I had this thought about literature I'd like to share with people. I have a hard time putting it into words so please forgive me in advance 
The most inferior literature merely tells you the facts. It just symbolizes things, for example: Dan hates Tom.
Then, it's commonly known that you should 'show not tell', so: "Everytime I see Tom I feel like punching him in the face", thought Dan.
But with true genius... the words BECOME what they talk about. Think about artistic movements: in artistic movements new techniques are invented and they represent something. For example, in romantic music many of the strict rules of the previous era are not followed, and that represents individuality and the freedom of the human spirit and whatnot. Now, ideally... the artist should not belong to a specific artistic movement but rather let technique be reflected by content, creating a unique language for his work... Consider for example... "Dan ate breakfast and ran and did this and did that" - you get the "feeling" he is rushing because the words rush too, or "This man looks like a river, like the sky, it looks like God" - then you get the feeling this man is fantastic because he can't be described in actuality but only compared to other things. Sentences can end abruptly, or flow like water, or be unintelligible on purpose and the fact that they ARE like that would be the point.
Or: when artist penetrate into their characters thought... they dont tell you what they think. Rather, they capture the essence of their thoughts, something which is more primal than the WHAT - the HOW. An obsessive person might be obsessed with a specific word or an object. A confused person jumps from subject to subject. An intellectual thinks abstractly - a sensualist feels. "How" things are said, in really great literature, is more important than WHAT is said, actually... This manipulation of language is whats unique to this form of art.
A good measure for the worth of a work of art is how easily it can be "translated" into another medium - the essence that cannot be described. For music its of course impossible - thats what makes so great and abstract. In film its the camera work. In literature its the manipulation of language.
That was rather confused, sorry. :/ But maybe there are philosophers who touched on this thing and someone might be willing to talk about that.
The most inferior literature merely tells you the facts. It just symbolizes things, for example: Dan hates Tom.
Then, it's commonly known that you should 'show not tell', so: "Everytime I see Tom I feel like punching him in the face", thought Dan.
But with true genius... the words BECOME what they talk about. Think about artistic movements: in artistic movements new techniques are invented and they represent something. For example, in romantic music many of the strict rules of the previous era are not followed, and that represents individuality and the freedom of the human spirit and whatnot. Now, ideally... the artist should not belong to a specific artistic movement but rather let technique be reflected by content, creating a unique language for his work... Consider for example... "Dan ate breakfast and ran and did this and did that" - you get the "feeling" he is rushing because the words rush too, or "This man looks like a river, like the sky, it looks like God" - then you get the feeling this man is fantastic because he can't be described in actuality but only compared to other things. Sentences can end abruptly, or flow like water, or be unintelligible on purpose and the fact that they ARE like that would be the point.
Or: when artist penetrate into their characters thought... they dont tell you what they think. Rather, they capture the essence of their thoughts, something which is more primal than the WHAT - the HOW. An obsessive person might be obsessed with a specific word or an object. A confused person jumps from subject to subject. An intellectual thinks abstractly - a sensualist feels. "How" things are said, in really great literature, is more important than WHAT is said, actually... This manipulation of language is whats unique to this form of art.
A good measure for the worth of a work of art is how easily it can be "translated" into another medium - the essence that cannot be described. For music its of course impossible - thats what makes so great and abstract. In film its the camera work. In literature its the manipulation of language.
That was rather confused, sorry. :/ But maybe there are philosophers who touched on this thing and someone might be willing to talk about that.
