Great Literature

[jeffrey smith]

[to be continued]

Grrr! I hate cliffhangers

[Philip Coates]

Not too much posting activity on great lit anymore compared to the tedious "movement personalities, gossip, and foodfights" threads [and MSK made a comment recently that indicated he thinks he has the right to appropriate people's bests posts and repackage or republish them - so, at present I'm not inclined to write careful, detailed analyses I might want to publish], so I'll make this short and cryptic - and without all the details:

ALC is really a study which compares a self-confident man with one who lacks self-esteem. (He calls it 'timidity'). And why the latter is unhappy. It's done from several angles. Araby depicts a boy infatuated with an older girl. He promises to bring her a gift. But he gets there too late, has used up too much money. He leaves and feels two emotions - anguish and anger and one evaluation - that he is too vain. The end.

Endings are important. Last thing you see. Wraps up, ties together a narrative. Bad one can undercut a story, make it -- like a movie, a poem, a piece of music lose its value.

ALC's ending wraps things up and makes sense. A's does neither and is haphazard....could have ended any number of other ways. Ends up being a story of one boy who is infatuated and suffers disappointment at the end of a particular day (not even necessarily with his infatuation not working out.)

Edited September 30, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Another problem with Joyce's stories, as I'm reading through: A bit plodding and almost predictable word choice and dialogue and sentence structure. Not much "pizzazz" or sparkle.

Compare to Twain, O Henry, Serling, (and Heinlein in the SF arena) - just to take four off the top of my head.

[jriggenbach]

Another problem with Joyce's stories, as I'm reading through: A bit plodding and almost predictable word choice and dialogue and sentence structure. Not much "pizzazz" or sparkle.

Compare to Twain, O Henry, Serling, (and Heinlein in the SF arena) - just to take four off the top of my head.

One must be thankful for humor, wherever one finds it.

JR

[Philip Coates]

One might be less thankful for snarky people who specialize in ridicule.

[jriggenbach]

One might be less thankful for snarky people who specialize in ridicule.

When one lives in a world in which the ridiculous predominates, one adapts as best one can.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

One might be less thankful for snarky people who specialize in ridicule.

Jeff likes you, Phil. He too believes in human improvement.

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

One might be less thankful for snarky people who specialize in ridicule.

Jeff likes you, Phil. He too believes in human improvement.

--Brant

Brant is right - at least, in his first sentence.

JR

[Philip Coates]

Don't strain yourselves with the lengthy and informative posts.

[Brant Gaede]

Don't strain yourselves with the lengthy and informative posts.

You have said everything I wanted to say to you.

--Brant

Edited September 30, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[jriggenbach]

On another thread, Phil wrote:

"What great works have you read? And why?"

Some great works (written in English in the 20th Century) I've read:

Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany

Return to Neveryon (four volumes) by Samuel R. Delany

Raintree County by Ross Lockridge, Jr.

Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey

Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner

Light in August by William Faulkner

Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner

The Fifth Head of Cerberus by Gene Wolfe

Little, Big by John Crowley

Black Spring by Henry Miller

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Figures of Earth and The Silver Stallion by James Branch Cabell (published as separate books, but really one long story in two volumes)

I read these great works to find out what they were all about. I had heard of them and was curious.

JR the Snarky Attack Dog

[anonrobt]

On another thread, Phil wrote:

"What great works have you read? And why?"

Some great works (written in English in the 20th Century) I've read:

Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany

Return to Neveryon (four volumes) by Samuel R. Delany

Raintree County by Ross Lockridge, Jr.

Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey

Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner

Light in August by William Faulkner

Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner

The Fifth Head of Cerberus by Gene Wolfe

Little, Big by John Crowley

Black Spring by Henry Miller

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Figures of Earth and The Silver Stallion by James Branch Cabell (published as separate books, but really one long story in two volumes)

I read these great works to find out what they were all about. I had heard of them and was curious.

JR the Snarky Attack Dog

By what criteria do you consider Faulkner as a 'great writer'[or rather, that he wrote these mentioned 'great works' - what makes them objectively 'great'] ? or is it actually more formed by the ivory towered critics who swoon over the mention of his name?

In what way is Raintree County greater than, say, Ferber's Giant, or Hamilton's The Big Country?

Edited October 1, 2009 by anonrobt

[jriggenbach]

On another thread, Phil wrote:

"What great works have you read? And why?"

Some great works (written in English in the 20th Century) I've read:

Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany

Return to Neveryon (four volumes) by Samuel R. Delany

Raintree County by Ross Lockridge, Jr.

Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey

Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner

Light in August by William Faulkner

Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner

The Fifth Head of Cerberus by Gene Wolfe

Little, Big by John Crowley

Black Spring by Henry Miller

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Figures of Earth and The Silver Stallion by James Branch Cabell (published as separate books, but really one long story in two volumes)

I read these great works to find out what they were all about. I had heard of them and was curious.

JR the Snarky Attack Dog

By what criteria do you consider Faulkner as a 'great writer'[or rather, that he wrote these mentioned 'great works' - what makes them objectively 'great'] ?

As Rand put it, "In esence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it - i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life." [RM 54]

or is it actually more formed by the ivory towered critics who swoon over the mention of his name?

I don't know of any critics, "ivory towered" or otherwise, who "swoon over the mention of [Faulkner's] name." My guess is that no such critics exist, outside your own fevered imagination. In any case, never having encountered any such, no, I can't say I've been influenced by them, if that's what you're asking. (I'm afraid the phrase "is it actually more formed" is meaningless gibberish to me. Is what "more formed"?)

In what way is Raintree County greater than, say, Ferber's Giant, or Hamilton's The Big Country?

I've never read either Giant or The Big Country, so I can't comment on that. I will say that I first became aware of Raintree County when an English teacher of mine recommended it to me, saying it was the best written book she had ever read. I've never heard anyone say anything like that about either Giant or The Big Country. In fact, I've never heard anyone suggest that there was anything unusual or noteworthy about the manner in which either of those latter books was written - anything remarkable about their style, anything exceptional about the prose in which they're composed. This may in itself suggest a major difference between Raintree County and the other two.

JR

[Philip Coates]

> is [your opinion] actually more formed by the ivory towered critics who swoon over the mention of his name?

>> your own fevered imagination...[your] phrase...is meaningless gibberish

See, this is what I'm talking about! A snarky, contemptuous exchange on both sides! Starts off by implying that the other party didn't form his own opinions but is sucking up to elite opinion, then putdown is met by putdown - attacking the honesty of someone's opinion and deriding his words as gibberish.

We could have had a sensible discussion about Faulkner and other authors and those of us reading it might have learned something. Instead we have an exchange in arch putdowns. No value. No benevolence. And, apparently, no continued dialogue.

Do I have to start rapping knuckles again??? Jesus H. Christ!!!!

[Brant Gaede]

> is [your opinion] actually more formed by the ivory towered critics who swoon over the mention of his name?

>> your own fevered imagination...[your] phrase...is meaningless gibberish

See, this is what I'm talking about! A snarky, contemptuous exchange on both sides! Starts off by implying that the other party didn't form his own opinions but is sucking up to elite opinion, then putdown is met by putdown - attacking the honesty of someone's opinion and deriding his words as gibberish.

We could have had a sensible discussion about Faulkner and other authors and those of us reading it might have learned something. Instead we have an exchange in arch putdowns. No value. No benevolence. And, apparently, no continued dialogue.

Do I have to start rapping knuckles again??? Jesus H. Christ!!!!

Jeff's response is much more muted than yours, Phil.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I remember trying to read Giant when I was younger. I got about halfway through it and put it aside. The style was the problem. I have avoided Ferber ever since.

I liked the movie, though.

I don't know what my reaction would be today. Back then, the elevated sounding prose came off as forced to me and clashed with the simplicity of the cattle-farm background. But then, back then I was deep into my Randroid phase. Trashing masterworks was as uncomplicated as eating a bowl of Cheerios. So imagine a lesser work! One day I might pick her back up, just to see how (and if) I have changed.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Jeff's response is much more muted than yours, Phil.

Brant, it's not the emotionality or passion but the insult component which is relevant. "Muted" is not a relevant criterion. Insults may start out 'muted', but they lead to ill-will and bad feeling.

And they escalate. Plus you're attacking the person trying to advocate civility. What you should be doing is supporting me.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

> Jeff's response is much more muted than yours, Phil.

Brant, it's not the emotionality or passion but the insult component which is relevant. "Muted" is not a relevant criterion. Insults may start out 'muted', but they lead to ill-will and bad feeling.

And they escalate. Plus you're attacking the person trying to advocate civility. What you should be doing is supporting me.

I don't know, Phil. I find civility to be a secondary value and I personally don't tolerate insults. Did you notice that Jeff kept on going and in a "civil" manner? For Jeff, it was all quite mild.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I find civility to be a secondary value.

It doesn't have to involve mass murder: A value is still a value and must be defended rather than argued against. It doesn't take much observation to notice that insults and put downs and the emphasis on negativity have bred hostility and tremendously damaged the Objectivist movement, caused people to stay away in droves. It's something you do in junior high school. If you still do it as an adult, it reeks of small-mindedness, ill-will, anti-intellectuality.

> Did you notice that Jeff kept on going and in a "civil" manner?

> For Jeff, it was all quite mild.

But you said yourself you don't tolerate insult.

It's not necessarily mild to the person who is being insulted or treated with contempt. (Or to bystanders who quit in disgust). Snarky little insults don't have to exist in every single sentence. Once can be quite enough - just like Robert's initial single put down was enough to spark it in return.

The reason for pointing out this one is that it is just

small enough in only a couple sentences of exchange: provocation--> heightened response -- to serve as illustration.

It's unclear why you're still arguing with me about this. Is there some other issue involved for you?

Edited October 2, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Jeff quoted The Romantic Manifesto: "In esence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it - i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life." [RM 54]

I wonder if every short story has a theme? Especially in light fiction. A sci fi adventure. A character sketch. A brief encounter on the subway. Or sometimes, it's just a good yarn - unlike Aesop, without a point beyond that. And it doesn't seem to have an 'abstract meaning', other than isn't life fun and interesting, and isn't this interesting and clever. I've been reading some mysteries this week and only the puzzle seems to be the theme. You could apply Rand's "then evaluate the means", but it's hard to evaluate the means toward an end here other than to say the yarn or puzzle was done with skill and has some originality.

Or am I missing something?

I can give concrete examples from my apparently 'themeless' or 'theme-light' current reading if necessary (current or recent is always best since it is fresh).

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

> I find civility to be a secondary value.

It doesn't have to involve mass murder: A value is still a value and must be defended rather than argued against. It doesn't take much observation to notice that insults and put downs and the emphasis on negativity have bred hostility and tremendously damaged the Objectivist movement, caused people to stay away in droves.

They are wise to do so. I've been staying away from it for over 37 years now. Join me.

--Brant

you don't know the power of the non-side

[jriggenbach]

Jeff quoted The Romantic Manifesto: "In esence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it - i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life." [RM 54]

I wonder if every short story has a theme?

Yes, every short story has a theme.

Especially in light fiction.

"Light fiction" is a marketing category, not a literary category. From a literary (i.e., artistic, aesthetic) point of view there is no such thing as "light fiction." There is fiction and there is nonfiction.

A sci fi adventure. A character sketch. A brief encounter on the subway.

Setting aside for a moment, in the interest of "benevolence," the unspeakable vulgarity of the phrase "sci fi" - particularly when pronounced "sigh fie" - all three of those things, if written out as narratives and judged by artistic standards as fiction, have themes of some kind.

Or sometimes, it's just a good yarn - unlike Aesop, without a point beyond that.

If Rand's aesthetic theories are correct (as I believe, in the main, they are), there is no such thing as a "good yarn" which does not formulate and therefore express a theme. A "good yarn" is a narrative that pleases the individual who describes it as a "good yarn." What makes it seem "good" to that individual is the fact that it formulates a theme consistent with that individual's own sense of life.

And it doesn't seem to have an 'abstract meaning', other than isn't life fun and interesting, and isn't this interesting and clever.

That's not an "abstract meaning"?

I've been reading some mysteries this week and only the puzzle seems to be the theme.

Then I'd say you're not reading closely enough.

You could apply Rand's "then evaluate the means" . . .

Yes, you could.

. . . but it's hard to evaluate the means toward an end here . . .

Speak for yourself.

. . . other than to say the yarn or puzzle was done with skill and has some originality.

In other words, it's hard to evaluate the means toward an end here other than by evaluating the means toward an end? Of course, you would have to go into considerably more detail if you were doing a critical article on one of those mysteries. You'd have to define the end with some specificity, explain why you thought any given element of the novel constituted a means toward that end, explain what you mean by "skill" in this context and how you can identify it when you see it, and explain what, if anything, "originality" has to do with evaluating the means toward an end.

Or am I missing something?

Yes, I'd say so. But every time I try to say so, I'm caricatured as an "attack dog" and psychologized about at length in "blind" posts on other threads. So you can see why I might be hesitant about saying any more.

JR

[Philip Coates]

> But every time I try to say so, I'm caricatured as an "attack dog" and psychologized about at length in "blind" posts on other threads. So you can see why I might be hesitant about saying any more.

There was nothing personally attacking me in your post just now, just disagreement. My threads on other posts weren't essentially directed at you or any one person, even though you have been snarky, but at a wide trend of which you are not the worst exponent. (Nor do I think that you personally have vicious, feet of clay motives - you just rage at what you think to be blindness or stupidity, I suppose - which noneteheless doesn't make me want to have more conversations when I'm the butt of it.)

Psychologizing? There's a difference between identifying that certain psychological mistakes seem to be operating among some of a large number of people and saying that a particular individual has to have them with certainty when you don't know what is in his head and other motivations are possible. The worst examples were on SoloP when the Wolfpack attacked and belittled me constantly, but when I come here I see some of the same thing going on, not just with me but the war or all against all. I could name probably a dozen people who fail to grasp the principles of civility which I have tirelessly (and tiresomely - even to me - when I start to bore myself) enumerated.

I will try to restore civility by giving an example later today of a story(ies) where I'm dubious about Rand's point that you quoted.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> the unspeakable vulgarity of the phrase "sci fi" - particularly when pronounced "sigh fie"

How about SF, dya like that betta?

If I were writing a formal article of course, I wouldn't abbreviate or use (unrecognizable) acronyms as in an informal post to save time and kysts (keystrokes). Nor would I refer to a certain school of philo as "Oism" or to dignified and non-vulgar American cities as "Shytown" or "The Big Orange." Nor would I shorten or whimsically alter peeps' names like "Bidibob" for Robert (not Bob!!) Bidinotto.

I would do none of those jarring things, Jeffaroni.

IDAFAIC

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I find my views very similar to yours on how to judge literature.

I want to add that a theme is not necessarily a moral bullet-point that is preached in a short story, although far too much Objectivist fiction not written by Rand does this, and does it poorly. I have noticed this confusion (usually not stated so explicitly as I did here) in many Objectivist debates on aesthetics applied to literature.

I also agree with your appraisal of Rand's aesthetic theories being "in the main" correct, but with a big honking caveat. I constantly find issues of scope. And I think Rand did a disservice to people emotionally dazzled by Objectivism with her concoction of "plot-theme." That's a hard knot to unravel for a person emotionally committed to certainty when he encounters long episodic works (despite her comments about certain long episodic works) or ones of a more contemplative nature.

Notice how the method used in Rand's statement of the theme of Atlas Shrugged (according to her theory) is not present when Objectivists discuss other literature. Here is what she says about it in The Romantic Manifesto, "Basic Principles of Literature," p. 81:

For instance, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is: "The role of the mind in man's existence." The theme of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is: "The injustice of society toward its lower classes." The theme of Gone With the Wind is: "The impact of the Civil War on Southern society."

A theme may be specifically philosophical or it may be a narrower generalization. It may present a certain moral-philosophical position or a purely historical view, such as the portrayal of a certain society in a certain era.

In other words, her concept of theme is a bland statement like a nonfiction chapter heading.

Using this formulation for theme, one could call the theme of a "fun" short story (from "light fiction") "the state of human playfulness in a specific situation" or something like that. But if we adopt this idea for theme (which is not the standard one), does the phrase, "too oversimplified to be useful in many cases" come to mind? It does to me, but to arrive at this thought took me years.

I have more issues with the plot-theme idea. It's correct for many instances, but once again I find myself slamming up against scope. Take her plot-theme for Atlas Shrugged: "The men of the mind going on strike against an altruist-collectivist society." That is supposed to explain the central conflict of the novel, but there is an element missing in this formulation that, I believe, has practically castrated Objectivist writers (notice how there is a severe quality problem in general with Objectist fiction not written by Rand): the total severing of evaluation from these fundamental framework principles.

"Producing is good." How's that for part of the theme in Atlas? "Individual responsibility for your own life is good." How's that for another part of the theme in Atlas? You can only tie these under the umbrella of "the role of the mind in man's existence" by stretching an oversimplification to the point of silliness.

But how about this one? "Standing up to bullies is good." Even on Rand's cognitive-only level, the idea of obeying/dominating others versus individualism is missing from her stated theme, yet it runs throughout Atlas—even in the sex scenes.

So now, let's go back to Rand's Atlas plot-theme, "the men of the mind going on strike against an altruist-collectivist society." How does this explain the events in Hank Rearden's life? Does it explain his romance with Dagny? Of course not. You can't call Rearden's presence and mental development in Atlas a sub-plot, either. It's way too present. Co-plot would be more like it.

When Rearden finally connects with the strike, I do not get the feeling that the events in his life led to the strike. They intersected with it. He simply took advantage of the strike because it was there when thugs attacked him so hard he could no longer work. Had there been no strike, he would have probably been a tragic character who perished.

I even see two semi plot-themes (and I really don't like that term) in his participation in the novel: (1) His growing awareness of the uncurable parasitic nature of many of the people around him (he believed they were curable at the start), and (2) His growing awareness of the unconscious forces that were driving him to do and choose what he did. Unconscious forces, I might add, that he did not choose. This last would probably make Rand turn over in her grave, but it's there as clear as daylight.

I also don't think she would have called these plot-themes because, in her theoretical writing, she did not consider mental development to be action. She even made a comment somewhere about her story, "The Simplest Thing in the World," that there was no plot other than a man sitting and thinking. However, the development of his thinking makes for a wonderful plot (not using her definition) and she certainly carried out that plot masterfully as a fiction writer.

In any standard book on writing, it will teach you to focus on how a character changes (or does not change). When you think about it, this is integral to what Rand called the plot-theme, i.e., the sequence of events connected to an abstract idea. The changes in the characters or resistance to change are what drive much of the events. And a person does not change or stay the same without evaluating things. Ironically, Rand's passionate valuing presented with such great skill in her fiction is excluded from the fundamental part of her theoretical framework for fiction.

To get back to my original statement, even though a theme is not a necessarily moral bullet-point, it can be. This is one thing missing in Rand's theory of literature. When do you make a moral bullet point be a theme of a work you want to write? Rand obviously knew. Her characters changed and grew or decayed or stayed the same (even Galt) in relation to moral bullet points that were underpinning all the events. But if you look at it objectively, she she didn't say how she did that theme-wise. Not really, although she did leave intriguing hints and outside-the-box approaches like sense-of-life, her volitional definition of Romanticism and Naturalism, etc., but that's all.

When those enthralled with her writing pick up her instruction manual on how to write, they tend to grant her the same awe they do for her as a fiction writer. They also get shut down dead in their tracks that way. It's a long haul to get out of that hole. I say that from experience.

I'm doing this off the top of my head, so there is a hell of a lot missing. One day I hope to go into it in much more depth.

Michael