The truth about literature

[fingersmaloy]

Perhaps the OP has fled by this point.

[Hatta]

Literature is bullshit. 100% bullshit. Telling a story is nice and all, but when you start having to analyze and argue over what an author really meant when he said something, the author isn't doing his job in communicating effectively.

There's a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes effect going on. The only reason authors like Shakespeare and Joyce etc get so much attention is because all these smart people like them. You want to be smart too right? So people read their bullshit, and spin more bullshit about that bullshit. And boy do they feel smart, because no one can tell you that your bullshit is wrong. There's no right answer as to what the author really meant, because if he really meant anything at all he would have come out and said it.

The best fiction I ever read was written by Lewis Carroll, Dr. Seuss, etc. It's written to be fun, and nothing else. 1984 was ok, but it would have been much better as an essay or treatise. Orwell was an amazing essayist, I just don't see the point of wrapping up all those great ideas in a bunch of crap that never happened.

[Xonticus]

Literature is bullshit. 100% bullshit. Telling a story is nice and all, but when you start having to analyze and argue over what an author really meant when he said something, the author isn't doing his job in communicating effectively.

I agree, unless it is something intentional like Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide stories, where you sometimes sit there and think about what was said and it is enjoyable to do so. There is a line between unclear communication and thoughtful prose, which can sometimes be decided upon by individual interpretation. That's what can be good about visualizing literature in your head, at least for me anyways.

There's a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes effect going on. The only reason authors like Shakespeare and Joyce etc get so much attention is because all these smart people like them. You want to be smart too right? So people read their bullshit, and spin more bullshit about that bullshit. And boy do they feel smart, because no one can tell you that your bullshit is wrong. There's no right answer as to what the author really meant, because if he really meant anything at all he would have come out and said it.

I have to somewhat disagree with you here. Shakespeare originally wrote these as stage performances; plays. It wasn't until he died that a friend compiled a bunch together and published them, so people could read them readily. They were written mainly to convey his ideas direction of the action, in that time periods language, but I assume you already knew that.

I too sometimes get jumbled and confused actually reading the plays, but the true form of his work is actually seeing a performance of it. I know any performance we can see today could not equal exactly what was trying to be conveyed by Shakespeare himself, but it's all we've got. I guess in the end is, for a playwright, if you read it and get it, you get it. If not, there is always Cliffnotes/Classes.

I agree with you about personal interpretation though, no one but the author usually can tell you you are wrong about something's meaning, unless you are disputing its Intended meaning of course. This especially applies to poetry as you know. You don't have to be smart to read it, you just have to have an imagination and patience sometimes, esp regarding Shakespeare.

The best fiction I ever read was written by Lewis Carroll, Dr. Seuss, etc. It's written to be fun, and nothing else. 1984 was ok, but it would have been much better as an essay or treatise. Orwell was an amazing essayist, I just don't see the point of wrapping up all those great ideas in a bunch of crap that never happened.

I'd like to retort with a saying I heard somewhere, probably most recently in V for Vendetta: A politician uses lies to deceive people, while a writer uses them to convey the truth. I guess what I mean is, Orwell could have been trying to say, hey this could happen if you let it! Plus I think I was somewhat influenced by him serving in the military and seeing the horrors of violence (I believe) so he went on to write that and Animal Farm, which used a fictional barnyard setting to convey real world ideas.

[Original_Name]

Literature is bullshit. 100% bullshit. Telling a story is nice and all, but when you start having to analyze and argue over what an author really meant when he said something, the author isn't doing his job in communicating effectively.

There's a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes effect going on. The only reason authors like Shakespeare and Joyce etc get so much attention is because all these smart people like them. You want to be smart too right? So people read their bullshit, and spin more bullshit about that bullshit. And boy do they feel smart, because no one can tell you that your bullshit is wrong. There's no right answer as to what the author really meant, because if he really meant anything at all he would have come out and said it.

The best fiction I ever read was written by Lewis Carroll, Dr. Seuss, etc. It's written to be fun, and nothing else. 1984 was ok, but it would have been much better as an essay or treatise. Orwell was an amazing essayist, I just don't see the point of wrapping up all those great ideas in a bunch of crap that never happened.

Listen... have you ever had that idea cross your mind where you just briefly consider that maybe - just maybe - you're the only one who really exists? That other people are just figments of your imagination, or are soulless beings convincing you of their consciousness? Some philosophers will say that everyone has experienced that feeling at some point in their lives - that because we cannot see and feel the experiences of others, our suspension of disbelief that we are coexisting with other beings equally sentient as ourselves is liable to get blown from time to time. Some philosophers, like Ayn Rand for instance, utilize this insecurity and unwilling ignorance of human beings in the face of others to justify thinking in terms of oneself almost exclusively - that other people are to be used for your satisfaction because that's what YOU feel (it's not always quite as sinister as that sounds... but that is the general idea).

With all these ideas of "I'm the only one" abounding, human beings need to be reminded of other's humanity so that they can fully understand equality and passion for other human beings. You're right, the primary function of art is communication - but that doesn't mean the communication has to be direct. The function of art is to take one's temporary, non-physical state of mind, and put it into the physical world, usually with the intent of making it as permanent as possible. Good art transcends entertainment - it serves to remind us of our relationship as human beings. Good art will connect with you personally - it establishes a human connection between the artist and the audience, but the beauty of it is that although you are capable on some level to relate to it, it goes about it in a way that you would never, EVER in a million years have thought to do. You and your contemporary are both equals humans because you can make that human connection, yet you are unique from one another because your experiences and the balances of the chemicals in your brains are entirely different. It serves to remind human beings of our worth and individuality - to release us from that feeling of claustrophobia in the idea that our world is contained within our own heads and that everything else is abstract; this is most easily achieved by thinking of and communicating a concept that hasn't been thought up yet.

Now go read Slaughterhouse 5.

[lordofduct]

I love Slaughterhouse five... great book, and a very easy and comfortable read. One thing I love about Vonnegut Jr., anyone can read him, and you can take anything from it that you want.



About that interpretation. You don't have to fight with people about what the story meant. Because the author doesn't intend that. (Though some people do do this, for different reasons, for instance we're competetive creatures inherintly).

Are paintings and music 100% bullshit because they can be interpreted? People take different feeling from different songs for different reasons. Books are the same exact way.

That's their job.

A good story is a good story. But a good story with depth and feeling is a whole different thing. The fact that when I read "Slaughterhouse 5" and when you read "Slaughterhouse 5" and we walk away with two completely different thoughts about the book helps in evolving the story into its own little world. Depth...

[Kemiroch]

Slaughterhouse Five is one of my favorites. It was one of those books that just took me looking at it in a slightly different way, to completely 'get' it. I love moments like that.

For most books though, I am in the club that says reading ought to be fun. I love short, action-packed novels where lots of stuff happens. Maybe it's the influence of video games. Having lived video games for almost all of my life, I've gotten accustomed to being able to play through the story, not just read it from afar. Books where a lot of events happen is the closest it comes to being there. Maybe video games should take a nod from books, and get some more thought-provoking stories in there.

[Hatta]

Good art will connect with you personally

That's the problem. Literature doesn't connect with me at all. I just see it as a bunch of crap some guy made up. Why should I care? Frankly, I have trouble recognizing it as art at all. I don't see any beauty in it, just mental masturbation.

On the other hand, a good essay or treatise can clearly communicate sophisticated ideas. Orwell's essays, Bertrand Russel, Thoreau, Thomas Paine, William Godwin, Hannah Arendt, Douglas Hofstadter, Daniel Dennet, George Carlin. These are people whose works connect with me. This is art to me, there is great beauty in a well constructed argument.

Now go read Slaughterhouse 5.

I did. It wasn't even for school, but on a friend's recommendation. I felt the same way. Just a bunch of stuff that never happened. I'm much more interested in hearing about what Stephen Hawking has to say about time travel.

[Limewater]

I'd like to retort with a saying I heard somewhere, probably most recently in V for Vendetta: A politician uses lies to deceive people, while a writer uses them to convey the truth.

Quoting the film version of "V for Vendetta", and, specifically, quoting this out of the film version of "V for Vendetta" doesn't do a whole lot in terms of getting people to take you seriously.

[lordofduct]

I know what you mean about the videogames. It's really hard to do though. And sometimes it comes off a bit pretentious (take Braid for instance, some people loved it, others found the story part very pretentious).

That and that's an entire mechanic that really hasn't been tied together yet.

Consider different mediums of art. They've evolved and different methods of portraying thought through them have come out. The way all the little parts get integrated have been well planned and can really be taught on a basic level. Not to say there aren't things we don't know still yet about saying painting or writing, but that's where our innovative artists come in.

The videogame industry as a whole in my opinion is a medium of art (not all videogames are art, but the medium as a whole can definitely be used for art). The stories and meanings they portray at times aren't quite the same as books. Just like musics, paintings, theatre, and literature all are unique in the way they tell a story or portray a meaning.

Furthermore it's a young medium just only recently standing up. There's going to be a lot of "fruit in a bowl" type videogames before we get a lot of "The Matador"s. We as a group have yet to figure out all the artistic intricacy of the medium and how to mold the two together.

Take for instance the RPG, it's an attempt at strong story telling (though kind of cliche in the end, but those Final Fantasy style stories is what the fans love... it's a fantasy game with undertones of fantasy stories... girl in distress, tragic love, boy man battle...). But the entire thing doesn't flow quite right yet, the gameplay being so interactive leaves the player feeling with out control of the story. It's a conflict in design.

A good author knows how to lead a reader with out the reader realizing they're being lead. A great painter knows how to show an image with out the viewer realizing they're just looking at paint on canvas.

Games need to get over that hump of the medium. How to integrate all its little parts so that they appear seamless. Where the gameplay emphasizes and TELLS the story.

Take for instance a series of games I don't quite like... but do appreciate as a transformative art form. The Metal Gear series. Very well planned, great stories (not the most complex, but still really freaking good for a videogame), and it all feels very seamless.

That takes innovative and creative minds. And they're out there... we're at a point in videogames where visually it's not going to get much better. Budgets for games are in the multi-million now... hitting that of film. We as a patron to these games are going to get tired of the "wow that's pretty cool graphics yo" thing real fucking quick. And there is going to be a demand for better story telling, there always is, story telling is a integral part of our society... humans love the stuff.

So just wait, videogames are going take a whole new direction... because its the direction that we as a body want it to go, and the whole 'graphics' thing really is at its pinnacle. Anymore and the artists wont' be able to keep up. You can only draw so fast, and hardware only lasts so long, and no one wants to wait 2 years just so someone can draw a really pretty model.

[Hatta]

One thing I love about Vonnegut Jr., anyone can read him, and you can take anything from it that you want.

Why bother with the book then? Just make up your own message.

Are paintings and music 100% bullshit because they can be interpreted? People take different feeling from different songs for different reasons. Books are the same exact way.

I don't feel they should be interpreted. When I go to an art museum, I don't think "what did the artist mean". I think "boy, that's pretty. Think of the skill it took to do that". Same with music. I don't listen to a fugue and try to figure out what Bach was trying to say. Instead I think "damn that rocks!"