So, why does crap literature sell/get published?

[JollyRoger]

There are a lot of words you can use to describe me, including a lot of pejorative ones, and they'd be accurate...but I have a hard time thinking of one that would be less accurate than Neckbeard.

Sounds just like something a Neckbeard would say.

 

[luiz]

Fair enough! (and I'd be interested in any english translations of those books, if they exist).

I'd probably peg the reading and maturity level for most Sherlock Holmes or Tom Sawyer a bit above that of Harry Potter (which can be started and probably properly appreciated at age 8), but I guess we're just splitting hairs then at that point. If the opportunity cost for a kid reading Harry Potter is neglecting Mark Twain, then yeah, he probably shouldn't read Harry Potter. But I don't think that's typically the case of youngsters.

Different strokes for different folks though!

That's fair enough. And yes, there are English translations of all the books I mentioned. Memórias Póstumas de Brás Cubas in particular is probably Brazil's greatest literary achievement, and its widely translated. I think a good age to read it is after 15 (it's typically read on the first or second year of High School here).

Indeed. A kid who was going to read Twain isn't going to stop because they read Potter (though they may find Twain less to their taste, but that's something else). A kid who wasn't going to read Twain, on the other hand, might actually read it because they read Potter and that gave them a taste for reading.

(Though I'd personally agrue that which one a kid SHOULD read if they really must read only one of the two depend on the kid, their interest, and which is more likely to appeal to them. Not a perception that one is a superior work)

And if they're going to be forced to read either...actually let's not force them to read either. Forced reading rarely make good reading, and both Twain and Potter deserve better than to be turned into some kind of torture device in the name of "encouraging" reading.

Hum, but The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are a superior work to Harry Potter. Surely we can all agree to that.

While of course everyone is free to have their own taste, and much prefer Harry Potter, we can still analyse the prose, the characters, the setting, literary innovations, and so on and so forth.

 

[JollyRoger]

Today's Tom Sawyer, he gets high on you - and the space he invades, he gets by on you.

 

[Evie]

Hum, but The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are a superior work to Harry Potter. Surely we can all agree to that.

While of course everyone is free to have their own taste, and much prefer Harry Potter, we can still analyse the prose, the characters, the setting, literary innovations, and so on and so forth.

Even admitting that, better the inferior work that appeals to you than the superior work that bores you, unless you're specificaly trying to learn something about writing (in which case the superior work is indeed what you want).

And being more appealing to an audience is a form of superiority in its own right.

 

[luiz]

Even admitting that, better the inferior work that appeals to you than the superior work that bores you, unless you're specificaly trying to learn something about writing (in which case the superior work is indeed what you want).

And being more appealing to an audience is a form of superiority in its own right.

Agreed, entirely. I object to the ultra relativistic notion that there is no such thing as an inferior work, or that the most popular work is necessarily superior, but I don't disagre with what you're saying.

 

[Evie]

There are such things as inferior works, but a work may be inferior by one metric and superior by another. And I would argue that which metric one find matter the most to a story is a rather personnal matter.

 

[aelf]

As for taking criticism badly: same to you, buddy. You seem really offended that I'm not willing to play ball with the narrow definitions of art, nor to suffer the elitists who embrace them.

I'm not offended. Just find it rather ironic that someone could be lamenting others' obnoxiousness while, at the same time, acting quite obnoxiously himself.

Well, who cares what you think? People with some learning in the field are going to continue studying and discussing definitions of art, which are typically limited. If that really gets to you, well, too bad?

 

[Zelig]

While of course everyone is free to have their own taste, and much prefer Harry Potter, we can still analyse the prose, the characters, the setting, literary innovations, and so on and so forth.

I, for one, don't give a damn about literary innovations. I judge everything on its own present-day merit, regardless of when it was originally manufactured.

 

[Evie]

I'm not offended. Just find it rather ironic that someone could be lamenting others' obnoxiousness while, at the same time, acting quite obnoxiously himself.

Well, who cares what you think? People with some learning in the field are going to continue studying and discussing definitions of art, which are typically limited. If that really gets to you, well, too bad?

Ah, so me finding others obnoxious means I'm offended, but you finding me obnoxious means you're not offended. Okay, make sense.

And indeed, I can't keep them form thinking what they will. Then again, I don't need to. While they're in their ivory towers, genre fiction are defining modern culture, creating the cultural framework of a generation. They cna either ignore that, and drive themselves into irrelevance, or else whine and moan about lack of artistic merit (sorry, I meant, "criticize"), and show themselves for the sore losers they are.

Ultimately, all I need is for popular culture's ability to influence art scholars to exceed art scholars ability to influence popular culture. So long as they insist on making it easy to cast them as elitists, I don't foresee that much trouble with that.

 

[luiz]

I, for one, don't give a damn about literary innovations. I judge everything on its own present-day merit, regardless of when it was originally manufactured.

And that's a fine way to assess what you will read next, not what work has greater artistic merit.

And at any rate even though it's a century old The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is still more fresh and innovative than brainless commercial pre-teen literature such as Harry Potter.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure about this word "innovative", though.

I'm not aware that Mark Twain in writing Tom Sawyer made any literary break-throughs. But perhaps you just mean its narrative kept your interest by surprising you as you read it? While you find Barry Spotter formulaic and predictable?

 

[aelf]

And their definition is going to keep on not mattering. My art is going to on outselling their art, and getting "Crap" (in the words of the thread starter) sold while so-called "great art" struggles to find an audience. Their critics will only be the whining and moaning of sore losers whose pet favorites have once again failed to make it big on the market while some 'unworthy' product captured the imagination and dreams of a generation.

Let them talk. They're entrenching themselves into irrelevance every time they open their mouth.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing they say about climatologists too. Anti-intellectualism doesn't differ much regardless of the subject.

Critics aren't always experts at aesthetics, by the way.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, that's the kind of thing they say about climatologists too. Anti-intellectualism doesn't differ much regardless of the subject.

Critics aren't always experts at aesthetics, by the way.

In the words of my art history graduate mother (who is keeping an eye on this discussion), had we listened to the advocates of aesthetics, we would have rejected the Impressionists ; we would have turned our back on the Cubists. We would have thrown aside all of twentieth century art movements...and we would have given no credence (and for that matter, gave him none in his lifetime) to Vincent most-famous-artist-of-all-time Van Gogh. Aesthetics are stuck in what's been done, rather than considering the possibilities of what's being done now, let alone what will be done tomorrow.

So...you know what? Call it anti-intellectualism if you want, I'll call it being aware of aesthetic's track record. When a field of thinking has a long and storied history of being wrong at every turn, they don't get to compare themselves to modern science.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm more inclined to get excited about the Group of Seven than Van Gogh. And I found a treasure trove today of paintings my grandmother did that I hadn't ever known existed. There are exactly three people in the world who I know have seen them (four, counting my grandmother). Are they art? Damn right, they are.

 

[Borachio]

I find it interesting that the Chinese factories that churn out hand-painted copies of classic works of art consider Van Gogh's amongst the easiest to do.

Now, whether that makes his art more or less "valuable" is debatable. It may be irrelevant.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/china-s-art-factories-van-gogh-from-the-sweatshop-a-433134.html

 

[Evie]

I would indeed say its irrelevant.

 

[aelf]

And indeed, I can't keep them form thinking what they will. Then again, I don't need to. While they're in their ivory towers, genre fiction are defining modern culture, creating the cultural framework of a generation. They cna either ignore that, and drive themselves into irrelevance, or else whine and moan about lack of artistic merit (sorry, I meant, "criticize"), and show themselves for the sore losers they are.

Scholars are usually quite unconcerned about genres except in studying them in and of themselves. Usually, critics who obsess about genres and whether they are worthy are not trained in aesthetics, like Roger Ebert.

Ultimately, all I need is for popular culture's ability to influence art scholars to exceed art scholars ability to influence popular culture. So long as they insist on making it easy to cast them as elitists, I don't foresee that much trouble with that.

Popular culture is irrelevant to the discussion. See below.

In the words of my art history graduate mother (who is keeping an eye on this discussion), had we listened to the advocates of aesthetics, we would have rejected the Impressionists ; we would have turned our back on the Cubists. We would have thrown aside all of twentieth century art movements...and we would have given no credence (and for that matter, gave him none in his lifetime) to Vincent most-famous-artist-of-all-time Van Gogh. Aesthetics are stuck in what's been done, rather than considering the possibilities of what's being done now, let alone what will be done tomorrow.

So...you know what? Call it anti-intellectualism if you want, I'll call it being aware of aesthetic's track record. When a field of thinking has a long and storied history of being wrong at every turn, they don't get to compare themselves to modern science.

Your mother is art history graduate. I don't think she knows as much about aesthetics as you or she thinks she does. Aesthetics isn't there to constrain popular culture. Popular culture happens, whether or not individuals want it (are Impressionism and Cubism even part of popular culture?). Can aesthetics influence popular culture? It can, and it has, it seems, from time to time. Aristotle's influence on conceptions of drama is pretty large and has influenced many practitioners (so much for being wrong all the time). Is this bad or constraining? Doesn't seem so; unless you think that conceptualising anything always means putting fetters on people who engage with that thing.

Besides, why are you so concerned about whether what you're creating is art or not? I mean, if you enjoy creating it and you feel others enjoy it too, why care? Why can your work not be enjoyed for its own sake, regardless of who considers it art or not? If I write a short story, say a science fiction piece (which is my preferred genre), I can hardly care if Kant and his formalism considers it art. Audiences probably don't care either. For someone professing to hate elitism and snobbery, you sure are very bothered by how your work is perceived by people aside from people's enjoyment of it.

Aesthetics enriches people's engagement with art, not take away from it. Because in practice, it doesn't really constrain artists and creators but can inform their approaches to creating works.

 

[Kyriakos]

Don't fight Maybe more excellent literature will be published this year.

Happy new year to all

 

[Flying Pig]

I think the idea of constraint is an interesting one - it's certainly not always the case that constrained art is weaker. Stephen Fry had a memorable line about writing in free verse - 'a lot like living alone - sometimes the result is a rugged self-sufficiency, but most of the time it's dirty dishes and piles of unwashed underwear.'

 

[Narz]

The number of authors seeking commercial success outstrips the number of authors seeking to perfect their craft and explore their genius.

That's probably true. There's also the fact that most people aren't capable of genius anyway. But when people read (or listen to music or screw someone) there's not necessarily looking for the greatest of all time, just a nice little escape. Not every book needs to be a masterpiece.