# Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose?



## Inderjit S

Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few? Authors such as _James Joyce_ and _Thomas Mann_ are notoriously difficult to read-whereas authors and poets such as _Maya Angelou_, _Graham Greene_ and _Toni Morisson_ as well as existentialists such as _Franz Kafka_ and _Albert Camus_ are pretty easy to read, even if their messages are a little more hidden. George Orwell is critical of the over-complicated use of language, he views it a casuistic and undesirable-is he right, and are authors such as _Mann_ and _Joyce_ paradigmic of Rousseau’s lament over the arrogance of some intellectualists and their inflated belief in their own intelligence? Or are such works important as they allow the author to articulate his message in a allegorical way-_Thomas Mann's_ _Doctor Faustus_ is a critique of the German populations acceptance of Nazism. (Mann's novel seems to be very allegorical, his novel which deals with the Faustian legend ( check out _Marlowe's 'Doctor Faustus'_ and _Goethe's_ _Faust p.I&II_ for the more famous Faustian plays) barely includes the devil or any of the other things which were a part of the general Faustian legend. But novelists such as _Bulgakov_, _Marquez_ and _Twain_ are able to get their message across in an accessible way and what is the point of writing a book with a hidden moral message if few can understand it and the only ones who can understand it already knew it. Wouldn't people much prefer a simple, accessible Aesopian (who _Herodotus_ claims was a slave) fables? And authors such as _Yuko Mishima_ are able to write complicated, philosophical novels in a pretty accessible way. Or are novels such as _Vladmir Nabokov's_ _Pale Fire_ and _James Joyce’s_ _Ulysses_ good things, allowing a very intelligent writer to articulate his thoughts, and are such esoteric novels great examples of a novelists intelligence, with amazing moral messages or are they just great, great books?


----------



## greypilgrim

Probably both. Why not post a poll?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Inderjit S said:


> Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few?



I think these two opening sentences generate many more questions themselves . . . 

1. Why should we think of authors of any degree of legibility (i.e. readability) as "serving a purpose?" (What purpose?)

2. _Who_ would "need" authors of any degree of legibility?

3. By which standards (or by whose standards) is legibility measured?

4. Who is "the intelligentsia"?

5. And why would it necessarily "demand" difficult-to-read authors?

6. What is literature?

7. If literature is not accessible to everyone, by which standards (or by whose standards) is accessibility measured?

8. Who are the "select few?" Why are they "select?" And who "selects" them?


----------



## Rangerdave

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> 6. What is literature?


This is not really important, but it is rather funny.
The Good Professor Tolkien defined literature as writing concerning technical matters. For example: critiques, VCR instructions and Dr. Phil are all literature; and The Hobbit, Les Misérables, and Stranger in a Strange Land are stories

To his mind "The Monster and the Critic's" is literature whereas Beowulf is story.

So if this definition holds true then I say to students everywhere. "Why bother with literature when you can read a good book instead"


RD


----------



## Inderjit S

> 1. Why should we think of authors of any degree of legibility (i.e. readability) as "serving a purpose?" (What purpose?)



An ambiguous question. A book needs to legible in order to be read; common sense dictates that an illegible book defeats the purpose of a novel i.e. to be legible and thus readable; hence an unreadable book is a paradox.

Books, like everything else serve a purpose. It is human nature to do and say things which serve a certain purpose, and since books are products of humans they then serve the purpose of that certain person. Purposes are multifarious and heterogeneous. _George Orwell_ wrote _Animal Farm_ because of his anti-Communism; _Mark Twain_ and _Harriet Beecher Stowe_ wrote their books because of they were against slavery (from a moralistic and religious standpoint); Alexis de Tocqueville goes on about the purposes of literature in _Democracy In America_ ('Book 2; Chapters 12-17, he also wrote _Democracy In America_ before any novelists or poets of note came along in America, such as _Edgar Allan Poe_, _Walt Whitman_, _Mark Twain_ and _Herman Mellville_); authors and poets such as _Joseph Heller_, _Jaroslav Hasek_, _Wilfred Owen_ and _Remarque_ were former soldiers who wrote anti-war literature, so literature is a way in which a person is able to express his or her ideas and thoughts, which often defied the status quo or generally held principles of the time.



> 2. Who would "need" authors of any degree of legibility?



I think that is implied in your question. 



> 3. By which standards (or by whose standards) is legibility measured?



General standards of the time and general readers of the time. By which other standards are such things measured? Standards are measured by generalities, general ideas and general opinions, general intelligence thus dictates that some novels are hard to understand, or understood by few i.e. esoteric-_Ulysees_ is one of those-generally speaking most people do not and cannot read or understand _Ulysses_; though some do. They are exceptions and thus deviations from the general standards, being an exception implies being anomalous and thus deviating from the norm. The norm is just whatever the standard is at the time. Status quos and standards often change.



> 4. Who is "the intelligentsia"?



Or rather, since it is plural who _are_ the intelligentsia. I think the "intelligentsia" are epitomised by literature critics who view the _Lord of The Rings_ as a poor novel just because it is fantasy, and the kind of university professors who claim that he does not expect the English population to "get" _Thomas Mann_ since the archetypical English novelist is _Jane Austen_, so by intelligentsia I mean intellectual snobs who think their knowledge is all surpassing and that they are smarter then the average Joe. Not ALL art critics are of course snobs and not all university professors are intellectual snobs, but you will find more intellectual snobs amongst art critics and university professors then amongst Plumbers and Businessmen.



> 5. And why would it necessarily "demand" difficult-to-read authors?



Why else? When we have rubbish like _Tolkien_ and _Asimov_ drifting around, surely we all need to a break from such tepid rubbish and a parody of a Homeric or Goetheian tale. 



> 6. What is literature?



This question is overly-fastidious. What is anything and everything?



> 7. If literature is not accessible to everyone, by which standards (or by whose standards) is accessibility measured?



See question 3.



> 8. Who are the "select few?" Why are they "select?" And who "selects" them?



To say the "select few" are "selected" is a fallacy since they natural select themselves. If you want an example of a select few you should check out any great novels list with _Pale Fire_ and _Ulysses_ amongst the top 10.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Perhaps a tangential question is whether or not the "esoteric" author uses a convoluted means of expression because it is how he (or she - for the last time) _needs_ to express him/herself or because he believes that it makes him seem more part of the intelligencia. Hemingway wrote in a style that does not appeal to me whereas Tolkien's does. Yet I would say that both authors wrote in the nature of their gift rather than as a means of "impressing" their readers. Some authors may be more difficult for some readers while others - however classic their work - may not appeal to all who pick up one of their books. Some authors take some "getting used to" before one is able to fully enjoy what they write.

Then there is the matter of content rather than mere expression. I am a mystery buff, but one mystery writer whose work I used to read "religiously" has lost interest for me because at the end of every novel, the "hero" (one of the heroes, actually) is always "unlucky at love". We keep getting introduced to a possible parter for the fellow only to have her die or be in some other way unsuitable at the end of the tale. That grows old! Even Job had better luck. And there is another very popular mystery writer who seems to be going in the same direction with the hero although I have not abandoned that person's works - yet! However, I will not go more than one or at most two books further without a resolution of the matter. After that the situation degenerates into a mere "plot ploy" and intrudes badly on my ability to believe in the characters, something which I consider _essential_ to my enjoyment of the books.

There are many things that make an author popular - or unpopular (this does not include critical acclaim). Subject matter has a considerable bearing on the audience a writer will have. Military historians are going to have a far smaller audience than "tell all" bios and lurid tales both true and fiction. Until Tolkien opened up the genre, science fiction and fantasy had small - albeit rabid - audiences. Right now, a "best seller" is the 9/11 Commission Report - hardly what one would call "light" reading! 

If an author has something to say and is able to say it in a way in which that author "connects" with his readership - however limited - then he is a "good author" because as he has gotten his message across. Of course, this puts Hitler in that company since "Mein Kampf" had and still has a fairly consistent audience if for nothing else than, at this point, its historical significance. On the other hand, if an author is writing solely to "impress" his contemporaries and present the appearance of being erudite, then he has wasted both his time and a lot of good paper. 

Of course, writers who write "self-serving" books touting themselves and their actioins - and there have been are and will be plenty of them - usually disappear when they and their times go out of fashion. If in the fullness of time they are ever revived, it is usually as an historical curiosity rather than as a tribute to their gifts either as writers or as whatever they were in their lives.


----------



## joxy

Come on Inderjit; you can do better than that first posting!
It has 16 lines and you peppered it with only 16 names of authors; your university scripts will need more than that average.


----------



## Uminya

I agree wholeheartedly with Orwell. Why make things needlessly complicated? Why use a large, complex word when a shorter one will convey the exact same message without the needless "high-speak"? Anyone who has to make their writings complicated to write is, in my opinion, not much of a writer. Concise, clear, and efficient use of language is the best way to put forth what it is you're trying to say.


----------



## greypilgrim

Yeah they are just trying to seem smarter than everybody anyway


----------



## Dr. Ransom

Inderjit you just inspired my reading list... I love the challenge of a "difficult-to-read-book." And I'm not sure I recognized anybody on your list as somebody I am familliar with other then Rousseau. As previously mentioned, I am stunned you are so familliar with such authers.
I think that people in general had the ability to comprehend literature more easily in ages past. Without TV and other devices that put the brain into standby, a throughly difficult book was probably more enjoyable due to the thrill of learning to really flex some intellectual muscle.
Even fairly "easy" to understand thinkers like Augustine were contemplating philosophical concepts long before the "modern" conterparts picked up on the significance. I am not a Roman Catholic myself, by try looking up anything in Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", the man was simply brilliant beyond measure to my modern mind, and this was in the so-called "Dark Ages." Much is gained by technology and the easy ways of modern life. But perhaps in the days before we had "reality" tv, people had better things to do with their time. 

I loved your reply to Arthur_V's question 6. Indeed, what is the answer to life, the universe, and everything? 
Arthur, you seem to buy strongly into a deconstructionist view of language. Why ask Inderjit what he means by everything he says? Standards of language have been set down long before any of us were born. If such standards cannot exist, all communication is pointless. If you do not understand what he means, a dictionary would certainly prove as a useful standard from time to time. My point of this is not to insult you, as you are obviously bright, but to point out that you are attacking the fundemental idea of "meaning lying behind words". I cannot see how conversation of any kind is useful if such "truth" is not established. 

Just a few thoughts... 

BTW, the question to the answer is 42... lol


----------



## HLGStrider

I think a lot of it has to do with reader's patience. 

I'm currently on a "read what I can as fast as I can as much as I can and as good as I can"

(No, good is not a gramatical error. I mean good as in as much good literature not as in "I read good" or some other mistake)

In doing so, I plan to tackle as many of the books people talk up as possible. This includes books that are considered difficult, but I am starting with the ones that actually peak my interest, and that generally means easier first (it's easier to get excited when you are faced with a Solzhenitsyn that weighs just enough to fit nicely in your purse to be produced at work during breaks than "War in Pieces" as I affectionately call that book I read last year. . .in pieces because there would be months between chapters). And I don't know if Tolstoy is considered a difficult author. My problem with him was that it was simply long and without a lot of obvious plot movement.

However, I didn't have anything better to do and was determined to read it so I stuck it through. 

Let's take two examples of similar books (epic poems?):

The Divine Comedy
and
Paradise Lost.

I determined to read both of these. _Paradise Lost_ I finished. It took awhile, but I got through it and understood everything I read. I am currently in the _Paradiso_ section of Dante's work, and I like it better than Miltons. . .but it is harder to understand and requires me reading the note sections at the end of each canto to get the idea of half of what is going on (I didn't know Italian politics were so political). So I prefer to more complex. . .but both works take a lot of patience to get through.

And these aren't as blurry as most of those you mention, Jr (Inders). Dante and Milton both have a very obvious intention in writing these books, and they don't have any bones about it. 

What will I do when I get to those you've mentioned? Depends on if I think they are worth it. Depends on my patience level. If I stick it through I stick it through.

But I'm going to be doing it just to say I did. The question is, will I get a dang thing out of it? I won't know until I try. 

Next stop: Kafka!


----------



## Beleg

> Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few?



Supposing 'literature' as an intrinsically moralistic establishment [George Orwell seems to think of literature as that], intricacy of language serves no purpose most of the times [exceptions being parodies and satire] simply because your average Frank and Joe will have no understanding and no tolerence of your works. 

Taking 'literature' as a whole [With all the escapist/comicrelief elements present], difficult authors [your intelligentia and some other people like me would call them 'stylists'] like Mann, Peake, Melville, Joyce are as important as Clancy, Twain, Hemmingway etc. There are people who like multi-layered stories; they like to go about their literature the round about way and have more intrest in stylist presentation then thematic value. There are people around here whole like their literature to be choked full of vieled allegory, anarchroism, parallel's, satire anything that is beyond the understanding of your casual reader and most of the time their is no 'Rossieu Complex' involed. 
Then there are people who like their tale to be clean and simple, making sense at first read, hobbitian. Therefore, cryptic/stylistic writings are no more redundent then Enid Blyton; both have followers. 



> and are such esoteric novels great examples of a novelists intelligence, with amazing moral messages or are they just great, great books?



Rhetroic aside, complex novels are just intresting books which catter to people out there [albiet few in number then your Joe's and Jack's] They are not necessarily redundent or brilliant; stylistic writing should be considered just another genre of literature.


----------



## Inderjit S

> Perhaps a tangential question is whether or not the "esoteric" author uses a convoluted means of expression because it is how he (or she - for the last time) needs to express him/herself or because he believes that it makes him seem more part of the intelligencia



Possibly; each writer expresses himself in a certain way, _Heller_ is very tongue in cheek, _Greene_ and _Hemingway_ simplistic, _D. H Lawrence_ pedantic etc. and so it could be Joyce's "style" to express himself in a complicated fashion, juxtaposing different styles etc into his book. My teachers frequently tell me that I write in a high-handed and complicated way, so maybe I am being slightly, or very, hypocritical.



> Hemingway wrote in a style that does not appeal to me whereas Tolkien's does



Both of course have their similarities. Both are, for example, descriptive of nature, though in my opinion, _Tolkien_ is better at nature descriptions' though perhaps that is because his world is imaginary, or, rather, we want to hear more about Middle-Earth then say the Gulf of Mexico.



> Military historians are going to have a far smaller audience than "tell all" bios



Such things are naturally esoteric, we all have our esotericisms. Some people read about gardening, some about health, some about cooking etc. Which is why, in general, people who are interested in politics will read the books of some of the founding fathers, _Burke, Rousseau, Marx, More, Tocqueville, Mill_ etc, so you are likely to find say _The Social Contract and Discourses, The Communist Manifesto and Reflections on The Revolution in France_ on the bookshelves of politics buffs, philosophers would read _Kierkegaard, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Freud_, Sociologists _Durkheim_, military strategists _Clausewitz_ and historians _A.J.P Taylor_ etc. In general non-fiction books are aimed at some people whilst fiction, superficially has a more widespread appeal.



> Some authors may be more difficult for some readers while others - however classic their work - may not appeal to all who pick up one of their books. Some authors take some "getting used to" before one is able to fully enjoy what they write.



Indeed, I for example, dislike _Jane Austen_ since I think she is dry and boring, I also dislike _D.H Lawrence_ pretty much because he is a total pedant, or at least in _Women In Love_. English authors such as _Ford Madox Ford_ and _Joseph Conrad_ both claimed that French literature was superior to English, whilst some of the early Russian authors revered early English writers such as _Laurence Sterne_ (I am sure that _Gogol_ said something about liking _Sterne_) and so the cycle goes on, it is often a matter of personal taste, but then again what isn't a matter of personal taste? 



> Right now, a "best seller" is the 9/11 Commission Report - hardly what one would call "light" reading!



Well, Septemeber the 11th was a pretty important, as well as devastating, historical event-it is likely that it will be well recieved, especially in America. It's just like _Micheal Moore_ being a bestseller. 



> Inderjit you just inspired my reading list... I love the challenge of a "difficult-to-read-book."



_Ulysses_ seems to be the principle "difficult to read" book. Though, I think something like _Italo Calvino's_ _If on a winters night a traveller..._, _Thomas Mann's_ _Buddenbrooks _ and _The Magic Mountain_ and Tolstoy's _War and Peace_ are all desirable. You could also get into things like post-modernist literature etc. Or _Franz Kafka_ though you should expect a sense of paranoia to follow.  _Dostoevsky_ is also great.



> it's easier to get excited when you are faced with a Solzhenitsyn



Solzhenistyn is great! I hope you are reading _One Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich._ (Though I hear _Cancer Ward_ is good too.) 



> War in Pieces" as I affectionately call that book I read last year.



_War and Peace_ is indeed hard to get into and hard to read, but is still a great book. I think I read it in 3-4 days, though there was a break since I was busy doing something not long after I started it. (Oh and check out some of Tolstoy's short stories, _The Cossacks_ and _The Death of Ivan Ilyich_ are his most famous short stories.



> My problem with him was that it was simply long and without a lot of obvious plot movement.



_Tolstoy's_ longer novels seem to have pretty similair plots. Nice boy meet girl, she likes him, he likers her, in comes the charming and handsome womaniser, girl likes him, gets dumped, realises the error of her ways and goes back to the nice kind boy.



> I got through it and understood everything I read. I am currently in the Paradiso section of Dante's work, and I like it better than Miltons



Haven't read _Paradise Lost_ , but I have read _The Inferno_ part od _The Divine Comedy_, which was good, but there is only so much I can read about hell. 



> (I didn't know Italian politics were so political).



! The country produced _Machiavelli_! They must be political. 



> Next stop: Kafka!



I would start with _The Trial_.



> Melville



I don't think _Mellville_ is "difficult" like _Joyce_ and his ilk, though he does go on about ship part's for a long time. He is a pedant, but then which writer isn't.  



> satire anything that is beyond the understanding of your casual reader and most of the time their is no 'Rossieu Complex' involed



I think that satire is pretty easy to understand. Allegory may be more difficult, though a lot of German's would understand an allegory on Nazism. 

As for your technicalities etc. I think I talked about this to my English teacher. I was talking about my paper on _The Romantic Movement_ (_Pushkin, Keats, Byron_ etc and the fact that the exam board want to know about the technicalities of a poets style etc, and I found such a statement paradoxical, both to the romantic movement and poetry in general, poetry is about truth, beauty and fungi, not about whatever stupid technicalities the exam board were looking for, and the fact that we have to talk a lot about styles etc is ironic for a poet (John Keats) who said


> If poetry does not come like leaves from a tree then it does not come at all


 (or something like that.) In my view, the exam board is retarding our understanding of _Keat's_ (or whoever) poetry and the beauty of their words and ideas. My teacher said I couldn't really work against the system and the status quo, but _Plato_ tells us to consider whether the status quo is sensible or not; and who can argue with the master himself?


----------



## HLGStrider

> The country produced _Machiavelli_!


This to the girl who came away from reading the Prince feeling sorry for the author and knowing that if she'd been around she could've made him feel a lot better about the Medici's not trusting him or whatever got his goat like that. . .



> Haven't read Paradise Lost , but I have read The Inferno part od The Divine Comedy, which was good, but there is only so much I can read about hell.


Purgatorio was better than Inferno and more interesting. The punishments for sins are just plain awful but the allegory doesn't strike you all that much. The allegory in Purgatory's pennances is much more intriguing. I'll see how the Paradiso goes.



> Solzhenistyn is great! I hope you are reading One Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich. (Though I hear Cancer Ward is good too.)


That was the one. It only took me an hour or two, which was a nice change just getting out of Paradise Lost.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Dr. Ransom said:


> Arthur, you seem to buy strongly into a deconstructionist view of language.



Not that it matters a great deal, but I prefer the term _constructionist_ (as opposed to _mimetic_ or _intentionalist_).



> Why ask Inderjit what he means by everything he says?



Why else? Because Inderjit and I may not share the same understanding of what he says, especially when it comes to terms like "literature" or "the intelligentsia." 



> Standards of language have been set down long before any of us were born. If such standards cannot exist, all communication is pointless. If you do not understand what he means, a dictionary would certainly prove as a useful standard from time to time.



What use would that be to me, a (de) constructionist?  _Merriam-Webster_ defines "literature" as: "writings in prose or verse; especially: writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest." This of course invites further questions: _how_ do we measure "excellence of form or expression" (and who does the measuring?), and _which_ ideas are "of permanent or universal interest" (and who determines this?)?

_Cambridge_ defines "literature" as "written artistic works, particularly those with a high and lasting artistic value". Again, how do we measure "artistic value"; and what makes a work "high" (as opposed to "low") and "lasting" (as opposed to "fleeting" or "ephemeral")?

And how do either of these dictionary definitions help us to understand why Kafka, Melville, Austen and Angelou count as "literature," while Tolkien and Asimov may not?



> My point of this is not to insult you, as you are obviously bright, but to point out that you are attacking the fundemental idea of "meaning lying behind words".



In a certain sense, yes--that's exactly what I am doing. 



> I cannot see how conversation of any kind is useful if such "truth" is not established.



In other words, we have to _agree_ that it is true; but agreeing upon a truth does not make it a truth.


----------



## Inderjit S

> This of course invites further questions: how do we measure "excellence of form or expression" (and who does the measuring?),



Basic syntax for one. Somebody with poor grammar is less likely to be a "good" author as his writing style is so poor, or his punctuation and general syntax are poor. That's why authors proofread and revise their works; to improve the quality of their work. Form and expression do, of course change. _Cervantes_, _Rabelais_ and _Swift_ are not likely to write in the same manner as _Dostoevsky, Bronte _ and _Dumas_ who wrote in a different manner from _Golding_, _Rushdie_ and _Beckett_, just as different genres have different styles. 



> And how do either of these dictionary definitions help us to understand why Kafka, Melville, Austen and Angelou count as "literature," while Tolkien and Asimov may not?



In the general scheme of things a lot of writers are ephermeal, a lot of writers don't last long, even some of the classic ones. _Homer_ and _Hesiod_ and the other Greek playwrights and philosophers went through a long period of stagnation in Europe for some centuries, _Tolkien_ lost his appeal for some time, and the _romanticists_ were unopular during the prudish Vistorian period.

_The Lord of The Rings_ hasn't been around long enough for it to be labelled lasting or ephermeal, but then again, neither has _Ulysses_. Something like _Don Quixote_ certainly is lasting enough for it to be called a classic.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Inderjit S said:


> Basic syntax for one. Somebody with poor grammar is less likely to be a "good" author as his writing style is so poor, or his punctuation and general syntax are poor. That's why authors proofread and revise their works; to improve the quality of their work.



Is that really what it all boils down to? Could it be suggested in that case that many a writer of the kinds of paperbacks you'd find in airport newsstands would fit the bill?

In any case, my point is that the dictionary will not always tell you what "excellence of form and expression" entails.


----------



## Inderjit S

Not really no. I never said that basic syntax was the only credential; I said that basic syntx was one of the main credentials. One has to have a certain level of competency with his or her grammar in order to be labelled good-it is common sense. No-body is going to claim that somebody who mixes his tenses, doesn't know when to use there or their or is and are and generally writes in a poor way is a great author-it won't happen.

The writer of your dictionary is a human being. What may be coherent to him may not be coherent to you. What may be good to him may not be good to you. Opinions are relative. _Chinau Achebe_ hated _The Heart of Darkness_ though many herald it as a brilliant work. _Dostoevsky_ and _Tolstoy_ hated _Turgenev_ and _Tolkien_ hated _Shakespeare_. 

What IS excellence of form and expression? I guess that is up to you to decide.


----------



## joxy

Inderjit S said:


> One has to have a certain level of competency with his or her grammar in order to be labelled good....
> _Dostoevsky_ and _Tolstoy_ hated _Turgenev_ and _Tolkien_ hated _Shakespeare_.


Tell that to Joyce, or Thomas. Daisy Ashford's Young Visiters (sic) is "good" in my book, and I can imagine any number of books which I would consider "good", even though to my pedantic mind they were riddled with grammatical and other semantic faults.
I can't speak for those excitable Russians, but Tolkien did *not* "hate" Shakespeare. As in my own case, when accused of "hating"
P Jackson, Tolkien's religion forbade his "hating" anyone; he may not have liked him much, but that's another matter!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Inderjit said:


> The writer of your dictionary is a human being. What may be coherent to him may not be coherent to you. What may be good to him may not be good to you. Opinions are relative. Chinau Achebe hated The Heart of Darkness though many herald it as a brilliant work. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy hated Turgenev and Tolkien hated Shakespeare.
> 
> What IS excellence of form and expression? I guess that is up to you to decide.



Amen. 



joxy said:


> As in my own case, when accused of "hating" P Jackson, Tolkien's religion forbade his "hating" anyone; he may not have liked him much, but that's another matter!



Well, there's really no way of knowing that, is there?


----------



## Inderjit S

Whilst we are on the subject of "greatness", you may want to check out _this_ link:

What Makes A Classic? 

What Is A Classic 



> I can't speak for those excitable Russians, but Tolkien did not "hate" Shakespeare



I am not talking about hating in a "personal" way, but "hating" in a impersonal way i.e he hated Shakespeare's works- not Shakespeare, he didn't even know the man.  

On Tolkien's religious views. Given that some orthodox Christians, may choose to take a literal take on the _Bible_, and thus condemn to hell all non-Christians-or even Protestants and Catholics, and I ask myself, if a good Christian is not supposed to hate anybody, then why do some of the stricter Christians choose to condemn so many people, because of their religion etc. to hell? Is there a more hateful act? I doubt it. NOTE: This is not an anti-Christian bash, but since we are talking about a Christian then my comments would naturally be about Christianity. I know that few Christians take such a standpoint, and I respect such views.


----------



## joxy

Inderjit S said:


> ....he hated Shakespeare's works- not Shakespeare....
> Given that some orthodox Christians, may choose to take a literal take on the _Bible_, and thus condemn to hell all non-Christians-or even Protestants and Catholics....


I don't want to labour this point but I am quite certain that Tolkien did *not* hate Shakespeare's works; for a professor of English to do that would be quite absurd.
I'd be interested to know what "literal take" on the Bible leads to condemnation to hell of all of any group of people. If any people who claim to be Christians apply such a "take", then they most assuredly are not "orthodox" - with or without a capital "O/o"!


----------



## Inderjit S

I think I read somewhere that he disliked Shakespeare. And just because he was a professor of English doesn't mean he had to like Shakespeare-you can teach something you do not like, and there is no way he could have removed the old bard from the syllabus. Or he may have taken a dislike to him later on in life.

Yesterday I watched _Borat_, in which a Borat interviewed some conservative, Christian politcian, who, when asked whether or not Jews would go to hell, said "Yes, because the Lord Jesus said....", and thus, I was struck by the irony of such a great man claiming that all those who didn't follow his path were damned. That is, of course, that persons interpretation of Jesus's words.


----------



## joxy

Inderjit S said:


> I think I read somewhere that he disliked Shakespeare.
> 
> ....I watched _Borat_, in which a Borat interviewed some conservative, Christian politcian, who, when asked whether or not Jews would go to hell, said "Yes, because the Lord Jesus said....", and thus, I was struck by the irony of such a great man claiming that all those who didn't follow his path were damned. That is, of course, that persons interpretation of Jesus's words.



Look back at my post #19: "....he may not have liked him _much_, but that's another matter!"
The "other matter", surely, is that the idea of disliking Shakespeare, without qualification, is an absurdity; it's like disliking (all) books!

What is "Borat", and what, or who, is "a Borat"? Where did you watch it, or him, or her?
You say that the person interviewed was "great"; who was he, and who assesses him as great?
It's unfortunate that you didn't complete the quotation; what was the alleged saying that generated the preposterous "interpretation"?


----------



## HLGStrider

I'd also add that hating people and condemning them to a bad fate is not the same thing. 

By that logic, everyone who believes in the death penalty hates criminals, criminals they have never met who have commited the crimes worthy of the death penalty. You could stretch this and add in those who would just use life sentences and say there are levels of hate. . .

Let me continue with that logic:

If you don't hate anyone you will totally set them free no matter what they did.

If you hate mildly you will mildly punish.

If you hate but not strongly you will punish by something like a life sentence.

If you hate fervently you will invoke the death penalty.

Now, I support the death penalty. We could debate that elsewhere, but I don't hate any condemned murders. I simply believe that they are worthy of death. 

In Christianity all humans are worthy of damnation and therefore must be saved in order to avoid it. Therefore, all Christians must hate all humanity by your logic. 

I don't think it holds, but it goes into a lot of really tiny theological points we probably arent' supposed to go into on a literature thread.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

S Inderjit said:


> Whilst we are on the subject of "greatness", you may want to check out _this_ link:
> 
> What Makes A Classic?
> 
> What Is A Classic



Thanks for the links. What each link demonstrates most effectively is that question isn't really "_What_ Makes a Classic" so much as "_Who_ Makes a Classic"? The first article--based upon an interview with a Penguin publisher--suggests (at least to me) that a "Classic" is simply that which is packaged/marketed as a "Classic" by a publishing corporation (thereby determining its shelf placement in a bookstore). The second article broadly agrees: "A classic is an old book for which there is still a *market*; that is the only fair and logical definition" (emphasis added). But it also alludes to the way in which the notion of the "classic" has become embroiled in not-altogether-apolitical debates in the academies: not simply over _what_ should be taught in a university course in Literature, but _how_ it should be taught. 

So perhaps what counts as a "classic" (and perhaps by extension, what counts as "literature") is a decision made in the boardroom as well as in the academies. After all, how many "Penguin Classics" feature introductions by noted scholars? (For example, the "Penguin Classics" edition of _Bleak House_ features an introduction by Yale deconstructionist J. Hillis Miller).

Here are some articles that may interest you:

The Literary Canon

Feminist Questions about the Literary Canon

Literary Canon and Eurocentric Bias (from a left-wing e-zine called the Goan & South Asian Digest)

Harold Bloom's The Western Canon


----------



## Inderjit S

> You say that the person interviewed was "great"; who was he, and who assesses him as great?



No, you misunderstand my point. Maybe I should have been a tad bit clearer. I said Jesus was a great man, not the guy. 

The man in question was a Republican Party candidate. Borat (played by the guy who plays Ali G) who asked him "I want to go to heaven, how do you get there?", I cannot remember this original reply, but then Borat asked "So, will a Jew get into heaven", the man then sighed and said "Boy. Well, Lord Jesus said that only those who follow his teachings will get into heaven, so no, a Jew will not get into heaven". Oh well, at least it is nice to see some sincerity from a politician.  

Borat is a satirical program, from the guy who played Ali G. In it, the guy who played Ali G, in one of his guises as a gay Austrian t-v show presenter had an interview with a gay converter priest, in it he asked if watching Will and Grace was o-k to watch, to which the gay converter replied "No, it is sinful", or something like that...just thought I'd give you an example. Oh yeah, he asked if eating brunch was o-k, to which the preacher replied "If you are eating it in the fellowship of good Christian folk, then yes" oh and the best one "Is eating chocolate o-k", "Not if it is part of a homosexual lifestyle"  



> In Christianity all humans are worthy of damnation and therefore must be saved in order to avoid it. Therefore, all Christians must hate all humanity by your logic.



Hell is, correct me if I am wrong, an eternal punishment, or, rather, the ultimate punishment in Christian theology. So claiming somebody will be punished forever because he does not follow the same religion as you is, in my opinon, hateful. 



> "A classic is an old book for which there is still a market; that is the only fair and logical definition"



Yes-possibly-though not many people have brought say, Ulysses, and many people have brought The Lord of The Rings-which many critics deride as being a poor book.


----------



## joxy

Looking back I see that I took your statement the wrong way; my apologies for that.
Apologies are due also both to you and to Mr Cohen for my lapse of memory concerning his comical character Borat. It would have been interesting to know the source of that first interviewee's biblical quotation. There is a simple answer to the interviewee's comment though: a Jew is perfectly capable of "following <Christian> teachings", and has, therefore, no need for concern regarding access to heaven.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

S Inderjit said:


> Yes-possibly-though not many people have brought say, Ulysses, and many people have brought The Lord of The Rings-which many critics deride as being a poor book.



I don't know that said critics would have agreed entirely with the definition of a "classic" as an old book for which there is still a market. I'd also make the observation that many of these critics were writing in the 1950s and 60s, when Tolkien's work would have been much "newer" (See the BBC article: "How Tolkien Triumphed over the Critics")

Also worth reading: Kicking the Hobbit and Lord of the Slings


----------



## HLGStrider

> Hell is, correct me if I am wrong, an eternal punishment, or, rather, the ultimate punishment in Christian theology. So claiming somebody will be punished forever because he does not follow the same religion as you is, in my opinon, hateful.


You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it is illogical.
By the same token death is pretty permanent. It is the ultimate punishment we humans are capable of inflicting (if you don't go into James Bond style 'Now I will feed you to my sharks. . ."). By inflicting the death penalty, humans are doing the worse they see as possible, and there is no way to undo it, no way for the person to gain pardon after it is done. Very similar. 
And as I said there are plenty of small theological points to go into. There is the belief that hell is the natural state of humans without God and that all people in hell chose hell and could've chose Heaven. (Dante's point).

Of course, part of Christianity is wrapped up in faith. We ultimately believe we have a just God who knows what He is doing and everyone will get what they deserve, no more, no less. Perhaps this means Hell isn't as bad as we've made it out to be. Perhaps Dante was right and there are levels of it, each bad but not all that bad. We'll see, won't we?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

HLG Strider said:


> By the same token death is pretty permanent. It is the ultimate punishment we humans are capable of inflicting (if you don't go into James Bond style 'Now I will feed you to my sharks. . .").



The death penalty is, in my opinion, also hateful.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, esoteric literature and the popularity of _Ulysses_ . . . can I just make the observation that the book and its author have a following at least comparable to that of Tolkien (in 1998, for example, _Ulysses_ jumped to the top of the best-seller list in the UK, outselling Tom Clancy and John Grisham (source)), especially in Ireland, with "Bloomsday" festivities being celebrated "from Tokyo to Sydney, San Francisco to Buffalo, Trieste to Paris," if this website is to be believed. I doubt that all of these fans can reasonably be described as "the intelligentsia"--though that is no slur on Joyce's following, nor am I trying to suggest that the book is easy bedside reading _a la_ Stephen King. In point of fact, I cannot truly attest to its difficulty, because I am yet to read it--though it is sitting on my shelf, and I am intrigued. I imagine it's one of those books that needs to be read in a certain frame of mind (that's the best way I can put it).

I did find the following, however, which I hope you will enjoy . . . 

_Ulysses_ for Dummies 

Cheats Guide to Joyce's _Ulysses_


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ....the book and its author have a following at least comparable to that of Tolkien (in 1998, for example, _Ulysses_ jumped to the top of the best-seller list in the UK....



"*the* best-seller list"?

The article you quote is about "the list of 100 best novels published by the Modern Library". Was it "the list" that was published
by Modern Library (whatever that is  ), or was it a list of 100 novels taken from the list of those novels which are published by Modern Library? Given the vagaries of English syntax and punctuation the answer is not clear, though, strictly speaking, the answer to the second question should be "yes". Whatever the answers, I question the validity of that list!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> "*the* best-seller list"?



From the article:



> Ulysses is now number one on the best sellers list, ahead of contemporary novelists like Tom Clancy and John Grisham. It has also become the second biggest seller on Amazon.com, the online bookshop.



I take your point--the article can't really be talking about "the" best-sellers list (if such a list exists). I'd suggest the article is referring to best-selling books in Britain, as well as on Amazon.



joxy said:


> The article you quote is about "the list of 100 best novels published by the Modern Library". Was it "the list" that was published
> by Modern Library (whatever that is  ), or was it a list of 100 novels taken from the list of those novels which are published by Modern Library? Given the vagaries of English syntax and punctuation the answer is not clear, though, strictly speaking, the answer to the second question should be "yes". Whatever the answers, I question the validity of that list!



The list wasn't really the point--although having investigated the Modern Library website and elsewhere (for example, here), the answer to the second question is in fact "no" (i.e. the list comprises the Top 100 novels published in English in the 20th century, as selected by the Modern Library board). You're not the only one to question the validity of the list, but given that the list only represents the opinions of the members of the Modern Library board, I don't think validity really comes into it. In other words, it is no more (or less) valid or authoritative than the reader's list of Top 100 novels, situated alongside the board's list on the Modern Library website. Both lists can be found here.


----------



## joxy

I agree, "validity" wasn't the right word to use; "importance" might have been better.
I must say that reading the two lists has given me more entertainment and amusement than there is to be found in some of the entries on them! L R Hubbard way up in the readers' estimation, numerous entries from Charles de Lint -who he?! - .........
Nice to see James Baldwin well esteemed by the "board", though I'd have given the place to Another Country.


----------



## Inderjit S

on the readers list;

Wow...those guys sure like Ayn Rand  but, rather humurosly, they include anti-captialists such as Joseph Heller, Jack Kerouac and George Orwell in their list. I guess it was a pretty non-political list, but all those Ayn Rand books may say something different. Plus that list is unbelivelably centred on English and American literature. The only non-Brit/American I can see there is Joseph Conrad. Well, he was a Polish Brit anyway.

In fact even the authors list is pretty much contains only American/British novels-apart from Nabokov, but then again he immigrated to America. I will never understand why people like E.M Forster, Joseph Conrad, Ford Madox Ford, and 'The Great Gatsby' appear in these classic books lists.


----------



## joxy

I don't think your friend Joyce would be happy about a suggestion that he was Brit/American, and there are other representations there for Ireland, as well as for Australia, Canada, and India. Who would you suggest from the wider world?!
As for Forster, Conrad, Ford, and Fitzgerald, chacun a son gout, though at least they are all readable.
And who *is* this Rand, and of course who the de Lint?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> And who *is* this Rand, and of course who the de Lint?



For Rand's biography, start with this Wikipedia entry. Also see the Ayn Rand page at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This USA Today article is worth a read as well.

Charles de Lint is a SF/Fantasy author. See his home page for more details.


----------



## HLGStrider

> The death penalty is, in my opinion, also hateful.


Sorry for the off topic then, but this needs to be addressed and Jr brought it up on his own thread.

When you say hateful you mean "dispicable" or "immoral." This is not the meaning of the word as Indy brought it up in his first post about it. Indy said that it was impossible for Tolkien not to hate because he believed in damnation. His logic was you can't believe it is all right damn someone without hating them. I said by the same logic you can't believe it is all right to execute someone without hating them. Therefore hateful in this sense means "coming from someone who is full of hate" not "causing a person to hate the something (ie death penalty, damnation)." 

They are totally different senses of the word. Unless you do mean that you believe everyone who supports the death penalty is filled with hate and has to hate those who receive the death penalty. In which case, your logic/facts is/are also faulty. I can attest to being a supporter of the death penalty who has no personal hatred for Timothy McVeigh (the only death penalty recipient I can think of off the top of my head).


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

HLGStrider said:


> Sorry for the off topic then, but this needs to be addressed and Jr brought it up on his own thread.
> 
> When you say hateful you mean "dispicable" or "immoral."



Yes. And abhorrent, abominable, detestable, horrid, odious . . .

Now, back to the topic at hand ...


----------



## Beleg

A more obscene version of Ayn Rand is Terry Goodkind; atleast _Atlas Shrugged_ had some little merrit as a story per se, _Sword of Truth_ series by Mr. Goodkind is one of the most abominable of its kind - and SF/F is full of trash. 

Charles De Lint is an excellent 'Urban Fantasy' author who also writes _Young-Adult_ Fantasy.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Now, back to the topic at hand....


But not before I agree with you about judicial murder: every one of those adjectives, and then some.


----------



## joxy

Thank you both for the information on Rand and Lint. I have a vague recollection now of the former's name being briefly mentioned during my university philosophy course, but Lint is completely new to me. As Rand adopted her name at a time when curious names were fashionable I suppose her choice is understandable, but I must admit to surprise that anyone could be a successful author under the name of Lint! The prominence of both writers in the lists now seems all the more strange.


----------



## Inderjit S

> I don't think your friend Joyce would be happy about a suggestion that he was Brit/American, and there are other representations there for Ireland, as well as for Australia, Canada, and India. Who would you suggest from the wider world?!



Generally speaking, many people would group Irish lit with British, or at least associate the two together. As for the Indian authors-Rushdie lives in Britian, as does V.S Naipaul who is in fact from Trinidad. And Canadian lit. can be counted as North American lit, and thus my original term was a bit of a misnomer-maybe it is too centred on British/Irish and North American lit, with the odd Aussie thrown in for the sake of it.



> Indy said that it was impossible for Tolkien not to hate because he believed in damnation. His logic was you can't believe it is all right damn someone without hating them. I said by the same logic you can't believe it is all right to execute someone without hating them. Therefore hateful in this sense means "coming from someone who is full of hate" not "causing a person to hate the something (ie death penalty, damnation)."



I really do not want to get caught up in this debate but....

I didn't say Tolkien believed in this or that-my case was paradigmic and not personally centred on Tolkien’s theological views. 

I am saying that such religious exclusivism that some Christians follow is hateful. Your prison analogy does not fit. The person who is sent to prison is usually sent there because he or she committed a crime. The person, who, according to some Christians, is sent to hell, is sent there because he or she is not a Christian. Not being a Christian is not a "crime"-certainly every Christian cannot be sent to hell, since there are people who have never heard of Christianity and thus cannot be punished so severely for their ignorance. Also people may not want to convert because they are happy with their religion, or do not now enough about Christian teachings to convert-and such things are not crimes. The criminal deserves his punishment because he committed a crime-the people who are damned because of religious exclusivism do not deserved to be punished because they did not commit a crime. It is kind of like the recent wave (well, maybe not so recent, Bin Laden and co. are harking back to the days of Aurangzeb and his ilk) of Muslim extremists, with their schools of Wahabbism, propagating the damnation of all non-Muslims, despite the fact that such views are anathema to their religion-and of course their attacks on Christians and Jews-despite the fact that Mohammed protected the non-Muslim monotheists within his kingdom. Another example is the one of Hindus who try and forcibly convert and attack and Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs or claiming that all three religions are a part of Hinduism. Sorry if my views sound a bit incomprehensible, I have a terrible hangover and it is like 8:30 in the morning.


----------



## HLGStrider

Your logic is still off because you missed my point:


According to Christianity EVERYONE has commited a crime at some point in their life.

Therefore everyone is worthy of damnation. 

Christianity is the way to achieve pardon for said crimes. . .or not Christianity, but Christ. I believe there are ways to achieve salvation that account for some, not all, but maybe most, of the exceptions you listed. Those who never hear, for instance. As I said, Christians believe in a fundementally just God who judges justly and will take into account EVERYTHING. 

That said a lot of your minor theological points are off too. 

Anyway, I believe it is somewhere said in the Bible that we are not to worry about other's fate, only our own, so questions about who is damned and who is saved are really not for us to decide. We are given guidelines for how to be saved and how to help lead others to salvation, but we're not supposed to go to funereals with a check list and try and figure out where the soul ended up.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

HLGStrider said:


> That said a lot of your minor theological points are off too.



This is somewhat of a throwaway line that needs expanding upon (for instance, which of Inderjit's minor theological points are "off," and why?).

But not here. Back to the topic at hand . . .


----------



## Inderjit S

> According to Christianity EVERYONE has commited a crime at some point in their life.



I really don't understand how I contradicted you-I never said people could not be damned because of their bad actions-I said that the exclusivism that some Christians preach was hateful, since condemning a person to hell because he does not share your religion is hateful. A person may sin but may repent-sinning is in my important, one of the important parts of life-it allows us to learn from our mistakes and become better people. We are all worthy for damnation, as you say, but claiming that only Christians can be saved from damnation is wrong. It is like saying “Become a Christian-or go to hell.”


----------



## joxy

Inderjit S said:


> ....my original term was a bit of a misnomer....
> 
> ....claiming that only Christians can be saved from damnation is wrong.



Yes, classifications as British/Irish and United States/Canadian satisfy my pedantic mind, though the former should be UK/ROI.
Which leaves my original question: apart from those two, from which classifications would you like to see authors included?

Yes, indeed that's wrong; *does* anyone claim it? Not the founder, who said: "other sheep I have, not of this fold".


----------



## Beleg

Just to keep the ball rolling [and stop joxy from making references way beyond my understanding], I'll ask a question, losely related to the original here. 

What basic purpose does fiction serve? Escapism, forwarding specific themes relating to social/political concepts or a mixture of them before?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Beleg said:


> What basic purpose does fiction serve? Escapism, forwarding specific themes relating to social/political concepts or a mixture of them before?



It serves no basic purpose, and it serves infinite purposes (which pretty much amounts to the same thing). A woefully inadequate response, I know, but it's the most honest I can give right now.


----------



## joxy

Beleg said:


> What basic purpose does fiction serve?


And what is the answer to the basic question of life, the universe, and everything? 42.
It was *my* references that are beyond understanding?  How far beyond understanding are these questions?


----------



## HLGStrider

*Enjoyment*

I'm old fashioned. I think the main purpose of any sort of writing is to entertain. The reason I write is to make myself and other people happy. I want them to enjoy what they read. . .


But generally literature teachers go so much deeper into that that I think they ruin the love of reading. 

Yes, reading should have deeper meaning, convey deeper thoughts, and whathaveyou, but if you don't enjoy yourself it becomes a task, not an experience, and there is no point.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

*Re: Enjoyment*



HLGStrider said:


> I'm old fashioned. I think the main purpose of any sort of writing is to entertain. The reason I write is to make myself and other people happy. I want them to enjoy what they read. . .
> 
> 
> But generally literature teachers go so much deeper into that that I think they ruin the love of reading.
> 
> Yes, reading should have deeper meaning, convey deeper thoughts, and whathaveyou, but if you don't enjoy yourself it becomes a task, not an experience, and there is no point.



If you think the purpose of studying literature is solely to enhance your love of reading, then there is certainly no point studying literature--all you really need is a library card and a comfortable armchair by the fire (pipe, dressing gown and glass of brandy are optional).

I can sympathise, however, with your (seeming) aversion to the idea that literary texts are repositories of "deeper" meanings, and that the task of the literature student is to "unlock" the text and "discover" these meanings (aided in his/her quest by the knowledgeable English teacher who appears to know these meanings in advance)--thus gaining an appreciation of the texts' Universal Significance and its Essential and Lasting Qualities, and a Firmer Understanding of what the text can Teach us about the Human Condition, & c. & c. Fortunately, English and Literature studies are moving away from this approach (what I would call the Matthew Arnold approach)--though not without some kicking and screaming in certain quarters (see, for example, this article by James Bowman, andthis one by Luke Slattery; for counter-arguments, see this article by Catherine Lumby, and this one by the same author)--and are dispensing with the notion that the study of Shakespeare, Milton, and even Joyce and Tolkien makes us "better people."


----------



## Inderjit S

> What great good did their erudition do for Varo and Aristotle? Did it free them from human ills? Did it relieve them of misfortunes such as befall a common porter? Could logic console them for gout?





> I gladly come back to the theme of the absurdity of our education: its end has not been to make us good and wise, but learned, and it has succeeded. It has not taught us to seek virtue and to embrace wisdom: it has impressed on us their derivation and etymology.... We readily enquire "Does he know Latin and Greek" "Can he write poetry and prose?" , but what matters most we put last, "Has he become better and wiser?" We ought to find out not who understands most, but who understands best. We work merely to fill the memory, leaving the understanding and sense of right and wrong empty..





> I am not prepared to bash my brains for anything, not even for learning's sake, however precious it may be, From books all I seek is to give myself pleasure by an honourable pastime...If I come across difficult passages in my reading I never bite my nails over them: after making a charge or two I let them be...If one book wearies me I take up another.





> The portrait of the conversations of Socrates which his friends have bequeathed us to receives our approbation only because we are overawed by the general approval of them. It is not form our own knowledge; since we do now follow our practices: if something like them were to be produced nowadays there are few who would rate them highly. We can appreciate not graces which are not pointed, inflated and magnified by artifice. Such graces as flow on under the name of naïveté and simplicity readily go unseen by so course and insight as ours…Socrates makes his soul move with the natural motion of the common people: thus speaks a peasant woman…his indications and comparisons are drawn from the most ordinary and best known of men’s activities: anyone and understand him. Under so common a form we today would never have discerned the nobility and splendour of his astonishing concepts; we who judge any which are not swollen up by erudition to be base and commonplace, and who are never aware of riches except when pompously paraded.



Quotes from the great _Michel de Montaigne_.


----------



## Inderjit S

I have also posted the same topic at a literature forum where I have been castigated as 1. someone who wants to burn all of the books I don't understand. 2. an idiot. 3. an idiot. Currently in a debate with, what seems to be, the whole darn forum.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> For example, you say:


What did he say; and what are these last two postings about?
Is something missing?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Inderjit S said:


> I have also posted the same topic at a literature forum where I have been castigated as 1. someone who wants to burn all of the books I don't understand. 2. an idiot. 3. an idiot. Currently in a debate with, what seems to be, the whole darn forum.



Well, that's what you wanted, right? A debate! (Even if it is a little one-sided, and not in your favour  ). At least the posters in The Book Forum kept on topic, unlike some on this thread (myself included--sorry about that).
But I do think that you may be taking all of that--the contrary opinions of your interlocutors on the other forum, that is--rather personally (nobody has called you an idiot, for example, as far as I'm aware, on either thread on either forum). In any case: it looks like a great site--thanks for the link!

Reading your remarks on The Book Forum, I have a better sense of where you stand regarding the questions you posed in your initial post (on both threads)--and I can also understand some of the objections of your interlocutors, even if many of them have, as you rightly point out, misconstrued your intentions. For instance, your initial post appears to take it as a given that there is such a thing as "esoteric" literature: and in subsequent posts (here and in the other place) you attempt to qualify this description by pointing to the distinction between works that are "easier" and "more difficult" to understand. Firstly, while an "esoteric" text may be difficult to understand, not all texts which are difficult to understand can justly be described as "esoteric," if by that you mean "designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone" (source). Your initial post suggests that esoteric texts are those which pander to the demands of the intelligentsia; I'm not certain that difficult-to-access books necessarily "pander" to the demands of the intelligentsia (if by that you mean that they are written with the demands of the intelligentsia--whoever they are, and whatever their demands may be--in mind), and I'm not certain that it can be inferred from a book's difficulty that it has indeed been designed with "the intelligentsia" in mind. 

Second, you suggest that the author has a "message" to get across, and that it would be better to make the message more accessible. Frankly, I am as skeptical of that (i.e. the notion that a text has a "hidden message" for the reader to discover--and I think the idea that a work is "esoteric" depends upon the notion that it contains a "hidden meaning") as I am of the notion (implied in a post by an Ashlea on the other forum) that there is a "human condition" which certain works of literature tap into. As Nietzsche says, "When the book opens its mouth, the author must shut his." Whatever message the author is trying to convey, readers will make of his/her work what they will. If certain advocates of a difficult-to-comprehend author snobbishly chide readers for not possessing the competence to "get" what they (the advocates) declare is the author's "message," the author can hardly be blamed for the snobbishness of his or her advocates.

Third, I find it highly unlikely that a James Joyce (for example) would write something of the magnitude of _Ulysses_ simply for the purpose of seeming "erudite." Again, if _Ulysses_ has subsequently been described as a work of erudition, that is hardly Joyce's fault. I don't know that we should readily assume that an author is snobbish, just because we find his or her books too difficult to comprehend.

In response to your opening question, a member of the Book Forum posted the following: 


> Do Japanese maple trees serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed?



In response to one of my questions to you--"What is literature"--you posted the following:


> This question is overly-fastidious. What is anything and everything?



I don't regard my question (and Dr Ransom chided me for it also, detecting the foul odour of postmodernism in the air) as "fastidious" in the least. It is impossible to contribute to the debate you have initiated (nothwithstanding the occasional detour into arguments concerning the merits and demerits of the death penalty) without making assumptions about what literature is: for example, Ashlea from the other forum makes one such assumption (one with which I disagree): literature "speaks to the human condition." So I think it is a question that is well worth exploring--at least for conversation's sake.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> What did he say; and what are these last two postings about?
> Is something missing?



What on earth are you going on about?


----------



## joxy

A_V: I was referring to a posting of yours which included the words: "For example, you say:", followed by a line of underscores, but without a link. Those references no longer appear in that posting, so the answer need never be known.
I was also asking Inderjit S the significance of his posting #54; I believe I have now deduced the answer.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Inderjit S said:


> Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few? Authors such as _James Joyce_ and _Thomas Mann_ are notoriously difficult to read-whereas authors and poets such as _Maya Angelou_, _Graham Greene_ and _Toni Morisson_ as well as existentialists such as _Franz Kafka_ and _Albert Camus_ are pretty easy to read, even if their messages are a little more hidden. ...



You mostly refer to fiction, but you could have subsumed nonfiction here as well. My point is that there are many concepts that are inherently difficult, complex and subtle, and if they are boiled down they will lose their essence. 

When I first ran across LOTR, I found _it_ "notoriously difficult to read," but the more I stayed with it, guess what? I stretched — _grew_ to the point where I appreciated it — we all did!

The same thing goes for "difficult" music and art, to say nothing of mathematics and astronomy, chemistry, religious esoterica, etc. I have no use for authors and artists who are _deliberately_ obtuse (how pathetic!), but for those who need to express and deal with an inherently difficult or subtle or complex concept (anything from hard science to poetry), I say let them, and *let us all grow up to their level.*

We are a frighteningly dumbed-down society, and getting worse by the hour. If you want to read a couple of books on _that_ subject, may I recommend "Dumbth" and "Vulgarians at the Gate" by the late Steve Allen.

Barley

"When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." —R. Buckminster Fuller 164b


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

You are right Barliamen! We Americans (and many others in the West) are unwilling to take the time or effort to glean meaning from many works that require thought and re-reading after a certain period of time. We want everything "dumbed down" so that we can understand it without effort. In a way, like baby birds who demand that their parents pre-chew their food, we want it all digested, compacted and abridged so that it takes little or no effort to assimilate what we have read. Of course, when that is done, we then have the temerity to complain about how "boring" or "inane" the book or film or play _was_ - not understanding that it became so at our insistence, of course - and refuse to read or see (or even hear) anything but that which is currently "popular". 

I think we can safely say the same thing about music. As a young person, I was introduced to classical music at home, albeit the music was "popular" and certainly not atonal or even that of more "modern" composers such as Shostakovich or Stravinski. Indeed, my mother absolutely _hated_ Bach whom she considered boring to the extreme. Her tastes ran more to Italian overtures (Rossini in particular) and the romantic composers. But even so, many children those days were introduced to classical music by the radio. Remember, the "theme songs" of many popular children's shows were classics: William Tell for the Lone Ranger, Flight of the Bumblebee for The Green Hornet etc., so even if we didn't understand what it was, our minds became familiar with more complex forms of musical expression than Shaboom or Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor On The Bedpost Overnight. Sadly, however, most kids today learn more about violent behavior and sexual activity from "music" than anything transcendent or magical. In fact, much of what passes today for "music" elevates Does Your Chewing Gum and similar musical silliness into the rank of a classic!


----------



## HLGStrider

*Re: Enjoyment*



Arthur_Vandelay said:


> If you think the purpose of studying literature is solely to enhance your love of reading, then there is certainly no point studying literature--all you really need is a library card and a comfortable armchair by the fire (pipe, dressing gown and glass of brandy are optional).


I didn't say the purpose of studying literature. I said the purpose of reading literature. You immediately took this to studying, which I suppose is a logical taking-it-to due to my mention of literary teachers. However, just as there is pure and applied science, there is pure and applied literature. Though in this case, the pure is used more applicably than the applied. . .hmmm. . .I'm not making sense now.

In high school science I learned there were two branches to science, pure and applied. Pure science is pursued just for knowledge. Applied is pursued to be utilized. Often they over lap because you learn to do things with pure science that you use in applied science and by using applied science you necessarily discover things which is part of pure science. Making sense so far?

Good, now I have to transition this into literature . . .I usually use better analogies than this, but science isn't my thing. Neither is academia. 

Anyway, pure literature is the enjoyment of it. Literature for literature's sake. 

Applied literature is literature for learning's sake, for knowledge's sake, for social commentary's sake. . .etc. You take the story and apply it to meaning or apply meaning to it. 

Of course, just as before, there is cross over. By reading literature for "pure" purposes you still get some of the learning. By reading for learning, you can still enjoy.

But I'm not a learner. I don't like reading to learn. I'd rather just sit back and be enthralled. If I learn in the meantime, fine. . .but I don't want to study literature. I want to read!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

To say that you don't like "reading to learn" suggests that this is true only for those pursuits that you do not ordinarily enjoy. Perhaps you don't like "reading to learn" about a subject like, say, accounting because you don't really enjoy accounting or have no great interest in it. On the other hand, you should certainly enjoy "reading to learn" about any subject in which you _do_ have an interest. In that situation, "reading to learn" and "reading for enjoyment" become one and the same and cannot really be separated.


----------



## HLGStrider

Well, you're dealing with nonfiction. I'm not. I RARELY read nonfiction. Not counting college books I don't think I've read a nonfiction book (article, yes, book no) in over a year. I'm assuming you are dealing with non-fiction because of 
A. You accounting example.
B. You seem to be talking about learning facts.

It is undeniable that one can read and enjoy a novel without learning anything, even if the novel has some very preachy sections or a very obvious point. 

So, while I may be getting ideas via osmosis, they aren't coming in any obvious routes and I rarely take the time to analyze the ideas.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Yes, I am speaking of non-fiction. But surely you have "interests"? Things that you enjoy and therefor would enjoy reading about? Do you enjoy reading about Tolkien because you appreciate his writing - or is the writing enough for you? I have found that knowing something of the author can often add insight to his/her works. But you must have interests outside of fictional works of literature, surely. Whatever those interests are, don't you enjoy reading books that are related to them? 

I simply cannot imagine anyone who does not like to "read to learn" about something in which they are interested. You say that you don't, but I just can't imagine how anyone wouldn't want to learn more about a subject that is of interest to them if there is any information at all available. I guess it must be my age.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs Maggott said:


> I simply cannot imagine anyone who does not like to "read to learn" about something in which they are interested. You say that you don't, but I just can't imagine how anyone wouldn't want to learn more about a subject that is of interest to them if there is any information at all available. I guess it must be my age.



No . . . I'm with you on this one.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

HLGStrider said:


> Well, you're dealing with nonfiction. I'm not. I RARELY read nonfiction....



Wait till you get deeply involved in your college classes! I daresay that over the course of the next four years (more if you get into grad school) you will undergo a _major_ sea change vis a vis your reading habits (assuming you want to graduate with high grades and accomplishments) and your whole approach to "reading for learning."

Barley

"Instruction comes in society; inspiration comes in solitude." —Goethe 102


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Frankly, I cannot even fathom the concept of "reading to learn" vs. "reading for some _other_ purpose". Surely, one _learns_ whenever one reads! It may only be an increase in reading proficiency or one's vocabulary, but I simply cannot imagine how one could read and _not_ learn at least _something!_ 

For instance, if the book or article is filled with error, one may discover that one's own knowledge of the subject (whatever it is) alerts one to the errors contained within the offending source. If one is _ignorant_ of the subject, sooner or later one will learn that the source of what knowledge one has that was gleaned from the book or article in question is erroneous. In other words, however one learns that the source was in error, one _will learn_ that fact sooner or later!

Reading is a mind-enlarging experience _providing_ one does not limit one's reading to purely "fun" sources.


----------



## HLGStrider

Truthfully, none of my interests follow facts. I am interested in abstract ideas. I think the last non-fiction book I read was Bastiat, on economics and liberty. . .no, that was at least two years ago. I am interested in fiction. I am interested in people and occasionally will enjoy a well-written-biography, but I am not interested enough in any particular person or group of persons that I have pursued that. 

I know I can enjoy well-written-non-fiction. I deeply enjoyed Albert Marin's books when I read them for high school history (He wrote a biography on Hitler, one on Stalin, and a short history of the Viatnam war. He also wrote something on Mao that I haven't read), but I have no interests that drive me to pursue nonfiction in general. I haven't since I was six and used to check out any book with a cat on the cover.

Let's see, what does interest me. . .

Things that don't exist. 
Words.
Ethical and political questions, but generally not as applies to real life situations. (Ie, I may be interested in the ideas of free speech, but I don't have any interest in how they are effected by the McCain Fiengold Bill though I have heard they are). 

If you notice my postings on the political sections of this forum, I like to stay away from those that involve any specific event or person discussed in a factual way whereas I tend towards those that deal with the ethical or logical considerations. 

I'm the same way in the Tolkien sections. Anything involving abstract character evaluations I like. I don't like searching the book for dry facts. 

I don't like college either for that matter. 

I did admit to learning by osmosis. One can't help it. What I'm objecting to is the idea of reading for the sole purpose of learning. I think I just used the type of soul that is a fish. ..it is getting late, but it looks funny so I'll let it stand. 


> Reading is a mind-enlarging experience _providing_ one does not limit one's reading to purely "fun" sources.


"Fun sources" basically has no meaning, however. I thought it was fun to read Paradise Lost. I think very few others would agree with me.

However, if I had read Paradise Lost in a school setting, it wouldn't have been fun. I read Ivanhoe the first time in a school setting and started off totally hating it. To like it I had to distance my reading from the questions my mother had me answering and such and just read to read. It took me about five chapters and on subsequent re-reads I have enjoyed the entire book.

That's one of the reasons that I chose long ago not to go into journalism despite it being a more profitable form of the writing I love and while I am fond of the sort of arguementitive writing that involves political and ethical subjects, I don't plan to go into anything such as column writing because I know it involves more than abstracts, and I don't like researching facts as a general principle. 

I only enjoy facts as a basis for stories.


----------



## joxy

HLGStrider said:


> I don't like college either for that matter.
> I did admit to learning by osmosis.
> However, if I had read Paradise Lost in a school setting, it wouldn't have been fun.


Elgee, I agree with you.


----------



## HLGStrider

Nice that someone does. . .


----------



## Beleg

I do too, for that matter, Elgee Cat. Agree.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

HLGStrider said:


> But I'm not a learner. I don't like reading to learn.



Here's a fine example of why reading to learn does have its benefits.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Here's a fine example of why reading to learn does have its benefits.



Wow! WHERE do you find this stuff???!! What's even more mind-boggling is the effort that some "interesting" person went to in constructing a site whose subject importance is arguably — questionable...? :::shaking head, dazed, stunned:::

Barley

"My grant'ther's rule was safer'n 'tis to crow:/Don't never prophesy onless ye know." —James Russel Lowell (1819-1891)


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Wow! WHERE do you find this stuff???!! What's even more mind-boggling is the effort that some "interesting" person went to in constructing a site whose subject importance is arguably — questionable...? :::shaking head, dazed, stunned:::



Well, the site's motto _does_ read: "Blog for trivial things."

I heard about this site on the "On-The-Net" program on _ABC Newsradio_, and here's a link to that site.

Incidentally, and this is way off topic (but would certainly be _on_ topic if this thread were in the movie fora and concerned with problems with PJ's adaptation), I also found this.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Here's a fine example of why reading to learn does have its benefits.


Thank you for that A_V......er......I think......
But for the Nitpickers' Guide, that's been offered so often before that we know it by heart.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

joxy said:


> Thank you for that A_V......er......I think......
> But for the Nitpickers' Guide, that's been offered so often before that we know it by heart.



Jox, what's the NG? Sounds like my kinda book!

Barley

EDIT: *Good God!!!* I just googlesearched my way to The Nitpicker's Guide to the Lord of the Rings. What a _stupendous_ yet misled effort! What an output of herculean yet wasted energy! I ran away screaming!

Barley


----------



## HLGStrider

I think it is a webpage, not a book. Check out the link in AV's word HERE.


----------



## joxy

You thought it was your kind of thing BB, and so did I! I'm surprised you, and A_V, hadn't come across it until now.
I haven't tried the links at the end, to two other sites they say are similar; have you?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

joxy said:


> You thought it was your kind of thing BB, and so did I! I'm surprised you, and A_V, hadn't come across it until now.
> I haven't tried the links at the end, to two other sites they say are similar; have you?



I looked at it long enough to get the general lay of the land, and then let out a shriek that would have terrified a Wringwraith! It's Pure Purists' Paradise!

Barley


----------

