Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: critics (Long!!) Message-ID: <247@hyper.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 18:10:37 EDT Article-I.D.: hyper.247 Posted: Mon Sep 9 18:10:37 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 04:57:07 EDT References: <3383@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <> <276@proper.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn. Lines: 113 > Do you mean that if a large no. of people can't understand it, it can't be > great art? And if you have to work to understand it, ditto? No and yes. > You might argue > (as many did when Joyce, Eliot, and Pound first published) that it's perverse > and snobbish to pour a great talent into the production of work that's more or > less opaque to the average *contemporary* reader. Such work may show a > certain lack of social or political concern on the part of the artist, but I > don't see why that makes it bad art. There is a clear and present danger that we will soon find ourselves attempting to define "art." I would enjoy the effort, but I enjoy futile persuits. However, a work that is opaque to the average contemporary reader is never, in my opinion, great art. It is fine if the reader has to work at it; it is flawed if the reader has insufficant reason to want to. > Anyway, what about older books? I don't understand. What about them? > > ........... How much fun is Hamlet the first time around? Quite a bit, in my opinion. Shakespear can be enjoyed on any number of levels. One can also learn vast amounts from him. But can always be enjoyed, even the first time one sees one of his plays, or even reads one (if you happen to be someone who can read a play). > > >One test of literature that I'm particularly fond of is: how > >long is the author remembered? > > By whom? Homer's work is a hell of a lot of fun once you get into it. So are > the Canterbury Tales; so's a lot of Shakespeare, for that matter. How much of > this stuff would have survived at all if it hadn't been preserved and taught in > the schools? We have no disagreement here. All of the things you have just mentioned are things that I consider to be great art. Fun, aren't they? > > > ... what writer who is remembered > >and, more, STILL READ after a hundred years failed to write > >stories or books that were fun to read? > > All these people wrote works that were fun to read, but they didn't STAY fun to > read when their languages ceased to be current. Here we just disagree. I can't think of anything else to say. > > >But the point about critics is this: I believe that > >good writing must be accessable. But "accessable" > >varies from person to person. > > > I suppose I'm saying that in order to have good writers, you have to have good > writers -- not hard writers or easy ones, just good ones. I think if you > insist that a work be easy reading and fun (RIGHT AWAY!), you may not be giving > it a chance. I don't "insist" on that, and I do, in fact, read authors who force me to work and are not enjoyable. These people are craftsman in their own way. But I do not call them artists. What they produce just isn't good enough. And this distinction--what is and is not art--actually matters to me, for what reasons I'm not sure. I am sure of opinions on what makes for great art-- just as I am sure that these opinions will change, perhaps into their opposite, as I continue to read and think about what I've read. > > One of the reasons I enjoy reading the newsgroups is that, just as in more > formal publications, people write well here. I just can't believe such good > writing has developed without at least some study of our language and > literature. I think I know what the work of people who read only "fun stuff" > looks like: as an editor, I'm often called on to reorganize their writing for > publication. To my knowledge [!!!] I've never seen clear, fluent, > interesting writing from someone whose first criterion for choosing a book was > that it be accessible. If that's what I'm looking at now, well, it's never > too late to learn. > If there is an implication here that I write well, thank you. You, too. The points you raise are well taken. But I continue to disagree. I'm glad I read Moby Dick. There was a lot to it. But it failed as art. Huckleberry Finn did not. There was as much going on underneath, but Twain didn't leave the roof off his house. It had a top level--fun--that was there too. Melville should have had an editor with a big blue pen. It wasn't fun. I don't think it will last. I could (always always always) be wrong. -- SKZB > Judith Abrahms > {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!proper!judith > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Poetry is certainly something more than just good sense, but it must be good > sense... just as a palace is more than a house, but it must be a house. > -- Coleridge > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***