind like little jewels. They're just beautiful to behold. The words say things we didn't know how to say before, or force us to see things we never even noticed, or ring with some sort of power we can't quite understand.

A lot of popular fiction does none of these things. No matter how much a bodice-ripper or horror yarn may grip you and keep you turning the pages, or make you weep at the happy ending, you rarely come away from them changed or with a new perspective, and they tend to manipulate emotions rather than evoke them. That's why we snobs consider them entertainments rather than serious literature.

So most porn falls squarely into the entertainment camp. That's not to say that literature can't be pornographic too, but it has to leave us with more than a dirty tissue and the impression that waitresses with big tits like to take it up the ass.

Now flame me all you want, but that's where I stand.

---dr.M.

No flame from me Doc - good stories/novels of whatever kind are like 'jewels...that are beautiful to behold' in whatever genre - but it is still very subjective or academically argued over!

 

[rgraham666]

I guess I'm not writing real literature after all, Dr_M.

I just want to tell stories about people. I never set out to enlighten anybody.

I do try to make my words beautiful though. It helps tell the story.

 

[Liar]

The things we value as literature are those that generally give us some insight into the experience of being human. Not just descriptions of it, but insight and understanding. Very often the stories are emotionally moving and involving in ways we find hard to understand or express. Literarure lifts us up out of ourselves and lets us see life from a new perspective, and lots of times it changes us.

The language of literature is special too: unusually beautiful or striking. Phrases and ideas stay with us. We can roll little expressions or combinations of words around in our mind like little jewels. They're just beautiful to behold. The words say things we didn't know how to say before, or force us to see things we never even noticed, or ring with some sort of power we can't quite understand.

A lot of popular fiction does none of these things.

I must hang with the wrong breed of snob then. Because a lot of what is commonly accepted as "real", "great" or even "classic" literature does none of that for me. I tend to find as much enlightment or lingering linguistic treasures in the cheap-ass looked-down-upon entertainment fiction as in the accepted stuff.

Anyway, I think I understand what you're saying. I would like to to look at it as the difference between how you process the impressions from a book. Is it through assimilation, where you file it into where it fits in your mind? Or is it via accommodation, where you actually will have to change your world view and the way you think to make room for the ideas you just aquired? A good book does what you expect it to do and feds you easily processable insights. A great book punches you in the face and makes you reevaluate yourself. That being said, I've never found that the cultural elite's distiction of what falls into which category correaltes with my own.

#L

 

[Samandiriel]

One man's smut is another man's War and Peace.

 

[Octavian]

What about long words?

Surely long words must count.

I had planned to use the word, 'antidisestablishmentarianism' in my next story. I had thought that using such long words would automatically qualify my story as literature, rather than mere porn.


Please don't tell me that this makes no difference. It has taken me six weeks to learn how to spell it!

Octavian

My Stories with some, but not too many, long words

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One man's smut is another man's War and Peace.

No, see. That's just what I don't believe. It's not all relative or a matter of individual taste. One man might like smut more than War & Peace, but that doesn't mean they're of equal value and worth.

A while ago someone on this board made the statement that romance writing is the only true Literature, that all this Saul Bellow and Hemingway and Fitzgerald is just being shoved down our throats by people trying to gull us. Ramance writing produced the most fascinating characters and intense emotions, she said.

Well, that's just crap. There's plenty of romance writing that qualifies as Great Literature, but most of what's out there in Harlequin or Ellora's Cave is pretty much formulaic and cliched and trite. The emotions it evokes are the easy ones--the tears, the lump in the throat, the mild sexual buzz--and the characters are all to a type. It doesn't move us in those deep places or change the way we look at things. (Well, not for me, anyhow.)

That doesn't mean that romance writing doesn't have a place or that we can't enjoy it, but don't expect to see The Pirate's Passion up next to The Iliad any time soon. One teaches us about handsome pirates trying to get laid, and one's an exploration of honor, pride, and fate. Personally, I don't think they have the same value.

If you believe that popularity is the highest measure of value, then this whole Great Literature thing must seem like a scam. But then, if that's what you believe, McDonald's is the world's greatest cuisine and JayLo is a great actress.

You don't have to sit down and intend to write GL in order to write it. Hell, Homer was the action movie of his day. But there is a difference, and it's not all an egghead plot. Poetry has been defined as that which means more than it says. I think the same is true for Literature.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Let me beat this dead horse some more--

Two BDSM stories:

Story A describes what some guy does to a girl in graphic detail.

Story B describes the same thing, but it also explores some of the subtleties of BDSM: How do her feelings towards herself change in the course of the session? What is he feeling when he treats her this way? What sort of emotional interactions and negotioations are taking place betwen them? And finally, why do people who love each other do these sorts of things to each other? What's at the root of the BDSM experience?

B comes closest to literature. It's trying to look at what BDSM means to the human beings involved. It's trying to understand things that are not obvious, and maybe make us see things we've never seen before. It's using the particulars of the story to draw general conclusions and observations.

Story A is just trying to get us off. That's not a bad goal in itself, but it's not what I would call literary.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Let me beat this dead horse some more--

Two BDSM stories:

Story A describes what some guy does to a girl in graphic detail.

Story B describes the same thing, but it also explores some of the subtleties of BDSM: How do her feelings towards herself change in the course of the session? What is he feeling when he treats her this way? What sort of emotional interactions and negotioations are taking place betwen them? And finally, why do people who love each other do these sorts of things to each other? What's at the root of the BDSM experience?

B comes closest to literature. It's trying to look at what BDSM means to the human beings involved. It's trying to understand things that are not obvious, and maybe make us see things we've never seen before. It's using the particulars of the story to draw general conclusions and observations.

Story A is just trying to get us off. That's not a bad goal in itself, but it's not what I would call literary.

Yes but neither story A or B might be classed as literature! I think I alluded to this before but this argument will come down to popular and academic discussion - it is the old question of 'high brow' and 'low brow' literature - but aren't the old distinctions becoming blurred? - we have the old established canon but who are the new figures? David Mitchell is a contemporary writer whom I would class as literary but he is also popular - does he write literature or novels?

What is the difference? When does a writer of stories become an author of literature? In whose eyes? Sorry I am kind of rambling here but I do think that the world of 'literature' is changing and it is not so easy to classify literature anymore.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I see your lips moving, but all I hear is-

waitresses with big tits like to take it up the ass.



---dr.M.

forgive me a cheeky moment doc, I'm in a mood

 

[sweetnpetite]

I guess I'm not writing real literature after all, Dr_M.

I just want to tell stories about people. I never set out to enlighten anybody.

I do try to make my words beautiful though. It helps tell the story.

I really truly believe that most of the writers of what we call "great literature" set out with the same goals- and all the rest was just a happy coincidence that mostly didn't benefit them until after they were dead.

Sure, I believe there's a difference between "The Stranger" and "1984" but I think that setting out to do to many lofty things with your writing is generally a resepe for disaster.

Also- scifi will probably never be considered 'great literature' outside the scifi circles. But I'm sure that there's plenty of it there. I do think that overall, there is some snobbery involved. But you really can't say "A is better than B" without being snobby The problem is when you refuse to consider anything because it falls into a certain category. Remarkably, I see a lot of that, even amoung porn/erotica authors on the subject of romance novels- especially Harlequin and the like. If you haven't actually read a handful of them in the last 4 years, how can you presume to judge what is is/is not.

The same with the junk we write You have to take it on a case by case basis. And then it's still subjective and open to debate. I don't think most people consider their own writing to be 'literature'- so probably what you're hearing is more of people being self-depricating(?) and less of them actually judging others works. (Or if they are, it's only based on the sample they've read, or their own work anyway)

IS that helpful, or just rambling?

 

[Black Tulip]

As a language teacher I have been giving literature classes in the past. So perhaps I have a (light) vocational deformity on the subject, but yes, there is such a thing as real literature in my opinion.

I agree with Doc's words. True literature shows you something you haven't seen before. It changes your perspective, it adds to your understanding of the world or the people around you. Whatever it does, it leaves you a bit different from before you started reading. And if you're lucky your world gets turned upside down every now and then.

And for me that includes the way the language is handled. A fresh image, a new comparison, sentences I can taste and relish long after I read the whole.

Right now, most kids in my country only learn English as a foreign language in school. Given my age I had to follow all modern languages at school, so I had to read literature in English, French and German apart from Dutch literature of course. In all of those languages literature has the same characteristics. The books or their writers had to say something about the world and they used unusual language to get it across.

I don't have the illusion of writing literature. I wish. But I do try to find out why people act the way they act and in that respect I hope I write something more than simple porn. The final say in that is up to the public, however.

The real problem is that some people tend to act as if anything other than literature is not worthy of any attention.
So? Who eats "haute cuisine" every day?
It's a ridiculous elitist point of view that only serves to show other people how terribly well-educated the said idiot is.

 

[Goldie Munro]

As a language teacher I have been giving literature classes in the past. So perhaps I have a (light) vocational deformity on the subject, but yes, there is such a thing as real literature in my opinion.

I agree with Doc's words. True literature shows you something you haven't seen before. It changes your perspective, it adds to your understanding of the world or the people around you. Whatever it does, it leaves you a bit different from before you started reading. And if you're lucky your world gets turned upside down every now and then.

And for me that includes the way the language is handled. A fresh image, a new comparison, sentences I can taste and relish long after I read the whole.

Right now, most kids in my country only learn English as a foreign language in school. Given my age I had to follow all modern languages at school, so I had to read literature in English, French and German apart from Dutch literature of course. In all of those languages literature has the same characteristics. The books or their writers had to say something about the world and they used unusual language to get it across.

I don't have the illusion of writing literature. I wish. But I do try to find out why people act the way they act and in that respect I hope I write something more than simple porn. The final say in that is up to the public, however.

The real problem is that some people tend to act as if anything other than literature is not worthy of any attention.
So? Who eats "haute cuisine" every day?
It's a ridiculous elitist point of view that only serves to show other people how terribly well-educated the said idiot is.

I agree wholeheardely with you!

However, I keep asking who decides? It comes down to experts in literature or language or linguistics - which is elitist. If you look at the top 10 book list - that is the most popular books - the best selling books - who decides which of those are literature or not? A story that you or I might class as pulp may have brought a new understanding of the world to someone else - how can we judge?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

In a sense, pornography is the most political form of fiction, dealing with how we use and exploit each other, in the most urgent and ruthless way.

- J.G. Ballard​

I'm a firm believer of this, and I have no doubt that the future of art and literature will include the embrace of pornography to a level like nothing we have ever experienced throughout history.

That being said, the truth of the matter is that most authors of pornography don't take themselves seriously, so why should anyone else?

 

[Black Tulip]

* shrugs *

In the end I think it comes down to "time will tell".

Most of the literature in my own language started out as popular stuff in its own time. And I'm fairly certain that goes for all literature.
When first written it's popular, but only the passing of time can make it clear if the views expressed were really adding something new or merely tied in with the passions of the moment.



Does that make any sense?

 

[NoJo]

In a sense, pornography is the most political form of fiction, dealing with how we use and exploit each other, in the most urgent and ruthless way.

- J.G. Ballard​

I'm a firm believer of this, and I have no doubt that the future of art and literature will include the embrace of pornography to a level like nothing we have ever experienced throughout history.

That being said, the truth of the matter is that most authors of pornography don't take themselves seriously, so why should anyone else?

J G Ballard must have read some of the good stuff. I bet he read about 1/1000 as much porn as most of us here.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm with Dr. M and Black Tulip. I would also add the concept of having writerly goals - a concern for style, an understanding of the working mechanics of writing, and a committment to exploring the capabilities of the written word. I don't think that porn excludes these goals. Dr. M gives good examples of porn that might not. But I also think that porn, like many other genres, is also commonly written for a lot of other reasons.

I really truly believe that most of the writers of what we call "great literature" set out with the same goals- and all the rest was just a happy coincidence that mostly didn't benefit them until after they were dead.

Do, quite seriously, read more of their letters and aesthetic theory. I can cite you lines from every writer from Pope to Blake, Wordsworth to Yeats, Eliot to Auden to Orwell where the writer sets out quite clearly what he is attempting to achieve artistically and philosophically. Most of the "big names" spent a great deal of time weighing how literature is written, what it hopes to achieve, and how those goals can best be met. It is, I would argue, an intrinsic part of being a good writer. It's not unconscious. It's achieved through considerable thought and effort. Those just happen to be the parts that most people don't read in school.

Shanglan