'Real' literature

[Goldie Munro]

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?

Exactly! And that was RGs theme at the start (forgive me for assuming RG!)

 

[BlackShanglan]

However, I keep asking who decides? It comes down to experts in literature or language or linguistics - which is elitist.

I disagree. I'm quite content, for example, to let the experts in sport decide who is the best quarterback, or the experts in finance to tell me who I had best trust with my money. While acknowledging that taste is individual, I think that one could do worse than to trust the experts. If I'm looking for good literature, I look for an expert I like and then see what s/he's reading. It's a good way to get things more my taste while still letting someone else's expertise work for me. Arthur Symons hasn't steered me wrong yet. Why should I feel threatend because he knows the field better than I do? If I keep with him long enough, his knowledge will be my own as well.

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.

Now this I agree with. Everyone has a range of tastes, and some days I just want pizza, stout, and South Park. I don't think everyone has to read "high canon" literature every day, or even at all. I just recognize that it's good work. I don't care to listen to opera, but I recognize that there are good and bad singers and that the experts understand them better than I do. I don't see much difference in the situations.

Shanglan

 

[Lauren Hynde]

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.

I don't know, be he did write some very good porn.

 

[Amy Sweet]

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.



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

Cool- something new, and something to think about. Thanks Shang Would you be willing to give me a clue as to where to start?

 

[Goldie Munro]

I disagree. I'm quite content, for example, to let the experts in sport decide who is the best quarterback, or the experts in finance to tell me who I had best trust with my money. While acknowledging that taste is individual, I think that one could do worse than to trust the experts. If I'm looking for good literature, I look for an expert I like and then see what s/he's reading. It's a good way to get things more my taste while still letting someone else's expertise work for me. Arthur Symons hasn't steered me wrong yet. Why should I feel threatend because he knows the field better than I do? If I keep with him long enough, his knowledge will be my own as well.. Shanglan

But that was what I was saying! It is subjective and if you read the 'expert' on new literature and like what he he is saying then yeah and if not then you go with someone else! Take your sport analogy for example - you know who to trust for your information - but someone else might think that it is crap! Its subjective - so who is to decide what is literature?

 

[NoJo]

I don't know, be he did write some very good porn.

And some of my favorite science fiction, at first. He always had a taste for the maggoty and repulsive.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Cool- something new, and something to think about. Thanks Shang Would you be willing to give me a clue as to where to start?

I would be delighted. My first suggestion is a great book called "Strong Words," which is a wonderful collection of comments by modern poets on modern poetry. Don't let the poetry focus deceive you; they talk about many forms of literature. It's a very accessible book as well - most of the pieces are relatively brief, not too technical, and amusing and interesting. It's excellent reading and has a nice scope and breadth.

Another good place to look is actually the Norton folks' anthologies. Most of the ones that I have seen have good chunks of letters and theory for many of the major authors. I don't want to give a huge list here, as I think it might be more baffling than helpful, but if you let me know British or American and some idea of a rough time period, I could point you to more. It really makes fascinating reading, and I feel that it hones one's sense of what one values in literature by presenting many models of what people have considered great work. Sometimes it's quite intriguing to see the differences; I recently read Wilde's "The Decay of Lying" right before Johnson's "On Fiction" and feared for a moment that I would be caught in a matter/anti-matter explosion. It's amazing how completely antithetical they are.

Oh, and if you've got a real hankering for geek-level aesthetics, you might try Aristotle's "Poetics" on first. It's the one to which nearly everyone else eventually refers.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

But that was what I was saying! It is subjective and if you read the 'expert' on new literature and like what he he is saying then yeah and if not then you go with someone else! Take your sport analogy for example - you know who to trust for your information - but someone else might think that it is crap! Its subjective - so who is to decide what is literature?

I see what you mean, and I'm sorry I sidetracked, there. I think what I meant is that I do believe that there is literature and non-literature, but that one may prefer different styles within literature, and that that is where choosing one's expert comes in. For example, I don't much care for Steinbeck. His choices in content are depressing to me, and I really am not a fan of realism as a whole. But I recognize in his work several elements that I think give it literary merit:

1) Close attention to the craft of writing
2) Serious and profound thought on human nature (not trite assumptions passed off as such)
3) Attempts to address matters of philosophical weight in a coherent and intelligent fashion
4) Clear understanding of the elements of fiction and appropriate use thereof

For these reasons, I consider my dislike of his work a matter of taste. I do not care for what he has to say, but I acknowledge his ability in saying it and his depth of thought in considering his ideas. I rank his work as literature. If I was looking for an expert in literature to tell me what I would like, I would probably not choose someone who was a great fan of Steinbeck. However, I would expect him/her to acknowledge the inherent artistic value of the work.

The email I wrote to my friend the other day, on the other hand, did not show any of those qualities. What disqualifies it as literature, in my opinion, is not the fact that it is a private letter - Wilde's are clearly art in some examples - but the fact that it lacks all of those four qualities above. It is writing, but it is not literature.

I do, by the way, believe that writing and texts of all sorts have intrinsic value. They can tell us a great deal about the writers and the times in which they were written, and they all occupy varying social, cultural, artistic, and economic territories that can make them quite interesting. That said, I'm old-fashioned enough to hold out for there being a substantial and important difference between Shakespeare's sonnets and his laundry list.

Shanglan

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I see what you mean, and I'm sorry I sidetracked, there. I think what I meant is that I do believe that there is literature and non-literature, but that one may prefer different styles within literature, and that that is where choosing one's expert comes in. For example, I don't much care for Steinbeck. His choices in content are depressing to me, and I really am not a fan of realism as a whole. But I recognize in his work several elements that I think give it literary merit:

1) Close attention to the craft of writing
2) Serious and profound thought on human nature (not trite assumptions passed off as such)
3) Attempts to address matters of philosophical weight in a coherent and intelligent fashion
4) Clear understanding of the elements of fiction and appropriate use thereof

For these reasons, I consider my dislike of his work a matter of taste. I do not care for what he has to say, but I acknowledge his ability in saying it and his depth of thought in considering his ideas. I rank his work as literature. If I was looking for an expert in literature to tell me what I would like, I would probably not choose someone who was a great fan of Steinbeck. However, I would expect him/her to acknowledge the inherent artistic value of the work.

The email I wrote to my friend the other day, on the other hand, did not show any of those qualities. What disqualifies it as literature, in my opinion, is not the fact that it is a private letter - Wilde's are clearly art in some examples - but the fact that it lacks all of those four qualities above. It is writing, but it is not literature.

I do, by the way, believe that writing and texts of all sorts have intrinsic value. They can tell us a great deal about the writers and the times in which they were written, and they all occupy varying social, cultural, artistic, and economic territories that can make them quite interesting. That said, I'm old-fashioned enough to hold out for there being a substantial and important difference between Shakespeare's sonnets and his laundry list.

Shanglan

I'm starting to believe that theory you had that we're really the same person.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm starting to believe that theory you had that we're really the same person.

Shhh. I'm trying to keep it a secret from you.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I see what you mean, and I'm sorry I sidetracked, there. I think what I meant is that I do believe that there is literature and non-literature, but that one may prefer different styles within literature, and that that is where choosing one's expert comes in. For example, I don't much care for Steinbeck. His choices in content are depressing to me, and I really am not a fan of realism as a whole. But I recognize in his work several elements that I think give it literary merit:

1) Close attention to the craft of writing
2) Serious and profound thought on human nature (not trite assumptions passed off as such)
3) Attempts to address matters of philosophical weight in a coherent and intelligent fashion
4) Clear understanding of the elements of fiction and appropriate use thereof

For these reasons, I consider my dislike of his work a matter of taste. I do not care for what he has to say, but I acknowledge his ability in saying it and his depth of thought in considering his ideas. I rank his work as literature. If I was looking for an expert in literature to tell me what I would like, I would probably not choose someone who was a great fan of Steinbeck. However, I would expect him/her to acknowledge the inherent artistic value of the work.

The email I wrote to my friend the other day, on the other hand, did not show any of those qualities. What disqualifies it as literature, in my opinion, is not the fact that it is a private letter - Wilde's are clearly art in some examples - but the fact that it lacks all of those four qualities above. It is writing, but it is not literature.

I do, by the way, believe that writing and texts of all sorts have intrinsic value. They can tell us a great deal about the writers and the times in which they were written, and they all occupy varying social, cultural, artistic, and economic territories that can make them quite interesting. That said, I'm old-fashioned enough to hold out for there being a substantial and important difference between Shakespeare's sonnets and his laundry list.

Shanglan

That is so cool because I love Steinbeck! He has an economy with words and ideas that is awesome - and he writes about the sides of life that are rarely written about with genuine sympathy and understanding - but I am not going to go into my appreciation of Steinbeck!

I love your last paragraph - that is so what this argument is about - some people may find litarary value from Shakespeare's laundry list!

 

[Liar]

Short question for y'all then:

You (Mab, Black, Black...) who say that there is Literature and Non-Literature out there. As I earlier said, I do believe there is some kind of truth to what you say. But consider, is it really that dichotomised? When does a work of fiction pass from the realm of "entertainment" or "pulp" or "doggerel" into the realm of "literature" or "art"?

I say those are the extremes on an analog scale, and that there is not two person in the world that would agree where alongthat all works of literature would be placed.

Unless they dichotomise, which I call shenannigans upon.

As I said, I do appreciate quality literature, works that challence my perspective. But so far, expert after expert have proved themselves wrong in their recommendations, and more than a few of the "masterpieces" I have been fed have not had any remaining value more than "Huh". Why? Simple really, because every man's perspective is unique.

Harlequin romance is less likely to have anything but a short time entertainmenty effect on the reader. But nevah say nevah.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I love your last paragraph - that is so what this argument is about - some people may find litarary value from Shakespeare's laundry list!

They may indeed be, but I don't think that they will win me over. That said, I see lots of fun and biographical/historical value potential. Just wanted to be clear that I don't think it's necessarily worthless; just that I don't think it's literature.

I say those are the extremes on an analog scale, and that there is not two person in the world that would agree where alongthat all works of literature would be placed.

I agree. It's always the middle ground that is trickiest. But then, that is true of all subjective topics, from morality and ethics to beauty and art. Most people can agree on the extremes, with the exception of extremists. It's the territory toward that middle that becomes quite tricky.

 

[kendo1]

Is porn/erotica going to become more acceptable, as is the case with main stream films?
The general public's views on what is acceptable changes over time, so I'm sure the same will happen with erotic fiction. Can we leave the cupboard, soon?

 

[Goldie Munro]

They may indeed be, but I don't think that they will win me over. That said, I see lots of fun and biographical/historical value potential. Just wanted to be clear that I don't think it's necessarily worthless; just that I don't think it's literature. QUOTE]

I agree!

 

[Amy Sweet]

I would be delighted. My first suggestion is a great book called "Strong Words," which is a wonderful collection of comments by modern poets on modern poetry. Don't let the poetry focus deceive you; they talk about many forms of literature. It's a very accessible book as well - most of the pieces are relatively brief, not too technical, and amusing and interesting. It's excellent reading and has a nice scope and breadth.

Shanglan

Thanks a lot! I just got sucked into Amazon.com for two hours, lol.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Short question for y'all then:

You (Mab, Black, Black...) who say that there is Literature and Non-Literature out there. As I earlier said, I do believe there is some kind of truth to what you say. But consider, is it really that dichotomised? When does a work of fiction pass from the realm of "entertainment" or "pulp" or "doggerel" into the realm of "literature" or "art"?

I say those are the extremes on an analog scale, and that there is not two person in the world that would agree where alongthat all works of literature would be placed.

Well, it's like who decides if a movie is great or not? It's kind of a combination of the critics and the public and the box office receipts. A consensus usually develops, and people will call critics snobs and elitists and the critics will argue and bicker. Every so often someone whill point out that this movie that everyone thought was a piece of crap really is good if you look at it this way, or that this movie that everyone thought was so great is just a real turkey, and the opinion and discussion goes on and on. But no one's going to expect "Beach Blanket Bingo" to be taken as seriously as "Citizen Kane".

Whether you consider something Literature or not is very subjective, but that doesn't mean that the distinction is meaningless.

If a piece of writing seems to have meaning beyond the literal story it tells, if it can be profitably discussed and analyzed, then to me, I'd consider it literary. It doesn't have to be a stodgy piece of 19th century flummery either. I've read plenty of comics and children's books that had literary value. I haven't read any Harry Potter, but I imagine he's so popular precisely because he has literary value. He resonates with people. Tolkein certainly does, though Tolkein's a little light for most critics, who like deep, beefy books with a lot of layers and meanings.

What can you say? Literature is writing that can be taken seriously. If you're serious about your porn, if you think about it and pay attention to it (that's another sign of literature to me too. The authors pay a lot of attention to what they say and how they say it), you're trying to write literature.

If you're just tossing off strokers, then you're probably not.

There's plenty of room for both, and you can't really say that one's inherently better than the other because it depends on what you feel like reading. But they're really not the same.

BTW, another good source for discussions of literature is here:

http://aldaily.com/

"Arts and Letters Daily". They feature a lot of articles by the critics whose opinions carry the most weight.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I like all of what the Dr. said. I will just add the Tolkein is actually getting some good attention from Christian, green, and pop culture scholars. A friend of mine actually did his dissertation on Tolkein and eco-criticism.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks a lot! I just got sucked into Amazon.com for two hours, lol.

*grin*

There are worse places to be found wandering. I hope you enjoyed the journey.

 

[SeaCat]

I read this thread and went on to others. When I came back I read it again, slowly as is my wont when concentrating on what is being said. What I'm hearing is that the main qualifications for something to be considered Literature is it makes people stop and think. It comes back to haunt them. It says something so profound that you find yourself going back to it for a re-read.

his being said I can think of several books, some not so popular, that have done this to me. They are by varied authors and are in varied genres, but they all have one thing in common. They made me sit up in the middle of the night wondering what the author had meantby something they had said. Somehow though I don't think a lot of people today would consider these stories Literature. So when does it getdecided, and who truly makes that decision? ("Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Job, a comedy of Justice" are two such books. There have been many times where I had to stop and wonder what Heinlein was trying to say. However I can think of very few peopple, authors especialy who would consider either of these books literature.)

Cat

 

[Amy Sweet]

*grin*

There are worse places to be found wandering. I hope you enjoyed the journey.

I always do.

I've got a new book. It's "Uncle Tom's Cabin." (New for me obviously, not new, new.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

I always do.

I've got a new book. It's "Uncle Tom's Cabin." (New for me obviously, not new, new.)

Interesting pick. That's a book that has some very interesting debates going about it. I'd be curious to know what you think of it, once you've read it. I'm always torn, myself.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

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.

With all due respect to AH'ers who seem to strive for something more, we're standing in a pile of shit.

The smell of a rose cannot compete against the square mile of manure.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Black Tulip]

Short question for y'all then:

You (Mab, Black, Black...) who say that there is Literature and Non-Literature out there. As I earlier said, I do believe there is some kind of truth to what you say. But consider, is it really that dichotomised? When does a work of fiction pass from the realm of "entertainment" or "pulp" or "doggerel" into the realm of "literature" or "art"?
...
As I said, I do appreciate quality literature, works that challence my perspective. But so far, expert after expert have proved themselves wrong in their recommendations, and more than a few of the "masterpieces" I have been fed have not had any remaining value more than "Huh". Why? Simple really, because every man's perspective is unique.
...
But nevah say nevah.

I agree about the grey area in the middle that Shanglan already mentioned. If I had become a true linguist instead of a teacher I would probably spend my time studying the works therein.

As I said before, some works turn into literature after an amount of time has passed. Sometimes you need to take a step or two back to see the true value of a work of art. And that step back includes the factor time too.
The same goes for painting for example. Don't for a minute think Mondriaan was considered a serious artist when he first painted a few simple lines in primal (?) colors. Well, you know, red, blue and yellow with black thrown in as well.

Like porn, sf is in a peculiar position. Most consider books in either genre as absolutely not literary.
But ...
Anais Nin is literature ...
Jules Verne is considered literature...
And I seem to recall having read something about Heinlein and his ideas as more than simple entertainment. I can't remember where or how at the moment though.

 

[Black Tulip]

With all due respect to AH'ers who seem to strive for something more, we're standing in a pile of shit.

The smell of a rose cannot compete against the square mile of manure.

Sincerely,
ElSol

So? Does that mean you have to weed out the roses?
They grow best with lots of dung.