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
Message-ID: <250@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 12:11:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: hyper.250
Posted: Mon Sep 23 12:11:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:00:56 EDT
References: <> <295@proper.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 82

> .......................................  But we don't READ Shak. because he's
> the same spinner of rollicking hilarious yarns TO US that he was to his less
> educated contemporaries.  That was exactly the point I made when I said that
> the classics may have been great fun when they were contemporary, but that as
> their language and their references become increasingly obscure to us, we read
> them with more difficulty and for different reasons.  For that matter, we still
> read the sonnets of Shakespeare, and I don't believe they're susceptible of
> being read on your "onion" model; they don't work as easy doggerel and also as
> compact, dazzlingly inventive, intricate constructions of nested metaphors that
> economically illuminate the depths of human emotion.
> 

This is important enough to the point of the discussion that I think it
worth hitting on.  My point is exactly that--Shakespear IS fun, the
very first time.  If fifteen-year-old Stevie hadn't seen a production
of Midsummer Night's Dream that left him in stitches, then a production
of Macbeth that left him depressed but triumphant, he would never have
taken the time to look for the rest of what is there.  I won't comment
on the sonnets; I know even less about peotry than I do about fiction.

I should admit here, though, that whoever it was who claimed to
have really enjoyed ULYSSES on the first reading very neatly
cut the rug out from under most of my arguments.  Good going,
whoever that was.  I been nailed.

> 
> Why should a novel or a play be required to provide instant gratification in
> some way, then to draw the reader into more profound levels of discourse?
> This has never been required of poetry, or at least not since poetry moved
> away from the song form in the Middle Ages.  And it's still not required of
> those "classics" which almost all of us read, and read in translation.

It is exactly what IS required, or at least present, in
those few of the classics that "almost all of us read."
As I say, I know little of poetry, but are you quite sure
of what you say here?

> 
> ..........................  We can allow Steve Brust to reserve the use of the
> term "great literature," in his private lexicon, for description of art that
> doubles as entertainment and hence gives pleasure to more people than art that
> doesn't.
> 

Well, this point (first brought up, I believe, by Mr. Ingogly) is
certainly hitting me where I live.  I hate it when people promiscuously
redefine words to make their own points, so I don't enjoy being
accused of doing it.  Especially when, looking back over my own
contributions, it seems I really have.  I will now procede to back
down and, I hope, build up to my point again.

Writer's who give me the impression of conciously and
deliberatly writing over the heads of much of their
audience annoy me.  In attempting to find the reason
for this annoyance, and so determine if it is my
problem, their problem, both, or neither, I have come
to certain conclusions.  This question actually matters
to me on a very practical level.  I need to know, for
myself, "what makes good writing."

The conclusions I have come to are, brifly summarized,
good (fiction) writing is that which exposes and lays
bare areas of life that are normally hidden, and does
it in using language that can be understood.  You mention
the classics: can you name one art form (painting, music,
etc) in which those works which are now regarded as the
classics were not, at the time, entertainment for the
masses?  Doesn't this indicate something?


> But all this juggling of subjective judgments -- "Well, *I* had fun with 
> Hamlet" ... "I found Ulysses hilarious!" ... "Melville is great fun!" ...
> "This work FAILS as literature, because it wasn't fun [for me]." ... is getting
> us nowhere.
> 
> Judith Abrahms
> {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!proper!judith

Oh, I don't know.  I'm enjoying it.  I'm also learning
something.

		-- SKZB


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com