1. Meledin
    Offline

    Meledin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0

    Why do you write, and what is literature? Your theory.

    Discussion in 'General Writing' started by Meledin, Mar 24, 2007.

    What is literature? What is it not? When is a story worth the ink its written in? Your ideas on this subject are, I'm sure, closely linked with your motives for writing, which are... ?

    I'd love to hear your views.
     
  2. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    1. i write because i breathe...

    2. to me, 'literature' is writing that is several cuts above the mean... works that can stand the test of time... as dictionary.com puts it, 'artistic writings worthy of being remembered'...

    3. what is not, is all the rest...

    4. a story is worth the ink it's written in, if the writer is happy with his/her effort and/or a single reader derives pleasure or gains knowledge/insight/inspiration from reading it...

    5. as a philsopher, my motive for writing is to enlighten, educate, inspire, disclose unpleasant truths most would rather keep under wraps...
     
  3. Crazy Ivan
    Offline

    Crazy Ivan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The dumpster behind your McDonalds.
    1. It's the really good stuff out there, no matter what genre. American Gods is literature. Catch 22 is literature. Pretty much any Dickens novel is literature. Occasionally, even a comic book is literature. Occasionally.

    2. What is not literature is something you pick up, flash through, and put down again entirely unaffected. I'd like to list a few really good examples, but I can't think of any right now, which just goes to show how unliteratorial (I'm sure that's a word...somewhere) the examples are.

    3. Considering the fact that ink isn't that expensive, and it's dubious that a story is actually going to be written in ink at all any more (Computers, typewriters, pencils, etc.), I don't really think this question has much merit.

    4. I write cuz.
     
  4. Meledin
    Offline

    Meledin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm.

    Maia, I beg to differ. You don't write because you breathe, nor does anyone else. What's your real reason? Is there some self-interest involved? I guess I was just hoping for an answer that wasn't so vague.

    Animals breathe. Writing is a product of self-consciousness. So... why do we write? I certainly don't wish to get all sentimental about it (though I'm not saying it can be entirely pinpointed either).

    I think the addition of the term "worthy of being remembered" to the definition of literature is the difference between good and bad literature. Quality, however, is surely not a prerequisite for literature, because different generations make entirely different assessments of what is worthy and unworthy.

    I disagree with 4. By your logic, polemic racist writings are worthy if they please their author, and offer inspiration to a racist reader. Is self-gratification, and pleasing another reader who may be equally deluded, a valid criterion?

    For 5., I think your insights could be informative and may well be educational and enlightening; but they are essentially opinions, and in a world with so many competing voices, all shouting for attention, what makes yours stand out? I'm trying to answer these questions in relation to myself too; I'm pretty bogged down in literary theory at the moment. Its hindering my writing.

    Ivan, I'm sure you can be more specific than that mate. "It's the really good stuff" - why don't you write a treatise there, Sartre Jnr?

    With 2, your onto something. I don't think literature should be equated with idle distraction - definitely not.

    How are poetry and prose different types of literature? Is one more important than the other? If I was to say that a prominent figure once dismissed poetry as a static, passive, isolated subgenre, where a writer wallows in his own emotions, how would you respond?

    Paul Valery, for instance, has a very interesting theory: prose involves the transmission of ideas whereby the words that convey them fade after the event. Like speech, language is a means, not an end. For Valery, poetry, on the other hand, is like dancing: it involves the same body parts as walking (which is utilitarian - a means to an end), but unlike walking, it is gratuitous, for the sake of it (which is a positive thing in his view). In poetry, words are no longer assumed to have their everyday values: like a bridge across a chasm, if you dwell on a word (repeat it over and over out loud), its meaning collapses.

    I'm not so sure; what do you think?

    [edit]
    Oh, and I'd just like to add that I've read a new member's poems on this site that are particularly irritating: writing and art should not be about drowning yourself or your reader in your whirlpool of self-pity and suffering. Literature is not, or ought not to be in my view, about expressing emotion: that alone is not enough.

    "You may have a grievance but [that does not mean] you have grief, and grievances are for petitions, not for poetry." 'Old School'
     
  5. Crazy Ivan
    Offline

    Crazy Ivan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The dumpster behind your McDonalds.
    THANK YOU. I hate that stuff.
     
  6. Handguns For Hearts
    Offline

    Handguns For Hearts Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Neverland.
    I think real literature, or at least the material worth remembering, are works that can stand the test of time.

    I write because it's the most beneficial way of releasing my mind. It prevents me from going crazy. I document whatever strange worlds come to me by writing them down. Maybe I have a selfish reason to write, but I'm not the kind of writer to work for the public. I don't do it for the popularity, I think that's a waste.
    "Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
     
  7. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    ...what i meant is that writing to me is as 'natural' and vital to my life as breathing... didn't think it needed further explanation...

    ...don't know what you mean by 'self-interest'... of course it's in my self-interest to continue my breathing... so, the same would therefore apply to my writing, no?... if you've followed my posts or gone to my site, you'd know that my 'reason' is not to become famous or to make money... i write simply because it's what i do and have done for probably longer than you've been alive...

    ...in my 'old life' i did write to be published/produced and to make a living... i no longer do anything for money, and my writings are freely offered to any who want them... the object of those writings is as i noted in #5... but that's not the 'reason' i write...

    ...if i haven't pinpointed it to your satisfaction yet, i'm sorry, but i guess you'll just have to make do...

    ...sorry to disagree, but it is... in the publishing world, 'literature' is a term reserved for the most widely recognized 'best' examples of the writer's art... and, of course, that's affected by the current literary world's assessments...

    ...of course they are worthy to their authors and in some cases, to some others!... i did not say they were worthy to everyone, did i?... you asked only what would make them 'worth the ink they were printed in'... you did not specify 'to whom'...

    ...if you want only answers you can agree with, first be sure you are asking the right questions... and then, be sure you are not imbuing our answers with conclusions we have not drawn, but are only in your own mind...

    ...blunt stating of the obvious that most prefer to ignore or pretend they don't see... that's the basic role of the philosopher... to hold a mirror up to those who seek answers... the answers are all there, in each one's own actions and all that takes place in the world humans have built... no dissembling is necessary, to answer those questions, but it's indulged in for various and sundry reasons, by those who have this or that axe to grind... an honest philosopher [yes, i know that's a redundancy] won't have any...

    ...then, for pity's sake, get your head out of 'theory' and buckle down to just writing!... what is it you want to write?... and have the guts to give us your own answers to those questions, before questioning and disagreeing with ours...

    ...i have to say i find it curious that you claim you would 'love to hear' our views and then, when we present them, you proceed to question them and present your reasons why you think we shouldn't hold them...

    love and hugs, maia
     
  8. Crazy Ivan
    Offline

    Crazy Ivan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The dumpster behind your McDonalds.
    She's right here. Logic is all well and good, but somtimes you need to actually think instead.
     
  9. Isis
    Offline

    Isis Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Yawk
    Seconded [thirded? o_o] for extra truth.

    I don't really have any theories about literature, besides my own sort of shifting mental checklist of things that I want to read. It's pretty flexible, and adapts to different things when I'm reading them - but you know how people will gravitate towards a certain kind of book. This does not mean genre, by the way - something more hard to define: I think it's a combination of voice, writing style, and some other things.


    Why I write - it changes. I like words, and I have ideas for things all the time - it makes sense that some of them become writing. And I've always loved to read.
     
  10. Meledin
    Offline

    Meledin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay. I think writing has the principal role of self-regulation and self-definition. We tell fictions to ourselves, about ourselves and others, all the time. Perhaps it's the product of an evolutionary instinct, allowing primitive man to play out fictional scenarios in his mind and take evasive action. Whatever, I'm just speculating. But our voracious consumption of stories is testament to a natural, in-born inclination for stepping into the subjective experience of others, for whatever purposes.

    The difference is, or should be, what we do with it. I think, more and more, that while entertaining and amusing works have their place, philosophical writing, the exchange of ideas, is the rightful domain of the most important works of literature. Combine the two and you have a good formula.

    No surprises there! :D

    You do it well, no-one's disputing that. I've checked out your site before (a year or two ago, with my old account before I forgot it). I didn't know you wrote in French too though (a fantastic skill I'm still struggling with myself) until I read some more philosetry just now - I like 'armed & dangerous', it typifies your kind motherly benevolence on these forums and, I'm guessing, in life. Do you read much in French, by the way? If so, I'd highly recommend 'La Chute', as Camus' protagonist has his moralistic assumptions very tidily debunked - not necessarily always justifiably, but it certainly challenges one's self-definition.

    You're right. My mistake.

    Why is your subjective mirror such a clean, objective, untainted depiction of the world? Personally, I don't think it is, you're necessarily constricted by your own subjectivity, right? Your essay "Dare to live right!" is a case in point: I can't relate to your negative take on important facets of modern culture such as sport and computer games, not to mention man's inevitable (and enjoyable) reliance on drugs like alcohol. Your conservative and idealistic assumptions smack of someone who hasn't actually played much sport, or computer games, or who drinks much - if at all. I could be wrong here, but I don't think I am. Because you lack the necessary first-hand experience of these 'evils', your essay, I would argue, fails to relate or successfully engage with the values these activities have to offer, which I myself have experienced.

    Why is the world such an ugly place to you, Maia? Is that why you feel the need to save us, to nurture us as a Mama and wag the finger (albeit softheartedly) with that "Says Mom" kind of tone? To impose your good-bad dichotomy where, arguably, there is none? The world is what it is: hardly less violent or more violent than 2000 years ago, or 2000 before that. You suggest in one essay that "as intelligence and intellect go up the scale, morality and humanity go down" - as if animals have any concept of morality! As if an abstract morality pre-exists at all man's existence and subsequent decision to define his own meaning in the world!

    Animals are not self-conscious to any great extent: they do not know themselves as beings with a past and future, who are going to die; there is no record of a beast ever committing suicide, or any arbitrary act; in fact their language systems are ridiculously primitive compared to the many variants of the human tongue; no animal can talk about their own language! So tell me, why are we less moral than beasts? They have no morality! Of course we cause suffering, we're self-interested, and our brains are fickle, easily warped, and often misfire. But fixing concrete meanings to actions which hurt others is an inadequate system that fails to account for the complexities of life. Causing hurt is unavoidable, and moreover if you fail in your genetic responsibility to cause hurt at some point and to some degree, you will be the victim, the doormat, swept aside by the unforgiving indifference of a Mother Nature whose only side you see is the good, the life-giving, the innocent.

    This may seem like it has nothing to do with writing; but it has everything to do with it. Your belief system determines who you are and what you write. I don't believe, for instance, that good and bad are as clear-cut as you make out in your essays, and try to reflect that in my writing.

    Conversely, by challenging your ideas, you might feel I am challenging your very person. That genuinely isn't the case, and I hope I haven't gone overboard in my enthusiasm to engage with your ideas and my efforts to offer an interpretation of literature and writing in the process.

    I am sorry, Maia.


    For me, writing is this:
    In addition to defining and regulating my sense of self, it provides me with an outlet for exploring the language I speak. Like you Isis, I just love words: their flow and musicality, their power to convey meaning, yet at other times their inadequacy and slipperiness.

    As I read something that I enjoy, I feel connected to the writer, whose ideas would not exist without me as reader to co-create the meaning of his or her work. For instance, I particularly admire Camus; and as I finished 'L'Etranger', as Meursault is executed, I felt such an indescribable surge of feeling, uplifting, motivating and thought-provoking.

    That emotion is what I want to evoke in my writing. If I can move someone to tears, exhilarate and inspire, and present ideas that question the way others perceive their world, I will be happy. Perhaps because as an organism within a greater, collective organism, I like the feeling of contributing, of being in contact, of having a purpose; or perhaps, as a subjective consciousness limited by the rules of life, writing is a way of connecting with a past, present and future self; a means of defeating the inexorable continuum of experience, and - perhaps this is too mushy - of connecting with other minds whose personalities are still tragically just a figment of my imagination, whether the people are real or not.

    I promise, that's about as serious as I'll get :D Writing is such a great outlet for playfulness, for laughing at the absurdity of things and smiling at wit, and I don't think these aspects are any less important.
     
  11. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    ...whew!... quite a lot to deal with... perhaps some should be reserved for private correspondence... if you'd care to email me for more in-depth coverage of all you're stating/asking here, i'll be glad to oblige... i'll just give you my off the top of my head replies, for now...

    ...agreed!...

    ...thanks... glad you think so...

    ...good guess... as a mother of 7, it comes more or less naturally... but i think i was always meant to be cast in that role, since i was second mother to my two younger sisters and it seemed 'natural' to me, while my older sister, who you'd think would take on that task, wasn't the least bit interested...

    ... not seriously, since auditing a university french 3 course [french lit] way back when, other than what was necessary during a near year-long stay in poitiers, several years ago...

    ...read one of his works in class in the original french, much more in english translations, before and since... he's a favorite of mine... haven't read that one, however... my sister sent me a wonderful quote of his, when i was at a low point in life: 'in the midst of winter, i found in me an invincible spring'...

    ...we're each entitled to our own opinions... i strive to be and happen to think i'm being as objective as any human can be...

    ...'subjectivity' as in 'based on feelings and opinions, rather than external facts?... i'd say definitely not... i would say i'm bound by the limits of my own experience, observations, and studies/knowledge [which are considerable, the result of many decades' work/absorption]... as is any philosopher... though some do allow their 'subjectivity' to filter their conclusions... i don't, though i well could have... my questions came first, the conclusions, only after much study/living/observation...

    ...sorry, but you are... way wrong!... fyi, i'm anything BUT 'idealistic'... in my old life i drank from early teens on... after a teetotalling first bad marriage of 10 years, as an unhappy wife in a second, and then as a professional writer, a glass of my favorite wine or a stoli and soda was seldom far from my reach...

    ...i was also a heavy user of prescription meds for many years, knew many like me, whose lives were destroyed by any/all of those 'inevitable' evils...

    ...as for sports, i was as close as one can get, without being on the field, having been married to a basketball and football ref who worked games up to and including the sun bowl...

    ...as a mother of 7, violent kids' games were a subject i had to stay abreast of... and no, i didn't play them myself, because i could never see any enjoyment in blasting others to bits...

    ...since i left that old life and those bad habits behind, in working with the homeless and living among them, i've seen the use and effects of drugs and drink up close and personal...

    ...living in the middle of the bronx ghetto, in a 4th floor walkup gave me a too-close view of life on the streets and dealing with the kids there, who 'imported' me to help them, was all the experience i need, to see what drugs and real violence bring to all involved...

    ...i also lived with the hopi on their desolate mesas, where the grandmoms have to raise the kids, thanks to domestic violence and other 'bahana'-brought evils that are decimating those gentle 'little people of peace'...

    ...still think i lack anything?... let's save more argument on this for emails, ok?... don't want to be hijacking this thread any further...

    ...those are your words, not mine... it's a beautiful place, in many parts... i've been all around it [literally!] and seen such beauty as to make an angel weep... the ugliness is what mankind has wrought... and i see it all, because i refuse to wear the blinders and rose-tinted glasses most keep on, to save themselves from having to feel guilty or sad about it...

    ...again, you may be transferring your own needs or emotions onto me... or just guessing wrong... i feel no need to 'save' anyone, even if they could be... or to nurture, actually... just to hold up that mirror, so some will 'see'... that's all... if no one wants to, that's their problem, not mine... i provide the buffet, but i don't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to eat...

    ...to you, obviously... to me, there definitely is one... have you read the poem, 'hidden in the fog'?... check it out...

    ...true... but nowadays, there are more of us... and we can torture, maim and kill many more, lots more easily than ever before...

    ...i believe i was referring to the human, not to other animal lifeforms... what's your problem with that?...

    ...no clue what you mean there... sorta garbled, imo...

    ...so?... i didn't say they weren't/did...

    ...as the bard put it, 'methinks thou dost protest too much'... why do you feel such a great need to justify violent behavior?... want to indulge in some yourself, for some justifiable [you think] reason?...

    ...no, duh! :confused:

    ...hey, if you're comfy up there on your fence, i'm not gonna try and talk you down from it... stay there and tell yourself you're being 'objective'... but don't try and tell me what i think and why, when you haven't a clue, ok?... you sound very young to me, which may have something to do with all this apparent desperate need to discount what i write... no offense meant... just being as blunt as you are...

    ...c'mon, if you're honest, you have to admit you are, to some extent... just read all you wrote above, if you doubt that...

    ...you're not being entirely honest with yourself if you can really call all this dissing of what i've written, as an attempt to 'engage with' it... i don't mind your disagreeing with me, but let's call it what it really is, ok?... ;)

    ...sorry, but i see not a soupçon of same in any of the above...

    ...i'll end this now and deal with your own answer to your original questions in a separate post, to keep this from being more than a page long [if it isn't already!]...

    love and hugs, maia
     
  12. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    ..i can certainly relate to the 'love of words' impetus... even as a young child, folks would say i should be a lawyer, since i loved to use words 'with precision' [to put it kindly]...

    ...seems t'me a pretty egotistical pov toward others' works!... their/our ideas do exist w/o you... and i can't see the reader [even when it's myself] as a 'co-creator']... 'interpreter' or 'translator' perhaps... but in no way a creator, as only the writer knows what meaning was intended... that you want to put your own stamp on it, as you perceive it, is to do an injustice to the writer, placing yourself above him/her in importance, imo...

    ...and how do you see that as you 'co-creating' when it was the words of camus that brought out those feelings?...

    ...from a combination of my own experience, common belief, and the words of many well-published writers i've known, that seems to be the opposite of the 'norm'...

    ...writing is a solitary pursuit, by its very nature... unless you're referring to writing motivational/religious stuff, most writers generally write for themselves first, for their readers and the money, second...

    ...instead, are you seeking some sort of approval by writing... and/or acclaim?... to stave off loneliness?... validation of your life?...

    ...each type of writing has its own merits/value... if the quality is well above the norm, then i'm sure that most in the world of letters would call it 'literature'...
     
  13. Meledin
    Offline

    Meledin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, I got a lot of things wrong, for which I'm sorry. Your life experience is really admirable.

    I get what you're saying. You're right, perhaps I do lack the experience to know the difference.

    They are my words (which were too strong, I admit), but I got that impression from your poems. You say the world is beautiful in some parts, but then that "the ugliness" is "what mankind has wrought". No rose-tinted glasses here either; but I accept this ugliness as inevitable (and the source of many a novel) where there is competition for limited resources, and value it as tempered by our capacity to create beauty (in whatever form). "Ugly"... "beautiful"... just two more personal concepts.

    Surely lots less easily, that's the point of law? We have greater power (guns, bombs), but greater regulation and protection. That makes the heinous acts that do occur all the more glaring, not to mention the fact that they are better reported due to media coverage.

    What? I'll quote you:

    No, and to insinuate that is pretty underhanded. I just accept that mankind is naturally violent because man is part animal; it is the (solely human) moral superego, regulated and in fact defined by society, which brings man into conflict with his genetic impulses.

    Geez, chill out. I hate it when we fight like this...

    Sure, conflicting ideas are a product of that disparity. How can I learn if I don't present my views? 'Desperate need' is a bit mean. I'm a naturally argumentative person; as once with you and your family, mine are nudging me in the direction of a legal career. I don't know how young you think I am; I'm a 2nd year student at a well-known university in England.

    Disagreeing at times, yes. Dissing (disrespecting)? Definitely not. I've apologised, and will again if I overstep the mark - but do remember that if I wrote about all your poems that I do agree with, we wouldn't have much of a (admittedly off-topic) discussion.
     
  14. Meledin
    Offline

    Meledin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yikes. Okay, I was thinking along the lines of Barthes, death of the author and all that... "co-creator' is actually Sartre's term in Qu'est-ce que la litterature. I meant the idea that what the reader perceives the meaning of a work to be is usually the most important thing. What an author intended isn't always so important. Perhaps to assert that the writer has sole claim to the meaning of his/her work is the more egotistical pov? One could even argue that the writer is a product of society, upbringing etc.

    Camus didn't write in a vacuum. I only meant that the words of Camus are meaningless unless they are interpreted; that in theory his work is only half-finished until his audience reads it.

    Well, acclaim would be nice. But how could writing stave off loneliness if by your own definition it's a lonely activity? My life at uni is precisely why I haven't written more fiction to date. It's the holidays right now, so I have time to kill.
     
  15. Crazy Ivan
    Offline

    Crazy Ivan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The dumpster behind your McDonalds.
    Uh, when did this stop being the What is Literature topic, and become the Meledin and MamaMaia Holier Than Thou Prime Time Power Hour? Please leave a bit of topic for us.

    So anyway, I have another theory to put forth on literature (Sorry if I'm restating something that someone else has already said, but eh...):
    Literature is a way of distracting ourselves from the world.
    Humans are singular mainly because of one invention: Boredom. Once we finished killing things, eating things, and running away from things, we had nothing to do. And we got bored. And however dull it may have been, we wanted more of it. Why? Because no matter how gray boredom is, every second of boredom is a second we aren't a) killing things, b) eating disgusting things, or c) running away from things. So we wanted more boredom. So we worked on ways to grant us mroe spare time. In doing so, we invented things called "tools" that were more efficient.
    Then, when we had lots of spare time, we wanted something to actually do. So, we started thinking. We started philosophy and religion and other ways of trying to explain ourselves and our place on Earth.
    We jumped into the deep pool of existential thought that awaits all sentient creatures, and of course it was a very short time until suddenly realized: "Hey hwhoa hwhoa, we have no purpose in being here or right to be here, and nothing we do will ever matter. Well, crap." And of course this sets us off on thinking about the inifinity of space and time.
    Now be honest: If you woke up every morning, went to bed every night, and spent every second in between realizing that you were a laughably pathetic speck of semi-existence in a giant, scary hunk of forever, would you eventually go nuts? Right now, you say no, but I'm going to explain that.
    Like a monkey who ventured into forbidden territory and nearly got his arm bitten off by an angry lion, we vowed never to do that again. So, we set out to achieve the ultimate, fantastic, amazing goal all humans want: Distraction. We gave ourselves things to take our minds off of reality. Art. Plays. Music. Trade. And somewhere in between, we got this strange thing called culture. And from there, we got literature. After eons, we finally managed to build up walls over our minds that kept out the universe and kept in our thoughts, like shepherds around a stable of sheep. So if you ever think of infinity and think, "Big deal, I can take it," you just think you're thinking that. In reality, you're cutting yourself off from being in reality. Books, writing, stories, fantasies, delusions, just keep us from screaming until our souls shrivel up.
    I suppose that's just as much a why of literature as it is a what, but sometimes the reason explains the means. And for those of you scratching your heads, or those of you who just went "Pfft, bugger that," upon seeing my long post and skipped down to the bottom: Here is a handy summarization of what I just said, presented in the form of a quote of a discussion from one of my favorite books ever (Hogfather by Terry Pratchett), about the nature of humans and stories, carried out by Death and his granddaughter. (No joke. HINT: Death is the one who speaks in caps.)

    "All right," said Susan, "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."
    NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
    "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers?"
    YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
    "So we can believe the big ones?"
    YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
    "They're not the same at all!"
    TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH WITH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE WERE SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
    "Yes. But people have got to believe that or what's the point—"
    MY POINT EXACTLY.
     
  16. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    thanks for getting back to the thread's purpose, ivan...

    for the record, i did ask that further discussion/dissent be carried on by email, so as to not take up space others should be allowed to utilize here... and will not reply to any more of meledin's arguments here, for that reason...

    no disrespect intended, mel... if you want to continue, or need replies to your latest arguments, please send them to me by email, ok?

    btw, ivan, i loved your take on the subject... funny, yet irreverently plausible... my kinda guy!

    love and apologetic hugs to all, maia
     
  17. Aylin
    Offline

    Aylin Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Alabama
    1) Why do I write? I love to write. It is a way to express my faith and to share the God given talent of being able to tell a story, or article.

    2) What is literature? I think literature is a way to share knowledge, wisdom and a way to express how something affects them or how they feel or retell how something they have seen touched their life.

    3) My theory is if you love to write, then set goals and achieve them to the highest of your ability.
     

Share This Page