I think Jack's arguement has some merit, but that's just my
opinion.
Cheers, Harry
Quoting Bludis Jack <
buildsnburns@yahoo.com>:
> A friend recently asked me what I meant by,
"Literary
> merit." I thought long and hard before I answered,
because
> my ideas about that have changed over the years and
they
> can often be changed by a single book reminding me
of how
> good they are.
>
> I think that literary merit means different things
to
> different people.
>
> For me: is it clear? does it tell a story? do I
feel
> knocked dead by the writing? A recent example in my
reading
> is Cormack McCarthy's "The Road." Others might snarl
at the
> book's sentence fragments and weird punctuation, but
it is
> perfectly clear, made me feel the presence and
emotion of
> the characters and kept me turning pages. Even when
nothing
> was happening, I had a great fear that something
terrible
> was about to happen. When a book keeps me reading
and I am
> in awe of the writing without being unduly
distracted by
> it, "That's" Literary Merit.
>
> I recently read my first James Lee Burke in years:
Yep, he
> qualifies has having literary merit. (Still opinion
of
> course.)
>
> I like James Joyce--other than "Finnegan's
Wake."
>
> It took me some time to get into Faulkner, but after
I did:
> Wow! "This (author) sounds like an idiot," I kept
thinking
> of Benji. A moment later, I realized that the
opening pages
> of "The Sound and the Fury" were being narrated by a
man
> who is severely retarded.
>
> The best of the mystery "literary merit" guys, all
time, is
> Chandler.
>
> Some believe that flowery, convoluted, or ultra
description
> "is" literary merit. If you have to stop reading to
admire
> it--Nah.
>
> With me, a piece doesn't have literary merit unless
it
> gives me a sense of people and place and a desire
to
> continue the story, without constantly distracting
me with
> the prose.
>
> A mystery writer often praised here and elsewhere
for
> literary merit is Ross Macdonald. For me, his
figures of
> speech are so convoluted that I had to stop and
think about
> them to the point where I started to ignore them.
Then I
> decided after three books to pass on reading him
again. I
> tried recently and hated the time I spent with the
book.
>
> There are many genre readers and writers who look
down
> their noses at anything that get's tagged as
having
> literary merit. The most sarcastic description, I
suppose,
> is, "It's 50,000 beautiful words that say nothing."
I don't
> remember who said that, but it's a paraphrase of
someone
> else, not orginal with me.
>
> As a reader, I prefer story. I read Robert B.
Parker,
> Stuart Woods, and the late Sidney Shelton and prefer
them
> over those who write supposed literary masterpieces
like
> Jonathan Frazen; but certainly not over James Lee
Burke or
> Lawrence Block.)
>
> OK, I went on and on.
>
> All of that is opinion. But I have an even
stronger
> opinion: nothing is true literature (note the change
from
> literary to literature) unless it's still being read
50
> years after the author is dead. By that definition,
Agatha
> Christie is literature, no matter what I think of
her
> "literary merit."
>
> Jack Bludis
>
> http://www.jackbludis.com
> Shamus nominee for *Shadow of the Dahlia*
> Try "Blondes, Blondes, Blondes" at
> http://www.ThrillingDetective.com
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the
forecast
> with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Mar 2007 EST