[Shop] Literary fiction?
michael
confused, particularly when the clocks go back and I find myself wondering
why the rugby isn't on telly yet.
Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a style,
a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction? Is it
the dichotomy of character driven = lit fic / plot driven = pop fic, or is
there much more to it than that?
--
Michael
www.uk-fusion.com
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Ralph Wiggum, Simpsons season 4
Ejucaided Redneck
<snippage>
> Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a style,
> a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction? Is it
> the dichotomy of character driven = lit fic / plot driven = pop fic, or is
> there much more to it than that?
There's a little more to it than that, but not much.
And a whole lot of "it" is subjective.
One of the reasons I like good lit fic is it seems to me that by and
large the language is richer than in most genres. It's often quite
poetic, in really good practitioners of the craft. And I find it
emotionally richer than most other genres.
There are exceptions, of course, or a blurred line, something like
that.
Most would class Elmore Leonard as strictly a genre guy, a writer of
read 'em once and throw 'em away mysteries, but he practices an economy
of words than is as skilled and artful as anything I've ever read. And
I don't know anybody who does dialogue as well as him.
I like about _writing_
whatever-it-is-I-write-I'm-hestitant-to-call-it-lit-fic-because-that-seems-pretentious-but-it-tends-to-wind-up-in-literary-quarterlies
because most of the time there are surprises for me in writing it.
The story "Saved," which "Carve" just accepted, began with an image I
had in my head, of a woman at one of those Pentecostal prayer services I
remember when I was a kid, who feels compelled to "speak in tongues" and
winds up spouting Hebrew. Then I wondered how she got there, how she
came to know Hebrew in the first place, and gradually I found out. That
sort of thing is _fun_., much more enjoyable, for me, than working out
plot twists and turns.
There's a good chance I'll have a novel out next year, with the same
small press than put out my story collection. It's about 75,000 words,
and every one of them came from one evening a long time ago when I stood
behind this house late at night when my parents still owned it, and
heard a bobcat scream from up on the ridge someplace. Anyone who's
heard those things go off in the spring when they're mating knows how
much they sound like a woman or maybe a child, screaming in sheer
terror. And I got to wondering, what if someone stood behind this house
and actually _heard_ a woman scream from up there.
75,000 words --and several years-- later I knew what would happen, at
least what happen if this specific guy heard it, and the screamer was a
young blue eyed black woman named Alma... The book's been this --><--
close to being accepted by commercial publishers several times, but
never made it, and was called "too literary" by a couple of editors.
Same thing happens when I read good "literary" fiction, a connection
with the characters I tend not to experience in genre stuff. Genre for
me = "I wonder what the next piece of this plot puzzle will turn out to
be?" Lit fic = "Who is this person and how are they dealing with
life?"
Or something like that...
On the other hand there's loads of lit fic out there that's dense and
dull and pretentious because the writer's so enthralled with linguistic
calisthenics to remember s/he's supposed to be telling a story.
--
"It is my aim, and every effort bent,
that the sum and history of my life,
which in the same sentence is my obit
and epitaph too, shall be them both: He
made the books and he died."
- William Faulkner
--
"Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia"
is now available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble,
or your favorite local bookstore.
Fiction, poetry, essays
New MP3: "Second Cousin"
http://www.bobsloansampler.com/
Most recent Lexington "Herald-Leader" column: Political Dead Duck as
Scapegoat
http://www.bobsloansampler.com/col06.htm
Huw Lyan Thomas
> I'm sorry to ask this again - I only have a small brain and it's easily
> confused, particularly when the clocks go back and I find myself wondering
> why the rugby isn't on telly yet.
>
> Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a style,
> a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction? Is it
> the dichotomy of character driven = lit fic / plot driven = pop fic, or is
> there much more to it than that?
My take:
Literary fiction seeks to explore some aspect of the human condition.
Popular fiction seeks a wide readership.
There's no reason why a particular work shouldn't do both, but the
nitty-gritty differences you might note (such as emphasis of theme over
plot in a particlar case) arise from different intentions, rather than
being key in themselves.
--
Huw
http://huw.hexlibris.com
William Penrose
<michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a style,
>a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction?
You buy it to carry around with you, so you look intellekchewal. You
don't have to read it.
You can find out enough from reading reviews to talk about it at
cocktail parties. Learn an obscure quote from somewhere in the book
and use it at inappropriate times.
Bill Penrose
Alaric
--
|)
_ |)\
[_|_|__\_
[_____/
"michael" <michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bngf7b$108r6a$1...@ID-197978.news.uni-berlin.de...
Patrick Null
"William Penrose" <wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:gf4opv8icgk9eigmu...@4ax.com...
OMG, William, you crack me up.
Oh, and I'm going to follow that advice. Thanks!
Seymour Grass
"Ejucaided Redneck" <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BC91F...@mindspring.com...
| michael wrote:
| One of the reasons I like good lit fic is it seems to me that by and
| large the language is richer than in most genres. It's often quite
| poetic, in really good practitioners of the craft. And I find it
| emotionally richer than most other genres.
That about nails it, except that one might note in the term 'literary' that
this is prose imbued by a long literary tradition going back to the classics
of Greece, India, Palestine, Japan you name it and so the work will be
replete with allusions to the vastness of that literature. Such images and
references of allusion are often not cited or i.e. outwardly identified as
to source, since the author presumes the reader of 'literary fiction' to be
"literate", or i.e. a person well-versed with the tradition who needs not be
'educated' on the spot by the author. When Faulkner entitles his novel,
"Absalom, Absalom" he does not add an asterisk to the title to put his
public hip to the fact that this is reference to a son of King David from
the Hebrew scriptures. This author assumes that his particular audience
will know the significance of that title, or what's more, be drawn to pick
up the book on account of it. A reader of pop literature who has never
bothered with the classics will miss those allusions, and most generally
will probably leave the book on the shelf which unusually works out just
fine for all the parties involved. :-)
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
"A book is a mirror, if an ass peers into it, you can't expect an apostle to
peer out." - Georg Lichtenberg
Wind River
You're funny.
Have you been reading the Cliff Notes to obscure literary fiction again?
-Sue
Seymour Grass
"Wind River" <wind...@novoyagerspam.net> wrote in message
news:3F9C88D3...@novoyagerspam.net...
| William Penrose wrote:
| >
| > On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:37:32 -0000, "michael"
| > <michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| >
| > >Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a
style,
| > >a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction?
| >
| > You buy it to carry around with you, so you look intellekchewal. You
| > don't have to read it.
| >
| > You can find out enough from reading reviews to talk about it at
| > cocktail parties. Learn an obscure quote from somewhere in the book
| > and use it at inappropriate times.
|
| You're funny.
It can get even funnier. What's really comical is the image of a "writer"
who scoffs at the best his chosen craft has to offer. It's the image of a
fast-food hamburger flipper thumbing his nose at a Cordon Bleu chef. It's
the very picture of some genius who can't so much as pull out a dipstick to
check his own oil who *therefore* snorts with derision to hear that the guy
next door can rebuild an engine. The sort of buffoon who would thumb his
snotty nose at the great totally noble tradition of world literature and
take the nerve to pass himself off as a "writer"? What's that? That's the
funniest thing I can think of.
You want "funny"? Contemplate the image of a person who calls himself
"doctor" but who shows up for a house call with the little blue plastic
"Doctor's Bag" his mama bought him at Toys R Us when he was eight years old.
Okay? That's the equivalent of the "writer" who scoffs at literary fiction.
| Have you been reading the Cliff Notes to obscure literary fiction again?
Literary fiction is "obscure" only for those to whom great fiction of the
kind that will out-last the life of the author remains a complete cipher.
The supermarket shelves are full of the endless splurge of pulp paper trash
that will not out-last its own first printing. You can call that stuff
"writing" in the same way you can call a grocery list or the label on a
package of spaghetti "writing" but it is not literature. So the phrase
"literary fiction" is not such an absurd redundancy as it might at first
appear. There is fiction that time will turn to literature, and fiction
that time will turn to trash. It's the difference between a vintage Grand
Cru of Bordeaux and a bottle of Gallo port after ten years in the cellar,
one will have a bouquet of roses poured in the glass, while the other will
have the aroma of stinking vinegar.
Those who are ignorant of what literature amounts to, always think
themselves very fine and funny to snigger at it in their absurd envy of the
craft, education and effort of those who have what it takes to pursue
excellence instead of sloth and willful illiteracy but it is never anything
other than the gibbering of gibbons and the howling of baboons.
Now is the time to laugh, because that is what's *really* funny. ;-)
--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"On the day when a young writer corrects his first proof-sheet, he is|
proud as a schoolboy who has just got his first dose of the pox."
Baudelaire: _Intimate Journals_.
|
| -Sue
R. Westermeyer
LIkenened to other art forms, I like to think of literary fiction as
necessarily psychological fiction. Stories that offer more than just a
story. The4y serve more than just to entertain. Fiction that actually
has the potential to make the reader grow in some way. Doesn't have to
be laden with the incredible language of Joyce or Faulkner (Samuel
Beckett's prose is in no way ornate, but quite profound). Like other
art forms: Mahler, Bartok, Coltrane have made me grow. Kenny G. and
Copland have not. Rilke, not "Jewel". Munch, not Peter Max. I think
literary fiction is often deemed "difficult" or "boring" to the
typical reader because it almost always has an original voice and
style. Rarely follows the progression of pop fiction/hollywood movie.
--R
Seymour Grass
"R. Westermeyer" <robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k7gqpv803ivko8vgt...@4ax.com...
| LIkenened to other art forms, I like to think of literary fiction as
| necessarily psychological fiction. Stories that offer more than just a
| story. The4y serve more than just to entertain. Fiction that actually
| has the potential to make the reader grow in some way. Doesn't have to
| be laden with the incredible language of Joyce or Faulkner (Samuel
| Beckett's prose is in no way ornate, but quite profound). Like other
| art forms: Mahler, Bartok, Coltrane have made me grow. Kenny G. and
| Copland have not. Rilke, not "Jewel". Munch, not Peter Max.
You dig Munch. We are a society of just a few dude. Rarely, if ever have I
heard another person particularly single him out for such sort of exclusive
notice. You are so totally right to think of him in this context of
literary fiction. His work is so totally eloquent, speaking volumes in
every painting.
I think
| literary fiction is often deemed "difficult" or "boring" to the
| typical reader because it almost always has an original voice and
| style. Rarely follows the progression of pop fiction/hollywood movie.
Well said.
--
JP
Don't bother to rent the three-DVD release of *Kingpin* unless there's
absolutely no other choice on the shelf except, *Chicago*. I didn't rent
Chicago. Am I missing anything?
--
JP
Wind River
>
> LIkenened to other art forms, I like to think of literary fiction as
> necessarily psychological fiction. Stories that offer more than just a
> story. The4y serve more than just to entertain. Fiction that actually
> has the potential to make the reader grow in some way. Doesn't have to
> be laden with the incredible language of Joyce or Faulkner (Samuel
> Beckett's prose is in no way ornate, but quite profound). Like other
> art forms: Mahler, Bartok, Coltrane have made me grow. Kenny G. and
> Copland have not. Rilke, not "Jewel". Munch, not Peter Max. I think
> literary fiction is often deemed "difficult" or "boring" to the
> typical reader because it almost always has an original voice and
> style. Rarely follows the progression of pop fiction/hollywood movie.
Typical hollywood movies do nothing for me. I walk away wondering what
the point was, because I take nothing away to think about. Same with
art. I look at Norman Rockwell prints for a second or two, and quickly
move on to something that stirs me like Munch or Bosch or Van Gogh or Escher.
-Sue
Wind River
>
> Literary fiction is "obscure" only for those to whom great fiction of the
> kind that will out-last the life of the author remains a complete cipher.
> The supermarket shelves are full of the endless splurge of pulp paper trash
> that will not out-last its own first printing. You can call that stuff
> "writing" in the same way you can call a grocery list or the label on a
> package of spaghetti "writing" but it is not literature. So the phrase
> "literary fiction" is not such an absurd redundancy as it might at first
> appear. There is fiction that time will turn to literature, and fiction
> that time will turn to trash. It's the difference between a vintage Grand
> Cru of Bordeaux and a bottle of Gallo port after ten years in the cellar,
> one will have a bouquet of roses poured in the glass, while the other will
> have the aroma of stinking vinegar.
Most of the fiction I read is either literary or the classics, with the
exception of a few SF authors. I believe most of the stories I write
fall into the literary fiction catagory too, yet I still find Bill's
comment funny. I don't want to ever lose the humor I find in my own
actions. It keeps me from becoming stereotypical and keeps my ego in check.
I didn't mean to offend you, John, if indeed I did. I agree with you
many of your points, but I have a different personality from you.
Probably the best doctor I ever went to did joke about his profession,
but he did it in fun and was superb at his work. I wish I still lived
where he practices, because I haven't found one as good since.
-Sue
Seymour Grass
| I didn't mean to offend you, John, if indeed I did. I agree with you
| many of your points, but I have a different personality from you.
And thank all the gods for that! :-)
| Probably the best doctor I ever went to did joke about his profession,
| but he did it in fun and was superb at his work. I wish I still lived
| where he practices, because I haven't found one as good since.
Many a college prof could take a tip from that doc. Of course I feel the
same as you on that. Yet, there is a difference between poking fun at
something noble and then on the other hand enviously deriding it, at which
point it's time to make the poker the pokee--as you must agree, n'est pas,
Mademoiselle?
--
JP
|
| -Sue
Wind River
And I believe Bill's comments were all in fun. I don't think he was
being scornful, envious, or directing the comments at any particular
author.
"Poker the pokee", huh? Is that what you're trying to do to me? John,
you've seen enough of me on this group to know I enjoy poking fun at
myself too.
Sue
Quadpus
>
> LIkenened to other art forms, I like to think of literary fiction as
> necessarily psychological fiction. Stories that offer more than just a
> story. The4y serve more than just to entertain. Fiction that actually
> has the potential to make the reader grow in some way. Doesn't have to
> be laden with the incredible language of Joyce or Faulkner (Samuel
> Beckett's prose is in no way ornate, but quite profound). Like other
> art forms: Mahler, Bartok, Coltrane have made me grow. Kenny G. and
> Copland have not. Rilke, not "Jewel". Munch, not Peter Max. I think
> literary fiction is often deemed "difficult" or "boring" to the
> typical reader because it almost always has an original voice and
> style. Rarely follows the progression of pop fiction/hollywood movie.
And sometimes it really is difficult and boring. Or shallow and
stupid. Or all four at once.
Mind, I'm talking about "literary fiction," not "literature." Much
contemporary literary fiction has been dumbed down to the point where
it's not really any more enriching than the latest Left Behind novel
or Robert Jordan doorstopper. Such works will usually have a veneer of
lyricality, and some pretense at a meaningful insight into the human
condition, but when you scrape away the trappings of literariism
(literariality? literarification?), what you are left with is just as
trashy and substance-free as the paperbacks you can buy at Safeway.
"Literary fiction" is a marketing category, and not much more than
that.
Seymour Grass
Yup.
| John,
| you've seen enough of me on this group to know I enjoy poking fun at
| myself too.
There ya go, gal. Enjoy!
--
JP
Seymour Grass
"Quadpus" <qua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tpqpvsl1g6ljm6bk...@4ax.com...
|
| And sometimes it really is difficult and boring. Or shallow and
| stupid. Or all four at once.
Sometimes *you* find it is . . . all those things, whereas some author,
agent, editor and publisher--and for all those, with any luck--a few
reviewers will see it entirely otherwise. These things are so completely
relative to taste and interest that any debate on such general terms is
absurd. Yet, how does it always get rolling, because some *asshole* wants
to tar an entire marketing genre with one dirty, green brush of his own
asinine spleen. The same thing can be said of every genre, romance, sci-fi,
detective fiction. What's the goddam point? Like I said, some *asshole*
wants to blow his snot on a genre he sees through the sick green lens of his
own putrid envy.
Now that's it, dammit. That's human nature, that's what stood to get the
asses of Adam and Eve booted from the garden, and brought the club to the
head of Able, and so long as it goes on, every jackass of a Brother Cain is
here in the world to deny that his sick, stinking, rotten, dirty, small,
puny *envy* is real. Well it is real and it forms of all themes, always the
greatest of all great literature and drama. It stands at the foundation of
every great plot from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, to Steinbeck's *East of
Eden*: watch that envy in your heart you silly fuckers 'cause it'll mark
you out as an asshole every time.
|
| Mind, I'm talking about "literary fiction," not "literature."
Then you're not talking about anything except a goddam business term, a
sales category, a stupid distinction which will determine the size, quality
and style of a paperback's cover and nothing else.
Almost in every case, when this drip-nosed debate gets rolling, there is
somebody out there, some anti-intellectual pissant who has a case of bad
green snot in him which he gets on his thumb at his nose and always because
the illiterate schmuck, the ill-read putz, the uneducated dimwit wants to
feel that he or she has every right to be thought just as fancy as the
author of real literature?
Well, too bad. It's doesn't work that way when it comes to the history of
literature. Some prose merits that name and other doesn't, and those who
don't read it and can't write it need to just shut up, open their little
sci-fi paperback and be happy at their own level, or get their lazy,
ignorant asses down to the library and improve themselves. I've got NO
patience for the snot-blowing of those who are too lazy to better themselves
and I will fucking shout them down with their brazen razzing every God damn
time because it's exactly what they got coming to them for trampling on the
pearls of what is excellent and noble and the best that humanity has to
offer.
| "Literary fiction" is a marketing category, and not much more than
| that.
Exactly. It's nothing that means anything as to quality or content, let
alone genre.
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
New Site: http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"We all behold with envious eyes,
Our equal rais'd above our size.
Who would not at a crowded show
Stand high himself, keep others low?
I love my friend as well as you
But would not have him stop my view.
Then let him have the higher post:
I ask but for an inch at most."
--Jonathan Swift
Quadpus
>
> Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a style,
> a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction? Is it
> the dichotomy of character driven = lit fic / plot driven = pop fic, or is
> there much more to it than that?
I think that's the most reliable indicator. Certainly, literary
fiction can subsume the traits of any other genre -- else you would
find Slaughterhouse Five, The Handmaid's Tale, The Lovely Bones, and
so forth under sf; Snow Falling On Cedars and The Emperor of Ocean
Park under mystery/suspense, etc.
But, no theory is good until tested. Can somebody out there find an
example of plot-driven literary fiction?
michael
> "michael" <michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I think that's the most reliable indicator. Certainly, literary
> fiction can subsume the traits of any other genre -- else you would
> find Slaughterhouse Five, The Handmaid's Tale, The Lovely Bones, and
> so forth under sf; Snow Falling On Cedars and The Emperor of Ocean
> Park under mystery/suspense, etc.
>
> But, no theory is good until tested. Can somebody out there find an
> example of plot-driven literary fiction?
Rushdie's 'Midnight's Children'?
And a hell of a lot happens in 'Snow Falling On Cedars', to be fair.
nativelaw
"Quadpus" <qua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r35rpv0o1d0mrp0da...@4ax.com...
I've never been too sure what the heck "character driven" vs. "plot driven"
really means. To me, in really good writing there becomes a symbiosis
between the plot and the characters such a writer might be able to discern
which was driving which, but maybe not; I'm not sure any element is more or
less dispensable in the end. I would like to think the character is driving
the plot in literary fiction but often the plot develops and changes who the
characters were or who you thought they were. I would agree with Michael,
all of Rushdie's works are heavily plotted and I think the "magical realism"
genre that I love so much, Marquez' One Hundred Years of Solitude,
Esquivel's Like Water for Chocolate, Penn's Killing Time With Strangers, are
every bit as much "plotted" as character driven, in the end. They are not
"character driven" so much as "well characterized"; you can take the
characters out of the literature and imagine them in other scenarios, what
they would do and be; whereas you would have little interest, if success,
bringing characters out of "pop fiction" and making them do other things.
For me, the major difference between "literary fiction" and "pop fiction" is
as some have said, the former has a real message, something of significance
that sticks with you, and the latter doesn't. It's the difference between
someone you'd just date and someone you'd want to marry.
R. Westermeyer
>R. Westermeyer <robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> LIkenened to other art forms, I like to think of literary fiction as
>> necessarily psychological fiction. Stories that offer more than just a
>> story. The4y serve more than just to entertain. Fiction that actually
>> has the potential to make the reader grow in some way. Doesn't have to
>> be laden with the incredible language of Joyce or Faulkner (Samuel
>> Beckett's prose is in no way ornate, but quite profound). Like other
>> art forms: Mahler, Bartok, Coltrane have made me grow. Kenny G. and
>> Copland have not. Rilke, not "Jewel". Munch, not Peter Max. I think
>> literary fiction is often deemed "difficult" or "boring" to the
>> typical reader because it almost always has an original voice and
>> style. Rarely follows the progression of pop fiction/hollywood movie.
>
>And sometimes it really is difficult and boring. Or shallow and
>stupid. Or all four at once.
Does that mean I'm not a philistine for really disliking the idea of
picking up Ulysses for the seventh time and attempting to finish it?
:)
Some snobs think that because that book was rated by some entity as
"best novel of the century" you have to read it if you consider
yourself well read in literature. despite all my existential and
anti-conformist artistic values, the novel is golden language, but the
no-story puts me to sleep.
--Bob
Seymour Grass
"nativelaw" <REMOVEn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnk8o7$126qd4$1...@ID-198738.news.uni-berlin.de...
| For me, the major difference between "literary fiction" and "pop fiction"
is
| as some have said, the former has a real message, something of
significance
| that sticks with you, and the latter doesn't. It's the difference between
| someone you'd just date and someone you'd want to marry.
Yes and so the question becomes one of why one work has such significance
while the other lacks it. If the term of art to be used to make the
distinction is "literary", then let that be taken literally to mean that the
significance arises, properly considered, because this is a work that has
devolved out of a long and noble tradition of literature--unless "literary"
does not mean *literature*, but I believe it does.
If 'literary' means to speak of literature, then we speak of a body of
writing which has long been dealing with issues of significance, classical
issues and themes which are never fully resolved because there are a
thousand ways people try to cope with them. A properly so-called literary
fiction writer is literate as to those attempted resolutions in the
literature and as he writes on the subject of one of those great human
themes of guilt, possessiveness, jealousy, what-have-you in your
all-too-human soul, then he or you, are not ignorant of what T. Williams
exposed about it in *Orpheus Descending* or by earlier title, "The Fugitive
Kind". To write about jealousy and possessiveness in ignorance of what
great authors have already written on these themes is far worse than to be
condemned to repeat them, since you couldn't repeat what Williams did in
those plays because those plays were not condemned to repeat what happened
for Shakespeare in *Othello* and for O'Neill in *Mourning Becomes Electra*
because Williams was literate. Fiction is "literary" only because it is
conscious and imbued with literature. Any other sort is being falsely
called 'literary' and would be marketed as such only by mere whim of a
publisher.
--
JP
Seymour Grass
|
| Does that mean I'm not a philistine for really disliking the idea of
| picking up Ulysses for the seventh time and attempting to finish it?
| :)
Quite the reverse I would suggest, since in my view James Joyce is (fourth
time for one day) sooooo totally the Naked Emperor of English Letters.
Truly, that dude had no clothes.
I'd venture to suggest that anyone who would seriously attempt to read all
of *Finnegans (no apostrophe as he authored it) Wake* is exactly the fool
that Joyce intended to make of him.
"In the upbringing of the Herd, humanity's almost boundless suggestivity
will be scientifically exploited." --Aldous Huxley in *Crome Yellow*
Wildepad
<michae...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry to ask this again - I only have a small brain and it's easily
>confused, particularly when the clocks go back and I find myself wondering
>why the rugby isn't on telly yet.
>
>Literary fiction. What exactly is the "literary" signifying? Is it a style,
>a theme? What distinguishes it from fiction, or "popular" fiction? Is it
>the dichotomy of character driven = lit fic / plot driven = pop fic, or is
>there much more to it than that?
This is one of those questions that can't be answered in a simple way
because it is very subjective, like defining pornography.
That said, I will, of course, try to explain it.
Literary, in classic terms, means insightful, thoughtful (and
thought-provoking), a level above the norm. In keeping with that
definition, any genre can contain 'literary' works, and they can be
either plot or character driven, or be devoid of either plot or
character.
In modern terms, however, 'literary' has come to mean masturbation.
It's all pretty words strung together for no purpose other than the
simplest of pleasures. It does not engender anything of lasting value.
It is not the basis for the growth of literature.
There are, of course, fetishists who will exclaim loud and long that
modern literary is the noblest of works. The fact that there are so
many adult websites dedicated to letting people watch women, men, and
monkeys masturbate exactly parallels this viewpoint.
It is impossible to provide a checklist of what is not literary, but
here are some things to look for:
1) Does it have a plot?
2) Are both sides of a conflict clearly shown?
3) Is the conflict resolved?
4) Does the story have a beginning, a middle, and an end (although not
necessarily in that order).
5) Can it procreate? (Does it engender ideas or thoughts which can be
applied to works in another genre?)
If the answer to all of these is 'no', then it is definitely literary
in the modern sense.
Another way to check is to judge the work's place in the history of
literature -- if it has been kept alive by the cult of fetishists
instead of by the populace at large, it is probably modern literary.
While works ranging from Plato to Shakespeare to Ibsen qualify as
classical literary (thoughtful and thought-provoking), modern literary
(masturbation) does not enter the human consensual-consciousness.
The most obvious reason for the latter is because it is a personal
experience which produces nothing for the world at large to see,
understand, and enjoy.
(Do not be gulled by those who claim that the modern literary forms
have a significant background -- it's all improvised hype. Although
many classical literary authors used certain techniques that can be
found in modern literary works, they also included many other things
in their stories, things which give them lasting value. Such
superficial comparisons are only part of the modern literary fan's
futile attempts to justify their perversion.)
The relative success of an author's work, or body of work, is not a
standard for measuring 'literary'. Just like the classical 'NuWest
Debbie' who made a fortune by regularly being spanked in front of a
camera, so, too, can modern literary authors make considerable amounts
of money by catering to those whose tastes run to such things.
So, in the end, the answer to your question ("What exactly is the
"literary" signifying?") is: it defines something that surpasses the
normal emotions created by a story. Whether those are meaningful
emotions of any value or are mere crotch-level reactions depends on
who is using the term and why.
R. Westermeyer
<JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
>
>"R. Westermeyer" <robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1ebrpvkqj14rn58pm...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Does that mean I'm not a philistine for really disliking the idea of
>| picking up Ulysses for the seventh time and attempting to finish it?
>| :)
>
>Quite the reverse I would suggest, since in my view James Joyce is (fourth
>time for one day) sooooo totally the Naked Emperor of English Letters.
>Truly, that dude had no clothes.
>
>I'd venture to suggest that anyone who would seriously attempt to read all
>of *Finnegans (no apostrophe as he authored it) Wake* is exactly the fool
>that Joyce intended to make of him.
But remember, the man wrote some incredible short fiction. "The
Dead". Man. The last paragraph of that short story has to be one of
the most beautiful I've ever read.
--Bob
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
I don't know. I get pretty repulsed sometimes by what I read, and I
don't know if that would make it "literary".
>Whether those are meaningful
>emotions of any value or are mere crotch-level reactions depends on
>who is using the term and why.
It almost sounds like you're saying that there are no good new
writers.
That's like those folks who avoid anything after the nineteenth
century at the art museum because it's not really art.
--Bob
Miki Kocic
*public* masturbation you object to, or the practice in general?
Miki
R. Westermeyer
<JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
>
>You dig Munch. We are a society of just a few dude. Rarely, if ever have I
>heard another person particularly single him out for such sort of exclusive
>notice. You are so totally right to think of him in this context of
>literary fiction. His work is so totally eloquent, speaking volumes in
>every painting.
>
It's so rare to see one "live" here in the US. When I was in NYC about
a decade ago, they had one at the Museum of Modern Art or the Met.
Can't remember the title, but it depicted these women huddled on the
street at night and this window above with what seems to be a dark
figure starign down. The trees and shit are all wicked and dripping
fucking forboding. Damn.
One of those painters whose work (seen on canvas, not in a book),
pulls you in and leaves you standing there for a half-hour.
I would love to see his painting: "The Murderer". Must be in Norw with
the others. That painting is expressionism defined!
--Bob
Seymour Grass
"Wildepad" <capu...@hesenergy.net> wrote in message
news:7s8rpvs1d2pc5af52...@4ax.com...
| Literary, in classic terms, means insightful, thoughtful (and
| thought-provoking), a level above the norm. In keeping with that
| definition, any genre can contain 'literary' works, and they can be
| either plot or character driven, or be devoid of either plot or
| character.
If that's the definition of 'literary' in "classic terms", then somebody
better put those people playing with themselves down at Random House hip to
it because according to their Collegiate ed. of Webster's dictionary,
*literary* is defined in the following 'classic' terms "l a: of, relating
to, or having the characteristics of letters, humane learning, or literature
b: BOOKISH c: of or relating to books 2 a: well read, of or relating to men
of letters or writing as a profession.
It means "insightful, thoughtful (and| thought-provoking), a level above the
norm"? No, it means 'bookish' and 'well read', having the characteristics
of letters, humane learning. You see the difference? A piece of prose
spoken into a tape recorder by a pre-kindergarten five year old who doesn't
so much as know his alphabet could, conceivably be "insightful, thoughtful
(and| thought-provoking), a level above the norm" and still be totally
illiterate, unlearned, and without connection to the world of letters. See
also your average sci-fi or mystery thriller.
Sorry, but all which follows in this fellow's argument must fail as it
proceeds from false definition. When the foundation is all squishy and
rotten, the whole edifice must collapse.
Upon occasion of hearing a man introduce himself as a 'total asshole', one
anonymous rake thinking himself very witty was heard to say, "Yes, well, we
are often left with no other option than to let our assholes speak for
themselves. And if, ever so often our mouths should begin to speak for our
assholes, there is very little surprise in that. Let us only dread the day
when the Good Lord decides to permanently seal our mouths shut so that only
our assholes are left speaking for us, in the subway, the elevator, the
studios at CNN, upon occasion of every political speech and presidential
address. Some might suppose, and not without exquisite reason, that we have
long since come to the Age of the Speaking Asshole in which giving 'World
Peace a Chance' would only entail an international boycott on beans."
Seymour Grass
| But remember, the man wrote some incredible short fiction. "The
| Dead". Man. The last paragraph of that short story has to be one of
| the most beautiful I've ever read.
Well, okay. Ever see John Huston's film of it? I've read that and most all
the stories in *Dubliners* (none of which, including the Dead, are for me,
alas, overly memorable) and also his lesser known play, *Exiles* (the tragic
account of a fellow who lets another man bang his wife even going so far as
to set up the tryst for her) which struck me as being the best thing of all
his writing. But, face it: the man was a notorious misanthrope, impossible
to get along with, hadn't a friend in the world who did not feel they'd been
insulted or ignored one time too many by him--and that's cool! It's truly
an attitude that ought to be emulated. But it also goes to show that he
would not be above the fun of making fools of the entire literary
establishment that had been lionizing him, by sicking FW on them. I'm sure
he was still quite serious with U, which unlike FW was not written drunk or
who knows, stoned on absinthe? More power to the guy, I just think it's
funny as hell, is what. ;-)
|
| --Bob
Seymour Grass
| On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:46:29 -0600, "Seymour Grass"
| <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
|
| It's so rare to see one "live" here in the US. When I was in NYC about
| a decade ago, they had one at the Museum of Modern Art or the Met.
| Can't remember the title, but it depicted these women huddled on the
| street at night and this window above with what seems to be a dark
| figure starign down. The trees and shit are all wicked and dripping
| fucking forboding. Damn.
|
| One of those painters whose work (seen on canvas, not in a book),
| pulls you in and leaves you standing there for a half-hour.
Or pulling your hair out and shrieking while you're at it. Such fun! You
ever see that portrait of his beautiful brunette wife/lover in a scarlet
dress where there's this rectangular border of little sperms swimming all
around her, like a frame for the painting? That picture helped me through a
very dark period while I was being driven mad by a very, very, similarly
naughty very black magic woman.
|
| I would love to see his painting: "The Murderer". Must be in Norw with
| the others. That painting is expressionism defined!
Had a chance to pick up a nice, complete volume of his prints not long ago
at a bargain price--and didn't Shit. Let's talk about something else, like
that 50" halibut that got away from me in San Pedro.
--
JP
Seymour Grass
"Miki Kocic" <viathna...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uNinb.1797$Nz5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
| It sounds like you have something against masturbation. Is it just
| *public* masturbation you object to, or the practice in general?
Certainly, the public form is by far the more . . . impressive, let us say,
and is no doubt one of the more courageous social acts performed outside a
zoo in this day. Get a load of this . . .
October 20, 2003 09:31 AM ET
BORDEAUX, France (Reuters) - A French judge was placed under official
investigation for "sexual exposure" in a courtroom, prosecutors said on
Friday, after a newspaper reported the judge masturbated while a lawyer
pleaded her case.
Now, are there any more juicy confessions for us from the ladies today? Let
us hear (while we are on the subject of "literary masturbation" (or doing it
under a book or magazine in the library) if there are any here, either boys
or girls who dare admit that they have yet to read *Portnoy's Complaint*?
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8
http://jpdavid.bravepages.com/index.html
Jack Crabbe: "You know what they always say about the look and smell of it,
first time you ride into an injun villiage: 'Well now, I see their dump,
but where's the town?'"
Old Lodgeskins: "There is an endless supply of white men, but there has
always been a limited number of human beings." Thomas Berger
Miki Kocic
Seymour Grass wrote:
> Now, are there any more juicy confessions for us from the ladies today? Let
> us hear (while we are on the subject of "literary masturbation" (or doing it
> under a book or magazine in the library) if there are any here, either boys
> or girls who dare admit that they have yet to read *Portnoy's Complaint*?
I dare to admit it. What is it?
Miki
michael
It's a supposedly seminal (! gettit?!) book by Philip Roth, if I recall
correctly. I think the first chapter was called "I get the willies." Or was
that Heller's "Something Happened"?
Wildepad
<robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:18:43 -0600, Wildepad <capu...@hesenergy.net>
>wrote:
>>So, in the end, the answer to your question ("What exactly is the
>>"literary" signifying?") is: it defines something that surpasses the
>>normal emotions created by a story.
>
>I don't know. I get pretty repulsed sometimes by what I read, and I
>don't know if that would make it "literary".
:) There is one book that I used to keep on the bathroom shelf just
in case an emergency arose and I had to induce vomitting.
>>Whether those are meaningful
>>emotions of any value or are mere crotch-level reactions depends on
>>who is using the term and why.
>
>It almost sounds like you're saying that there are no good new
>writers.
?? I don't mean that at all. The only one that comes to mind at the
moment is Harlan Ellison -- many of his stories, imo, fit the
classical definition of literary. (Actually, one other, very new,
writer also comes to mind, but I'd embarass myself if I tried to spell
the name offhand and the book is in the other room.)
>That's like those folks who avoid anything after the nineteenth
>century at the art museum because it's not really art.
As far as I am concerned, they can put anything they want to in art
museums because, unless there's an exhibition of pointillism or
Escher, I avoid them. To me, a large part of art is its relationship
to the world, something that is destroyed when it is put into a
museum.
If there is a school of painting that has the work's being hung on a
neutral wall within feet of other paintings as a stylistic imperative,
I'd be interested in see those works, but as a curiosity more than
anything else.
Wildepad
<viathna...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>It sounds like you have something against masturbation. Is it just
>*public* masturbation you object to, or the practice in general?
Masturbation is perfectly normal, but, like many other normal
functions, it should be personal, not something done in public,
especially not done in public with my money (most 'literary' magazines
are published by universities (direct tax money), or foundations
(indirect tax money because their not-for-profit status prevents them
from sharing the tax burden)).
OTOH, I believe it was Heinlein who said that writing is nothing to be
ashamed of, as long as you do it in private and wash your hands
afterwards. So we're all guilty, in one form or another.
Wildepad
<JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote:
>
>"Wildepad" <capu...@hesenergy.net> wrote in message
>news:7s8rpvs1d2pc5af52...@4ax.com...
>| Literary, in classic terms, means insightful, thoughtful (and
>| thought-provoking), a level above the norm. In keeping with that
>| definition, any genre can contain 'literary' works, and they can be
>| either plot or character driven, or be devoid of either plot or
>| character.
>
>If that's the definition of 'literary' in "classic terms", then somebody
>better put those people playing with themselves down at Random House hip to
>it because according to their Collegiate ed. of Webster's dictionary,
>*literary* is defined in the following 'classic' terms "l a: of, relating
>to, or having the characteristics of letters, humane learning, or literature
>b: BOOKISH c: of or relating to books 2 a: well read, of or relating to men
>of letters or writing as a profession.
In a question of 'literary' versus 'popular' works, since it is all,
by definition, 'literature', the 'term', whether classic or modern,
denotes the distinctions between divisions within "letters, humane
reading, or literature".
>It means "insightful, thoughtful (and| thought-provoking), a level above the
>norm"? No, it means 'bookish' and 'well read', having the characteristics
>of letters, humane learning. You see the difference?
Are you saying that something that has the 'characteristics of
letters, humane reading' is not also, by inference if not by
definition, insightful, thoughtful, a level above the norm?
If using the term 'bookish' literally, and 'well read' interpretively
(as it must be since it depends on the qualifications which the
observer imposes), then no work can actually be literary because
stories can't love books or read, or, less (well, slightly less)
facetiously, a bibliophilic author could study all the books on animal
rights as research and their resulting epistolary novel would fit that
definition of 'literary'.
>A piece of prose
>spoken into a tape recorder by a pre-kindergarten five year old who doesn't
>so much as know his alphabet could, conceivably be "insightful, thoughtful
>(and| thought-provoking), a level above the norm" and still be totally
>illiterate, unlearned, and without connection to the world of letters.
Then, out of curiosity, where does something like Vanzetti's "If it
had not been for these things . . ." belong? It is illiterate,
unlearned, and without connection to the world of letters, but is
often regarded as a literary masterpiece.
>See
>also your average sci-fi or mystery thriller.
By your view, then, all sci-fi and mystery thrillers are therefore
literary, since they have to do with books and literature (unless you
have some perverse definition for literature other than: "writings in
prose or verse", which most dictionaries provide).
To be honest, poking fun at nonsensical concepts is a lot of fun, but
I have more pressing things to write. This will be my last post on the
subject.
R. Westermeyer
<capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote:
>As far as I am concerned, they can put anything they want to in art
>museums because, unless there's an exhibition of pointillism or
>Escher, I avoid them.
You can't be serious.
>To me, a large part of art is its relationship
>to the world, something that is destroyed when it is put into a
>museum.
All rhetoric aside, do you have an alternative?
>If there is a school of painting that has the work's being hung on a
>neutral wall within feet of other paintings as a stylistic imperative,
>I'd be interested in see those works, but as a curiosity more than
>anything else.
Well, there's that landscape art....unfortunately, it can be
"dangerous art" in a wholly different way. There was the guy (can't
recall his name) who paid big bucks to plant haphazardly hundreds of
gigantic yellow umbrellas on miles of the golden hills of the
Interstate 5 grapevine near Gorman. Back in the early 90s I think. One
or two of them came loose in the wind and killed someone.
--Bob
Seymour Grass
It was the --- omigod --- am I really going to say this? Yup. Okay, it was
not the first novel by Phillip Roth, but it was the *seminal* (see? I
really did do it) one that finally sent him rocketing into international
infamy on the best seller lists. It was absolutely the *dirtiest*
semi-literary novel of it's era, published in '69; the fictional first
person account of a very nice, roundly pleasing fellow who just somehow had
the rather inconvenient compulsion to . . . well, he simply couldn't
manage--whilst out in public--to keep his . . . er . . . to uhm, well, I
suggest you simply have to read it to believe it.
Since auto-eroticism till that time had not, in the literary world, by and
large, been so much as admitted to exist, not even by the likes of Nin,
Miller, Jong and Lawrence, well truly, the world had not been ready for
Portnoy's Complaint. You should not read it whilst riding on public
transportation, except you don't mind making a spectacle of yourself by
rolling around hysterically screaming on subway and bus floors.
You have been fore-warned, Mademoiselle. ;-)
--
JP
nativelaw
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bnniir$13o1sq$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
Hey John,
Miki's a Monsieur. Having said that, I did read Portnoy's Complaint...
stole it off my parents' bookshelves when I was 12. Also at 12 I read Fear
of Flying (Erica Jong) which was left on top of the toilet tank at the home
where I used to regularly babysit two kids. And there was a third book,
"God's Little Acre" that as I recall was sexy, though I'm pretty sure less
explicit, also in my parents' collection.
Ah, literature : ).
It's hard for me to imagine my daughter reading any of those when she turns
12... the world was different, though, a little. And a lot happens in the
next 3 years.
Alaric McDermott
1. > But, no theory is good until tested. Can somebody out there find
an example of plot-driven literary fiction?
Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks. The best book of the last ten years by a
country mile (and a recommendation for Sue – a modern Bates.)
But…
But…
… If literary fiction IS a genre (and I doubt it) the discussion here
is automatically flat footed – because like any genre, it will produce
wonderful, serviceable, poor and abysmal. Literature, on the other
hand, is a label granted by readers (well, hopefully – too often it's
granted by critics) and is a quality indication – like the Woolmark.
You might not like it but you know you should.
I've seen literary fiction used so often as an excuse for plotless,
Shavian bunk that I distrust it as both descriptor and genre.
An ornery view from a far too bloody busy person who at least has at
present a pleasant view of the Rhine.
Seymour Grass
| Hey John,
| Miki's a Monsieur.
Bummer! Oh well, I mean, nothing against him, personally, it's just that we
could use a few more of the ladies, hereat. ;-)
Having said that, I did read Portnoy's Complaint...
| stole it off my parents' bookshelves when I was 12.
Well? And . . .
| Also at 12 I read Fear
| of Flying (Erica Jong) which was left on top of the toilet tank at the
home
| where I used to regularly babysit two kids.
So, was I right in my hunch that she makes her autoerotic confessions in
third person only, like, "And then there was this so very close friend of
mine . . ."
| And there was a third book,
| "God's Little Acre" that as I recall was sexy, though I'm pretty sure less
| explicit, also in my parents' collection.
Oh jeez, Tina Louise -- did you see the movie? Yeah, my mom had that in
paperback, found it behind one of those sliding doors on her bedstead -- or
no, that was *my friend's* mom. Sorry mom!
|
| Ah, literature : ).
Ah, yes.
|
| It's hard for me to imagine my daughter reading any of those when she
turns
| 12... the world was different, though, a little. And a lot happens in the
| next 3 years.
You can say that again -- er, which three years exactly?
Upon occasion of hearing a man introduce himself as a 'total asshole', one
anonymous rake thinking himself very witty was heard to say, "Yes, well, we
are often left with no other option than to let our assholes speak for
themselves. And if, ever so often our mouths should begin to speak for our
assholes, there is very little surprise in that. Let us only dread the day
when the Good Lord decides to permanently seal our mouths so that our
assholes are the only thing left speaking for us, in the subway, the
nativelaw
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bnolne$12jfdq$1...@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "nativelaw" <REMOVEn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnoecf$12tlvs$1...@ID-198738.news.uni-berlin.de...
> | Hey John,
> | Miki's a Monsieur.
>
> Bummer! Oh well, I mean, nothing against him, personally, it's just that
we
> could use a few more of the ladies, hereat. ;-)
>
> Having said that, I did read Portnoy's Complaint...
> | stole it off my parents' bookshelves when I was 12.
>
> Well? And . . .
And a lady who has prayed before the Gods of Onan, should simply smile and
keep it to herself and do her best to remain a lady...
>
> | Also at 12 I read Fear
> | of Flying (Erica Jong) which was left on top of the toilet tank at the
> home
> | where I used to regularly babysit two kids.
>
> So, was I right in my hunch that she makes her autoerotic confessions in
> third person only, like, "And then there was this so very close friend of
> mine . . ."
indeed, not : )
>
> | And there was a third book,
> | "God's Little Acre" that as I recall was sexy, though I'm pretty sure
less
> | explicit, also in my parents' collection.
>
> Oh jeez, Tina Louise -- did you see the movie? Yeah, my mom had that in
> paperback, found it behind one of those sliding doors on her bedstead --
or
> no, that was *my friend's* mom. Sorry mom!
>
LOL. I didn't know it _was_ a movie; but I bet I'd love to see it.
> | Ah, literature : ).
>
> Ah, yes.
> |
> | It's hard for me to imagine my daughter reading any of those when she
> turns
> | 12... the world was different, though, a little. And a lot happens in
the
> | next 3 years.
>
> You can say that again -- er, which three years exactly?
Er.. she just turned 9.
I know I am in BIG trouble with this child. I am protective and try my best
to see that she is a child as long as possible, but... She has this boy that
she likes... her first boy she's admitted to liking... and she found out he
was going to be over her best friend's house and wanted to go... I told her
that by the time I could drive her there, he would be gone... and her
response was, "that's okay... I might still be there in time to at least get
his smell on me..."
See what I mean??
Ayiyi...
Seymour Grass
| I know I am in BIG trouble with this child. I am protective and try my
best
| to see that she is a child as long as possible, but... She has this boy
that
| she likes... her first boy she's admitted to liking... and she found out
he
| was going to be over her best friend's house and wanted to go... I told
her
| that by the time I could drive her there, he would be gone... and her
| response was, "that's okay... I might still be there in time to at least
get
| his smell on me..."
|
| See what I mean??
So funny! That is really precious.
|
| Ayiyi...
Bet she's just a chip off the old block, eh? ;-)
--
JP
nativelaw
"Seymour Grass" <JP...@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
My jaw dropped when she said it... when I recovered I burst out laughing.
>
> |
> | Ayiyi...
>
> Bet she's just a chip off the old block, eh? ;-)
LOL. I was fairly intense as a child, but I'm not sure I was quite THAT
intense. Or maybe the difference may be that I couldn't have said such
things to my mother : ). If I do _nothing_ else right in my life, I will
die happy just to think she feels she can talk with me that way, about the
heart of a matter, or a matter of the heart : ).
Thanks, John.
> JP
>
>
Miki Kocic
Alaric McDermott wrote:
> An ornery view from a far too bloody busy person who at least has at
> present a pleasant view of the Rhine.
Ooh la la. Hope the telecom charges don't bankrupt you.
Miki
Wildepad
<robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:37:28 -0600, Wildepad
><capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>As far as I am concerned, they can put anything they want to in art
>>museums because, unless there's an exhibition of pointillism or
>>Escher, I avoid them.
>
>You can't be serious.
Perfectly serious.
>>To me, a large part of art is its relationship
>>to the world, something that is destroyed when it is put into a
>>museum.
>
>All rhetoric aside, do you have an alternative?
Leave art where it belongs in the world.
>>If there is a school of painting that has the work's being hung on a
>>neutral wall within feet of other paintings as a stylistic imperative,
>>I'd be interested in see those works, but as a curiosity more than
>>anything else.
>
>Well, there's that landscape art....unfortunately, it can be
>"dangerous art" in a wholly different way. There was the guy (can't
>recall his name) who paid big bucks to plant haphazardly hundreds of
>gigantic yellow umbrellas on miles of the golden hills of the
>Interstate 5 grapevine near Gorman. Back in the early 90s I think. One
>or two of them came loose in the wind and killed someone.
You don't have to go that far. The portrait of a noble hanging above
th mantle of the ancestral home fits in, it belongs there, it is part
of its environment. That same picture stuck up on the wall of a museum
loses all of its context and meaning.
A seascape done by a Sunday painter has an indescribable texture when
displayed in the home of that painter because it echoes the subtle
forces of its creation. No masterpiece by a classical artist can
duplicate that.
etc. etc. etc.
My grandmother had her portrait down by a professional (this was in
the 40's and cost about $500). It hung on her bedroom wall for as long
as I can remember. Although it was of considerable value when she
passed away, I didn't want it because it *belonged* in that room, with
her things, as part of her life. Separate from that, it was, for me,
nothing more than a couple of bucks' worth of used canvas (although
the frame was nice).
For me, for art to have value, as art, it cannot be separate from the
world.
My favorite (although admittedly perverse) example: because I loved my
wife, I thought she was very beautiful. When I saw her gall bladder
sitting in a little pan after her surgery, however, I didn't think it
was even cute, despite its having been part of her for so long.
For me, its the same thing about all works of art -- take them out of
their natural setting and they mostly just as icky as any other
squishiness you get from a disemboweling.
'All in the eye of the beholder' type of thing.
Fraser
"Wildepad" <capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote in message
news:k1s0qvoeppg530vfa...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:21 GMT, R. Westermeyer
> <robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:37:28 -0600, Wildepad
> ><capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote:
<snip>
> My favorite (although admittedly perverse) example: because I loved my
> wife, I thought she was very beautiful. When I saw her gall bladder
> sitting in a little pan after her surgery, however, I didn't think it
> was even cute, despite its having been part of her for so long.
> For me, its the same thing about all works of art -- take them out of
> their natural setting and they mostly just as icky as any other
> squishiness you get from a disemboweling.
Heh! Cool theory. I can't agree with it, but I like it. Do you feel the same
about books and libraries? If not, why not? Can a painting have any more
'natural home' (for want of a better expression) than a book? Sculpture
might be different, because it's often designed for a specific environment
and would lose some of it's impact without that environmental context, but a
painting...I dunno. Who's to say where it belongs?
Fraser *The Curious*
Wildepad
wrote:
>
>"Wildepad" <capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote in message
>news:k1s0qvoeppg530vfa...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:21 GMT, R. Westermeyer
>> <robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:37:28 -0600, Wildepad
>> ><capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> My favorite (although admittedly perverse) example: because I loved my
>> wife, I thought she was very beautiful. When I saw her gall bladder
>> sitting in a little pan after her surgery, however, I didn't think it
>> was even cute, despite its having been part of her for so long.
>> For me, its the same thing about all works of art -- take them out of
>> their natural setting and they mostly just as icky as any other
>> squishiness you get from a disemboweling.
>
>Heh! Cool theory. I can't agree with it, but I like it.
I distrust people who agree with me. :)
>Do you feel the same
>about books and libraries? If not, why not?
Books create their own environment -- you're transported into whatever
time and place the novel is set in.
>Can a painting have any more
>'natural home' (for want of a better expression) than a book? Sculpture
>might be different, because it's often designed for a specific environment
>and would lose some of it's impact without that environmental context, but a
>painting...I dunno. Who's to say where it belongs?
Two factors --
1) The painter has a mental image of where the picture is to be hung,
at least in general (the subject's home, their patron's dining room,
etc.). This can, at least subconsciously, affect their work.
2) If the painting is hung in the home of the painter, then it is
substantially one with the rest of the painter's environment and may
either reflect certain personality traits or contrast between the
creator's reality and their imagination.
In either case, it provides a context for the work which is, to me,
more important than an analysis of the work in a vacuum could be.
R. Westermeyer
<capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:43:06 +0700, "Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Wildepad" <capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote in message
>>news:k1s0qvoeppg530vfa...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:21 GMT, R. Westermeyer
>>> <robertwe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:37:28 -0600, Wildepad
>>> ><capu...@REMOVEhesenergy.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> My favorite (although admittedly perverse) example: because I loved my
>>> wife, I thought she was very beautiful. When I saw her gall bladder
>>> sitting in a little pan after her surgery, however, I didn't think it
>>> was even cute, despite its having been part of her for so long.
>>> For me, its the same thing about all works of art -- take them out of
>>> their natural setting and they mostly just as icky as any other
>>> squishiness you get from a disemboweling.
>>
>>Heh! Cool theory. I can't agree with it, but I like it.
>
>I distrust people who agree with me. :)
>
>>Do you feel the same
>>about books and libraries? If not, why not?
>
>Books create their own environment -- you're transported into whatever
>time and place the novel is set in.
>
I think we must have different tastes in art, at least the visual
media. The paintings I like transport me in the same way, even if
they're hanging next to a painting I don't like.
--R