In a message dated Thu Nov 1, 2007 10:27 am (PST) Jim Doherty
wrote,
Re your reactions to Stephen's point below:
"m-w.com's 1st definition makes sense to me:
"writings
in prose or verse;
************ ***
"Yup. I'm familiar with the definition that
includes
everything."
I could be wrong, but I suspect that was
Stephen's
point.
All writing written to be read by the general
public,
whether or not it actually turns out to be
readable,
whether or not it is actually published, is
literature.
Some of it is bad. Most of it is probably average.
A
bit of it is good. A tiny bit falls into the
category
of "classic." And no one can tell what will be
classic until, in the course of time, it turns out
to
be classic in retrospect.
People who use "literature" when they mean
"classic,"
or at least "good," are being deliberately
dismissive
of that which they don't like or don't agree
with,
much like fundamentalist, evangelical protestants
who,
when they use "Christian," really mean only
fundamentalist, evengelical protestants.
The purpose of such usage is to diminish "the
others"
by making the broad category much more exclusive
than
it's meant to be. "This" isn't "real" literature.
"They" aren't "real" Christians. This isn't
"really"
hard-boiled. That isn't "really" noir.
MORAL: Don't say "literature" when you mean
"classic."
I regretfully started this dialogue with my comments
on Spillane. I had no intention of being dismissive of
Spillane. In fact I was pointing out that he has been an
influential writer which means people read him and new work
is being created which is influenced by him and that alone
earns him respect as a writer. I didn' t mean classic and I
certainly don't think Spillane's work is not good. I used the
wrong word and I admit that. What I was trying to say is that
there are different standards of prose in terms of simple
prose quality. I enjoy writing for many things, plot and
character and style being some of them. But the writing I
enjoy most is prose that I can read over and over again
because the writer picks and choses his words for reasons
other than simply telling the plot. I can't pick up a
Chandler,for instance, and browse it, and not reread the
whole thing. Spillane creates a vibe and gets you into it but
after you have finished it you are unlikely to re-read the
book again with the same degree of pleasure . It's like
drinking wine or listening to music.You can enjoy the bottle
or the song on the music but some wine, some music some
writing is on a higher level of craft. That's what I was
trying to get at. I'll try again, "Spillane is an important
and iconic writer but not neccessarily in the first echelon
of prose writers."
--------------------------------- National Bingo Night. Play
along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. Download your
gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Nov 2007 EDT