Is 'Literature' Still Being Written?

And we have a trope for that as well.

Of course, in every stripe of society you will have people who don't "get" certain genres or types of work. (This includes me.) That's kind of why we're a wiki; so the shortcomings of any one person are overcome by the knowledge of others.

Naturally, this does not apply to individual critics, which is why we have so many debates over the subject.

Thread Hop: Most lit-fic fans I know can't get enough of Cormac McCarthy. I understand he's pretty much the George R.R. Martin of realistic fiction, though, so I don't have any intention of following them up on that.

Poor Deboss.

I'm dead serious. Okay, his whole thing about no good literature being written before 1950 was probably not the best thing to say, but everything else about opinions and no such thing as objective quality? Completely true. And no one takes him seriously, simply because of his one wrong comment that everyone continued to focus on.

As for me, what's "good" and "bad" literature is heavily subjective. I can't stand a lot of books that are considered "classics" (about the only required reading book I've actually liked was Dante's Inferno, mainly due to the ideas within it) and I love a lot of books that are considered "shallow" and "mass-minded." I'm not wrong for thinking so. But I'm not saying people are wrong for loving books that are considered "classics" and hate books for the masses either. The only people who are wrong here are the people who say there's such a thing as objective quality in fiction.

Of course, I've always found it odd that some people complain about certain books purely because they're written for the masses. Call me crazy, but as a writer I'd much rather write to appease thousands or millions of people rather than appease a couple of old critics and possibly only be remembered after I'm dead.

edited 30th Apr '12 9:59:08 AM by Extreme64

You can help fix this problem by sending me fifty bucks. /silly

The best way to sum it up I've found is "there's no wrong way to like or dislike a book, there's no right way either". It's all about what you want, trying to use somebody else' standard only works if you want something similar out of your entertainment. If you have different goals, they're only good for Anti-Advice most of the time.

Just call it "an appeal to universal themes understood by many", since that's what it is.

I find it hilarious that the main group to figure out that type of thing and then try to catalog it called it "target demographics" and they're now hated.

edited 1st May '12 4:11:12 AM by Deboss

When it comes to objective quality in literature, rhythym, pacing, and word use are important. The fundamentals. Shakespeare once said, "Brevity is the soul of wit," and that's very true however rhythm and pacing are more important than brevity in writing.

edited 1st May '12 10:01:01 AM by Akagikiba

Books are considered classics because they are quite probably the best of an era.

That being said, there are multiple books, as of this century even, that are absolutely brilliant, and deserve to be known as "literature".

If you want to be technical, quality is the value of an object, derived by the consumer. All the same, if someone tells me that Life of Pi isn't an incredible book because it was a little obtuse, or The Road was shit because it was fun to read, haha no. Objective quality exists in the value of something as a whole. Something like The Hunger Games or Animorphs might be entertaining, but they contain no intrinsic value beyond entertainment. Literature goes beyond that, which is what makes it "Quality" in my humble opinion. Some books are without a doubt, objectively better than others because they are mature reflections of society or culture.

Brevity is often a fundamental part of rhythm and pacing, if poetry is any guide. Limited words force a writer to pick and choose carefully, rather than spending 50 paragraphs padding, so in short, being clear and concise makes a huge difference for the better.

EDIT: You know, I was thinking that the appreciation we have of literature is determined a lot by the kind of teaching we get in school. My assigned reading varied from Animal Farm in the eighth grade to A Streetcar Named Desire to Macbeth to Anna Karenina, and I don't remember disliking any of the books, other than maybe Shantaram because the protagonist was insufferable.

Our 11th/12th grade teacher even told us at the end of the year that he chose difficult books for us because he had faith in our abilities as a group. English was by far my favourite class throughout the IBD.

edited 1st May '12 10:15:33 AM by Pleaides

So that's what makes a work "objectively" better, huh? Whether or not they reflect on society, culture, or whatever else is important nowadays? Says who? Oh right, critics and literary scholars, who eat that stuff up. Keep in mind they're people with their own opinions too. Me? If it entertains me, I find it it good. I certainly find it better for me than a book that has some deep message or symbolism to it and that's all. There are many people who think the same way. But that's just us! We're people with our own opinions! If I say I find Animorphs to be a better book than, say, the Kite Runner, you have no right to say that I'm wrong, because it's my opinion. You may disagree with it, but you can't call me wrong.

Don't you see how flawed this whole belief of "objective" quality is? Everyone's different. Everyone has different likes, dislikes, and viewpoints on what they find "good." Ergo, you can't speak for everyone. WHY is this so hard to understand?!

Animorphs was a fun series when I was like ten.

In my opinion, the fact that certain works are more important even if they aren't as enjoyable to a single individual is what makes them true literature. The themes of a work, and their characters are what make a work resonate with a reader. Animorphs is a fun series, if we're going there, and it had fairly deep themes for a kids book, until some people missed the point and thought well, HELLS YEAH, ALIENS FIGHTING IS AWESOME!!!! Even so, the same themes are covered in a far more poignant manner in other literature.

Dunno why you hate the idea of art reflecting culture. I thought that's what art was about bro :S

Even so, I get more enjoyment, and so do the majority (not just some critics), out of books that hold actual meaning, you know? That's why Brave New World and others are considered seminal works of sci-fi, while that rapey Gor series isn't.

edited 1st May '12 11:24:56 AM by Pleaides

I think the Hunger games had a lot of potential to become an interesting dystopian critique of today's society, but it wasn't realized because it was handled so poorly. The reason why Battle Royale is considered better isn't because it's older.

I actually was just using Animorphs to follow your example. I've never read Animorphs.

And I'm not saying that I think society-driven messages or symbolism isn't art. I'm just saying it's not art for me. You're again talking as if what's "great art" is something you can deduce theoretically like some sort of scientific equation. A great work of art is not math: it's not like what's art can be proven or disproven. Why? Because everyone has their own viewpoints. We're all individuals. You can find more enjoyment out of books that hold meaning, that's fine. But don't say they're "objectively" better because of that: that's just arrogant.

edited 1st May '12 11:43:47 AM by Extreme64

I wonder if everyone here has a good understanding of "something that I enjoy" =/= "good" or "has literary value".

Literary value and being "good" is just as subjective as enjoyability. For me, all the stuff I find good I also find enjoyable. I know others view it differently, though.

edited 1st May '12 12:21:29 PM by Extreme64

Personally, I'm of the opinion that everything is art, but not necessarily everything is good or effective art. Gimme a sec while I find a post I made previously to explain in more detail.

EDIT: I wrote this about songs, but it's applicable to nearly anything:

edited 1st May '12 12:29:17 PM by 0dd1

The thing is that being enjoyable does not automatically make it good. Pulp fiction (the written kind) is enjoyable. It isn't art though. There are quite a few tedious books out there that are definitely "good" in as far as literary value is concerned, even if they lack readability.

So basically, you don't get to decide what you find good in fiction? That sounds kind of like a depressing way to look at it. Who decides for you then? Critics? Besides, if it lacks readability for you, clearly it's failed its purpose. How could that be considered "good?"

Seriously, if you let go of this notion that there's such a thing as objective quality, you'll have a much more open mind. You won't feel constrained about what's considered "good" or not and just look at it your own way.

edited 1st May '12 3:12:29 PM by Extreme64

Actually, "good" is "enjoyable for me" is true for that value set. It's used as a positive value set, but how you're weighting the values is important. I can say a Prius is a good car to own, and a classic car fan would hate me for it because it has none of the stuff that classic car fans have. I'm using different standards to establish good. The other fan may have standards, but those standards are worthless to anyone that doesn't hold them.

You can use "affected the direction of the genre" is "good: if you like, and that's somewhat objective if you've got a large list of books and what happens in them, but it doesn't tell me anything interesting about it. If you're argument is that that's not what good means, I'm just using one of the twenty or so other definitions of good.

Uh, do you even like reading? I'm honestly curious, because I've never met anyone genuinely interested in literature express your sort of opinion on what is good and what isn't. Some books are "good" in an objective sense, in the same way that some books are "enjoyable" in an objective sense. Seeing the merits of the "good" works even if you don't enjoy them is that level of mature critical thinking that differentiates a minimum-wager from a successful professional in most fields. Sure, you can have modifiers such as family circumstances and what have you, but if all else is equal, thinking skills - analysis, innovation and creativity mean everything. Literature, the good kind, develops these skills.

Furthermore, I do not recall ever having a large list of books with what happens in them. I believe that this wiki can help you with that matter, comprehensive as it is.

Also, comparing a Prius to a classic car is nigh impossible unless you can provide me with a hybrid classic car, yes? In a particular genre, certain books stand out as uniquely representative of an era or a style, and are considered the best possible thereof, thus defining a classic. In 40 years time, a Prius might well become a classic, but in its category (or genre) of hybrid electric vehicles. I'm not comparing Beckett to Star Wars because they deal with extremely different subject matter. Good sir, your analogy is regrettably flawed.

edited 2nd May '12 11:12:48 AM by Pleaides

Again, in YOUR opinion. To some of us, that's not what's good. That's certainly not what I and a lot of people I know consider good.

Good literature could be defined as well-written (no plot holes, proper characterization, makes sense, etc) material that has some sort of message and makes the reader care and think about the issues presented in the book. (Having an original take on the subject matter helps, too.)

If today's books are still written with those standards in mind, then "literature" is still being written.

But I don't agree that if a reader doesn't like something then it's not good. There's a difference between objective quality and subjective taste. (the "makes the reader care" part gets kind of tricky)

If a reader doesn't like something, or if the work's point didn't go through for the reader, it's not good for THEM. If someone does like it or if the point worked for them, it IS good for them. Because of this, it's simply not possible for something to be flat-out better, unarguably and factually, than anything else. Saying that something's objectively good implies that it should work for EVERYONE, when people are just so varied that there's no way that's possible.

edited 2nd May '12 3:32:08 PM by Extreme64

Here's what I mean by the taste vs. quality thing.

I recognize Les Miserables as a good book. It's well-written, has a message that isn't reprehensible, the characters are compelling, and is considered a classic. While I recognize the high quality of the book, I don't particularly care for it. I wouldn't choose to read it on my own (or, it wouldn't be my first choice of book to read), but I don't think it's complete crap; I can still recognize it as having the traits of an objectively good book.

When I say "good," I don't mean everyone will like it. I mean, it's put together well.

No one is trying to change your mind. I'm just trying to get my point across and to get you to possibly consider it as valid.

edited 3rd May '12 8:21:47 PM by BlackElephant

If it's something you don't really care for, clearly something about it didn't work for you. How can you consider that "good?" Again, you're letting other people decide what's "good" or not rather than deciding for yourself. Screw the well-constructed plot or characters: if you didn't care for it, clearly it wasn't good for you. Therefore it negates the whole "objectively good" part. If something is "objectively good," then why shouldn't everyone like it? Clearly if they don't like it, or don't care for it, they're wrong, because it's OBJECTIVELY good. Which is a flawed, flawed viewpoint.

I'm sorry, but nothing anyone can say will make me believe in something that doesn't exist, in this case the whole idea of "objective quality."

edited 2nd May '12 3:59:35 PM by Extreme64

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Extreme, you have very extreme views on quality in general.

Not extreme. Passionate. I'm just really tired of people letting this concept of "objective" quality control how they view fiction, something they should judge for themselves.

edited 2nd May '12 4:02:56 PM by Extreme64

I think we've gone rather off-topic. Perhaps start another thread on criticism or enjoyment of works?