or even better when you come up with a more down to Earth explanation ie the alarm clock or cupboard where just convienient and available assume you don't know what you are talking about or when profundity is different or beyond them they then have to trash your view because you are not as intellligent as them. I find it funny when I am told I do not 'get' the profound nature of my own work - which has happened a couple of times with historical short stories. Or I hear someone discuss my husbands work of art when I know his only thought was those blobs look good together/
Perhaps he does? Or at least, better than you? Literary fiction may also be more culture-specific than commercial fiction. Works that are popular in e.g. the UK, USA, South Africa are not always so popular outside their own country because the reader does not understand the deeper inferences and cultural references. Same thing goes for older classics, which is why young people in the US in particular sometimes dismiss literary fiction in the way you appear to. It is just too hard for them to understand. This does not invalidate the quality of the work.
I hate to say it but just think you kind of made his point. How can someone understand how Forkfoot read a book better than Forkfoot? Why is Forkfoot's way of reading it lacking in understanding or profound feeling? Reading no matter the genre is a deeply personal experience. Forkfoot reads and has a good grasp of literary fiction - he's not dismissing the work just a number of the pundits who come up with an interpretation and dismiss someone who has a different view of it. I am not dumb or uneducacted and whilst I find modern literary fiction frequently loses the plot (literally) and that to me is dull to read - that does not mean I have a chip on my shoulder or lacking in understanding, it makes me a person who expects a higher standard of work and think what we hold up as prize winning fiction needs looking at. A good piece of literary fiction has all the richness as a good piece of genre fiction and vice versa. My short stories when I was working were often 'interpreted' as an author I was dismissed for not knowing what I was talking about. I often see that with interpretation of literary fiction that the person does it dismisses the author says they are unimportant once you decide the author is unimportant and the original intent is to be dismissed then each reader can choose to interpret it however they choose - but the author's background is important in understanding what has been written if you are going to interpret. If you are just going to read a good story the author is irrelevent. An example would be in my children's story I had Milly messing around up her skirt pulling a face - it was not an unfortunate choice of words, it was deliberate. Children do just that action and will interpret it in a different way to an adult - and actually rather than being a childish innocent interpretation it is actually the correct one. If an adult chooses to giggle at the double entendre in it especially when she fishes out her wand that is their business. Most under eights will not interpret it as an unfortunate choice of words they will know exactly what Milly is doing.
I am not sure what point you think I have proved. I said perhaps. I also said 'the way you appear to'. I was not making any comment on whether or not Forkfoot understands literary fiction well. I was making a comment on the fact that he insinuates the person in the example he gives is not being genuine in his feelings or knowledge, as well as expressing himself in a pretty offensive and negative (defensive?) way. If the ideas I got were wrong, perhaps Forkfoot could try giving his viewpoint in a more mature manner.
Nah. Okay, so like, my brother is a music major. He can listen to an extremely complex and moving piece of experimental progressive rock, for example, and talk about time signatures and movements and all kinds of musical techniques and their history in ways that I never could, because I don't have the vocabulary or accrued knowledge to do so. But this is only content, and he knows it; he never loses the childlike awe and wonder at the beauty of the thing he beholds or has the arrogance to say "This is why this piece of instrumental music is so beautiful. Here is a list of the reasons it moves you that way." He stands next to me and hears beauty, just like I do. An art major might be able to do the same thing with an abstract painting, talking about color and light and different kinds of paint and the techniques the artist uses. Never would he or she say "Here are the concepts being conveyed by this abstract painting. These are the reasons that upon viewing it you are brought to an emotional and spiritual place you've never been before." Anyone who did that would be immediately labeled a douchebag by anyone with a soul. But for some reason when an artist's using words the critics begin to get cocky. It is assumed that because an individual word can be grabbed and understood and explained, an entire piece of art which uses words can be. There's no mystery, no awe, and there should be. They can talk about the techniques being used, the influences of the artist and the cultural context of a piece's creation, but to read something like Beckett's How It Is for example and go "I understand this. Here's what's happening here:" is the silliest and most arrogant thing in the world. But people do stuff like that all the time. I dunno, whenever I try to talk about how I see this stuff around here people get all pissed off and I feel like I'm not communicating my ideas as clearly as I could be. I guess my main point is, art can and very often does transcend the conceptual, and when it does, everyone should keep their grubby little concepts off of it. You can't analyze and explain what makes a piece of great art so moving any more than you can understand the beauty of a sunset. Just be humble and marvel at the mystery. And this applies to the artist as well. Not even the artist understands what's happening when a thing of great profundity is created.
I kind of agree, as someone who studies both art and literature, but I also kinda disagree. You're right--to presume that you fully understand a work of art is arrogant and unrealistic, but ultimately, all the effects of a work of art, their ability to move you to transcendental places are a result of the physical elements of the work itself. An incredible painting can move you in intense ways, but those ways can be traced back to the painting itself. It's the same with literature, especially poetry; the root of the art's power is always the text itself, and by analysing it you can gain an insight into how it operates. You seem to see this as a negative thing, like 'unweaving the rainbow', to borrow an old cliche, but I think trying to understand how a great work of art moves you to such great heights is something worth doing.
I'm not sure why you think the techniques etc involved in producing music and art can be dissected by people who have expert knowledge, but literary work is somehow outside this kind of criticism. Sometimes it is difficult to appreciate a complex literary or artistic work without a certain level of education. For example, cubism was derided at first--there was no wondering at the marvel of it, etc. Modern poets, similarly, had little following at first because their work didn't rhyme, scan, whatever. And most/many artists think and plan, it's a complete fallacy to maintain their work is instinctive and so we should just brainlessly marvel at it. Thanks for clarifying your ideas, though.
So, because there can be an unattainable element of mystery and wonder in a piece of art, anyone trying to understand and explain any aspect of that piece of art is an asshole and douche-bag, as you've put it? At least we can make sense of why people may end up 'pissed off' when you share your opinions on these matters. The real shame is how many writers I meet with such chips on their shoulders. They resist any and all education or instruction when it comes to writing under some [extremely defensive] guise that anyone trying to unravel the mysteries of art is just some asshole and douche-bag, as you put it. If you point out how there surely are things to be learned from studying fiction, how while some of it is mystery, some of it is also very objective and quantifiable, they get defensive and point to that one jerk years ago blah blah. It's not a very secure position as a writer to base so much [seemingly heated] opinion and perspective on vague notions that everyone in a self-defined group of people are all the same because you've judged them based on isolated encounters. This is pretty much the hallmark of ignorance and bigotry, really, and if nothing else I advise writers to get over it for selfish reasons. Every day a person will be faced with experiences they can, if they wish, use to generalize, stereotype or marginalized another group of people, the only real difference is how you react and how you choose to respond to such experiences. You can choose to form the old 'those people' and 'people like that' judgments, of course, as that's really your rights as an individual. For writers, however, I would seriously advise not doing this with groups of other writers. It's a popular thing to do these days. You see the writers different from you, and different becomes wrong, and suddenly anyone writing anything different is pretentious, or a sell-out, anyone taking a different approach to learning the craft of writing is a idiot or a know-it-all. Meanwhile, the politics, nepotism and gossiping of writing start to become the focus, not the craft of writing fiction. And yes, it happens on both sides, which doesn't make it right or useful, only gives more fodder for people to dig in their heels as if these inane blanket-judgments on 'those kinds of writers' are actually somehow informing their writing or going to help them find success. The thing I'll never understand is the people who have this chip on their shoulder against education. Many educators are motivated by the fact education, especially in a partially subjective field such as creative writing, can teach a student how to approach things in life with curiosity and wonder. I can't remember the last professor I knew, talked to or even have ever heard of whose goal was to inform their students of the right answers (and this goes for most professors in maths and sciences, too). Just by the nature of the terms, most educators--whether a professor or just a mentor--don't come close to resembling stereotypes and generalizations that exist. Sure, there are those who are assholes and douche-bags, as you put it, but I think we can all agree such people can be found everywhere, whether it's in front of a classroom with a mustache you don't particularly care for, or perhaps even posting on these very forums.
He didn't say that on any level - nor did he say everyone it was a very particular type of person, the one that tells him how to read or receive something that wants to interfere with the 'magic' of the work. What I read was that those that claim to all knowledge about why a book or a piece of artwork enraptures, captures imagination over another are full of it. You can understand the technical side but there is more than that - each piece of art, music, literature has a relationship first with the author of the work, and then with the person receiving it. Once you remove the history around it and the author from the picture - a person with education can discuss the technical aspect but the other interpretation is just as valid in someone without it. Quite often an understanding of the technical can remove the 'magic.' Like with my Milly example above, my kids are not remotely uncomfortable they think Milly pulling faces is funny. So do adults but for different reasons and you cannot really rewind the adult brain and have them laugh at the same things a child is laughing at uncluttered with the addition of the understanding of the double entendre. Fact is someone without the education will understand different aspects of the work that may no longer be available to the more educated. I know when I was explaining the archaeology of a site to someone it was a fine line to walk giving someone enough information to keep them interested but not so much as to remove the fun, the tingles up the spine etc Look no one has seen this pot in 900 years and this is what it looked like is exciting. Usually explaining about the indistinguishable flecks to someone is too much information. Even within my own field I see it happen - remember this furore about the new mysterious stonework floor we had uncovered. When the local farmer walks past and says 'I see you hit bedrock then.' Or with the Pictish Carved Balls a complete mystery to archaeologist a child of a fisherman pipes up, 'Oh my Dad has one of them to wrap rope round.' - the kid is quite right they do look like that and now I think maybe they used to wrap twine, thread etc round. It isn't an accepted view but the kid came up with the best explanation I have ever heard. My first suggestion that they were just ornamental was also rejected lol Early on in my time here there was a poem by the Bard of Wigan - the comments were that 'its crap.' Would flow better as it is crap. Not if you speak with an accent from that area of England it wouldn't - when read out it would spit out in anger - it is crap would sound wet in comparison. It wasn't my degree level English Literature courses (yes shock horror I studied and did quite well in English at an old and reputable university, I studied American Literature at a different one), that gave me that nugget of information it was my place of birth. Most art and even science is there to be understood on many levels - my children know if you mix red food colouring, vinegar and bicarbonate of soda you get a cool lava flow effect. I can work out the equation and explain how it's working. But the intial 'explosion' of lava is the fun. What I cannot explain is why it is fun and cool or why my kids giggle everytime we do it. Having been on the butt end of several of those with literature degrees reading my work and 'interpreting' their way, there are people who are trying to understand something that isn't there. I got into the habit of sticking things in for fun to see what they would come up with next. This is personally why I find a good portion of MODERN literary fiction dull and think it has lost its way a bit- I read it first as I would any other book - then I analyse it. A good piece of literary fiction like Sunset Song, the L-Shaped Room, 39 Steps, Cloud Atlas (and others) will do both. Like with Shakespeare or Burns - they captured imagination at all levels - they included beauty and symbolism but who doesn't find the idea of a posh lady with a louse at church climbing up her bonnet funny, or the guy peeing in the corner etc Often modern literary fiction tries so hard to be clever it forgets the 'magic.' A really good piece of any genre or literary fiction does both captures the magic and tells it beautifully. Even with Thomas Hardy who I cannot personally stand I admire the characters, the stories, his choice of names and locations etc I also do not find him dull. Perfume and Catcher in the Rye only two books I never finished are not dull they actually are quite intriguing. It is very, very hard to rewind an education and see the trade off with the loss of 'innocence' over knowledge (don't get me wrong I think education is amazing, but would like to look at the stars and forget their composition, distance and how to work out the various equations), I was blessed with a time of going backwards with my illness and Forkfoot is right there are things education cannot explain.
See, right off the bat we've got misunderstanding. I have nothing against people who can dissect the techniques used in any art form, including literature. My whole point was that literary critics seem to think they can take it a step beyond that, saying what concepts are at play here and why a piece takes one to a place they've never quite been before that leaves a nugget in their heart that lasts forever. Which brings us to Okay, here I feel like I was largely understood. I of course agree that there's no non-physical tool being used in the piece itself; a painter uses paint exclusively, ain't no ectoplasm or magic pixie dust in there. I also agree that by analyzing the techniques used in a piece of art we can gain insight into how they operate. Our disagreement comes in where the dance between subject and object begins. We can analyze and dissect the minutest color change and brush-stroke in a painting, and that is surely not without merit, but what can't be analyzed or dissected is what happens when light reflects off that piece, enters someone's brain through the eyes, and becomes interpreted and reacted to. There's this whole other half of art that will always be a total mystery, and I think in mediums like painting and music this fact gets a lot more respect than in literature. Whoa. I take it by the fact that you say "assholes and douchebags as you've put it" like ninety times in your post that you find that extremely offensive; I will refrain from using those words in this conversation henceforth. You too are misunderstanding me as madhoca did. Education in the musical arts benefited my brother a great deal and now he's one of the best musicians I've ever met. I doubt those two facts are unrelated. Not sure why you're making this all about education; my beef isn't really with teachers so much as with a lot of the people who critique literature, either professionally or at parties while eating pistachios . What a dumb thing to say. Apart from the Workshop, that is exactly the sort of thing this forum is for. You have never heard me labeling anyone here anything of the sort. Some writing floats my boat, some doesn't, same as with you. I don't make a personal issue about it. You're trying to pigeonhole me into a position I've never expressed to defend against an offensive viewpoint which never appeared in this conversation. Sounds like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Look my peeps, all's I'm saying is that I think literature should be approached with the same humility that the other arts are. I cannot understand how this is something to get all worked up about.
Maybe I'm taking him up wrong, but I think what Forkfoot means is that often people with a knowledge of technique can use that knowledge to exclude others. So, my friend is an art historian. I'm not, so when we both look at a painting, we see different things. Regardless of this, we can both have an opinion on the work. If he likes it, and I don't, he won't tell me that my opinion is worthless because I don't understand all the elements that went into the painting's composition. He doesn't judge me because he is a nice and secure person. Not everyone is as nice, or as secure. When people use their understanding of technique to exclude others and make themselves feel superior, they are being douche-bags. It doesn't just happen in art, it happens in all parts of society. It's fantastic to be able to understand the technique of music, art and literature. But snobbishness doesn't do anyone any favours. I know people who won't read literary fiction because they think it's too difficult to interpret. They won't give it a chance, because they don't want to feel stupid. And as most of us here realise, if you cut off an entire section of books you miss out on a lot. I've read Joyce, Plath and Shakespeare. I've read Twilight, Angels and Demons and My Sister's Keeper. And I've enjoyed them all. A good book is a good book. Different books have different purposes. I don't see why one genre is inherently better or worse than another.
I know, it really is quite the mystery, isn't it? I mean, who would ever think entering a conversation by tossing around dramatic hyperbole, black and white reasoning and insults with every post would ever result in such a way. I can't tell if you're actually this ignorant, or you just like the attention of playing victim so are pretending, but it's pretty unimpressive either way and what ends up ruining discussions such as these. Here, just to review why on Earth anyone might have issues with not only your rude approach, but your seeming to target education in whatever whatever axe it is you insist on grinding: And for the record, I have no issues with using 'bad' words, only when it seems to be done in an insulting way, or worse when it seems done just to get attention. And I have no problem with people having opposing opinions (God knows it happens a lot around here). My problem is most people seem to be able to discuss the subject civilly, while you seem to be more keen on drama and insults, and then go with the whole golly gee, what did I ever do if someone calls you on your BS. At best it's a distraction from what you're actually trying to say, which yes, imagine that, seems to not be communicated very well... perhaps because you seem more intent on ruffling feathers instead of coherently and respectfully discussing your opinions (your opinion seeming dependent on selectively and with hyperbole finding extreme examples and someone to insult?)
And often people ignorant of technique can form defensive stereotypes and assumptions meant to exclude others. What's the point? Either way, selectively citing examples to grind an axe isn't good. People without knowledge of technique, without education, without studying craft, can be ignorant and shallow. And people with knowledge of technique, with education, having studied craft, can be ignorant and shallow. Again, what's the point? When a variety of people can be ignorant and shallow, the only real reason to only target one of those groups to make a point is basically not to discuss ideas and issues at hand, but to grind an axe. Or is Forkfoot saying only those with knowledge of technique, education and who've studied craft can ever be the assholes and douche-bags he seems to clump that whole group into? Is it some kind of phenomenon where education or formal craft training MAKES someone like this. Or maybe it's that those on all sides can be ignorant, but it's somehow more okay to bash those educated, I mean, they're all pretentious snobs anyway, right, so there's no harm in being a pretentious snob oneself to bash them! I once read an essay written by a strange fellow named Kettle that had a lot of good points about calling others black.
So let me get this straight despite attending a degree course you have never met the person Forkfoot is talking about ? I got where he was going with it - his post in no way maligned education. Nor is it particularly rude, descriptive and full of imagery maybe. Having attended many academic courses over the years I recognise the cliche and stereotype which is a cliche and stereotype for a reason. There is always someone on a course who has a 'hobby' and they latch onto that concept excluding the rest. There is the one that brown noses and doesn't ask questions accepts the lecturers word as gospel. The one that doesn't quite get it, but is hiding the fact by learning the technical but not the gut and spiritual side of the course. What he is talking about is those that use that education to exclude others and tread on his relationship with the piece of art or literature etc Place all those comments back in their context and there is nothing contraversial - they tell a story and add up to a complete picture. If you read carefully the bespectacled windbags don't have the education etc he covered everyone.
Yes. And what's the point of bringing up extreme examples, if not for the sake of making associations that certainly seem like axe grinding. What if in response to a discussion about literary and commercial fiction, I started telling stories about all the ignorant, overweight, lonely housewives I've met who are convinced their romance novel they haven't taken the time to truly edit is a masterpiece and how dare you for being a prude and academic snob if you don't think it's amazing. And yes, I've met enough of that very type of person that if I wished, I could make generalizations and then come into a discussion like this, go off topic, make disrespectful and insulting comments loosely affiliated with some perceived 'side' of this discussion. But I wouldn't. Why? Because first off it's not even really on topic. Discussing genres of fiction only leads to people insulting specific [perceived] stereotypes of the people that write that sort of fiction when people want to grind that axe. And secondly, we know how quickly anyone would be shouted down were they to make such comments associated with genre/commercial fiction writers, whether through direct or indirect associations. The difference usually seems to be the fact that internet forums like these are balanced more toward the side of the genre/commercial fiction writer, and piling on anything and everything literary with 'this one time' stories about some pretentious snob is now the cool cool way to fit it, or something. It's really not. It's ignorant, offensive, obnoxious, and as we can see does NOTHING to further an ACTUAL discussion of these issues. In fact, time and time again these discussion (which I believe could be very valuable) end up swamped in people either leaving and not bothering with a discussion that will turn ugly, or speaking up, at which point the discussion still turns ugly and off topic. Either way, the discussion gets derailed... and for what? So what usually amounts to one person--usually who seems to never be understood and a quick scan through their recent posts can show is often off-topic and/or insulting--can go on about their personal experiences and why they think those experiences make it okay to toss around insults and inform us all repeatedly of whatever thing they hate and want to slander that day, when it isn't even really on topic?
Humour in a post is not the same as attack or defensiveness. Heck BBC 2 has a whole programme devoted to Grumpy Old Men and one to Grumpy Old Women - thinking of nominating Forkfoot for the next series Nowt wrong with having a distinctive style. It really isn't that extreme of an example. Generalisations are made about chicklit, romance and fantasy all the time usually by people that don't read them.
This is so true. I think boards like this one are slanted towards commercial writing, because- the clue is in the name- it's easier to sell. Therefore if you want to be a writer, you have a better chance when writing genre fiction than when writing literary fiction. Sometimes people can be dismissive of literary fiction without giving it a fair go. That's true. However, lots of people slam Stephenie Meyer and have never read any of her books. It works both ways. I think the classification of what is literary and what is genre (the original subject of the thread) is for the most part arbitrary. I get fed up reading articles bemoaning the fact that book today aren't as good as they were a hundred years ago. Maybe they're not. But a lot of books that we consider literature today was genre fiction when it came out, and was looked down on as popular trash. In 2113 there will probably be books considered literature, and evocative of our period that we don't think are worthy of merit. I'm a historian, and there's an argument that until one hundred years has passed from the event that you're studying, it can't be examined properly. Maybe it's the same with literature? I don't fully agree with this, but it's an interesting idea.
I'm not saying it's your fault, cuz the tone of things online is pretty hard to read, but I'm pretty sure you're reading a lot of insults and drama where there really aren't any. You keep talking about how vitriolic these discussions can be, but it seems that you're the only one really heading in that direction. Okay, Forkfoot used some colourful language, but if you read what he actually says instead of what you want him to have said, he isn't attacking education in general and he isn't saying that art and literature can't be studied. All he's saying is that, because of the idea of individual interpretation, it makes no sense for anyone, bespectacled doucheface or otherwise, to pretend to completely understand a work of art.
Umm... this. Thanks. I was trying to figure out how I was gonna respond to all that stuff before I got to this post; you summed it up better than I probably would have.
I agree i don't particularly like an awful lot of modern literary fiction - but there are some gems in there. I think really the best books combine the good of both and forget about the rubbish.
Sorry, but I still find in non-constructive to effectively post stuff like that in such a thread, and tossing around insulting language doesn't help. Image a discussion about horror genres, and all I could offer up is how I hate Stephen King and I'm so sick of douche bags writing crappy horror and so many horror writers are such assholes thinking they know it all about the genre blah blah. The response, appropriately, would be to ask what my problem is, why I'm spouting off in a rude way when there may very well be horror writers reading the thread, and why the hell I think that opinion matters when it's not even on topic. Or imagine if it wasn't Forkfoot, but some random newbie to the site, I have a feeling reactions would be much different. The fact is, the discussion wasn't how much people hate the random pretentious literary snobs they've met, or about how much they hate know-it-alls who think just because they have a degree, they've uncovered every mystery in every fiction work ever. It's basically one of those things where over and over with such discussions people don't seem to actually have on-topic answers, so go against the golden rule and don't have anything nice to say, but figure they'll go ahead and post anyhow (or wait, that's not the golden rule, but close, whatev). So really, when I see a discussion on Stephen King, I just avoid it instead of posting what a ****ty, hypocritical asshole and hack he is, knowing that people DO like him and taking such a stance, in such a manner, would probably not be constructive or appropriate. It would be interesting to have a thread having anything to do with 'literary' where people didn't post if they didn't have something to meaningfully and constructively add to the conversation, as then we could all contemplate the complex underlying metaphoric meaning of the tumbleweeds blowing by.
Except a) Forkfoot doesn't hate literary fiction. b) Forkfoot read literary fiction. And yes on Stephen King threads there are indeed those posts about hating them, there are on threads about Harry Potter, Twilight, Fantasy in general, Dan Brown gets a lot of stick along with many others. You actually get much fewer on a thread about literary fiction because less people do actually read or care about it. It tends not to rile too many people up the wrong way. And fact is it is Forkfoot and he is a very young grumpy old man and is entertaining with it. It is only offensive to the person that chooses to be offended. As Arron pointed out you are the one who is acting in a defensive manner.
