|
On July 14 2011 23:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 23:31 Aldehyde wrote:On July 14 2011 15:46 RANDOMCL wrote:On July 14 2011 11:05 Aldehyde wrote:
In contrast to other music which people listen to because it's displeasing and makes you feel down? It's not like the only innovation in music and literature happened 50+ years ago and yet those are always the only ones that are brought up in these "art" discussions.
I, too, don't really understand why you have to analyze books/movies/music and yet we had to do it a bunch in school.
To me, a book is either good/bad or mediocre and it's purely based off the entertainment value. Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think).
Usually just seems to be som blibber blabber about how the writer wrote this little sentence which kind of hints at these things and they in combination with these other things hinted at in these other sentences give us this message.
I apologize ahead of time; there is SO, SO, SO much to cover when introducing someone to the world of literary criticism that it can be a bit difficult to decide where to start. Please read until the end if you're going to bother reading my post at all, because each paragraph, on its own, doesn't really work without the whole here. + Show Spoiler +I'll address the main point here: "Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think)." That's not really the point of literary analysis. The point isn't to have a "message". You learn that day 1 of introduction to literary studies. I honestly suggest taking a course or doing the legwork yourself, because many of the common myths associated with literary criticism are debunked day 1 by a good professor. Boiling a work down to "Oh, this is about anti-slavery!" is generally trivializing thousands of complex questions that can be asked of the work. Most professors address the question of "what's the point?" day 1 as well. The "point" (which, you'll come to learn, is often a despised term) is to better understand history. Literature is about understanding the world we live in. History is constantly contorted. Read a history book from 1920, and then read another book about the exact same subject today. The very way a text is worded completely changes its meaning. Even if an author does his/her very best to stay true to the facts, the way they say it changes how you interpret the information. When you retell this information, it is twisted again. This constant twisting completely alters our understanding of history to the point that much of what we learn today is often so far from reality that it is hard to truly understand "the past". It isn't just about history, though. It isn't about getting "just the facts". Rather, it is a method of studying humanity and how we deal with the world around here. Quite a bit literary analysis (though just a fraction of the whole) has to do with the unconscious versus the conscious. Why did the author write what he/she did? Their personal reasoning for it isn't important. Looking at the words themselves, the ones that FACTUALLY EXIST, leads to the answers. Asking an author "what did you mean?" is the least helpful question of all time. The author's intent is not important. What actually exists on the page is. Literature (and criticism) attempts to bypass this. The author creates a work, frozen in time, and their writing reflects THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORLD. For example, if an author from 1837 wrote a gothic murder-mystery set in the 1600s, you can STILL gain INCREDIBLE insight into history and context by analyzing the WAY the author says something, not WHAT the author says. It isn't about the words on the page. It is about how they work together, and how they interlink from page 1 until the last word. There is a wrong way to interpret a work. A common misconception is that a work (primarily poetry) can "mean whatever you want it to mean". There is ambiguity, and that is at the heart of many discussions, but so many people read works incorrectly that it leads them to think that all works have dozens of meanings. Again, there is MUCH ambiguity, which stirs the majority of debate, but if you completely misread a work, you miss out on... everything. For example, read this famous Frost poem: http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.htmlThis work is so commonly misinterpreted that you find it on motivation posters in office buildings around the U.S. (if not the world). A bit explaining the misinterpretations: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1822225/the_road_not_taken_by_robert_frost.htmlThe "twitch vs. wink" concerns itself with thick description, and is a good way to break into understanding literary analysis. I apologize if this link doesn't work. Just google "a twink and a wink" if not. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http://www.slgardiner.com/courses/theory/lectures/ThickDescription.doc&rct=j&q=a twitch and a wink&ei=PoseTsaaL6q1sQKPgNGfAw&usg=AFQjCNGmKXLcNMVwcDPW3l6N7u-RrLDT7g&sig2=lITdu-7OpL0SjI8E_D86Cgtl;dr: Literary criticism is about understanding the world around you through what some consider a beautiful art form. It allows you to look back into history and understand WHY things were the they were, what certain individuals thought about it, and how it affected their concept of reality. A huge part of the appeal is the ability to enter literary discourse and compare complex ideas with like-minded individuals, but MUCH of the work is very solitary, even though no piece exists in a vacuum. And please understand that this is just the way I've learned. I'm a 23 year old senior English major (with a minor in Creative Writing) who intends to continue on to graduate school and make a career out of this. Point being: I am still a student and know jack shit. I've only been heavily involved with literary criticism for the last two years (as in, being involved in the discourse), and this is what I've been taught, as flawed as it may be. I hope this helps with those who've never understood literary criticism and are interested. It isn't for everyone, but there is definitely a reason for its existence. It teaches about humanity, and history. I can get behind what you're saying but I haven't seen Biff and the people agreeing with him saying anything close to what you're saying. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up analyzing because I don't think that was what I really wanted to talk about. Biff and co. are saying that some books are better because they bring more to the table in form of new ways to write the same thing. Sure, might be to some people but I think most people just want entertainment and it doesn't really matter if it's a new way to write or just an old and non-innovative way. Kind of like how some SC pro might come up with this new way to play TvZ, he might bring more to SC as a whole but is he by default better than other players? Spanishiwa brought a whole new playstyle for zerg players to use in ZvP and in some extent, ZvT but is he better than IdrA? Hardly. This is what bugs me about all this crap about "oh but he changed the way people write!". Yeah? So what? I don't find the work very entertaining so, to me, it's not good. Do you really think that comparison two problem as different as the artistic value of a book or a writer and the performance of a stracraft player is legitimate? Seriously? I gave an example with composers and music, which seems to be much much more relevant since we are comparing the criteria of artistic value of two different art forms, and I haven't heard until now, in this thread or elsewhere, any valuable objection against it: 1. Why can't we write good Beethovenian or Mozartian music today? Why can a lot of people technically do it, but can't reproduce any of Beethoven genius and spark? 2. Why has every single great composer been unique, perfectly original and in a certain extent, groundbreaking? Why don't we have any amazing composers who hasn't brought anything new at all or didn't have a perfectly new and distinct way of writing? My point is extremely simple: what JK Rowling does is what most pop musicians do: write with material and technique that existed 150 years ago. She is to Shakespeare what Oasis is to Mozart. That's fine, I don't have anything against Oasis. But I laugh when people say their music is fantastic. It's not.
1. Because of course it's not the same no matter how good the work of today is since you know that it's not Mozart or whatever. That's a big deal, knowing that it's not the first of something.
2. Because what you're saying is bullshit? Why are you only mentioning classical music? That's been done. There are countless innovators in music but they don't have a fancy name such as "composer". Try listening to something not so "snobby".
There was a time when rap was innovative, now that has been done so of course it's just one of many these days. Techno was once innovative, now that's beeen done so of course it's just one of many these days. I can go on.
Oasis is inherently worse because it's not classical music? Get off your high horse.
I compare SC to your point of view because it's exactly the same. Spanishiwa's way of play was kind of awesome because it was new and something never seen before, everyone who imitates him is less and less awesome.
Mozart was awesome because he did something unique and new (or did he? I don't care enough to check these facts but all you "cultural" people say that he's awesome so I presume this is true) but everyone who imitates will be less awesome.
What's so fucking hard to understand?
You say that Tolkien's books are entertaining and fun but since he doesn't change the way of writing he's nothing special? Sure, he didn't use new kinds of sentences but he presented a WHOLE NEW WORLD to people and it made sense to the people reading it. That's a great thing in and of itself.
Now, I don't like LotR (the books or the movies) all that much, too much detail, too slow and all that but that doesn't matter, he made a whole lot of people believe in his world. To me, that's art if anything.
Harry Potter, great entertainment, just saw the last movie an hour or so ago myself. Not the greatest thing ever, it's all been done before, doesn't make it a bad movie/book, though.
JK Rowling wrote about a world existing in our own, a community I didn't know about. She made it believable enough to get me interested, entertaining enough to get me hooked and tense enough to want to read the next book with great anticipation.
Sure, she doesn't reinvent the genre or a way of writing, as I said before, it doesn't make her a worse writer though. She captured and enthralled a whole generation, that's awesome.
So please, get off your high horse. You can have your way of thinking about this artsy stuff, I have mine. Yours is not better than mine, my way is not better than yours.
|
On July 15 2011 03:53 Aldehyde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 23:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 23:31 Aldehyde wrote:On July 14 2011 15:46 RANDOMCL wrote:On July 14 2011 11:05 Aldehyde wrote:
In contrast to other music which people listen to because it's displeasing and makes you feel down? It's not like the only innovation in music and literature happened 50+ years ago and yet those are always the only ones that are brought up in these "art" discussions.
I, too, don't really understand why you have to analyze books/movies/music and yet we had to do it a bunch in school.
To me, a book is either good/bad or mediocre and it's purely based off the entertainment value. Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think).
Usually just seems to be som blibber blabber about how the writer wrote this little sentence which kind of hints at these things and they in combination with these other things hinted at in these other sentences give us this message.
I apologize ahead of time; there is SO, SO, SO much to cover when introducing someone to the world of literary criticism that it can be a bit difficult to decide where to start. Please read until the end if you're going to bother reading my post at all, because each paragraph, on its own, doesn't really work without the whole here. + Show Spoiler +I'll address the main point here: "Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think)." That's not really the point of literary analysis. The point isn't to have a "message". You learn that day 1 of introduction to literary studies. I honestly suggest taking a course or doing the legwork yourself, because many of the common myths associated with literary criticism are debunked day 1 by a good professor. Boiling a work down to "Oh, this is about anti-slavery!" is generally trivializing thousands of complex questions that can be asked of the work. Most professors address the question of "what's the point?" day 1 as well. The "point" (which, you'll come to learn, is often a despised term) is to better understand history. Literature is about understanding the world we live in. History is constantly contorted. Read a history book from 1920, and then read another book about the exact same subject today. The very way a text is worded completely changes its meaning. Even if an author does his/her very best to stay true to the facts, the way they say it changes how you interpret the information. When you retell this information, it is twisted again. This constant twisting completely alters our understanding of history to the point that much of what we learn today is often so far from reality that it is hard to truly understand "the past". It isn't just about history, though. It isn't about getting "just the facts". Rather, it is a method of studying humanity and how we deal with the world around here. Quite a bit literary analysis (though just a fraction of the whole) has to do with the unconscious versus the conscious. Why did the author write what he/she did? Their personal reasoning for it isn't important. Looking at the words themselves, the ones that FACTUALLY EXIST, leads to the answers. Asking an author "what did you mean?" is the least helpful question of all time. The author's intent is not important. What actually exists on the page is. Literature (and criticism) attempts to bypass this. The author creates a work, frozen in time, and their writing reflects THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORLD. For example, if an author from 1837 wrote a gothic murder-mystery set in the 1600s, you can STILL gain INCREDIBLE insight into history and context by analyzing the WAY the author says something, not WHAT the author says. It isn't about the words on the page. It is about how they work together, and how they interlink from page 1 until the last word. There is a wrong way to interpret a work. A common misconception is that a work (primarily poetry) can "mean whatever you want it to mean". There is ambiguity, and that is at the heart of many discussions, but so many people read works incorrectly that it leads them to think that all works have dozens of meanings. Again, there is MUCH ambiguity, which stirs the majority of debate, but if you completely misread a work, you miss out on... everything. For example, read this famous Frost poem: http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.htmlThis work is so commonly misinterpreted that you find it on motivation posters in office buildings around the U.S. (if not the world). A bit explaining the misinterpretations: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1822225/the_road_not_taken_by_robert_frost.htmlThe "twitch vs. wink" concerns itself with thick description, and is a good way to break into understanding literary analysis. I apologize if this link doesn't work. Just google "a twink and a wink" if not. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http://www.slgardiner.com/courses/theory/lectures/ThickDescription.doc&rct=j&q=a twitch and a wink&ei=PoseTsaaL6q1sQKPgNGfAw&usg=AFQjCNGmKXLcNMVwcDPW3l6N7u-RrLDT7g&sig2=lITdu-7OpL0SjI8E_D86Cgtl;dr: Literary criticism is about understanding the world around you through what some consider a beautiful art form. It allows you to look back into history and understand WHY things were the they were, what certain individuals thought about it, and how it affected their concept of reality. A huge part of the appeal is the ability to enter literary discourse and compare complex ideas with like-minded individuals, but MUCH of the work is very solitary, even though no piece exists in a vacuum. And please understand that this is just the way I've learned. I'm a 23 year old senior English major (with a minor in Creative Writing) who intends to continue on to graduate school and make a career out of this. Point being: I am still a student and know jack shit. I've only been heavily involved with literary criticism for the last two years (as in, being involved in the discourse), and this is what I've been taught, as flawed as it may be. I hope this helps with those who've never understood literary criticism and are interested. It isn't for everyone, but there is definitely a reason for its existence. It teaches about humanity, and history. I can get behind what you're saying but I haven't seen Biff and the people agreeing with him saying anything close to what you're saying. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up analyzing because I don't think that was what I really wanted to talk about. Biff and co. are saying that some books are better because they bring more to the table in form of new ways to write the same thing. Sure, might be to some people but I think most people just want entertainment and it doesn't really matter if it's a new way to write or just an old and non-innovative way. Kind of like how some SC pro might come up with this new way to play TvZ, he might bring more to SC as a whole but is he by default better than other players? Spanishiwa brought a whole new playstyle for zerg players to use in ZvP and in some extent, ZvT but is he better than IdrA? Hardly. This is what bugs me about all this crap about "oh but he changed the way people write!". Yeah? So what? I don't find the work very entertaining so, to me, it's not good. Do you really think that comparison two problem as different as the artistic value of a book or a writer and the performance of a stracraft player is legitimate? Seriously? I gave an example with composers and music, which seems to be much much more relevant since we are comparing the criteria of artistic value of two different art forms, and I haven't heard until now, in this thread or elsewhere, any valuable objection against it: 1. Why can't we write good Beethovenian or Mozartian music today? Why can a lot of people technically do it, but can't reproduce any of Beethoven genius and spark? 2. Why has every single great composer been unique, perfectly original and in a certain extent, groundbreaking? Why don't we have any amazing composers who hasn't brought anything new at all or didn't have a perfectly new and distinct way of writing? My point is extremely simple: what JK Rowling does is what most pop musicians do: write with material and technique that existed 150 years ago. She is to Shakespeare what Oasis is to Mozart. That's fine, I don't have anything against Oasis. But I laugh when people say their music is fantastic. It's not. 1. Because of course it's not the same no matter how good the work of today is since you know that it's not Mozart or whatever. That's a big deal, knowing that it's not the first of something. 2. Because what you're saying is bullshit? Why are you only mentioning classical music? That's been done. There are countless innovators in music but they don't have a fancy name such as "composer". Try listening to something not so "snobby". There was a time when rap was innovative, now that has been done so of course it's just one of many these days. Techno was once innovative, now that's beeen done so of course it's just one of many these days. I can go on. Oasis is inherently worse because it's not classical music? Get off your high horse. I compare SC to your point of view because it's exactly the same. Spanishiwa's way of play was kind of awesome because it was new and something never seen before, everyone who imitates him is less and less awesome. Mozart was awesome because he did something unique and new (or did he? I don't care enough to check these facts but all you "cultural" people say that he's awesome so I presume this is true) but everyone who imitates will be less awesome. What's so fucking hard to understand? You say that Tolkien's books are entertaining and fun but since he doesn't change the way of writing he's nothing special? Sure, he didn't use new kinds of sentences but he presented a WHOLE NEW WORLD to people and it made sense to the people reading it. That's a great thing in and of itself. Now, I don't like LotR (the books or the movies) all that much, too much detail, too slow and all that but that doesn't matter, he made a whole lot of people believe in his world. To me, that's art if anything. Harry Potter, great entertainment, just saw the last movie an hour or so ago myself. Not the greatest thing ever, it's all been done before, doesn't make it a bad movie/book, though. JK Rowling wrote about a world existing in our own, a community I didn't know about. She made it believable enough to get me interested, entertaining enough to get me hooked and tense enough to want to read the next book with great anticipation. Sure, she doesn't reinvent the genre or a way of writing, as I said before, it doesn't make her a worse writer though. She captured and enthralled a whole generation, that's awesome. So please, get off your high horse. You can have your way of thinking about this artsy stuff, I have mine. Yours is not better than mine, my way is not better than yours.
I don't really get your point to be honest.
The problem is that if someone does write in Beethoven style today, you can be sure it will be awful. It is not possible to write good Beethoven today, precisely because Beethoven could be that good only because it was new. It's not the novelty which is good in itself, but the novelty is essential to create great art. That can seem irrational, but as a musician, I experience it every day. Everybody can write in the style of Beethoven, nobody could even come close to the genius of his music using his style. It was possible only then, when it was a groundbreaking music.
You attack me on the basis that I talk about classical music. You find it snobby, you talk about high horses. Well that's your silly prejudices. Your problem is: I can make the exact same point with Jazz. You noticed that Coltrane, or Miles Davis, or Telonius Monk; all of them invented a completely new style, changed the way we perceived Jazz?
Oasis is mediocre because Oasis is written is tonal music with no imagination whatsoever, whether it is about rhythm, metric, structure, harmony. They don't bring anything. Every element of this music existed 200 years ago.
If when I say that you understand that I reproach Oasis not to be classical music, you really miss my point. I admire enormously musicians such as Bjork, or Bob Dylan.
I've answered like five times to everything you wrote about LOTR. Artistic value of a book is not about the amount of new creatures you invent. It's not even really about what you say, but how you say it. And in that regard, Tolkien is plain mediocrity, and so is Rowling.
They are both very entertaining, but not great artists or writers.
|
Style over substance is what you're saying. Sad, Biff. Sad.
|
On July 15 2011 04:19 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Style over substance is what you're saying. Sad, Biff. Sad.
Substance has nothing to do with the content.
Leonardo has not painted one the greatest painting ever because Mona Lisa was beautiful.
|
On July 15 2011 04:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 04:19 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Style over substance is what you're saying. Sad, Biff. Sad. Substance has nothing to do with the content. Leonardo has not painted one the greatest painting ever because Mona Lisa was beautiful.
So now substance is subject to you? Would you like to expound on your idea? You are saying the artistic style Leonardo used mattered more than the actual meaning he meant to convey through the painting?
|
Biff, there is not one single meaning to the word "literature." Please stop acting as if you have the right or the credentials to force everyone's definition of "literature" to match your own. I literally have a document open right now written by one of the foremost Hittitologists in the world (Theo van den Hout, if you're wondering) explaining why lexical lists and law collections, amongst other things, should be considered Hittite literature. You wouldn't agree with him and that's fine, but please don't pretend that your definition is the only definition.
Not to mention, most "high literature" (what I'm calling "literature" by your definition) is typically characterized by shitty writing. I'll pull examples out of my ass: Lovecraft can't write good dialogue to save his life, Orwell's 1984 needs to take a trip down to the "show, don't tell" training camp, while Hemingway needs to get out a bit to meet some women so he can characterize them better. Next thing you know, they'll be calling Cormac McCarthy the next literary hero because he uses unconventional punctuation. (Or wait? Do they do that already?)
Dostoevsky's cool, though. But that's because Dostoevsky's the best (dead) author in the world. 
|
On July 15 2011 01:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 01:06 moose162 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:06 minus_human wrote:
Find something better to read. Seriously. I don't understand how posts like this don't receive a warning at the very least. Quality wise it offers nothing. Plus it's just a pompous 1 line response to someone's entire blog, which is insulting in itself. At least it created some controversy. Think that without him, this thread would be long dead instead of turning into this glorious endless (and sterile?) conversation about the criteria of artistic quality.
What?
The blog post was started because the guy was nostalgic about the end of a series that he read when he was young. It didn't need controversy. Seriously, the guy was like "Hey this was an enjoyable part of my childhood and I want to share my memories with you" which got shit all over when people started bashing the series that he was talking about.
|
On July 15 2011 04:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 03:53 Aldehyde wrote:On July 14 2011 23:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 23:31 Aldehyde wrote:On July 14 2011 15:46 RANDOMCL wrote:On July 14 2011 11:05 Aldehyde wrote:
In contrast to other music which people listen to because it's displeasing and makes you feel down? It's not like the only innovation in music and literature happened 50+ years ago and yet those are always the only ones that are brought up in these "art" discussions.
I, too, don't really understand why you have to analyze books/movies/music and yet we had to do it a bunch in school.
To me, a book is either good/bad or mediocre and it's purely based off the entertainment value. Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think).
Usually just seems to be som blibber blabber about how the writer wrote this little sentence which kind of hints at these things and they in combination with these other things hinted at in these other sentences give us this message.
I apologize ahead of time; there is SO, SO, SO much to cover when introducing someone to the world of literary criticism that it can be a bit difficult to decide where to start. Please read until the end if you're going to bother reading my post at all, because each paragraph, on its own, doesn't really work without the whole here. + Show Spoiler +I'll address the main point here: "Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think)." That's not really the point of literary analysis. The point isn't to have a "message". You learn that day 1 of introduction to literary studies. I honestly suggest taking a course or doing the legwork yourself, because many of the common myths associated with literary criticism are debunked day 1 by a good professor. Boiling a work down to "Oh, this is about anti-slavery!" is generally trivializing thousands of complex questions that can be asked of the work. Most professors address the question of "what's the point?" day 1 as well. The "point" (which, you'll come to learn, is often a despised term) is to better understand history. Literature is about understanding the world we live in. History is constantly contorted. Read a history book from 1920, and then read another book about the exact same subject today. The very way a text is worded completely changes its meaning. Even if an author does his/her very best to stay true to the facts, the way they say it changes how you interpret the information. When you retell this information, it is twisted again. This constant twisting completely alters our understanding of history to the point that much of what we learn today is often so far from reality that it is hard to truly understand "the past". It isn't just about history, though. It isn't about getting "just the facts". Rather, it is a method of studying humanity and how we deal with the world around here. Quite a bit literary analysis (though just a fraction of the whole) has to do with the unconscious versus the conscious. Why did the author write what he/she did? Their personal reasoning for it isn't important. Looking at the words themselves, the ones that FACTUALLY EXIST, leads to the answers. Asking an author "what did you mean?" is the least helpful question of all time. The author's intent is not important. What actually exists on the page is. Literature (and criticism) attempts to bypass this. The author creates a work, frozen in time, and their writing reflects THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORLD. For example, if an author from 1837 wrote a gothic murder-mystery set in the 1600s, you can STILL gain INCREDIBLE insight into history and context by analyzing the WAY the author says something, not WHAT the author says. It isn't about the words on the page. It is about how they work together, and how they interlink from page 1 until the last word. There is a wrong way to interpret a work. A common misconception is that a work (primarily poetry) can "mean whatever you want it to mean". There is ambiguity, and that is at the heart of many discussions, but so many people read works incorrectly that it leads them to think that all works have dozens of meanings. Again, there is MUCH ambiguity, which stirs the majority of debate, but if you completely misread a work, you miss out on... everything. For example, read this famous Frost poem: http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.htmlThis work is so commonly misinterpreted that you find it on motivation posters in office buildings around the U.S. (if not the world). A bit explaining the misinterpretations: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1822225/the_road_not_taken_by_robert_frost.htmlThe "twitch vs. wink" concerns itself with thick description, and is a good way to break into understanding literary analysis. I apologize if this link doesn't work. Just google "a twink and a wink" if not. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http://www.slgardiner.com/courses/theory/lectures/ThickDescription.doc&rct=j&q=a twitch and a wink&ei=PoseTsaaL6q1sQKPgNGfAw&usg=AFQjCNGmKXLcNMVwcDPW3l6N7u-RrLDT7g&sig2=lITdu-7OpL0SjI8E_D86Cgtl;dr: Literary criticism is about understanding the world around you through what some consider a beautiful art form. It allows you to look back into history and understand WHY things were the they were, what certain individuals thought about it, and how it affected their concept of reality. A huge part of the appeal is the ability to enter literary discourse and compare complex ideas with like-minded individuals, but MUCH of the work is very solitary, even though no piece exists in a vacuum. And please understand that this is just the way I've learned. I'm a 23 year old senior English major (with a minor in Creative Writing) who intends to continue on to graduate school and make a career out of this. Point being: I am still a student and know jack shit. I've only been heavily involved with literary criticism for the last two years (as in, being involved in the discourse), and this is what I've been taught, as flawed as it may be. I hope this helps with those who've never understood literary criticism and are interested. It isn't for everyone, but there is definitely a reason for its existence. It teaches about humanity, and history. I can get behind what you're saying but I haven't seen Biff and the people agreeing with him saying anything close to what you're saying. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up analyzing because I don't think that was what I really wanted to talk about. Biff and co. are saying that some books are better because they bring more to the table in form of new ways to write the same thing. Sure, might be to some people but I think most people just want entertainment and it doesn't really matter if it's a new way to write or just an old and non-innovative way. Kind of like how some SC pro might come up with this new way to play TvZ, he might bring more to SC as a whole but is he by default better than other players? Spanishiwa brought a whole new playstyle for zerg players to use in ZvP and in some extent, ZvT but is he better than IdrA? Hardly. This is what bugs me about all this crap about "oh but he changed the way people write!". Yeah? So what? I don't find the work very entertaining so, to me, it's not good. Do you really think that comparison two problem as different as the artistic value of a book or a writer and the performance of a stracraft player is legitimate? Seriously? I gave an example with composers and music, which seems to be much much more relevant since we are comparing the criteria of artistic value of two different art forms, and I haven't heard until now, in this thread or elsewhere, any valuable objection against it: 1. Why can't we write good Beethovenian or Mozartian music today? Why can a lot of people technically do it, but can't reproduce any of Beethoven genius and spark? 2. Why has every single great composer been unique, perfectly original and in a certain extent, groundbreaking? Why don't we have any amazing composers who hasn't brought anything new at all or didn't have a perfectly new and distinct way of writing? My point is extremely simple: what JK Rowling does is what most pop musicians do: write with material and technique that existed 150 years ago. She is to Shakespeare what Oasis is to Mozart. That's fine, I don't have anything against Oasis. But I laugh when people say their music is fantastic. It's not. 1. Because of course it's not the same no matter how good the work of today is since you know that it's not Mozart or whatever. That's a big deal, knowing that it's not the first of something. 2. Because what you're saying is bullshit? Why are you only mentioning classical music? That's been done. There are countless innovators in music but they don't have a fancy name such as "composer". Try listening to something not so "snobby". There was a time when rap was innovative, now that has been done so of course it's just one of many these days. Techno was once innovative, now that's beeen done so of course it's just one of many these days. I can go on. Oasis is inherently worse because it's not classical music? Get off your high horse. I compare SC to your point of view because it's exactly the same. Spanishiwa's way of play was kind of awesome because it was new and something never seen before, everyone who imitates him is less and less awesome. Mozart was awesome because he did something unique and new (or did he? I don't care enough to check these facts but all you "cultural" people say that he's awesome so I presume this is true) but everyone who imitates will be less awesome. What's so fucking hard to understand? You say that Tolkien's books are entertaining and fun but since he doesn't change the way of writing he's nothing special? Sure, he didn't use new kinds of sentences but he presented a WHOLE NEW WORLD to people and it made sense to the people reading it. That's a great thing in and of itself. Now, I don't like LotR (the books or the movies) all that much, too much detail, too slow and all that but that doesn't matter, he made a whole lot of people believe in his world. To me, that's art if anything. Harry Potter, great entertainment, just saw the last movie an hour or so ago myself. Not the greatest thing ever, it's all been done before, doesn't make it a bad movie/book, though. JK Rowling wrote about a world existing in our own, a community I didn't know about. She made it believable enough to get me interested, entertaining enough to get me hooked and tense enough to want to read the next book with great anticipation. Sure, she doesn't reinvent the genre or a way of writing, as I said before, it doesn't make her a worse writer though. She captured and enthralled a whole generation, that's awesome. So please, get off your high horse. You can have your way of thinking about this artsy stuff, I have mine. Yours is not better than mine, my way is not better than yours. I don't really get your point to be honest. The problem is that if someone does write in Beethoven style today, you can be sure it will be awful. It is not possible to write good Beethoven today, precisely because Beethoven could be that good only because it was new. It's not the novelty which is good in itself, but the novelty is essential to create great art. That can seem irrational, but as a musician, I experience it every day. Everybody can write in the style of Beethoven, nobody could even come close to the genius of his music using his style. It was possible only then, when it was a groundbreaking music. You attack me on the basis that I talk about classical music. You find it snobby, you talk about high horses. Well that's your silly prejudices. Your problem is: I can make the exact same point with Jazz. You noticed that Coltrane, or Miles Davis, or Telonius Monk; all of them invented a completely new style, changed the way we perceived Jazz? Oasis is mediocre because Oasis is written is tonal music with no imagination whatsoever, whether it is about rhythm, metric, structure, harmony. They don't bring anything. Every element of this music existed 200 years ago. If when I say that you understand that I reproach Oasis not to be classical music, you really miss my point. I admire enormously musicians such as Bjork, or Bob Dylan. I've answered like five times to everything you wrote about LOTR. Artistic value of a book is not about the amount of new creatures you invent. It's not even really about what you say, but how you say it. And in that regard, Tolkien is plain mediocrity, and so is Rowling. They are both very entertaining, but not great artists or writers.
I think we have to separate writers and artists. Tolkien obviously, to me, was a great writer in that he was able to tell a story and a whole world to people. Perhaps he was not a great artist since nothing in his writing was very special in his wording or whatever. Or perhaps he wasn't a very good writer but he sold a lot of books so if it means that you have to be a bad writer to sell a lot of books, I'd gladly sign up for that.
You said that there were no great composers these days, I said that, of course, there aren't any great classical composers these days since it's all been done and can't possibly live up to Mozart, please read what I said.
I don't find classical music by default to be snobby. I do, however, find that most people listening to that music to be cultural snobs who thinks that they know best when it comes to art and culture.
I even said that novelty was important, did you even read my post? If you did and still didn't understand, please tell me where I was so unclear that you interpreted my stance to be the complete opposite. Perhaps my writing was too clever and groundbreaking for you. Does that make me the next big thing in the world of artists?
Like I said, techno was once new and brilliant and awesome to many people. Nowadays it's everywhere, of course the novelty is gone and in that much of what makes things "great".
I don't get what you mean by "The problem is that if someone does write in Beethoven style today, you can be sure it will be awful. It is not possible to write good Beethoven today, precisely because Beethoven could be that good only because it was new.".
Does this mean that Beethoven music is awful but what makes it good is that it's unique? Really? If so, I pity you. No, really.
And what's this about " It's not even really about what you say, but how you say it. And in that regard, Tolkien is plain mediocrity, and so is Rowling." ?
Does that mean that if I find out some really clever way of writing a book about how cultural snobs are horrible, you'd find it amazing? Would that make me the next big thing?
Writing is a creative process, you can't possibly tell me that Rowling and Tolkien aren't creative?
Sure, in your definition their work isn't "art" but you can't say that it isn't good/great writing.
|
On July 13 2011 18:52 Dalguno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:27 shavi wrote:On July 13 2011 18:06 minus_human wrote:
Find something better to read. Seriously. What? The HP series is/was incredible. HP fans are so sad about times like these (him when the movies are coming to a close, mine was back when I finished the 7th book t.t) because we feel a strong connection with the characters, considering we grew up with them. And not only that, the fact that Rowling seemed to be growing[as a writer] with us as well. I could read through the first few books at 10-11, and keep reading throughout each books release and be hooked to every word by the time the last book was when I turned 18 is incredible. She's an absolutely gifted novelist, and to tell us to simply find something "better to read" is incredibly insulting at the very least. And who's to say we aren't reading better/more sophisticated works alongside HP? In fact, I'll bet that most of the people who read HP did in fact get led to other great literary works. I know plenty of peers that were turned into readers thanks to Rowling, and considering books were not really dying but certainly losing a lot of kids, she turned a whole fucking generation into readers. Some people would never move onto 1984, Frankenstein, Gatsby, etc if not for Rowling. So, while, yes it's great to find something different, saying to find something better is stupid and just doesn't get it. The books turned me into a reader for sure, just to back up this post.
The first one is the first book I have read in my entire life, and I don't think I would have been interested into reading otherwise. Backing up as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
