The Importance of Literature.

[Believer]

I'm not sure I agree about getting kids to read new books. Old books have a life to them that so many new books don't. It's like people really thought back then or something, and they don't now.

Obviously there are exceptions, and there are modern writers I enjoy reading. But I absolutely love reading Dostoevsky, Bronte, Austen, Tolstoy, Dickens, Shakespeare, etc.

Part of the problem is that the older books take time. even the good ones take a while to build... They're too slow by today's standards of fiction. But I find the payoff to be extraordinarily satisfying.

But when it comes down to it, I love old stuff (except for antiques). Give me old books, old music (classical/jazz), old movies... sigh

[Variol Farseer]

I'm not sure I agree about getting kids to read new books. Old books have a life to them that so many new books don't. It's like people really thought back then or something, and they don't now.

There's also the problem that new books date so fast. When trying to pick 'something that kids can relate to', teachers are apt to rely on memories of their schooldays, and pick something a generation out of date. (This is why The Catcher in the Rye stayed on curriculums long after it was obsolete in the general culture.) Worse yet, they can pick something about five years out of date, i.e., something that the kids themselves can remember, but now know to be so uncool.

Churches have a similar problem. I know choir directors who are still trying to 'modernize' their services by putting on 1950s folk music. Enterprise to Kirk: The Kingston Trio is not a Top 10 act on VH1. (When they start doing church services in gangsta rap to be 'relevant', I'll really begin to worry.)

[Myste]

I guess I wasn't really thinking of new new books, but established writers of the last 20 years or so. I think Catcher in the Rye works--I know a lot of people who had to read it in high school, and it's still their favorite book. (I never did myself--tried to read it for pleasure in college, and couldn't stand it. I think it's one of those books you have to read at the exact right time in yr life, or it's just stupid.)

I guess I was thinking of books like Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie--an established literary author, but an amazing book that works on a lot of levels and can be enjoyed by younger readers as much as older. Literary fiction with crossover appeal, that sort of thing.

You do have a point about people totally missing the point on "updating" curricula in general though.

[Ryzel]

So should I try to read Catcher in the rye then? What are its virtues and flaws?

[Per7]

It has now been 16 years since I read catcher in the rye (omg I am getting OLD) but I remember it as good and what stays with me is the fact that the teller of the story is obviously a thug, a bad boy but he don’t think about himself like that. He always think he has a just cause for what he is doing... or rather what he has done.

It’s a good lesson to learn that most people actually think they are doing the right thing most of the time…. Even when it obvious to us they are not…

/P7

[Myste]

As for Catcher, it's not that I think it's a bad book. I simply couldn't bear Holden Caufield. What a whiny, pathetic little prat. And, as I'm not a Brit, I do not use the word "prat" lightly. But a lot of people who read it at 15-16 years old said it spoke to them in a very personal way, and I can very much see how that's possible.

[Khaliban]

Humans are of two minds, the cognitive and the emotional. In the evolution of our minds, men developed the cognitive more. It helped them hunt. Women developed the emotional more. It helped them in child rearing. I place no weight of superiority on either of those roles. If you don't believe they are equal, ask this: Is it more important to raise a child or protect the child? Obviously, if you fail at one, you fail at both. Back to the subject. In a male dominated society, with it's leaning toward the analytical, the cognitive mind is viewed as superior. "Intelligent" is a compliment, and "emotional" is an insult. This is a failure of bias and of circumstance. Words (cognitive) have the power to influence, authority (emotion) has the power to move. But the words are what we remember. The conscious mind is cognitive. The subconscious is emotional, and the emotional works best when not seen. The cognitive is the quick and visible, the hero fighting his battle. The emotional is the ground on which he stands. You are aware of it only when it moves, but you are very aware of it then. It is instinct, it is desire, it is fear. It tells us what to do. The cognitive tells us how.

Our bodies demand food and exercise, the aquisition of energy and its efficient use. Our minds are no different. We study and learn and aquire knowledge. We feed the cognitive. We exercise the cognitive. We think and reason and memorize. We also feed the emotional. We interact with others, we form relationships and we try to understand the emotions of others. Some emotions are clear and obvious, and we all have felt them. Some emotions, some events, we may never feel, but we want to understand them vicariously. A textbook will feed your intellect. A novel will feed your emotions.

The purest, most exact description of human nature is history. For some, that focused view, what happened and only what happened, will feed their emotions. For others, what might have happened or what could happen will feed them. That view shows more of humanity, but the details are less clear. For a certain percentage of us, what could never happen feeds us. It shows the depth of humanity, the widest view of us, in the events in futures that can't exist or in galaxies far, far away. Whether history or fantasy, fiction gives the emotional mind what it needs most. If you can earn a living from it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I leave you with the thoughts of Robert Heinlein upon selling his first story: "How long has this scam been going on, and how many people know about it?"

[Dragonlily]

As usual, Khaliban, you clarify exactly what I've been thinking.

Except for this:

If you can earn a living from it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Earning a living from it is what happens when your stories clarify what a lot of people have been feeling.

[Khaliban]

As usual, Khaliban, you clarify exactly what I've been thinking.

Except for this:

If you can earn a living from it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Earning a living from it is what happens when your stories clarify what a lot of people have been feeling.

I'm not saying I couldn't live with the shame...

[Avatar]

Interesting posts folks, made for some very good reading.

I'm too lazy to make a germaine point right now, but if I may briefly return to the question of Finnegan's Wake;

It's my opinion that Joyce did it quite deliberately, and that he was simply taking the mickey.

He himself said that people would be arguing about his book for a thousand years. And I think he's right. There are already more analytical works about Finnegans Wake than there are works by Joyce.

I think that on the whole, it was just a large and obscure joke.

Later
--Avatar

[Myste]

I think that on the whole, [Finnegan's Wake] was just a large and obscure joke.

I felt the world tilt a little when I read that. If true, it only emphasizes Joyce's sick genius. Maybe his egomania was actually justified....

[Avatar]

Either his Egomania, or perhaps a certain contempt for people who seek to read non-existent messages into authors works.

A lot of that goes on. Tolkein springs to mind; to this day, people turn in dissertations on the subject of LOTR beign a metaphor for WWII. The parrallels are fairly obvious in the imagination of scholars, but Tolkein denied it til the day he died.

Who do you believe?

--Avatar

[Khaliban]

Either his Egomania, or perhaps a certain contempt for people who seek to read non-existent messages into authors works.

A lot of that goes on. Tolkein springs to mind; to this day, people turn in dissertations on the subject of LOTR beign a metaphor for WWII. The parrallels are fairly obvious in the imagination of scholars, but Tolkein denied it til the day he died.

Who do you believe?

--Avatar

One teacher once told me, if you can find evidence for something in a story, it's there whether the author intended it or not. We are the sum of our influences. Some influences we may not like, some we may not notice and some we may refuse to accept. Tolkien's denial may be just that. Then again, the scholars may not be looking close enough. The point is, the author can be wrong.

Who would I believe? Whoever is right.

[Avatar]

One teacher once told me, if you can find evidence for something in a story, it's there whether the author intended it or not.

Who would I believe? Whoever is right.

This opens a long-standing debate on whether the authors intentions are ever germaine to what he has written. It is a given that people will read their own interpretations into any work.

What we must ask is does it matter whether or not the author intended that interpretation? I'm not questioning whether that interpretation is possible, of course it must be, or it would never have been made in the first place.

What I ask, is whether or not it's fair to disregard what the author actually meant, in favour of an interpretation which the reader believes is substantiated by their own analysis of the content. Does the readers interpretation negate the intent of the author?

If something is written with a specific purpose, but the reader infers another purpose, does this mean that the author's original purpose is worthless or meaningless?

It's an open question, and again, one which I could debate from either perspective. In poetry, for example, I think that the readers interpretation is more important, at least partly because of the highly personal way in which a particular poem "speaks" to us. In fiction, and non-fiction, I tend to take the opposite view.

How would you feel, as a writer, to be told that you don't know what you were writing about, or trying to say, but that the reader, from his external position, understands what your work really says, even if you don't?

I'd be pretty annoyed.

You'd believe whoever was right? Who chooses who's right? The guy who actually wrote it, in full knowledge of his own intent? Or the reader, who merely makes an assumption?

Take it Easy
--Avatar

[Dragonlily]

From SRD's Gradual Interview:

I don't like to tell other people how to interpret my books. You read them: you have the right to think about them any way that suits you.

(05/06/2004)

I think Khaliban's teacher has a valid point.

We are the sum of our influences. Some influences we may not like, some we may not notice and some we may refuse to accept.

The author is certainly (usually) the authority on what his intentions were. On the other hand, we meet so many influences in our lives that we would be incapable of being aware of them all. I think the answer has to be a mix of both, a mix that would be impossible to pin down.

[Khaliban]

What I ask, is whether or not it's fair to disregard what the author actually meant, in favour of an interpretation which the reader believes is substantiated by their own analysis of the content. Does the readers interpretation negate the intent of the author?

You're assuming only one can be right. That's not what I meant. The vast bulk of writing takes place in the subconscious. Ideas, intentional or otherwise, will work into the story. The reader's interpretation does not negate the writer's. They function side by side. Life is a mix of what we like and what we don't. Any good story will include both. If the writer only includes the things he likes, the story will be bland and insipid.

How would you feel, as a writer, to be told that you don't know what you were writing about, or trying to say, but that the reader, from his external position, understands what your work really says, even if you don't?

This happens to me all the time. I've gotten used to it. I rarely understand my writing fully. I understand maybe three lines from SUPER ID. That's why it's my best poem. I've tried forcing my own opinions into my writing and find it ruins the story. I create the situation and the characters and let them play out their lives. If I think it sounds believable, then it's a good story. My writing is always at its best when I have no idea what will happen next, when I see my characters surprise me. I have no idea what other people will read into the stories, and I accept that.

You'd believe whoever was right? Who chooses who's right? The guy who actually wrote it, in full knowledge of his own intent? Or the reader, who merely makes an assumption?

That's my point. I have no idea who's right. Both can be right, both can be wrong. But I think it's dangerous for a writer to place his own ego above the story.

"A story that makes you think necessarily does not do the thinking for you." -- Ernest Hemmingway

[Edinburghemma]

this lowers the intellectual tone somewhat, but the importance of literature surely shows in it's ability to ultimately divide people.

[Khaliban]

I think it's more accurate to say "in its ability to affect people".

[Bucky OHare]

My head hurts from reading all this stuff.

Still, i'd just like to say that i agree with everybody.

[Myste]

this lowers the intellectual tone somewhat, but the importance of literature surely shows in it's ability to ultimately divide people.

I think it's more accurate to say "in it's ability to affect people".

Uh, normally I wouldn't point this out, but considering the topic...the possessive of "it" is "its" not "it's", which is a conjunction of "it is.";) Unless you're James Joyce, in which case you can make up all the literatitious verbosiage you want.

And more seriously, here's two more of my cents (and you can bet your sweet potato I'm going to watch my punctuation); you might say it's a little simplistic, but it's also true (or at least almost true):

Back in the days when there weren't quite so many books being published, there was an established canon of literature that everyone who studied the subject was expected to have read and, to some degree, understood. Therefore intelligent, educated people, when confronted with a new piece of literature, were in general all approaching it from the same realm of intellectual experience. It was easy, then, to say that "The author intended such-and-such," and have everyone agree with you, because chances were the author had received approximately the same education as everyone else. Hence, modernism and the golden era of readable literary reviews.

Nowadays, there are so many many books published that no two intelligent, educated people have read the same canon. One person's might include a heavier emphasis on women; another's on Africa; another's on oral history. Our studies are more compartmentalized; it is no longer profitable to be a generalist. Therefore, we all come to a work of literature from completely different points of view--and in some cases, those points of view may be completely alien from that of the author. In spite of this, intelligent, educated people still manage to discuss their impressions and understanding of works of literature and make themselves understood to one another. This is because even if their visions differ from that of the author and/or other readers, they can still, eventually, fall back on the text. The text itself is what's important--not the author, not the reader, but The Text. Hence, post-modernism and unreadable literary criticism.

Frankly, I'm all for the latter version of things, but I hope to heaven that Saussure is roasting in a fiery pit somewhere.