The Just Stumbled Upon: The J. D. Salinger Mother-load

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Okay, so this innocent thread as gotten a little "Farewell to Arms" here. Fair enough.

First off, let me say that the whole literature debate is trite and crap. I know by saying this perdita will eat out my spleen but let me explain. I was forced to read the list of "classical authors". Some I felt were talented, others gods, others complete hacks who people shouldn't have any respect for. As I know this was my opinion in school I don't feel the desire to flame someone over their opinions of J.D. even though I have a very good opinion of the man's works (he was the author that taught me how to write in stream of consciousness and helped build the anti-drone side of my personality along with Kesey).

J.D. Salinger is a difficult author because he is only written for one type of person and will be dismissed by all others. For instance, I was taught Catcher by a teacher whose father ran the football team. Her disdain for the main character and his opinions was so transparent that it helped fuel my invisible feud with her.

Basically Catcher and all his other works is written for that type of nihilistic intellectual outcast trying to struggle against a society out to get them. Basically, the same type of people that read Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and really love it. If you're not of that type, if you are happy and normal or not one of those with that whole too-smart-for-one's-own-good thing, then you won't like Salinger. Or at the least won't like him enough to have the sort of love of him that Clare and I do.

Oh and Clare, everyone reads different things in school. Some things are constant (I haven't yet found the school that didn't do at least one nod to Shakespeare), but one can never guess which school taught what even in America.

 

[Guest]

I do understand what others have said here, no need for reiteration, but I stand by what I've said (it's what I think and I did try not to be 'personal' about it). I have no arguement, it's just what I believe.

Personally, I like Q.'s style and attitude all round; it's refreshing to see an individual take a well expressed stand without regard for popularity, esp. on this forum. He has more balls than me but I'm working on mine.

still unapologetic, Perdita

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm feeling intellectually snooty. Too many persons protest a bit too insipidly. Tell someone off if you feel offended by any particular phrase or attitude, then go away, but why go into overkill (defense ploys and clickish huddles) on how you don't read or know this or that author as if it's a value or point of pride.

No, I was in error, it's not snobbishness that makes me post now. I've been through this too often on this forum. I know there is a difference between literature and other writing. Everyone does, even if they don't admit it. Literature isn't for everyone; it takes time and work to get it, but why make out it's a matter of value or self-identity. If you don't like wine, drink soda pop or beer, but please don't think it has anything to do with being more quenched and having sweeter piss.

unapologetically, Perdita

Well, I guess I’m feeling snooty too, because I would also come to the defense of literature. But I have to disagree with you on one point, and that’s that literature has to be difficult.

I’m a lazy reader, and I don’t like to have to work to wrestle meaning from a book. I took my Shakespeare in school and I loved it but I would never read his plays for pleasure. He’s just too much work. Same for Dickens in my book. I don’t have the patience for him. I got a book of Montaigne’s essays out of the library to see what the fuss was about, but I couldn’t read it. Too lazy.

But literature doesn’t have to be difficult, and I think it's wrong to characterize it as such. I worked to read stuff in school, and I refuse to do that now. If a book or story gives you something beyond escapism, if it changes the way you look at the world, or if it means more than it says, then it’s literature. Winnie the Pooh was literature for me when I was a kid, and probably still retains its charm, because between Christopher Robin and Piglet and Pooh I felt something I couldn’t express myself. So it kind of opened me up that way.

Personally, I don’t like Stephen King. I think he’s silly, or at least the books I’ve read by him struck me as silly. But then I like Doc Savage books and I study Raymond Chandler mysteries, so who am I to judge? King strikes me as the elevator music of fiction. In fifty years I suppose they might be studying elevator music too, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s elevator music, and that as soon as you step off the elevator, you’ve totally forgotten it.

Bradbury is different. Bradbury writes in beautiful emotional tones, and there’s always something very humane and touching about his stuff. Bradbury always feels like the truth.

There are books I have read, five, six, or even more times. Books that constantly surprise and astonish me. Catcher is like that, and Catcher is one of the the simplest books I’ve ever read.

---dr.M.

Edited to add: Just to throw my own fuel on the ifre, I've read "Gatsby" 4 or 5 times and it's a very neat piece of writing and I always enjoyed it, but I never understood what all the literary orgasms were about.

And also, if you want to get right down to it, the end of "Hamlet" is just plain silly.

So there.

 

[Guest]

Mab., I reread my post and I did not say Literature had to be difficult. I said it requires time and work. By 'work' I meant ordinary thinking and attention (usually based on experience with language as more than speech). Of course Shakesepare requires work simply because his texts are in Elizabethan English. For me it's worth the work, a labor of love, but I know it's not for everyone.

Pop-fiction is 'difficult' for me cos it grates on my literary sensibilites, it's not profitable work so I dismiss it.

Perdita

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

All right, apparently I'm "reiterating" and "placating the masses" and all that. Listen, my position is genuine here. I'm not backing down. I love Salinger and Kesey and Bradbury and Asimov and Shakespeare and Fitzgerald and etc., however I recognize that some people don't. Just as I recognize that though I see the "classical brilliance" of Hemmingway and Fennimore Cooper as poorly written drivel is rightly dismissed by the clear thinking world of literature. That's why I saw the debate is shite.

People honor different things as the pinnacle. For instance, there are numerous sci-fi/fantasy authors who have far more intelligence, wordplay, imagination, and well-developed characters than most dusty old "classics". However to the seasoned eye of an english major, anything not written in the modern realistic with only a few absurdist elements is absolute rubbish.

Well fuck that, I worship Kafka. Bradbury. Kesey. Salinger. Gaiman. Twain. Adams. I worship them because they bring out a madness that not even the shit that was so "unique" at the time of publication could hope to match. Their originality is of the immortal kind. The kind that resonates long after the topical parts of their stories fade away. Is Wells not a genius because he wrote of martians? Is Adams not a master wordsmith because he wrote comedic lines?

As far as King goes, I'd not elevate him to genius, but I consider him very good at what he does. Or at least I consider him that way in his early work. His craptastic Pet Cemetary book is hardly a good measuring stick for his works. I recognize him as above Wes Craven but far below Poe and Lovecraft who are both of course geniuses with Poe being the greatest genius of all in the fields of horror and mystery.

So fuck literature, read what resonates with you. If you haven't read one book that slams you hard with overpowering genius before you die, you have wasted your whole life. And that's my position on it, "reiterated" and "placating" as it may be.

 

[Guest]

Hey, LC, no one's asking you or anyone to back down, so I think you can stop repeating yourself now (that's frankness, not rudeness).

I clarified a point to Mab., and unless someone else makes an interesting point I won't repeat myself either.

Perdita

 

[dr_mabeuse]

So fuck literature, read what resonates with you. If you haven't read one book that slams you hard with overpowering genius before you die, you have wasted your whole life. And that's my position on it, "reiterated" and "placating" as it may be.

I can live with that.

I don't know if you will have wasted the whole thing, but you sure will have missed out on a great part ot it.

---dr.M.

 

[sincerely_helene]

I can't speak for others, but I have sincerely given my best efforts to read many of the authors listed. While at the same time appreciating the genius that surely must exist in these popular literary works, no amount of forcing myself seems to place me beyond the second chapter.

That is not to say I feel they are poorly written, or confusing to understand, or lacking anything at all for that matter. It just means that I do not not possess the ability to focus and digest that of which does not appeal to me on a personal level. I stand behind LC's comment for this reason.

Oddly enough, I don't find Shakespeare boring at all. I regret that he was not taught in my schools.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Clare was (and is) being patronising in the extreme by implying that anyone who doesn't like Catcher in the Rye doesn't appreciate literature.

I never implied any such thing. I didn't speak to the issue of whether one "likes" Catcher. My comments were on the subject of the appreciation of Catcher as a modern classic of American literature. I said that either one gets Catcher or they do not. I stand by that statement. Great art is often an ineffable gestalt that defies easy deconstruction. Also, I didn't extrapolate that statement into a general indictment of the unwashed reality-television-consuming masses and the twaddle with which they amuse themselves. Had I been discussing literature vs. pap more broadly, then that inference would have been apt.

There is a strong sense of snobbery that, as Doormouse and others show, pisses off people who visit the Authors Hangout.

I do not accept that characterization either. That, which you seem to interpret as snobbery, is merely my desire for self-actualization. I am a fairly common person but I reject the banality that growing up in the United States has made me heir to. Specifically as someone with literary aspirations, I want to steep myself in great literature, partially in the hope that some of it will rub off. I will almost certainly fall short of my lofty goal but "that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther … And one fine morning...

As to pissing people off, I could not care less. I should think that was rather obvious. I'm not here to make internet buddies. I'm here to suck the marrow from the bones of people who are more cultured and better educated in the humanities than I, like Dr. M., Perdita, Lancecastor, Roscoe Rathbone, Lucifer_Carroll et al. For that it isn't necessary that any of them, or anyone else, like me. It's only necessary that I incorporate what I'm able to glean from their posts and writings into my own knowledge base.

By the way, I purposely worded my original post in a way which invite controversy and discourse. I wanted to ensure this thread would stay afloat long enough for those who give a F. to see the link--which i still think is a pretty amazing find. Otherwise, this thread would have quickly drowned in a sea of--my cat Mr. Whiskerton is out of sorts posts--benefitting no one.

 

[Guest]

Bravo! Quilty. I'll repeat myself.

"Personally, I like Q.'s style and attitude all round; it's refreshing to see an individual take a well expressed stand without regard for popularity, esp. on this forum. He has more balls than me but I'm working on mine."

I have enough friends, in real life and here, so if anyone thinks I'm too serious or moody or snotty, tough. And I still plan to ignore newbs until they say something worthwhile, no more welcome to la familia from me.

Perdita

 

[Clare Quilty]

So fuck literature, read what resonates with you. If you haven't read one book that slams you hard with overpowering genius before you die, you have wasted your whole life.

Maybe I'm missing some subtle bit of esoterica here, but aren't these two sentences unreconcilable polar contradictions? This seems to be rather melodramatically making the case for literature.

Just to clarify (NPI) my position, I gravitate toward great literature not for its snobbish appeal, but rather because that which we call literature is simply the collection of writings which have consistently, trancending time and place, been able to ass-fuck us dry with overpowering genius.

 

[gauchecritic]

Snobbish is good, there's nothing wrong with it.
Some people can tell you every single play in the 'world series' or somesuch since 1904. Some people can tell you which side of the Medoc grapes are grown just by sipping Chablis (just to show how little I know of wine), some people can recall, verbatim, every single line from every single Monty Python offering.
They are all snobs. And they generally tend to seek out other like people. (or alternatively wallow in glory in at least appreciative, though less knowing, company)

Everyone has the potential to 'know' (and appreciate) exactly as much as everyone else, but that ain't gonna happen, so we have snobs and anti-snobs.

I've never read Salinger, I read The Great Gatsby and couldn't see what the fuss was about, I like Shakespeare, mainly for how I remember it and I read Sci-fi because I find it to be both entertaining and 'good' literature (also brought to a nodding aquaintance with fair bit of science too).

I passed the thread initially because I wasn't actually interested in Salinger and I doubt that I'll visit that site either but now that the question of "Why isn't the AH about writing anymore?" has raised its head once more, I had to have my tuppence.

I hate the cat threads (hating cats anyway helps there) and frequently mourn the loss of threads about writing too, going as far as posting often about the loss as the opportunity arises.

I've been marginalised. It was my own fault, I complained bitterly when I first came to this site about the "superiority" of the inhabitants in their offhanded criticism of new authors and constant references to Strunk and White or The Chicago Manual (neither of which I'd ever heard of, or am willing to read).

This is probably 'snobbish' and self important of me and it is like-as-not simple co-incidence, but since I've been at the site the AH has deteriorated rapidly into a chat fest more suited to the General Board and I feel responsible.

I came here to write and talk to others who write and both are getting more difficult as my skill grows.

I'm a snob and even though I've never actually read much great literature, I know to what people refer when they do. A niche. A pigeon hole. A name. A reference.

I don't know what my point is. I've been gauchecritic. Goodnight.

 

[Guest]

I came here to write and talk to others who write and both are getting more difficult as my skill grows.

Whether intended or not, Gauche, that sentence is a fucking brilliant point. Sad innit? I feel closer by the thread to outgrowing Lit. (The innit came naturally, how pleasantly surprizing.)

Perdita

 

[bloodsimple]

Sorry people, I continue to disagree with you. My dictionary defines literature as follows -

"written material such as poetry, novels or essays; the body of work of written work of a particular culture or people; written or printed matter of a particular type or genre; the art or profession of a writer; printed matter on any subject"

Any bit of that specifically excluding "Carrie", "Misery", people who don't like Salinger, or people who "don't get" art and literature as opposed to those who do?

Thought not.

I stand by my view that some people on this thread are looking down their nose at others who do not share their tastes. Snobbery is, in my view, narrow-minded and mean-spirited. Loving what you love is glorious and life-affirming. People who move past self-actualization into implying that some people just don't "get" what they "get" cross the line into snobbery, and I can't accept that's a good thing.

Dr Mab, personally I liked Gatsby but it's not Fitzgerald's best. Try "Tender is the Night" instead.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Sorry people, I continue to disagree with you. My dictionary defines literature as follows -

"written material such as poetry, novels or essays; the body of work of written work of a particular culture or people; written or printed matter of a particular type or genre; the art or profession of a writer; printed matter on any subject"

Any bit of that specifically excluding "Carrie", "Misery", people who don't like Salinger, or people who "don't get" art and literature as opposed to those who do?

Thought not.

I stand by my view that some people on this thread are looking down their nose at others who do not share their tastes. Snobbery is, in my view, narrow-minded and mean-spirited. Loving what you love is glorious and life-affirming. People who move past self-actualization into implying that some people just don't "get" what they "get" cross the line into snobbery, and I can't accept that's a good thing.

Dr Mab, personally I liked Gatsby but it's not Fitzgerald's best. Try "Tender is the Night" instead.

A world without snobbery is not for me.

 

[bloodsimple]

Sorry, I forgot to add -

I think the title of this thread should be "Mother Lode" not "Mother Load"

The former is a source or vein of richness (knowledge, precious metal, etc). The latter is a very heavy thing to lift.

But I'm not being snobbish about it.

 

[Guest]

A world without snobbery is not for me.

Like here.

Bloodsimple: why apologize for your opinion, I don't. But I have to say it's not worth much if you need a dictionary to tell you what literature is. Snobbery is just a word. Mostly I enjoy educating others to the pleasures of the best literature (and do not presume what I would include or exclude), but it's difficult to do when certain attitudes are entrenched for whatever reasons (reverse snobbery, neuroses, etc.)

Perdita

 

[bloodsimple]

Perdita,

I'm sorry if my apologizing for my opinion offended you. Really, very sorry.

I have a peculiarly British habit of not feeling better because I've pissed someone off. I included a definition of literature as an introduction to my thought on the subject - as I suspect you know.

My opinion is worth every bit as much as anyone else's - yours included - which is why I chose to share it. Snobbery is not just a word - the word describes something. That something is an attitude. I stick to my view that snobbery is a shallow and fairly pathetic response to anyone who doesn't agree with your view or tastes. Try to persuade people or totally ignore them, but to think you are somehow "better" than them because of your choices is dismal.

You do not, in fact, educate anyone with your views on literature. You may introduce something to them, you may switch them off, but they will only be educated at their own choice.

I didn't presume what you might count as the best literature (read my posts again) - I responded to those who praised Salinger and criticised Stephen King - hence the references to those authors and those alone. I mentioned Fitzgerald in response to Dr Mab's thoughts about Gatsby.

I see that my attitude is "entrenched". I call it consistent and strongly held. Presumably those who agree with you would be "principled and elightened".

 

[Guest]

Bloodsimple: you do not offend or make me angry, so please stop apologizing (unless you really can't help it). Here or on another thread I told someone they did not make me angry (only Amicus does that here) just cos I didn't agree with them and spoke up. That would be juvenile or silly.

I too do not care to make anyone feel bad, but on this forum it seems to me we're all adult and somewhat mature and it's only words and ideas. Still, too many here take too much too personally.

So now I understand better why you dislike snobbery. I don't like it especially, nor have strong feelings about it (unless I am its unwitting victim). However, when I 'act' snobbish it's not an attitude or acting out, it's the only way my integrity can rear its head in certain circles. I suppose that may not make sense to some but it's how I see it.

I don't try to educate anyone with my 'views' on literature or anything else. When I attempt to do so it is with hopefully well crafted criticism, too rare here is my opinion.

I appreciate your thoughtful response and will admit to any ambiguity among my less thoughtful postings.

Perdita

 

[Clare Quilty]

Sorry people, I continue to disagree with you. My dictionary defines literature as follows -

"written material such as poetry, novels or essays; the body of work of written work of a particular culture or people; written or printed matter of a particular type or genre; the art or profession of a writer; printed matter on any subject"

Any bit of that specifically excluding "Carrie", "Misery", people who don't like Salinger, or people who "don't get" art and literature as opposed to those who do?

Thought not.

My dictionary defines literature thus.

Literature : (noun)
1: creative writing of recognized artistic value
2: the humanistic study of a body of literature; "he took a course in Russian lit" [syn: lit]
3: published writings in a particular style on a particular subject; "the technical literature"; "one aspect of Waterloo has not yet been treated in the literature"
4: the profession or art of a writer

Yet another denotes literature as...

The body of written works of a language, period, or culture. 2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: “Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity” (Rebecca West). 3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.

A not obscure lexicon called the Oxford English Dictionary says that literature is

writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect."

An online encyclopedia notes the following.

Furthermore, there is a perceived difference between "literature" and some popular forms of written work. The terms "literary fiction" and "literary merit" are often used to distinguish between individual works. For example, the works of Charles Dickens are perceived by almost everyone as being "literature", whereas the works of Jeffrey Archer tend to be looked down on as unworthy of inclusion under the general heading of English literature.

Think again.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Sorry, I forgot to add -

I think the title of this thread should be "Mother Lode" not "Mother Load"

The former is a source or vein of richness (knowledge, precious metal, etc). The latter is a very heavy thing to lift.

But I'm not being snobbish about it.

You are correct. It should be mother lode. The only thing that I would take issue with, is that your definition of the word load ignores its alternate dictionary denotations. The word load has multiple meanings, one of which denotes the maximum amount of a given thing. In that context, while it doesn't have the idiomatic authenticity of mother lode, it is a perfectly ‘cromulent’ phrase. Mother load is used enough in American English that it could be argued to be a neologistical phrase unto itself. I am not going to argue that however. I made a typographical error.

Now, what does this have to do with the distinction between great literature and disposable pedestrian prose? Am I mistaken in assuming there is some significance to your post? If you sought to chagrin me by pointing out the misapplication of a homophonous colloquialism, you will have to do better than that. As I alluded to before, I am here for the expressed purpose learning from those whose skill set differs from my own.

You seem to be of the philosophical bent that there can be no objective qualification of writings. I disagree. In a certain abstract sense this could be argued but it has no practical significance in a world where you and I know full well that Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is great literature and Marc Cerasini's Alien vs. Predator is not. I am inclined to agree with Jacques Derrida. Literature isn't an "is." Therefore, as I said earlier, it defies easy deconstruction. Literature is, as Derrida said (and I am sure someone on this board with a degree in English can articulate this better than I) a field of difference. I cannot say definitively what constitutes great literature. I do not feel particularly bad about that because neither could Derrida or Sartre. I can, however, tell you what it is not.

 

[bloodsimple]

Clare,

Blinded me with science a bit there, I'll confess. However, I would have thought that, in communicating your ideas via the title of the thread, it would be more useful to use the standard idiomatic version of a phrase, rather than a more prosaic version you would argue still held some merit and relevance. More people will "get" your title and direction using "mother lode" than "mother load" precisely because the former is the idiomatic (and therefore more standard) usage.

You are indeed correct - I take the view that literature, like art, cannot be objective. It is all subjective. It may be that 99.999% of people have the same subjective view, but subjective and personal those views remain. This means that ANYONE's snobbery with regard to literature is peurile and pointless, since they seek to imply that their subjective view is superior to mine. It may be more knowledgable, it may be different, but it cannot be superior.

By all means explain what you see that is great about something - in fact, I asked for this in relation to Catcher in the Rye and have yet to see a convincing explanation. I love people who are passionate about their (subjective!) views. I can certainly be convinced if the argument is well made. But all that would do is change my subjective opinion into another subjective opinion.

Literature would be objective if it was verifiable, repeatable and provable. If it was provable under a variety of conditions, I would be able to make a reasonable inference that this condition was true all the time, unless or until I was shown a condition where that did not apply. I don't believe this can be done with literature, therefore I remain convinced that it is subjective.

BTW - is that Aurora Snow in the reflection of your glasses? Looks like her.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Blinded me with science a bit there, I'll confess. However, I would have thought that, in communicating your ideas via the title of the thread, it would be more useful to use the standard idiomatic version of a phrase, rather than a more prosaic version you would argue still held some merit and relevance....

I would think that before unilaterally appointing myself the ad hoc editor of a thread, that I would learn how to spell such words as puerile and knowledgeable, rather than employing idiosyncratically neologistic versions that no one would argue had any merit or relevancy. At the very least, I would heed the biblical aphorism that “He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.” That having been said, perhaps you did not “get” the gist of my previous post. I stated rather clearly that “mother lode” was the correct idiomatic phrase and that I had made a mistake. I further pointed out, purely for the sake of elucidation, that in defining “load,” you conveniently omitted the lexical denotation that indicated the sense in which I used the word. The continued beating of this dead horse is merely a peevish and rather transparent digression from the topic at hand.

You are indeed correct - I take the view that literature, like art, cannot be objective. It is all subjective. It may be that 99.999% of people have the same subjective view, but subjective and personal those views remain. This means that ANYONE's snobbery with regard to literature is puerile [sic] and pointless, since they seek (it seeks) to imply that their subjective view is superior to mine. It may be more knowledgable [sic], it may be different, but it cannot be superior.

I do not stipulate to your premise, let alone your specious and rather pejorative conclusion, which would still be sophistical poppycock even if the premise were less unsound—premised, as it is, on a presupposition that begins “I take the view that….” It, quite naturally, rings with the hollow note of dogmatically held personal opinion. It also indicates an unseemly churlishness that bolsters my initial belief that you have a quasi-religious devotion to a doctrine of qualitative literary egalitarianism. I don't agree that the recognition of great art is individually qualitatively subjective at all. It is arguably subjective only in an abstract way--in the same sense that time and concepts of up and weight are technically subjective but practically of concrete objectiveness. This has little significance in anything but a theoretical and/or philosophical discussion. In the real world, art is rightly subject to qualitative appraisal by the culture that spawned it—specifically by that culture’s academic and artistic intelligentsia. An individual may prefer Steven King’s highly derivative novella Rage or Burr Steers’ equally derivative screenplay for Igby Goes Down to the literary work that inspired them, The Catcher in the Rye. Preference is subjective and personal. Individual preference does not great art make. Great art, much as with the law, is what society says agrees that it is. It is, to paraphrase Jacques Derrida again, a field of difference.

Literature would be objective if it was (were) verifiable, repeatable and provable....

This is an empirical standard to which hard sciences are held, not art. The ineffability of art is the very thing that enraptures the human soul.

BTW - is that Aurora Snow in the reflection of your glasses? Looks like her.

The glasses are not mine. They were worn by the actress Sue Lyon in Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 film version of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. I have no clue as to the identity of the fellatrix whose picture I edited into my AV.

 

[Guest]

The ineffability of art is the very thing that enraptures the human soul.

Re. art and the idea of objectivity I cannot say much more than Q's post above, or else merely attempt to paraphrase his eloquence. I've quoted O. Wilde often and still think he says it all for me: All art is quite useless. Yeah, it's out of context but worth looking up.

Q's quoted line in this post touched me deeply.

Perdita

 

[bloodsimple]

Clare,

Thank you for pointing out my typing errors, I will endeavour to be more careful in future. You may, however, have confused poor typing with an inability to spell. However, I will not flog this dead horse again, nor beat it.

I have not, as your over-sensitive statement suggested, appointed myself as any kind of ad-hoc editor. Since you were being very careful about language and its meaning, I merely pointed out what may have been more useful to the potential reader/contributor. Read the relevant post again.

You seem to have confused verbosity with communication. The points you seek to make are lost in a plethora of unnecessary language which does not add to the strength, accuracy or relevance of your arguments.

I am unable to comprehend why you should find the phrase "I take the view that" so unpalatable. Your criticism of its use is trite, lacking in evidence or credibility, or serving any purpose whatsoever. It is self-evident that all of the posts on a thread express an opinion. I use the phrase to indicate that something is my own belief. Unlike some people, I do not view my own belief as some universal orthodoxy to which everyone else must bow and scrape, or that it cannot be open to challenge.

Your linkage of literature to time, weight, etc is incorrect. Time can be measured. Weight can be measured. Relative time and/or weight can be ascertained. Provided the same scales are used by all parties (e.g. seconds, kilogrammes, etc) there can be no debate on such matters. Literature cannot be treated in this way. This makes any view of literature a subjective one, unless we're talking about something meaningless like the number of words. If it is subjective (which I BELIEVE it to be), then no-one has a monopoly on the "right" view of literature. That is the thrust of my previous argument.

Karl Popper focused on the application of hypothesis to scientific principles and ideas. Time and weight can be subject to a hypothesis that can be proved/disproved by replicable testing. Literature cannot. Therefore your analogy falls down.

Iit seems to be that you then go on to make my point - that art and literature are subjective, and not the same as science.

By the way, I would disagree with those who admire Shakespeare. Aside from the argument about whether William Shakespeare wrote all the plays and sonnets assigned to him, I think he's overrated. I've never laughed or even smirked at his "comedies". His "tragedies" don't make my tears well up, either. He is eminently quotable, however. A case of "Emperor's new clothes" - that's the view I take.