What is the purpose of literature?

[infoterror]

Apropos of a conversation in another part of this forum, we know literature through our different "tastes," but these have a lot to do with the different "uses" we have of literature.

So what is the goal of literature?

My answer: art's goal is to poeticize life -- without flinching from the "negative" aspects. It is past morality and past progress/time. It is a song of life itself. Because of that, it must explore both sensual and theoretical aspects of being.

Favorite author: William Faulkner

 

[speed]

Apropos of a conversation in another part of this forum, we know literature through our different "tastes," but these have a lot to do with the different "uses" we have of literature.

So what is the goal of literature?

My answer: art's goal is to poeticize life -- without flinching from the "negative" aspects. It is past morality and past progress/time. It is a song of life itself. Because of that, it must explore both sensual and theoretical aspects of being.

Favorite author: William Faulkner

I think thats a fair goal, and one I agree with. I disagree with it being past time/progress. If something cant evolve, there is no use for it anymore.

To me, literature also most generally, is satirical and cynical. I dont know if thats the intention of most great books, but, if one thinks about it, most(not all) great literature is a critique of the world.

 

[speed]

Infoterror said: Dostoyevsky seemed very much like Melville to me: symbolic.

I understand what you say, although I warn that those are the easiest things to maintain in writing.

I also disagree with your split.

Goethe is highly symbolic; Hesse is highly symbolic, for example (plus Dostoyevsky above). And then there's Conrad.

Irish... Joyce is as close as I get to that.



In regards to the above posts, perhaps I was a bit hasty making a split; but for the life of me, I was trying to delineate the split between American and European lit. Upon rumination, perhaps such a split was a bit hasty. I still disagree with you and believe that good prose, form and characterization are the hardest things to maintain.

I love Hesse and Goethe; so its good to see we are finding some common ground.

Anyway, your dislike of postmodern lit puzzles me, as you list Faulkner, Marquez, and Burroughs; all writers that broke with standard form and created their own.

 

[AlphaTemplar]

Literature is both art and entertainment. The purpose of entertainment is obviously entertain. As art, bottle a small portion of universe. It should incite thought and emotion, it should offer an insight into existence. But it's not timeless - art uses metaphor as a tool to metaphor, and is effective only insofar as we can relate to the metaphor. I respect Shakesphere, I hate reading him - the true story gets buried in archaic language and foreign culture. I love Faulkner because he creates characters that are easy for me to feel a part of. There aren't that many real people I connect with as well as As I Lay Dying's Darl.

another thought: Perfect literature (or art in any form) would to me be literature that isn't limited by experience, it is truly universal. Can literature be universal, and can it (theoretically) be perfect?

 

[Thasis]

Well I believe litrature has diffrent purposes based on what sort of litrature. Artistic expression, a writer being bored, a belief of the need to carry down information to people in the future, etc. It all depends on what your doing.

As for the Printing Press... greatest downfall of humanity. It allowed a mass free-speach... what good is that doing to the goverment. Unless the media can be controlled by the goverment that is in control it serves no purpose other then to create contempt toward the goverment in control and others in the society.

 

[کوڈانشی]

I disagree with it being past time/progress. If something cant evolve, there is no use for it anymore.

does it need to evolve or does it suffice for our perceptions to change? i think mainly here of religious tomes like the qur’an or tanach. people do not change these originals, but scholars publish fresh interpretations with each new generation. so understanding grows and changes though founding texts do not. it leads to anomalies such as ‘abrogation’ (as seen with you american folks’ very own carnstitootion), which then end up as standard doctrine!

sometimes i wonder how long it will take before people abandon their founding txts (as many christians seem to have done) and focus solely on what their religion has now become? it reminds me of an awesome story by, i think, h·g wells. i forget its title but it features a prince whose one true love dies. he decides to build a fantastic tomb/shrine/palace structure to house her coffin. this tale then proceeds with sumptuous descriptions of how lavishly this tomb progresses, the many years he spends having it redecorated, extended, and so forth. but… it doesn’t feel right. no matter how much he adds to it something feels out of sync, he can’t seem to get his tribute to his beloved perfect.

and then one day it hits him — he knows what to do to make his temple/tomb to her a perfect tribute, and bring everything into structural alignment. with one arm outstretched he points to her coffin and, in a cold voice to his servants, intones: “take that thing away.”

what serves your purpose better: the source of your beliefs, or the thing it has now become?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This a very interesting question, and I don't think there is one answer, but I do agree with Speed that most great lit. makes some sort of critique or satire. Did a post get deleted in this tread?

 

[infoterror]

To me, literature also most generally, is satirical and cynical. I dont know if thats the intention of most great books, but, if one thinks about it, most(not all) great literature is a critique of the world.

If it occurs in the context of poetry, it is brilliant; if not, it's as bad as most WP/NSBM ("message" first, then art).

 

[speed]

If it occurs in the context of poetry, it is brilliant; if not, it's as bad as most WP/NSBM ("message" first, then art).

I agree. Thus my absolute admiration for especially Flaubert; a man, who wrote in the most poetic prose, of the reality and absurdity of society.

 

[wildfyr]

uses = memes? *guesses*