BS. That's exactly what you were talking about. You asked if I knew that Dune is often referred to as a cult novel.
Look, Valka, just call me a liar - wait, you pretty much did! - or accept that
I know what
I had in mind when
I wrote it - the fan devotion that plenty of works without drug involvement, heavily religious overtones, or hippies also have.
But it seems you
are unaware! You *didn't* know that Dune is considered a "cult" novel in the more contemporary sense of the word. Either that, or you preferred throwing accusations to getting on with the discussion.
Valka, I wasn't being condescending there. I was trying to be less abstract and use something you're familiar with. Thus all the other sci-fi fandom references.
I've heard of it, but haven't seen it. Apparently the audience customarily does strange things with umbrellas, newspapers, etc. while watching it.
Yes. Perhaps, when you have a free moment, you could check it out online. If you did, it'd increase your understanding of what a "cult film" is, and a "cult book", a "cult" author, and thus what others have been saying about Shakespeare.
I'm sure you haven't had time to actually read the material I'm talking about, since if you had made an honest attempt, you'd still be there.
And I don't suppose you were able to accomplish a couple of simple google searches that are directly relevant to the issue being debated for the last several days?
You insist I'm part of a cult.
For a given - and commonly accepted - meaning of the word, yes.
If it's cultish to want to ...
And there you go, dancing off with a different meaning.
Who said anything about dressing up?
I did. I was also tossing in general (not necessarily Dune) related fan behaviors.
As for Star Trek fans, I've never attended any full-blown conventions ...
The point is not your past, Valka. The point is the nature of these "cults."
... it's just an accepted part of convention culture, for people to dress in hall costumes if they want to - not everyone does it.
We can also skip the minutia of convention culture. The point is the nature of literary cults, how they differ from religious ones, and how both differ from mainstream life.
You may consider all this "cultish" - I call it normal fannish behavior, no negative connotations or stereotypes necessary, thank you.
Those negative connotations or stereotypes, Valka? They're yours, not mine.
They're also actually irreverent. Not liking something is different from it not being true.
I think others have tried making a similar point with you recently.
If you are simply unwilling to accept a definition because you, individually, don't like the connotations, bloody well say so.
Perhaps you could post a list of words that, out of pique, you invariably misunderstand.
Valka, look, lets try to make this very, very simple:
When people make claims about a literary (or art) cult in general, they aren't necessarily making a claim about you.
When people use the word cult, they aren't necessarily applying a negative comment.
Connotations, by their nature, vary. And the connotations applied by someone unfamiliar with the usage in the first place should not be seen as at all authoritative. (Here I
am talking about you. Valka, to be blunt: TF had it right. You very much do not know what you're talking about.)
The word "cult" has several meanings.
Here's the definition box from google. You type just the word into the search box (on Firefox, at least) and this is the first thing that appears.
While dictionary definitions are rarely complete - covering every usage, especially with regard to jargon or slang - they do establish the baseline. The minimum # of usages someone might apply. And "cult" fits.
cult
kəlt/
noun
noun: cult; plural noun: cults
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction More
"a religious cult"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
I've bolded the one that's directly related to "literary cult." Note the synonyms. They include "worship of," but they all don't have to apply to any given use. The important ones here would be "mania for", "fixation on" (would you like to tell us more about your online experiences at the Dune forums?), and, most importantly, "idolization of."
Did you happen to follow the link I supplied on Bardolatry? It discussed what, so far as I know, was the zenith of the literary cult involving Shakespeare.
So: People can be the members of literary cults without worship or other exclusively religious behaviors. This is indeed different from a "cult of personality." But there can be overlap. (Elvis? The Grateful Dead?)
Note that "misplaced or excessive" would be in the judgement of non-cult people. Subjective, often ill-informed, and thus just as prone to being in the wrong as the members of the cult. So some wear the "cult" label with pride. They're the cognoscenti. For unfamiliar with "cognoscenti," "cult" may be the best word known. That pride, whatever the source is, exactly, is something important to what P Ban first wrote.
As it's commonly applied, a "cult" work is simply one with a relatively small, but very enthusiastic or devoted fan base.
If you google "cult novel" this is the first link:
Cult Novels: An Essential List
I'm not endorsing this site. (I clicked on it simply to make sure it worked and seemed to be what it claimed.) This is provided as an example of the way people use the phrase "cult novel." Though it does actually have a short (and not very satisfactory) discussion of the phrase.
So: When people speak of a Shakespearean "cult", what they generally mean - at it's most extreme - is "Bardolatry." Usually they mean something significantly less extreme. Full blown Bardolatry is largely something for the history books.
The idea that Shakespeaes fan base is relatively small but often extremely devoted shouldn't really be all that controversial, I think. We'd have to hash out just how large or small it actually is, and how devoted the average (or non-average) fan is. But this thread, our high-school educations, or just Gori himself gives the idea enough plausibility to be met with something other than offended derision.
That's it.
To say someone is in such a cult is, IME, to make no negative aspersion. But then, I'm not a mainstream-guy, and neither or most of the people I discuss this sort of thing with. If you automatically attribute negative connotations to everything that doesn't, in some way, have complete cultural "buy in," or is just really, really liked by a relatively few people ... fine. That's your business. Many people do. But those connotations aren't integral to the word, and you should not assume that they're there when other people use the term. Especially when they explain exactly what they mean, and it - lo and behold! - isn't what you mean.
This whole "cult," business, is directly and highly relevant to the thread because it speaks to the relationship between Shakespeare's reputation - whatever that actually is - and his actual quality as a writer... whatever that actually is.
People, in raising the subject, were attempting to answer the thread's fundamental question using words, as I think has now been demonstrated, everyone but you understands.
That is your problem, not their problem.
But, speaking of your problems ...
Now that's just damned rude.
What, the implied comparison to religion? Apt, to my mind, given what we're talking about. Or what you imagined as my comment about your posts on a forum I didn't know the state of and have no interest in at the moment. While they may be relevant to what you think and feel, you gave me no reason to believe they're relevant to the meaning of the word "cult."
Rudeness gets nowhere with me.
It doesn't get anywhere with me, either. IIRC you recently said something along the lines of refusing to be driven off by rudeness. I think you should understand that others feel the same.
I consider it rude to meet sincere attempts to discuss an issue with a refusal to accept another's word on a claim-of-fact, or even perform a simple web-search to confirm or deny it. One or the other, Valka, not both.
And then there's the whole bit about you claiming to know more about what I meant than I did.
Ok ... I guess rudeness
does get somewhere with me. I've taken the effort to explain as I might to a child ... one I'm not feeling particularly fond of at the moment ... the "cult" business. This may strike you as condescending. It is, it is. I'm not sure how to tell a grown woman how to examine the meaning of a word or phrase without sounding condescending. Not given access to the internet. So I'm not going to beat around the bush and invite more accusations by being less than completely direct.
And now I'm done. That's was more time and effort than I expected this to take.
More time and effort than it should have taken.
I'm very much aware of the history behind Dune's publication and how it was perceived at the time - the 1960s, when the "hippy movement" started, many young people were into mind-altering drugs, and society in the U.S. and Canada was being changed by what Frank Herbert warned against: the charismatic leader.
However, I do reject the insistence here that I'm part of some "Shakespeare cult." I enjoy the plays, whether reading them or watching them. No, I don't think that my enjoyment of them makes me a better person than someone who does not enjoy them. I find Shakespeare himself an interesting historical figure, and have just found a series of documentaries about him that were presented by Michael Wood. I've watched the first one, with three to go.
