Recently I was watching a video about Stanley Kubrick's rather abrupt statement to Stephen King on literature:

"All stories about the supernatural are inherently optimistic."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98qcNZ8Fz0

And it got me thinking if great literature is even possible without at least the suggestion of a spiritual dimension???

By 'spiritual' I mean primarily a sense of CONTINUITY...that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.

That continuity can exist in a purely material form. It's the only reason why you are familiar with Shakespeare long after his death. Great literature is a reflection of the human experience, which, however irrational it may be, contains religious and spiritual notions. The supernatural can provide great plots, unrestrained by realism. A work of art that promotes belief in the supernatural can be considered overly optimistic, I agree. But it's all in good fun.

That continuity can exist in a purely material form. It's the only reason why you are familiar with Shakespeare long after his death.
Material form has no continuity.

Would Shakespeare have been able to write without the underlying sense of continuity that makes literature meaningful?

But it's all in good fun.
Spirituality is the rice...not the spice.

The supernatural can provide great plots.
But what is it that makes them "great" if the supernatural is a false idea?

I just watched the video where Kubrick had said to king that supernatural stories, ghost stories, horror stories are optimistic because they suggest you can survive death. I don't think can be claimed as true for all literature but the question of 'spirituality' or beyond death isn't present in many works, I am thinking for example of Anna Kavan's 'Ice' its an amazing novel about the beginning of another Ice age and though it doesn't suggest the end of 'the world' it does suggest the end of man. Somewhat surrealistic and quite chilling, it literally seeps into a reader but the feeling it leaves has no optimism nor suggestion of survival, rather its the realization of the end of the characters and the end of EVERYONE. Its one of her best novels.

Since most novels do not end with finite themes there is always the suggestion of continuity. Take Proust and his great work and though its a revival of memory the suggestion is that the past can be 'revived' if not re-lived.

In supernatural stories, vampires and the like, often survive in some form but that is the nature of novels dealing with the supernatural. Kubrick I think was being more facetious than making a observation of fact pertaining to 'the positive'.

I don't think that we relate to novels specifically because we have a sense of life's continuity as far as 'after life'.

I am thinking for example of Anna Kavan's 'Ice' its an amazing novel about the beginning of another Ice age and though it doesn't suggest the end of 'the world' it does suggest the end of man. Somewhat surrealistic and quite chilling, it literally seeps into a reader but the feeling it leaves has no optimism nor suggestion of survival, rather its the realization of the end of the characters and the end of EVERYONE. Its one of her best novels.
And how do the characters respond to this 'end of everyone' scenario?

As if its meaningless?

As if the stars will twinkle just as cheerfully without mankind to gaze upon them?

I don't think that we relate to novels specifically because we have a sense of life's continuity as far as 'after life'.
What other kinds of continuity are there???

What other kinds of continuity are there???

How do you mean?

And how do the characters respond to this 'end of everyone' scenario?

As if its meaningless?

As if the stars will twinkle just as cheerfully without mankind to gaze upon them?

Well one character is female and is somewhat oblivious in a childlike way or in denial if you will, she is the 'strange' character in the story and seems somewhat without 'will'. The male character rides away with her in a protected vehicle offering her the last of the chocolate but he has a hand gun at his side with two bulllets in it.

How do you mean?
Do you not know of any other kinds?

Well one character is female and is somewhat oblivious in a childlike way or in denial if you will, she is the 'strange' character in the story and seems somewhat without 'will'. The male character rides away with her in a protected vehicle offering her the last of the chocolate but he has a hand gun at his side with two bulllets in it.
Perhaps this is exactly how mankind will respond to an 'end of everyone' scenario...as a quest for the last of the chocolate!

But I doubt it. :cool:

Do you not know of any other kinds?

Hmmm, lets see well there is Karen Finley's Shock Treatment. Although it doesn't deal with an end of all life scenerio it does take a look at what she deemed the loss of humanity in modern urban american society starting with the loss of humanity in the lives of men. Its kind of a stream of consciousness text that highlights all that is miserable and lost in modern existence, it deals with loss of essentials.

When you finish reading a novel there are only two outcomes, the protagonist lives or dies, he succeeds or fails. The notion that life exists after the character or when you close the book is really quite irrelevant. When you read Mrs. Dalloway the fact that there are other families quite happy around her or in her neighborhood doesn't leave us with any comfort because we are focused on her life.

In Madam Bovary and Anne Karenina the fact that other women survive isn't essential to the novel because there is no tomorrow for the characters, its a tragedy and their lives are done. Same thing with Hamlet, it all ends in tears so to speak, the fact that there are peasants outside of court selling vegetables and tilling the toil and going about their business doesn't mean anything because Hamlet is dead and gone and the rest of the characters lives with him

Perhaps this is exactly how mankind will respond to an 'end of everyone' scenario...as a quest for the last of the chocolate!

But I doubt it. :cool:

Well that is not how the scene is worked. I mean she doesn't have 'mankind' looking for chocolate. She has one man trying to distract and amuse one woman from what is an unstoppable devastation. He is aware of what is happening, she simply relies on him.

All literature deals with elements of mans existence but not all of literature takes on a 'spiritual' dimension. Look at Knut Hamsun's 'Hunger' not for a moment does it deal with death or god or afterlife, it deals solely with an individuals struggle to survive.

Its kind of a stream of consciousness text that highlights all that is miserable and lost in modern existence, it deals with loss of essentials.
Beyond the north, ice and death.
Our life, our happiness.
We have discovered happiness.
We know the way.
We have found the exit.
Out of the labyrinth of a thousand years.
Who else has found it.
Modern man perhaps?
I am lost.
I am everything that is lost.
Sighs modern man.

-Nietzsche.

Look at Knut Hamsun's 'Hunger' not for a moment does it deal with death or god or afterlife, it deals solely with an individuals struggle to survive.
Survive for what though?

So the characters can eat more chocolate?

Its kind of a stream of consciousness text that highlights all that is miserable and lost in modern existence, it deals with loss of essentials.
And what are the essentials...aside from chocolate?

Survive for what though?

So the characters can eat more chocolate?

She doesn't suggest that the characters will survive. She suggests that there was an attempt at survival and now it is drawing to a close. We know that he is going to shoot her and himself in a relatively short period of time. The chocolate has no other symbolism than that of the woman's last taste of what had been a simple pleasure produced by civilization.

And what are the essentials...aside from chocolate?

Different book, that was referring to Finley's Shock Treatment. The essentials were psychological health, life with dignity.

The chocolate has no other symbolism...
I'm also using chocolate as symbolism.

I'm also using chocolate as symbolism.

For what?

The essentials were psychological health, life with dignity.
Ok, but what determines the health of the psyche...or the dignity of life.

For what?
For the emptiness of a literature without spirituality.

Ok, but what determines the health of the psyche...or the dignity of life.

Well Finley descrbes a modern world where ones psychological health is challenged by society, she touches on the destruction of children in family units, the destruction of the old in nursing homes that are sterile hospitals where the old are shoved in a corner outside of community to await their death, mental institutions that do not treat their patients with any humanity and cause more harm than good.

She doesn't address what will cure this, she isn't writing from a non-fictional social commentary point of view. She is addressing the sickness of modern society.

For the emptiness of a literature without spirituality.

But I didn't find Ice empty. Actually more than any other novel it seeped right in and I can recall the mood and feeling in the novel, this is a sign of success. If you can draw the reader in then a novel is successful, if you can place the novel in the heart and mind of a reader then it is even more successful.

Finley describes a modern world where ones psychological health is challenged by society, she touches on the destruction of children in family units, the destruction of the old in nursing homes that are sterile hospitals where the old are shoved in a corner outside of community to await their death.
But if we live in a strictly materialistic world what difference does it make whether those old people are treated well or ground up and turned into fertilizer.

Why would this challenge the overall health of one's cultural psychology?

"Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" -David Hume.

if you can place the novel in the heart and mind of a reader then it is even more successful.
The heart?

How can this concept exist in a purely material world?

But if we live in a strictly materialistic world what difference does it make whether those old people are treated well or ground up and turned into fertilizer.

Why would this challenge the overall health of one's cultural psychology?

What do you mean by 'strictly materialistic'? As a matter of fact you haven't really laid down any proof of your claim that spirituality is an INTEGRAL component of literature. Perhaps it would help if you described spirituality a bit further so I know what you mean? Things pertaining to the spirit in my mind have to do with the living not the afterlife, it refers to man and not god.

Why do you assume that Finley is challenging anything? Its a subjective piece of work, she could have simply been exercising these demons from her own psyche.

What do you mean by 'strictly materialistic'? As a matter of fact you haven't really laid down any proof of your claim that spirituality is an INTEGRAL component of literature. Perhaps it would help if you described spirituality a bit further so I know what you mean? Things pertaining to the spirit in my mind have to do with the living not the afterlife, it refers to man and not god.
I'm not referring to ideas of God either...only to what I described in the opening post.

A sense of CONTINUITY, that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.

Why do you assume that Finley is challenging anything? Its a subjective piece of work, she could have simply been exercising these demons from her own psyche.
Well that would be an example of challenging the demons, yes?

I'm not referring to ideas of God either...only to what I described in the opening post.

A sense of CONTINUITY, in that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.

Ok then. What were the consequences behind Hamlet's death? What continued after his saga in terms of 'consciousness'?

Have you ever read Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead?

Well that would be an example of challenging the demons, yes?

Personally for her yes but this is hardly a good example of supernatural afterlife. Horror fiction is predicated on the afterlife being addressed in a piece of work but I don't believe this is true of all of literature.

What were the consequences behind Hamlet's death? What continued after his saga in terms of 'consciousness'?

I'm not familiar with Hamlet, but I suggest there would be no story to tell without this sense of continuity underlying the drama. His literature is marinated in spirituality...without being religious about it.

As a plot device, Shakespeare would first and foremost have to remove all references to the ghost of Hamlet's father:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNtt_YGnOU

Horror literature, sci fi, all that, is not all of literature... Most literature arguably, is very focused on a less spiritual, more interpersonal/psychological profile of relationships and people. The greatest basis for literature is in our own heads, not in some external Magical Sky Fairy.

Well no it doesn't since without the ghost Hamlet wouldn't have thought his father murdered by his uncle. The ghost makes the appearance but it is Hamlets state of mind that drives the play.

Side note: Thanks Carcano for a real discussion on literature without all the usual interference. Didn't think it was possible on these boards.


Anyway if you mean by spirituality the consequences of action drawn from emotion on the lives of the characters I would say yes I agree, actually I am not even sure if I disagree as much as I am trying to better understand what you mean by beyond the life of the body and mind. It seems you refer to something outside the context of any given work and I am trying to glean what that would mean exactly.

I think it depends on what we're arguing is spirituality. Humans are fanciful by nature, and there's always going to be a more rich internal landscape that results for some people by how they live and experience. That's why these people are authors. I think a lot of people call this spirituality if they're religious/spiritual.

Horror literature, sci fi, all that, is not all of literature... Most literature arguably, is very focused on a less spiritual, more interpersonal/psychological profile of relationships and people. The greatest basis for literature is in our own heads, not in some external Magical Sky Fairy.

I agree most horror is not literature but i think most would agree Edgar Allen Poe is and I am very very confident that Clive Barker will have a place in literature.

I am not even sure if I disagree as much as I am trying to better understand what you mean by beyond the life of the body and mind. It seems you refer to something outside the context of any given work and I am trying to glean what that would mean exactly.
Well as a simple example consider the sacrifice of those killed in war.

What they are dying for is a perceived consequence that extends beyond the life of their own body.

Well as a simple example consider the sacrifice of those killed in war.

What they are dying for is a perceived consequence that extends beyond the life of their own body.

Yes and?

Can you outline a novel you have read to offer an example of what you mean?

The greatest basis for literature is in our own heads, not in some external Magical Sky Fairy.
The sky fairy has been a constant in most people's heads for most of human history.

But there is a principle prior to the sky fairy even more essential to all art.

I agree most horror is not literature but i think most would agree Edgar Allen Poe is and I am very very confident that Clive Barker will have a place in literature.

I'm all tired and nearly spouted off, "WELL BARKER'S AN ATHEIST." No, TJ, he's gay. Those are different things entirely. >_<

Agreed, but I think the genres would survive even if there was conclusive proof of a lack of God.

The sky fairy has been a constant in most people's heads for most of human history.

But there is a principle prior to the sky fairy even more essential to all art.

Agreed.

Can you outline a novel you have read to offer an example of what you mean?
Sure, lets take the most popular novel of all time...The Lord of the Rings.

The whole story is about a sacrifice that extends beyond any particular lifetime...any moment passing into oblivion.

Tolkien apparently once admitted to a friend that the tale is metaphor for the sacrifice of Christ....where the ring symbolizes sin and the fall of man.

I'm all tired and nearly spouted off, "WELL BARKER'S AN ATHEIST." No, TJ, he's gay. Those are different things entirely. >_<

Agreed, but I think the genres would survive even if there was conclusive proof of a lack of God.

Yes I would agree with you there. There is a psychological component that is wrapped in fear that will always confirm horror fiction's place.

One of my favorite Barker stories is a short story called 'In the Flesh'. Brilliant. It deals with sin and the afterlife and paying for sin and rebirth.

I loved "The Hellbound Heart," but never read that one.

Sure, lets take the most popular novel of all time...The Lord of the Rings.

The whole story is about a sacrifice that extends beyond any particular lifetime...any moment passing into oblivion.

Tolkien apparently once admitted to a friend that the tale is metaphor for the sacrifice of Christ....where the ring symbolizes sin and the fall of man.

Great I love Tolkien.

Yes they sacrifice to save humanity but they cannot survive themselves nor their loved ones without saving humanity. What motivates them then? Is it their loved ones? Their way of life? Or the notion of humanity? I say its their way of life and their loved ones in addition to themselves as opposed to 'humanity' in general. I think its like the motivation of Neo where he fights to save Trinity as opposed to fighting for man. Yet all these are wrapped up with each other. A soldier on the front line fights for his life and for the men next to him, he isnt thinking of democracy or liberty at that point though that is also why he may be there.


...And before sam or someone comes to inform me of Afghanistan or Iraq and how they don't care about democracy etc. I am referring to war in the ideal sense, like world war 2 for example.

I loved "The Hellbound Heart," but never read that one.

Me too. He is one of the few writers who uses a woman as the main hero protagonist and not simply the one being saved, the victim in harms way.

I say its their way of life and their loved ones in addition to themselves as opposed to 'humanity' in general. I think its like the motivation of Neo where he fights to save Trinity as opposed to fighting for man. Yet all these are wrapped up with each other. A soldier on the front line fights for his life and for the men next to him, he isnt thinking of democracy or liberty at that point though that is also why he may be there.
Well thats not how its presented in the book, nor would it even be a good book if it was.

When a soldier signs up for war he doesnt even know the men next to him...nor is his immediate environment necessarily under any threat.

The Arthurian tales are another example of how spiritual continuity informs the context of literature without any overt reference to religion.

The story was eventually Christianized, but originally, Merlin calls forth the lady of the lake to yield the sword of power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gludr0e_6U

Behold, Excalibur
Forged when the world was young
And bird and beast and flower
Were one with man
And death was but a dream

When a man signs up he doesn't know them but camaraderie is always fostered in the military and they do so for the reason that each soldiers life is dependent on the man next to him. The whole purpose of forming camaraderie is to prepare one for war.

A book is just as dependent on the readers interpretation or examination as it is in the writers intention. When Stoppard wrote Rosencrantz & Guildenstern he didn't have the intention of writing an existential piece nor theater of the absurd but it was interpreted as such. There is always more in a good novel than what an author intends.

You do realize you are speaking of a particular genre in literature and not literature itself? Fantasy tales, myths and horror are predicated on the supernatural but literature as a whole is not. You would have a difficult time proving that Fitzgerald, or Hemingway, Anais Nin, Tennessee Wiliams or William Burroughs are dealing with the supernatural because they do not and there work is also in the canons of literature.

You do realize you are speaking of a particular genre in literature and not literature itself?
No, I'm speaking of ALL literature.

The underlying principle simply takes on a less obvious role than you would find in tales of the supernatural.

No, I'm speaking of ALL literature.

The underlying principle simply takes on a less obvious role than you would find in tales of the supernatural.

Then prove so. Use examples of different novels from different genres that prove your case.

I mean how does Vanity Fair by Thakery for example, or Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, or Great Expectations by Dickens, Jouney To The End of the Night by Celine, Sexus,Nexus and Plexus by Miller exemplify these qualities you say exist in all of literature?

Declaring all of literature as so without outlining exactly what you mean by spirituality and not using actual texts from literature to prove this doesn't make your assumption true.

I mean how does Vanity Fair by Thakery for example, or Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, or Great Expectations by Dickens, Jouney To The End of the Night by Celine, Sexus,Nexus and Plexus by Miller exemplify these qualities you say exist in all of literature?

Declaring all of literature as so without outlining exactly what you mean by spirituality and not using actual texts from literature to prove this doesn't make your assumption true.
I outlined what is meant here by spirituality in the opening post, but in your own mind you cannot separate the word from the phenomena one encounters in a haunted house...or church.

Even literature that seems the most lacking in spirituality is merely a reaction to this emptiness. It derives power from this reactive force.

Your Journey to the End of Night is a good example:

"As its title suggests, Voyage au bout de la nuit is a dark, nihilistic novel of savage, exultant misanthropy, leavened, however, with an ebulliently cynical humour. Céline expresses an almost unrelieved pessimism with regard to human nature, human institutions, society, and life in general."

You can see here that the book is merely a revulsion in its entirety. Getting its power only from the disgust towards the strictly materialist vision rising up like a dreadful storm around the author...wrenching the dark clouds into a fury.

This is also where most punk rock gets its power...its a kind of vomiting crystallized in music.

Celine was drunk on life not revolted by it but he was revolted by the actions of men. He had a largesse of spirit but he was interested in the material because Celine saw no glory in poverty. His revulsion was for war which marked his life during the first and then the second world wars.

Although you have taken a description of the novel you haven't read the work itself. You say this work is a reaction to a lack of spirituality but Celine was an adventurer and his novel is a reaction to stupidity and lack of what he would have called the delirium of existence and you may see this as as aspect of spirituality but I do not, I see this more as a way of living. Celine would have rejected ideals as something that made man absurd and ridiculous and ready to run to war and and a number of other things he would have deemed ridiculous activities. The assertion you make about life being a 'strictly materialist vision' as opposed to 'spiritual values' he would have seen as a form of mysticism he would have naturally of rejected. Celine asserts individualism in the face of social values and norms, he speaks of drinking of life, of fucking and wine and bacchanalian reverie this is what he was his interested all of these being material pleasures as he didn't think it was possible to truly remove oneself from the machinery of society, to work in a factory and work on the front lines is the same to him, all life is absurd all life is a laugh and a horror. Because you haven't read the work you misunderstand the description because Celine was a lover of life but placed no faith in human beings. Celine would have said in a complex way war is absurd, if you asked him whether one should go to way he would have said "Go to war. Why not?" He himself is an adventurer who answers to no man and travels the world describing all sorts of people and events he finds absurd. Celine rejoices in life so the book in not a mere revulsion in its entirety and is also autobiographical. He was a man who asserted life in the here and now not in the afterlife nor beyond self.

He thought of everyday concerns for immortality a hinderance for example love he says in one of “Love, Arthur, is a poodle's chance of attaining the infinite, and personally I have my pride.” Great men like him did not need to think beyond themselves, they were enough, life was enough. He suffered tragedy and saw suffering and saw the meaningless of life but he didn't search beyond it rather he sought to 'eat it', 'swallow it', dance in it and drink to it.

I would suggest you actually read great works of literature before you attempt to discuss them.

Again you have not proven this idea that all of literature is either a revolt against materialism or an assertion of spirituality. Its not that I don't understand what you mean carcano, I have just read enough literature to know what you say is not true. To say what you say you have to prove that literature itself is dependent on this quality you say is there in it all, but there are ample examples of literature that serves other purposes than what you suggest.

Celine would have said something like this “To philosophize is only another way of being afraid and leads hardly anywhere but to cowardly make-believe.”

Again you have not proven this idea that all of literature is either a revolt against materialism or an assertion of spirituality. Its not that I don't understand what you mean carcano, I have just read enough literature to know what you say is not true.
Having read X number of novels means nothing at all. Whats important is one's depth of insight, not their breadth of exposure.

For example, you may have read Celine's book but your contradictory views of its meaning indicates that you have not heard him.

Celine would have said something like this “To philosophize is only another way of being afraid and leads hardly anywhere but to cowardly make-believe.”
Depends what kind of philosophy he's talking about.

Nihilism is certainly a philosophy.

Depends what kind of philosophy he's talking about.

Nihilism is certainly a philosophy.

To find nihilism in events is not to espouse nihilism as a personal philosophy. Celine was not a nihilist.

Having read X number of novels means nothing at all. Whats important is one's depth of insight, not their breadth of exposure.

For example, you may have read Celine's book but your contradictory views of its meaning indicates that you have not heard him.

You want to speak of ALL literature, ALL of it. This means having a good sense of literature which you can only glean from reading a variety of books.

I am not being contradictory but I do want to describe him accurately. I have read this novel more than once and it is a dense piece of work.

You say I have not heard him but you wouldn't know would you? You haven't the material to use to back your claim?

By what knowledge do you espouse your assertion? Meaning what proof do you have for the assertion?

I am not being contradictory but I do want to describe him accurately.
Its a contradiction to say Celine viewed life as absurd, without any substance aside from drinking, fucking and other assorted bacchanalities.

And then say he is not a nihilist.

Nihilism: (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

You haven't the material to use to back your claim?
I'm using the material you have offered yourself.

Its a contradiction to say Celine viewed life as absurd, without any substance aside from drinking, fucking and other assorted bacchanalities.

And then say he is not a nihilist.

Nihilism: (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

No Celine would have seen gusto in everything, meaning if you are going to engage in any of these activities do so with full fervor. He did view life as absurd because he saw it in the actions of others which he takes much time to describe. And no he was not a nihilist, he was quite political if you will and was jailed in France for treason, he was an anti-semite and sympathized with the nazi's though to what degree is debatable as far as their ultra nationalism which I believe he would have found 'absurd'.

Celine would not have found life without value or meaning afterall he was a physician and worked hard in the poorest of areas offering his services.

Tis funny. He would have found this discussion absurd really. He would have asked what could be more absurd than to try and box or label the entire canon of literature. And even more worth hilarity would be to have a discussion when one of them hasn't read his work which I am sure would have bruised his French ego. He would have also found a discussion of this sort in a medium like this crazy as 'all life is awaiting us'.

But on we go. Moving away from any particular work for a moment I would like to ask you what significance do you think your assertion has? Meaning what would it mean to you if this turned out not to be true in every single work of literature? What does it mean to you if it turned out to be true? Or a better question even is what do you think is the purpose of literature? I think it would broaden the discussion a little and perhaps further emphasize all that you think is 'spirituality' a definition we haven't yet come to any consensus on in terms of literature in general.

No Celine would have seen gusto in everything, meaning if you are going to engage in any of these activities do so with full fervor.
All literature requires a dynamic...a conflict between two oppositions.

As a example, lets take Carol. Carol is a heroin addict, and as such is the ultimate nihilist. To her, life is absurd and meaningless, therefore the only thing to do with her remaining time alive is to chemically stimulate her brain, which at least makes her feel good temporarily. She doesnt want to have children because she doesnt see the point in bringing another life into a pointless existence.

Can we write a book about Carol???

We cannot...as long as she embraces her nihilism with "full fervor" as you call it.

Because there is no conflict, no dynamic.

On the other hand, if Carol's nihilism were only half hearted, if she was somehow seeking redemption, only then would there be a story to tell.

So even in the most extreme cases like Michel Houellebecq there is always a meaningful context of continuity hovering in the background, which provides the drama with its dynamic.

Or a better question even is what do you think is the purpose of literature?
To affirm what 'never was but always is'...to quote Joseph Campbell.

To affirm what 'never was but always is'...to quote Joseph Campbell.

Well that is the purpose of myth but literature doesn't have such a narrow confine.
Its primary function that it shares with myth is storytelling, what separates myths from literature is that the story of any myth is referential not actual and many stories in literature are actual with no need to find meaning behind the story because its revealed as the story. When Anais Nin published her diaries for example they are considered literature because of their beauty and insight into herself and others but those details did not go beyond themselves. Does this make it meaningless? No, they are still incredibly beautiful outlining the life of an artist what it does not do is outline all of objective life itself, myths can do this.

Another difference between myths and literature is that myths tend to tell you where you are in life, they are markers. Literature doesn't have this as a de facto intention or function, when I read The Sorrows of Werther by Goethe I am reading a particular story of a particular type of youth, it is not 'open' enough as a myth would be so that every and any youth can relate to his particular disposition. The topic happens to be the romanticism of one young sensitive man but the story doesn't show how a young person can transcend himself into manhood nor transcend his dispostion. Why? Its not the aim. Goethe took his youthful sorrows and churned them into a fiction where the character takes this sorrow to its logical end.

Myths and literature serve different functions.

Myths are not written to entertain, they are written to ALIGN the reader with his society, his environment and himself. Literature can be a form of entertainment in the sense that it can be used as a distraction from ones everyday life as you immerse yourself in a different time and place and follow someone's adventure, like Defoe's Robinson Crusoe for example.

Literature is often subjective. An author can delve into a world of his or her own making and it need not coincide or connect to anything outside of this personal creation, built by the individual espousing individual values and points of view. For this reason not everyone will be impressed or deeply moved by a particular story even if it is very good and well written, not everyone will find meaning in it whereas others can.

Myths have to address that which it was designed for it cannot veer off from a hero's journey or the coming of age story or the tale of a lost man in the woods and begin emphasizing the comedy of a particular character or detail the love affair, or get into the hero's relationship with his father as a youth tangents are allowed in literature but myths have a particular trajectory. Hell in literature you can detail a walk to the store and talk about the store keeper and all the people in the store and detail the products in the store and make it interesting and do so for three pages before going back and pulling together the overall structure of the book. Myths are symbolic but not all stories in literature utilize this kind of symbolism in all aspects of the work the way myths do. Just take a look at Camus 'A Happy Death' its an exercise in existentialism (existence proceeds essence) and normative ethics but there isn't any meaningful symbolism in the work. Same thing with Pirandello's 'The Late Mattia Pascal' its philosophically fascinating and brilliant novel but almost devoid of symbolism.


the suicide kid
by Charles Bukowski

I went to the worst of bars
hoping to get
killed.
but all I could do was to
get drunk
again.
worse, the bar patrons even
ended up
liking me.
there I was trying to get
pushed over the dark
edge
and I ended up with
free drinks
while somewhere else
some poor
son-of-a-bitch was in a hospital
bed,
tubes sticking out all over
him
as he fought like hell
to live.
nobody would help me
die as
the drinks kept
coming,
as the next day
waited for me
with its steel clamps,
its stinking
anonymity,
its incogitant
attitude.
death doesn't always
come running
when you call
it,
not even if you
call it
from a shining
castle
or from an ocean liner
or from the best bar
on earth (or the
worst).
such impertinence
only makes the gods
hesitate and
delay.
ask me: I'm
72.

All literature requires a dynamic...a conflict between two oppositions.

As a example, lets take Carol. Carol is a heroin addict, and as such is the ultimate nihilist. To her, life is absurd and meaningless, therefore the only thing to do with her remaining time alive is to chemically stimulate her brain, which at least makes her feel good temporarily. She doesnt want to have children because she doesnt see the point in bringing another life into a pointless existence.

Can we write a book about Carol???

We cannot...as long as she embraces her nihilism with "full fervor" as you call it.

Because there is no conflict, no dynamic.

On the other hand, if Carol's nihilism were only half hearted, if she was somehow seeking redemption, only then would there be a story to tell.

So even in the most extreme cases like Michel Houellebecq there is always a meaningful context of continuity hovering in the background, which provides the drama with its dynamic.

If what you say is true then how is William Burroughs 'Junky' and 'Naked Lunch' literature and it is? You are limiting something that has no limits. Not only was Burroughs a heroin addict himself he was able to write quite poignantly about the lives of addicts, as they were in 'fervor' with their drug of choice they still had lives to live and in the living of those lives was the story. It made Burroughs famous. Literature among other things is a creative interplay of ideas and imagination and wanting to share the story of life, all kinds of life, the life of the bum and the life of the hero, there isn't only one type of story worth telling. You don't seem to recognize that literature is not an aspect of philosophy and not all writers utilize a philosophy when embarking on the telling of a story. What of writers like Charles Bukowski and lifelong drunk who was at times homeless and worked in the post office. His stories are of the track, drinking, women, bums, all the unredemptive types, hell he was an un-redemptive drunk but he did write and he found the humanity in these characters like no one else could and so earned the title 'The noble laureate of skid row'. Quite a title indeed.

I think you need to read more. I'm certainly glad you are not a publisher nor a critic as there would only be five books in the book stores.:D


THE ALIENS
from The Last Night Of The Earth Poems

you may not believe it
but there are people
who go through life with
very little
friction of distress.
they dress well, sleep well.
they are contented with
their family
life.
they are undisturbed
and often feel
very good.
and when they die
it is an easy death, usually in their
sleep.

you may not believe
it
but such people do
exist.

but i am not one of
them.
oh no, I am not one of them,
I am not even near
to being
one of
them.
but they
are there

and I am
here.

the suicide kid

by Charles Bukowski

I went to the worst of bars
hoping to get
killed.
but all I could do was to
get drunk
again.
worse, the bar patrons even
ended up
liking me.
there I was trying to get
pushed over the dark
edge
and I ended up with
free drinks
while somewhere else
some poor
son-of-a-bitch was in a hospital
bed,
tubes sticking out all over
him
as he fought like hell
to live.
nobody would help me
die as
the drinks kept
coming,
as the next day
waited for me
with its steel clamps,
its stinking
anonymity,
its incogitant
attitude.
death doesn't always
come running
when you call
it,
not even if you
call it
from a shining
castle
or from an ocean liner
or from the best bar
on earth (or the
worst).
such impertinence
only makes the gods
hesitate and
delay.
ask me: I'm
72.

There are many types of stories and many types of lives and they are all worth telling even if some aren't pretty nor happy nor redemptive to write them otherwise would be to lie. Not all paintings are beautiful but they offer a way of seeing and that is what makes them necessary. All types of perspectives and points of view are worth describing if they were not then there would only be one type of love story. In short literature serves many functions that serve to describe so many different aspects of life and living that to narrow it to the domain you assert would be the death of it. The dynamics of a story isn't always contingent on positive continuity, a story of a spiral downwards as in Carol's case can be just as affective an aesthetic nihilism if you will De Sade was known for it and it is a valid aspect of literary work along with everything else.

But what is it that makes them "great" if the supernatural is a false idea?
It's fiction. Great stories can depend on ideas that are simply made up or "false". Even if the spirituality is not based on false ideas, we can appreciate how real people react to these ideas, integrate them into their lives or reject them, come to terms or just be confused. It's the human experience to be subject to false ideas.

Material form has no continuity.

Would Shakespeare have been able to write without the underlying sense of continuity that makes literature meaningful?
That continuity is the human experience, we don't have to appeal to anything else.

But if we live in a strictly materialistic world what difference does it make whether those old people are treated well or ground up and turned into fertilizer.

Why would this challenge the overall health of one's cultural psychology?

"Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" -David Hume.
You make the mistake of equating materialism to nihilism. In the material world, we still have ethics, love, art, music, literature, morals, etc...


The heart?

How can this concept exist in a purely material world?
The brain is a material construction.

I'm not referring to ideas of God either...only to what I described in the opening post.

A sense of CONTINUITY, that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.
The life of the body is not the limit to material nature. Ideas are transmitted materially from one brain to another. In this manner, ideas seem to have a life of their own. Consequences depend on cause and effect, we need look no further than that.

Well as a simple example consider the sacrifice of those killed in war.

What they are dying for is a perceived consequence that extends beyond the life of their own body.
So what? Altruism is not incompatible with natural selection. The material world extends past our bodies.

I write poems and fiction. None of them have spiritual elements.

Well that is the purpose of myth but literature doesn't have such a narrow confine.

Its primary function that it shares with myth is storytelling, what separates myths from literature is that the story of any myth is referential not actual and many stories in literature are actual with no need to find meaning behind the story because its revealed as the story. When Anais Nin published her diaries for example they are considered literature because of their beauty and insight into herself and others but those details did not go beyond themselves.
Is Tolkein a writer of myths?

I classify all fictional prose as literature, whether its classical myth, native american legends, novels, or old wives tales.

This would not include the diary, letters to friends, newspaper editorials, or the philosophical treatise.

Anais may have been a good writer but her personal musing is not literature.

That continuity is the human experience...
That depends...if consciousness extends beyond the life of the body then yes, human experience is continuous.

It is this continuity which is necessary for what human beings call *meaning*.

In the material world, we still have ethics, love, art, music, literature, morals, etc...
In a strictly materialist nihilism...what you have is the culture of the anthill.

But even the most rabid nihilists still have some internal conflict in the back of their mind...a pervasive self doubt.

It is only this doubt that makes them a *literary* character.

Altruism is not incompatible with natural selection.
That depends on the subject of the altruism. Evolutionary ideas tend to focus on gene pools, as opposed to individual organisms.

The material world extends past our bodies.
"I will not die...it is the world which will end."

-Ayn Rand's favourite phrase.

There are many types of stories and many types of lives and they are all worth telling even if some aren't pretty nor happy nor redemptive to write them otherwise would be to lie. Not all paintings are beautiful.
In ancient times artists made ugly things beautiful.

In modern times artists make beautiful things ugly.

Salvador Dali wrote these words about his wife Gala:

Her attitudes
Her fleeting expressions
Are another ninth symphony
The architectonic contours
Of a perfect soul
Crystallized at the very edge
Of the flesh itself

If a modern artist wrote these words TODAY he would be consigned to the flames forthwith...and withforth!

an aesthetic nihilism if you will De Sade was known for it and it is a valid aspect of literary work along with everything else.
I have a book of De Sade's letters from prison, and he's a good example of what I've described in this thread...the conflicted nihilist!

That depends...if consciousness extends beyond the life of the body then yes, human experience is continuous.

It is this continuity which is necessary for what human beings call *meaning*.
Not at all, in fact it is the discontinuity of consciousness that gives life meaning. If your consciousness never died, it wouldn't be all that special.

In a strictly materialist nihilism...what you have is the culture of the anthill.

But even the most rabid nihilists still have some internal conflict in the back of their mind...a pervasive self doubt.

It is only this doubt that makes them a *literary* character.
Materialism isn't nihilism. Art, poetry, music, these all come from material sources, even the brain is material.

Carcano: It is only this doubt that makes them a *literary* character.

Well with this I can agree.

Actually Carcano I am still not sure if I understand all you are trying to express in terms of this discussion but lets go deeper and see if what you refer to can become more clear.

"I will not die...it is the world which will end."

-Ayn Rand's favourite phrase.

Does this surprise you? Rand was a complete narcissist. She speaks in terms of all the world as being relevant only through her subjective experience so when she takes her last breath and closes her eyes its the world that dies for her not her which dies for the world.
I am always conscious of her neurosis when I read her work...grain of salt and all that.

Carcano: In modern times artists make beautiful things ugly.

If a modern artist wrote these words TODAY they'd be consigned to the flames forthwith...and withforth!

Oh but this is so not true. I will put together a list of authors who's work is very very beautiful when I return later. I will post some of their words so you can see that beauty isn't lost in literature, this is why I think you need to read more literature, read more to see the breadth and depth.

I totally disagree that if an artist expresses such sentiments he would be consigned to the scrap heap. Not at all. Literature is not dependent on what is fashionable. I agree that different times in history reaps different material, different focus and language in which to express themselves, I will get into this later when I return, but this is also necessary Carcano. Its a death in art that allows things to stagnate, a death in society. If the artist is a mirror then you cannot blame him or her for exposing the neurosis of their time, do no make the mistake of saying its the artist that is sick and infecting the world with his sickness it is quite the opposite. Do not make the mistake of saying that it is he that is neurotic and not the society.

I think you over-romanticize the past or perhaps it isn't that and you simply are looking for a resurgence of a 'romantic age'.

More later.

Just caught the De Sade remark. Read the work man not his letters! But I will address De Sade later. Letters and such things are only relevant when you have his work to refer to.

I think you over-romanticize the past or perhaps it isn't that and you simply are looking for a resurgence of a 'romantic age'.

This is exactly what the prevailing high priests of nihilistic modernity would say to an artist caught portraying anything but a disturbed mind...the groaning and howling echoing up from the catacombs of the local nut house!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=929ceD32uVo

"You are discarded...the refuse of the past."

Anais Nin doesn't fall into that category and she is a modern writer and she was not someone who would have romanticized the past at the expense of the present. She wrote beautifully and poignantly, showed wisdom and perception, self-reflection and desire to transcend anything that would have held her back as an individual. She focused solely on beauty, growth, love and understanding.

Now for the rant you are on. What makes you think that all literature is a portrayal of a 'disturbed mind'? If you want to offer the world something you think is meaningful then do so but it has to be meaningful to its age, it has to on some level perceive its age or have an awareness of a coming age in order to be relevant. You first say all literature is spiritual, I go about proving all of it is not, then you blame literature for being nihilistic when in reality Literature is made up of too many different examples to label as either encompassing the elements of one or the other. Literature portrays and reflects all that is human, all of man's vagaries.

All you are doing is criticizing without being exact on what aspect of literature you are being critical of. Is it contemporary authors? Is it the age you live in? Is it social values or the lack thereof? Is it the lack of myths? Be clear, artists are vehicles. If the artist is a mirror then you cannot blame him or her for exposing the neurosis of their time, do no make the mistake of saying its the artist that is sick and infecting the world with his sickness when it is quite the opposite. Do not make the mistake of saying that it is he that is neurotic when all he or she is doing is reflecting back to the world or society what the world or society is itself reflecting. The fact that some show a way out by their very creation, by their very own perceptions and wisdom is part of the magic of the medium, few people will change because of books but books will always change because of people.

What would you have?

One thing I admired Nin for was her ability to be an example of beauty, a creator not a spectator. She didn't waste her time criticizing her age she analyzed, innovative, honed her craft and produced. SHE BUILT THE WORLD SHE WANTED TO LIVE IN FOR HERSELF and didn't expect something external to do this for her, she was supposed to fail to blossom, she could have remained a victim of her own neurosis and judgement but she saved herself. Your criticism of a medium you have not extensively explored, nor have contributed towards is a cry of the impotent. Either you have a solution for art or you don't. Either you are creating the world you want to live in or you are not. The criticism is merely another negative unproductive uncreative echo of bitterness, ennui and destruction.

"Dreams pass into the reality of action. From the actions stems the dream again; and this interdependence produces the highest form of living." A.Nin

Where lies the hope and glory in you? If it is there then do not be mute. Spill the glow upon the screen so all who is willing to hear can be inspired and warm themselves by it, it is in this nature the artist shows his generosity.

"Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death." Nin

"Our life is composed greatly from dreams, from the unconscious, and they must be brought into connection with action. They must be woven together. " A. Nin

Anais Nin doesn't fall into that category and she is a modern writer and she was not someone who would have romanticized the past at the expense of the present. She wrote beautifully and poignantly, showed wisdom and perception, self-reflection and desire to transcend anything that would have held her back as an individual. She focused solely on beauty, growth, love and understanding.


"Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death." Nin

"Our life is composed greatly from dreams, from the unconscious, and they must be brought into connection with action. They must be woven together. " A. Nin

Anais Nin readers, let alone fans, are rare these days. Hmm perhaps they have always been...

Respect due to Lucysnow.

goes in search of....

Material form has no continuity.
What the hell does that mean? If material form has no continuity, then why did all those shakespear books remain shakespear books after he died?

If your consciousness never died, it wouldn't be all that special.
Rather than 'special' the appropriate word here would be 'desperate'.

People have varying levels of desperation based on the extent to which they feel their own mortality.

This desperation forms a kind of void in the psyche (like a Henry Moore sculpture) which must be filled with distractions.

Truly 'special' experiences are only possible when this desperation has been lifted...and the world explodes with beauty and meaning.

The great mystics of history speak endlessly of this. The Buddhist master Engo for example wrote these words several hundred years ago:

"Those who think that in the mundane nothing is sacred, have not yet understood that is sacredness, nothing is mundane."

But without mortality, it wouldn't meen much to sacrifice yourself for a cause, to be a hero, to understand Romeo and Juliet, none of that would be significant. Life itself wouldn't mean anything without the looming possibility of not living.

But without mortality, it wouldn't mean much to sacrifice yourself for a cause.
Regardless of whether you died in some great effort or not...the effort remains meaningful.

Not if there was no mortal risk.

"I will not die...it is the world which will end."

-Ayn Rand's favourite phrase.

Does this surprise you? Rand was a complete narcissist. She speaks in terms of all the world as being relevant only through her subjective experience so when she takes her last breath and closes her eyes its the world that dies for her not her which dies for the world.
This is the highlight of your posts so far...you describe it well.

Imagine an entire culture of people like that...persuaded by the emptiness of a transitory world.

A rabble of egos and appetites.

Not if there was no mortal risk.
If one dies building a great monument...is it any more or less magnificent to future generations?

This is the highlight of your posts so far...you describe it well.

Imagine an entire culture of people like that...persuaded by the emptiness of a transitory world.

A rabble of egos and appetites.

But in literature this can be described. Are you suggesting it should never be described? How else would a culture come to know itself?

I write poems and fiction. None of them have spiritual elements.
Nevertheless, you cannot help but be affected by the principle of continuity.

You psyche is molded by either its presence or its absence.

Suppose for example that you died and were brought back to life with the absolute certainty that your consciousness is immortal.

Would it change your whole psychology...of course!

Instead of wrapping yourself in morbid images, worshiping death, insanity and mindless screaming.

You might end up more like Barbara Streisand! :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rSA0Va-xTQ&feature=PlayList&p=28E6C32149942941&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

On a clear day
Rise and look around you
And you'll see who
You are
On a clear day
How it will astound you
That the glow of your being
Outshines every star
You'll feel part of
Every mountain sea and shore
You can hear
From far and near
A world you've never heard before
And on a clear day
You can see forever
And ever...more!!!

But in literature this can be described.
Yes it can...but only in the same way that dissonant intervals are used to give music a dynamic motive force.

Yes it can...but only in the same way that dissonant intervals are used to give music a dynamic motive force.

So really you are not in favor of Literature at all. What you desire are RULES for what can be created in art, what you are hankering for is a new myth for our age not literature but myths evolve organically with a set criteria, which I believe is the one you speak of. Literature or none of the arts are able to function solely as a myth, what it signifies is altogether different. The arts address a variety of needs not just one.

I believe a modern mythology is impossible at this time as society has lost its isolation, myths guide specific group thought and connects it to aspects larger than itself. The world at the moment is in flux, its in Toffler's Future Shock where mobility and changing cultures have yet to settle down into what it seems to be heading into which is an age of global oneness (whether this be a good or bad is another story). There is no story or no genre that can speak to all people at the moment as there is not one consciousness to which it can address. As Campbell has indicated a myth for a nomadic desert tribe would not be useful to an agrarian society or the ones living in the forest. Modern society has yet to create a myth for itself though I believe there have been attempts, The Matrix has the elements of myth but it fails to speak to us collectively as some would have contact with it and some would not, in this age we pick and choose our mythology. A mythology in order to be successful has to speak to the consciousness of all members. Old mythologies are breaking down and are useless to members of a modern age.

You would dismiss Bukowski as a drunk and derelict who's life on skid row filled him with all you disdain. You would chastise him for describing these worlds and states of mind that permeate this area of existence but you do not credit him for addressing the humanity of life in this area, for speaking FOR the abandoned with empathy, people who's lives we never fully understand yet he is able to bring sympathy to the reader. You don't honor these writers for transcending that state through art.

Its as if you blame the bottle for the wine it contains without addressing the grape that produced the wine, at least writer's in some way address this matter whatever you think of them.

You see the magic of literature cannot be confined if its to evolve, it has to address the life of the individual and address its age. I would not find this magic in Hemingway but there were many men who did as he spoke of the life of the adventurer.

Would you mind addressing post #78? You still have yet to move out of the area of critic without any answers.

Would you mind addressing post #78?
You make two points in #78.

1. The principle of beauty is still present in modern literature.
2. Authors only reflect society, not themselves.

The opposite of beauty *ugliness* is almost always used symbolically in modern literature as well as visual art, and has become very fashionable in the last few decades. What it symbolizes is DOUBT!

On your second point, I dont think its realistic to make sharp distinctions between society and the individual in all cases.

What you desire are RULES for what can be created in art...
Yes, all art has always incorporated RULES...at least until the dawn of the 20th century, when a new ideal emerged.

The new ideal held that enlightenment was entirely a process of liberation.

"It is forbidden to forbid!!!"

Salvador Dali encountered this as a young man in the 1920s when he went to art school in Paris.

"Everyone must find their own manner", his teachers cried!

"There are no rules in painting...go to the core of the thing...in my class each student must work according to his own temperament!!!"

Temperament? I could spare you some dear professor...Dali thought.

How much time, how many revolutions, how many wars will it take to bring humanity back to the supreme truth that 'vigor' is the prime condition of every hierarchy, and that 'constraint' is the very mold of form!

Yes, all art has always incorporated RULES...at least until the dawn of the 20th century, when a new ideal emerged.

The new ideal held that enlightenment was entirely a process of liberation.

"It is forbidden to forbid!!!"

Salvador Dali encountered this as a young man in the 1920s when he went to art school in Paris.

"Everyone must find their own manner", his teachers cried!

"There are no rules in painting...go to the core of the thing...in my class each student must work according to his own temperament!!!"

Temperament? I could spare you some dear professor...Dali thought.

How much time, how many revolutions, how many wars will it take to bring humanity back to the supreme truth that 'vigor' is the prime condition of every hierarchy, and that 'constraint' is the very mold of form!

They taught skills not creation.

Does Jazz bother you? Is it an affront to your sensibilities the improvisation that breaks and re-creates form in irregular fashion?

A writer must know how to string words together and convey meaning but no one should tell him what is worthy of being told and what that meaning should be, I think this is a good thing unless you want to create the same greek statues over and over again..

Yes but modern writing is not without restraint, it is utilized by the best of modern writers these works just don't have the old restraints, they have surpassed them. This constraint you would have universally applied would not address your concerns of spirituality or the lack of it though would it? If you say there is a worship of death and madness it would still be there in perfect form. Just look at what the Third Reich and communists did with art. Perfect form right masking death and destruction.

Methinks you look in the wrong direction. I think you are judging art for ills that should be placed on society in general. You want to kill the messenger.

What novel in your opinion exemplifies the qualities you admire in literature?

You make two points in #78.

1. The principle of beauty is still present in modern literature.
2. Authors only reflect society, not themselves.

The opposite of beauty *ugliness* is almost always used symbolically in modern literature as well as visual art, and has become very fashionable in the last few decades. What it symbolizes is DOUBT!

On your second point, I dont think its realistic to make sharp distinctions between society and the individual in all cases.

Yes to the first but no you misunderstood the second. They reflect themselves and society it would not be literature if they did not.

How have you come to the conclusion that ugliness symbolizes doubt? You would have to elaborate on that by using some text examples. If it is indeed doubt and we live in a doubtful age why do you expect the work to reflect anything else?

Who told you art is always has to be beautiful? To truly expose ugliness, to reveal it also has its place. Even Nature itself is not always beautiful.

It's almost as if you fear that art will somehow never transcend what is present at the moment.

Which novel is an example of what you are trying to expose as ugliness and anarchy on the literary alter? Which author do you think utilizes this on a regular basis to the exclusion of all else?

Nature is more indifferent than it is beautiful.

Seriously, if art has to be beautiful, look at one of my favorite paintings:

http://www.scottgbrooks.com/painting_fabulosity.html

But on Nature: Nature doesn't give a bugfuck for anything and will bite you in the ass any time. Take that from someone who adores it.

Or the painting Venus or Chernobyl by the Norwegian painter Terje Ross Kolby

http://www.rosskolby.com/gallery_index.html

" He leads the spectator’s thoughts to the destinies of the people of Ukraine where the Tsjernobyl nuclear reactor melted down on the 26th April 1986 and created the worst nuclear cathastrophy since World War II. It forced 135.000 inhabitants to flee their home and left thousands of people to suffer great radioactive injuries. Kolby in this picture points at Man’s continuos experimenting with- and ruining of nature.

Painting this young woman in the posture of Venus, Kolby grotesquely illustrates mankind’s vulnerability to the revenging nature - and creates a Venus as never seen before in the history of art."

This constraint you would have universally applied would not address your concerns of spirituality or the lack of it though would it?
Actually the two ideals are very much related.

When the principle of continuity is erased the principle of constraint goes with it.

Continuity means actions eventually have consequences and consequences create constraints, rules...the ability to say NO.

One of the most glaring examples is that of 'moral reckoning'...the idea that evil will eventually answered for. It could be by divine judgment in the afterlife, or by the mechanics of karma and reincarnation.

All majors cultures embrace it in some form.

Just look at what the Third Reich and communists did with art.

Himmler was the primary person responsible here...I highly recommend Heather Pringle's excellent book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.ca/Master-Plan-Himmlers-Scholars-Holocaust/dp/0786868864

Yes to the first but no you misunderstood the second. They reflect themselves and society it would not be literature if they did not.
Your words:

"Be clear, artists are vehicles. If the artist is a mirror then you cannot blame him or her for exposing the neurosis of their time, do no make the mistake of saying its the artist that is sick and infecting the world with his sickness when it is quite the opposite. Do not make the mistake of saying that it is he that is neurotic when all he or she is doing is reflecting back to the world or society what the world or society is itself reflecting."

-Lucysnow.

Your words:

"Be clear, artists are vehicles. If the artist is a mirror then you cannot blame him or her for exposing the neurosis of their time, do no make the mistake of saying its the artist that is sick and infecting the world with his sickness when it is quite the opposite. Do not make the mistake of saying that it is he that is neurotic when all he or she is doing is reflecting back to the world or society what the world or society is itself reflecting."

-Lucysnow.

Yes but they use their voice and their perspective, how they compose something is wholly theirs.

To truly expose ugliness, to reveal it also has its place.
The modern artist's ideal is not about exposing ugliness...its about creating ugliness as a symbol of his own insanity.

One can see this even in hairstyles of the 20th century...where its gradually become a fashion accessory!

Actually the two ideals are very much related.

When the principle of continuity is erased the principle of constraint goes with it.

Continuity means actions eventually have consequences and consequences create constraints, rules...the ability to say NO.

One of the most glaring examples is that of 'moral reckoning'...the idea that evil will eventually answered for. It could be by divine judgment in the afterlife, or by the mechanics of karma and reincarnation.

All majors cultures embrace it in some form.

What would these consequences be? Unless you believe that all art should refrain from reflecting its society and culture but elevate religious ideals such as karma, heaven and hell and so forth. You seem to be saying that its the artist fault that these ideals are not present in the social collective mind. Am I correct or misunderstanding you? These principles are only active in art when they are active in society. I would venture to say that Neuromancer by William Gibson has more significance in a modern society than Dante's Inferno.

You seem to be saying that because society has become irreligious in its mechanisms (secular society) that man doesn't give a hoot, throws caution to the wind and lives as if life has no meaning. Am I right? If so why don't you then criticize the failure of religious ideals in society instead of blaming the modern and contemporary authors?

Addressing this, "All majors cultures embrace it in some form"

Those cultures were governed by the myths they created which guided collective consciousness. I think I said something in my previous post about our culture being in flux. Western European or American culture has had to embrace secularism to adapt to a globalized multicultural society, the only ideals which this embraces is 'democracy' 'capitalism' and 'individual expression'. Do we agree on this? I'm trying to establish that we at least agree with what type of society or culture we are speaking of which creates the art to which you are critical. If we agree on this then I would ask where is the cultural religious mythological framework to come from? Right now its being built by technology and consumerism as in the work of Don Delillo for example. I don't know if you have read any of his novels, if not you can wiki 'White Noise'.

We no longer have a set religious framework to work from unless you want to advance Scientology and then we can all read Hubbard's books. :p

The modern artist's ideal is not about exposing ugliness...its about creating ugliness as a symbol of his own insanity.

One can see this even in hairstyles of the 20th century...where its gradually become a fashion accessory!

Again you have to give a text example of that or at least a list of authors to establish this or its simply speculation on your part. You have offered no literary examples as proof of your assertion.

Hairstyles? :rolleyes:

To bring that up out of left field at least have the decency to add a link to the 'destructive' hairstyles you speak of.

I have ordered The Master Plan, thanks for the suggestion.

You seem to be saying that because society has become irreligious in its mechanisms, that man doesn't give a hoot, throws caution to the wind and lives as if life has no meaning.
When society no longer aligns itself with the principle of continuity, yes.

When society no longer aligns itself with the principle of continuity, yes.

What are the principles of continuity in a modern western society? We need to establish what that is to prove that literature is not expressing something that is there.



Can you please answer some of the questions I had in my last post or at least the points of the post itself?

To bring that up out of left field at least have the decency to add a link to the 'destructive' hairstyles you speak of.
Destructive is the right word yes...hairstylists for the first time in human history must now learn to be deliberately destructive.

As if your hair was bitten off by rats!

http://www.hairstyles99.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/punk-03-big.jpg

What are the principles of continuity in a modern western society?
Well increasingly there aren't any in modern western society...hence the point of this thread.

You know the end is nigh when the most popular word is...whatever!

Destructive is the right word yes...hairstylists for the first time in human history must now learn to be deliberately destructive.

As if your hair was bitten off by rats!

Hahaha! The first laugh of the day. Wonderful line.

But this:

http://celebhairstyle.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/gwyneth-paltrow-hairstyle-bob.jpg

And this:

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2005/gallery/transformation/050503/philton.jpg

Are also examples of a modern hairstyle. What is offered today is choice right, so for example the 'cutting edge' hair cut you show is not worn by 'all' women. What we have today is more choice.

Its not something I could do with my hair for example as its too curly.

But I do see the point you are trying to make so lets move on.

Can you please answer some of the questions I had in my last post or at least the points of the post itself?
Isolate your points...instead of hiding them in a forest and a night of dark trees.

http://celebhairstyle.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/gwyneth-paltrow-hairstyle-bob.jpg
She looks like a wraith...appearing in some hellish dreamscape.

With long out stretched fingers...clutching for your soul! :eek:

Well increasing there aren't any in modern western society...hence the point of this thread.

You know the end is nigh when the most popular word is...whatever!

Ok. So we have established that there aren't any. So why blame literature for this fact? You see I agree with you but I what I disagree with is the notion that literature or art is responsible for this. Nor do I agree that there is no beauty in modern literature, I just think that since people really do not read literature much anymore anyway that these wonderful writers are generally not known. As Gore Vidal once wrote the writer used to have a place in society, the writer's work was discussed at cocktail parties and people would know the work even if they had not read the material. The written word has now become the visual word in film. we are becoming a visual animal and not one of the word.

It could be the end as you say or it could also be a stage of development and change. The modern world globalized one world thingy is still establishing itself. Then we will have literature written in esperanto:p

You think I am kidding?

"I now dream that someday we will be able to collect and publish in our
language a whole book of original literary products, written directly
in the international language... I believe that one original work,
even if not very good, is much more important and worthy of respect
than the ten best translations of the best national writings, because
only an original work is completely our own property, in form and also
content. Only an original work can prove to the world that our language
is something really alive."

--M.S. Rakitski, Lingvo Internacia, Aug. 1901;
quoted in Auld, Enkonduko en la Originalan
Literaturon de Esperanto, p. 15.

http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap09.html

But I digress too much here.

Do you believe these ideals can be restored? Or do you see nothing but destruction? Destruction often offers the seeds to a new or renewed state. So perhaps we are only giving way to a golden age.

Isolate your points...instead of hiding them in a forest and a night of dark trees.

If you read more literature you would be accustomed to that.

Its pretty clear as I explained my point before asking questions and it isn't written in esperanto:

What would these consequences be?

Unless you believe that all art should refrain from reflecting its society and culture but elevate religious ideals such as karma, heaven and hell and so forth. You seem to be saying that its the artist fault that these ideals are not present in the social collective mind. Am I correct or misunderstanding you? These principles are only active in art when they are active in society. I would venture to say that Neuromancer by William Gibson has more significance in a modern society than Dante's Inferno.

You seem to be saying that because society has become irreligious in its mechanisms (secular society) that man doesn't give a hoot, throws caution to the wind and lives as if life has no meaning. Am I right? If so why don't you then criticize the failure of religious ideals in society instead of blaming the modern and contemporary authors?

Addressing this, "All majors cultures embrace it in some form"

Those cultures were governed by the myths they created which guided collective consciousness. I think I said something in my previous post about our culture being in flux. Western European or American culture has had to embrace secularism to adapt to a globalized multicultural society, the only ideals which this embraces is 'democracy' 'capitalism' and 'individual expression'. Do we agree on this? I'm trying to establish that we at least agree with what type of society or culture we are speaking of which creates the art to which you are critical. If we agree on this then I would ask where is the cultural religious mythological framework to come from? Right now its being built by technology and consumerism as in the work of Don Delillo for example. I don't know if you have read any of his novels, if not you can wiki 'White Noise'.

She looks like a wraith...appearing in some hellish dreamscape.

With long out stretched fingers...clutching for your soul! :eek:

Old fashioned hairstyles were the product of a leisure society. Women today are too active to take too much time doing their hair. Hair styles reflect pragmatism. If you want a woman donned like these various styles here

http://www.zimbio.com/1950's+Hairstyles/articles/6/1950s+Hairstyles+Dita+Von+Teese

Then you would have to go back to a time where women spent more time building a feminine mystique than working, studying and going to the gym.

Out of curiosity are you above or below the age of 50?

Old fashioned hairstyles were the product of a leisure society. Women today are too active to take too much time doing their hair.

Out of curiosity are you above or below the age of 50?
I was born in the nosecone of the hippy era.

I doubt women have less time now than before. They arent too active to take time carefully destroying their appearance. I'm actually astounded by the lengths they go to make themselves look appalling.

Just think how much time they save by NOT using one of these!

http://repearworld.net/mylifeinpictures/800/wringer.jpg

I was born in the nosecone of the hippy era.

Just think how much time they save by NOT using one of these!

Well they are not going to have more time washing by hand. I had to do that one day in Phnom Penh which is where I have been living for a while and everything is done by hand. My housekeeper was ill and I thought I would do everything for a few days and it was back-breaking and took 4hrs out of my day. Washing machines are definitely a good thing:) I am convinced that what liberated women was technological more than political. Technology meant not having to sew every garment, cook all food from scratch, wash from hand and sweep the floor with a broom made out of thickets. Women were no longer NEEDED in the house maintaining a home.

If you are a child of the 60's I can understand what you complain of, I am not of that era but I do believe they produced a lot of crap social ideals and looked positively awful. Who came up with the tie-dye anyway? :shrug:

Hippies deconstructed art willy nilly. I have not much enjoyed Ginsburg or Jack Kerouac but the Beat Generation did yield some interesting work and I wouldn't dismiss them even though I am not impressed with them, but how could I be, they do not address my world nor my concerns. They introduced a new method of writing that mirrored the improvisation of jazz, so in short they were influenced by their society as well as creating that society's legacy in the process, what else would they have to work from unless they simply 'copied' what was done before them. They did try and emulate aspects of Eastern philosophy for example in the work of Alan Watts but I have always seen this as a failure in modern western culture to successfully meet the psychological needs of its time. What you may be reacting to is the rapidity with which these social trends come and go. Any modern movement has maybe 10 years before its usurped by another, its a sign of how quickly things change politically as well as in art & technology.

When I said that I find Neuromancer to be of more significance than say Dante's Inferno I meant that the religious and political framework of Dante does not address today's needs spiritually or otherwise even if it is a beautiful timeless piece of work. It would never align the modern reader to his or her environment. Neuromancer and The Matrix for example do attempt to do this. They reflect man's struggle to maintain his humanity in a computerized technological age. An age where life is mechanized and the art is in the 'machinery' and not in man's life. It is meant to resolve these internal conflicts and issue. Have you seen the adult anime Ghost in the Shell? Its brilliant. It looks to an age where the idea of human beings as sentient and machinery as not is in question in a world where there are more and more cyborgs in use in everyday life. As more machine parts are added to the human animal it focuses on the philosophy of a new age. What is this 'essence' that can exist in a machine made of little organic matter? Man and machine merge. It asserts that this 'essence' is transferable but does not attach these philosophic exercises to religious principles. In a sense its anti-existentialist as it hints that essence proceeds existence. These are the works that look towards the future, to a new age and a new consciousness.

Spinoza cannot speak to contemporary concerns the way Baudrillard has but the philosophy of Spinoza is a pre-curser of what we have now in terms of how he challenged religious authority and its precepts by positing that good and evil are 'relative', or that god and nature are one and the same.

His philosophical positions back in the 17th century were:

The natural world is infinite.

Good and evil are related to human pleasure and pain.

Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.

All rights are derived from the State.

Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race, according to a rational consideration of the benefit as well as the animal's status in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

The blueprint for where we are and how we think was set a very very long time ago. Baudrillard on the other hand focuses on histriocity and "societies always searching for a sense of meaning — or a "total" understanding of the world — that remains consistently elusive...Accordingly, Baudrillard argued that the excess of signs and of meaning in late 20th century "global" society had caused (quite paradoxically) an effacement of reality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

This is more of a contemporary concern than anything else.

I do not agree you can blame art for what you see around you, its simply a reflection. This wish to go back to the certainty and beauty drawn from past ages is an impossibility, we have to align ourselves to the here and now not to the past. Past artists were not raised in a world of concrete and iron, they were not divorced from nature nor did they have to seek out their meaning in the world as religion did that for them. They were not hooked to the globe through t.v and the internet leading to a drowning in voices and information. They lived in a world where there was a silence and we live in an age of white noise. They did not live with the threat of global catastrophe, modern man lives in fear of many things and then you accuse him of doubt. Doubt is the sign of his humanity in an increasingly plastic material world. But there is still beauty there you just are not looking in the right places, perhaps its not for you to look for it at all meaning its something that belongs to a future generation.

The world isn't ending its simply transforming.

You seem to be saying that its the artist fault that these ideals are not present in the social collective mind. Am I correct or misunderstanding you?
Its a collective condition, however as part of that collective artists tend to act as mass market distributors of ideals...or the lack thereof.

At volume discounts! :cool:

Western European or American culture has had to embrace secularism to adapt to a globalized multicultural society
The majority of the 'globe' is NOT secular.

More to the point, it is not nihilistic.

As Gore Vidal once wrote the writer used to have a place in society, the writer's work was discussed at cocktail parties and people would know the work even if they had not read the material. The written word has now become the visual word in film. We are becoming a visual animal and not one of the word.
Whats interesting about this is that novels have increasingly become more like scripts, with more dialog and less description...perhaps in the author's hope that they will become films.

Do you believe these ideals can be restored?
I'm not interested in believing.

If there is to be a renaissance of spirituality it will not be based on belief.

I am not of that era but I do believe they produced a lot of crap social ideals and looked positively awful. Who came up with the tie-dye anyway?
The tie-dye is a cultural icon of the 60s because it represents the ideal that anything can be art...even a shapeless stain of random colours.

This is what the hippies were all about...that freedom itself is enlightenment.

All hierarchies must be toppled...and trampled under your bare feet.

Any modern movement has maybe 10 years before its usurped by another, its a sign of how quickly things change politically as well as in art & technology.
Hence the problem...the pursuit of fads as opposed to underlying eternal truths.

we have to align ourselves to the here and now not to the past.
If you lived in a psycho ward would you resolve to align yourself with insanity.

And it got me thinking if great literature is even possible without at least the suggestion of a spiritual dimension???

By 'spiritual' I mean primarily a sense of CONTINUITY...that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.

A spiritual dimension is implied already in the very act of reading, for example.

When one sits down to read, this implies that one has some idea that reading is a worthwhile way to spend one's time, that there will be some benefit from reading - whether one is conscious of this idea or not.

This idea that reading is worthwhile, that there is some benefit to it is an example of simple transcendence of the immediate here and now.

However, people see this "immediate here and now" differently. For some, it pertains to the next few minutes or hours and meters or miles; for some others, it pertains to all life times and all spaces; and then everything in between.

Perhaps this is exactly how mankind will respond to an 'end of everyone' scenario...as a quest for the last of the chocolate!

But I doubt it.

You're such an optimist! ;)

I don't think that we relate to novels specifically because we have a sense of life's continuity as far as 'after life'.

Why write, or read, a book if not because there is some idea that things can be communicated beyond the limits of one's material body and time?

Authors sometimes say they want to make their readers think, or help to understand themselves and the world better: How could those authors want that if not because they have some idea that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the (individual) body and that thought and emotion extend beyond the (individual) brain?
And why do we keep books, if not because we have some idea that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the (current state of the) body and that thought and emotion extend beyond the (current state of the) brain?


Granted, these principles of continuity and consequence are common to our every day lives anyway, it is just that we become more aware of this when writing and reading literature and thinking about it.

There is an interesting book on this topic: Mark Turner: The Literary Mind (http://markturner.org/lm.html) (Oxford University Press, 1996). Story, projection and parable, so Turner, are basic principles of our mind anyway, but we are usually aware of them only in literature.

I'm not interested in believing.

If there is to be a renaissance of spirituality it will not be based on belief.

What do you think will or could the basis of the renaissance of spirituality be?

The majority of the 'globe' is NOT secular.

More to the point, it is not nihilistic.

We are speaking of the West and western literature.

Carcano: Whats interesting about this is that novels have increasingly become more like scripts, with more dialog and less description...perhaps in the author's hope that they will become films.

Again what the hell are you reading? Which authors? Because I can tell you that there are many contemporary novelists who have ample descriptions, you obviously have never read Mary Gaitskill or Alice Munro. A few of Annie Proulx work has been turned to the screen but her work is still very descriptive. Toni Morrison's work is highly descriptive and remains partly mythological in many respects and one of her works did end up on the screen but still yet her novels are novels and it is other people who adapt the work for the screen, same with Proulx her novels are very different in scope to how they are reshaped for the screen.

You make these claims but give no indication of what you are reading that you call literature which has helped form your opinion about ALL literature. Which authors only use 'dialogue' with little or no description?

Carcano: Hence the problem...the pursuit of fads as opposed to underlying eternal truths.

Well no fads generally do not become part of the canon of literature. Bret Easton Ellis was popular for a time but his work isn't considered literature. Toni Morrison on the other hand is. Truly Carcano if there were 'eternal truths' in any of these works you would hardly know about it, you give no indication that you actually read literature.

Carcano: If you lived in a psycho ward would you resolve to align yourself with insanity.

But that's just it isn't it? You see the world as mad but yourself as sane. You don't see yourself as a part of the world. What's more is you don't seem to know of the artists, the writers who do write about beauty and truth. You are not engaged. There have been artists who unhappy with the world created their own within it and found joy, this is their legacy, their contribution to future artists and those who want to live fully but outside the mainstream, they adapted themselves to a world they could live in and were no longer at odds with it. If we fail to do so for ourselves then it is us who are to blame not the world.

Why write, or read, a book if not because there is some idea that things can be communicated beyond the limits of one's material body and time?

Authors sometimes say they want to make their readers think, or help to understand themselves and the world better: How could those authors want that if not because they have some idea that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the (individual) body and that thought and emotion extend beyond the (individual) brain?
And why do we keep books, if not because we have some idea that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the (current state of the) body and that thought and emotion extend beyond the (current state of the) brain?


Granted, these principles of continuity and consequence are common to our every day lives anyway, it is just that we become more aware of this when writing and reading literature and thinking about it.

There is an interesting book on this topic: Mark Turner: The Literary Mind (http://markturner.org/lm.html) (Oxford University Press, 1996). Story, projection and parable, so Turner, are basic principles of our mind anyway, but we are usually aware of them only in literature.

Carcarno isn't interested in this from that point of view, it is not the basis of his argument. Carcarno is saying that the world of literature is dead in the sense that he thinks they fail to hold and embody 'spiritual' values.

Writers also write because they need to express themselves despite the fact that their work may never survive. Why do you think that Nin continued to write or Miller? Both were only recognized in their 50's or 60's. If they wrote for the reasons you gave then they would have become discouraged and stopped. Do you really believe that Emily Dickinson wrote because she cared for the world? Hardly. Writers write for themselves first and they hope that it is understood and responded to. Only a narcissist like Ayn Rand thought she was doing the world a favor by deigning to write Fountainhead which she called the perfect novel.

The point I was trying to make to Carcano is that literature does not have to serve the purpose he asserts. In other words literature is quite broad and not all literary work needs to or has to contain these 'spiritual values' or 'eternal truths' in order to be literature. His point is that ALL literature must have this, so I went about showing him literary works that do not have this component and he went on to say that this is what is wrong with the world. Authors are not preachers who sit up on a podium and belt out 'this is the truth, this is the universal truth'. This is not the magic that they offer, this is not the nature of the elixir. Some works are like this but not all and even then there would be disagreement. I believe Proust has these qualities, Colette, D H Lawrence, Issac Bashevis Singer, Pirandello, Thomas Mann, Kawabata, Mishima, Kobo Abe and many many many many more, so many that I don't have enough time to get through them all or have enough space to store them all. but I am quite certain that Carcarno would disagree with me. He has yet to name one book outside of Lord of The Rings that he believes is an example of a novel embodying 'eternal truths'. He chides the world for its destruction but he doesn't realize that all he sees is destruction, what beauty there is he would fail to see that its there, that it in fact exists.

Ice by Kavan was probably one of the most beautifully written haunting books I have ever read yet Carcano chides her for ending the story in an ice age where all of human life ceases to be. The fact that it was lyrically beautifully, surrealistically executed doesn't seem to matter. Thank god it matters in terms of literature;)

Thanks for suggesting Turner.

I'm not interested in believing.

If there is to be a renaissance of spirituality it will not be based on belief.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Why agree? The question was not what beliefs spirituality would be based on. The question was if he believed these values he speaks of can or would be restored.

The question was if he believed these values he speaks of can or would be restored.
They can...I dont know if they would. :)

Nevertheless, they continue to manifest themselves...either actively or reactively.

Carcarno isn't interested in this from that point of view, it is not the basis of his argument.
Reading Signal's excellent post suggests to me that he understands the premise of the thread perfectly...he gets it!

By 'spiritual' I mean primarily a sense of CONTINUITY...that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.

I gotta admit, I've been somewhat baffled, and intrigued by this thread over the past few days.
I still have to admit that I'm not even sure what the OP means.
According to this definition provided, I've never even read a piece of fiction that involves a sense of 'spirituality'....

So, in short, my answer would be: of course.

What do you think will or could the basis of the renaissance of spirituality be?
The most obvious process that comes to mind would be the scientific validation of the continuity of consciousness after the death of the body...as mentioned in the OP.

This would have to involve an overwhelming body of evidence that can replicated.

This in turn could only be possible with great advancements in medical science.

That continuity can exist in a purely material form. It's the only reason why you are familiar with Shakespeare long after his death. Great literature is a reflection of the human experience, which, however irrational it may be, contains religious and spiritual notions. The supernatural can provide great plots, unrestrained by realism. A work of art that promotes belief in the supernatural can be considered overly optimistic, I agree. But it's all in good fun.

Art isn't supposed to be "fun", it's supposed to convey emotion. Art is beautiful in that it is the method in which humans can express themselves, play god, and the method wherein humans are able to create and behold. It isn't about "fun"

Bret Easton Ellis was popular for a time but his work isn't considered literature.
The film they made of his novel American Psycho is the purest form of 'conflicted nihilism' I can imagine.

When Bateman utters these words at the end of this scene, he expresses the same DOUBT standing behind every materialist...like a great question mark.

"I...simply...am...not...there."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXlkq9vHuAE

Real serial killers often express this sense of doubt as well, although it usually never comes to light until they've been caught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE

What Dahmer describes here is a mentality that feels little sense of moral consequence or empathy with others. What consequences could exist in a transitory world of random molecular accidents? From where could empathy arise?

On the other hand, it was exactly this desire for emotional connection that drove him to seek it through material means...through cannibalism!

Why agree? The question was not what beliefs spirituality would be based on. The question was if he believed these values he speaks of can or would be restored.

Take the attitude of the entire board, or the attitude of the logical and more educated masses of the western world if you will.

A great man once said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Sadly, In our day in age, this will no longer suffice, will it? Luckily, we have the scientists at CERN working doggedly so that they he who will not believe till they see, CAN eventually see :D . . . .

Reading Signal's excellent post suggests to me that he understands the premise of the thread perfectly...he gets it!

Well if your position is whether literature continues and will continue the answer would have been yes. Just because you do not appreciate modern literature doesn't mean it is not known and will continue to be recognized and read. You say Signal argued your point but you have not been arguing Signals.

Carcano: The film they made of his novel American Psycho is the purest form of 'conflicted nihilism' I can imagine.

Since when has Bret Easton Ellis been considered literature? Neither John Grisham nor Douglas Coupland are accepted as literature but David Foster Wallace is. Given that they are not accepted as examples of literature they have nothing to do with your point or this thread unless you see all and any book as an example of literature. At least I took the time to read some of Elli's work instead of having to refer to the film I can refer to text, the film is a far cry from the novel. If the novel was unremarkable the film was worse. Again I ask what do you actually read? Which authors? You want to discuss literature but you give no indication that you ever read any literature:rolleyes:

You seem to think that any written novel is accepted as literature and that's plainly untrue.

Take the attitude of the entire board, or the attitude of the logical and more educated masses of the western world if you will.

A great man once said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Sadly, In our day in age, this will no longer suffice, will it? Luckily, we have the scientists at CERN working doggedly so that they he who will not believe till they see, CAN eventually see :D . . . .

What you speak of is irrelevant to the subject of literature which has been surviving quite well without the CERN project. Art does not wait for science because it is not dependent on science.

Signal I do not find the notion that art outlives the artist of spiritual significance anymore than the notion that a child might outlive its parents. It is not a particularly interesting nor novel idea to say that culture passes its ideas towards a new generation.

A great man once said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Sadly, In our day in age, this will no longer suffice, will it?
Sadly?

Good lord, we can't even agree on the meaning of what we've seen, let alone what we haven't.

*edit - get 'im, Lucy.

You seem to think that any written novel is accepted as literature and that's plainly untrue.

. . . . oh god YES! WHERE the hell is the modern literature? lol Just teasing, I spend most of my time parenting, researching and reading non-fiction, so I can't really say that I do a whole lot of fiction reading. By is it just me, or does the modern western world seem so incredibly hung up on pulp in this era?

I did read Memoirs of a Geisha which is a novel by Arthur Golden, published in 1997. That's one that will be around and a classic a hundred years from now, any argument there?

But of these modern authors, do we really believe that anyone will be reading King, Clancy, Steel, Rice, Koontz, Brown, Patterson?

(I'd include Clive Barker in this list, but I have a new found appreciation for him since he dropped of the literary radar some years back to work on his Abarat project. . . which is. . . . nothing less, than . . . ambitious and dare I say genius? One only hopes he doesn't get hit by a bus while he complete it. Although. . . I'm afraid of what it may become once it is over commercialized. Then again, that hasn't happened with LOTR or the Chronicles of Narnia.)

What you speak of is irrelevant to the subject of literature which has been surviving quite well without the CERN project. Art does not wait for science because it is not dependent on science.


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were drawing a distinction between literature and pulp. My mistake. In that case, yes, you are quite correct. Otherwise, I would argue, no, you are incorrect. I would say a spiritual renaissance IS necessary. . . at least for the great majority of the highly educated and intellectually enlightened classes.

However, I will agree with you on one point, Art does not necessarily NEED the recognition of spirituality. The lamentation of the LACK of perceived spirituality is enough. However, that is really what has dominated the majority of really good literature for the whole of the modern era. Otherwise, the only other common themes are timeless themes of the human experience. But to relating them to what? Nothingness? Or something higher? It is either one of these or resorting some form of existentialism I would posit.

Just because you do not appreciate modern literature doesn't mean it is not known and will continue to be recognized and read.
Whether I personally LIKE modern literature or not has nothing to do with the point of this thread...which is posed as a question:

Can literature survive without spirituality?

You say Signal argued your point but you have not been arguing Signals.
I have no argument with what he's written.

Since when has Bret Easton Ellis been considered literature? Neither John Grisham nor Douglas Coupland are accepted as literature.
Again, any fictional prose is literature.

Whether you like it or not...does not define what is it.

Again I ask what do you actually read? Which authors? You want to discuss literature but you give no indication that you ever read any literature.
The fact that I've read enough books to choke an army has little to do with the point of this thread.

Whats more important is that without understanding why the principle of continuity is important, even if you've read a billion books...you wont understand a single one of them.

. . . . oh god YES! WHERE the hell is the modern literature? lol Just teasing, I spend most of my time parenting, researching and reading non-fiction, so I can't really say that I do a whole lot of fiction reading. By is it just me, or does the modern western world seem so incredibly hung up on pulp in this era?

I did read Memoirs of a Geisha which is a novel by Arthur Golden, published in 1997. That's one that will be around and a classic a hundred years from now, any argument there?

But of these modern authors, do we really believe that anyone will be reading King, Clancy, Steel, Rice, Koontz, Brown, Patterson?

(I'd include Clive Barker in this list, but I have a new found appreciation for him since he dropped of the literary radar some years back to work on his Abarat project. . . which is. . . . nothing less, than . . . ambitious and dare I say genius? One only hopes he doesn't get hit by a bus while he complete it. Although. . . I'm afraid of what it may become once it is over commercialized. Then again, that hasn't happened with LOTR or the Chronicles of Narnia.)

Ha! Not if the Japanese can help it. Memoirs does an injustice to the history of Geisha’s by making them seem like whores instead of guardians of the traditional arts. Notice how there wasn’t even one Japanese actress who was willing to take part in the project? It forced Mineko Iwasaki, one of the most famous Geisha’s of her generation, to come out and reveal the secrets and the world of the profession knows as ‘art of perfection’ in her own novel. Its a better read for accuracy but its not a literary feat.

“Do we really believe that anyone will be reading King, Clancy, Steel, Rice, Koontz, Brown, Patterson?”

I think you are not speaking of modern literature but postmodern and contemporary unless you don’t think anyone is going to read Vonnegut, Pirandello, Jorge Luis Borges among others . I would say yes in regards to Anne Rice but not the others. People will be reading Wallace, Barker, DeLillo, Burroughs, Gibson (cyberpunk), Morrison, Isabel Allende and a host of others.

“However, that is really what has dominated the majority of really good literature for the whole of the modern era. Otherwise, the only other common themes are timeless themes of the human experience. But to relating them to what? Nothingness? Or something higher? It is either one of these or resorting some form of existentialism I would posit.”

Again it depends on what you are referring to when you speak of ‘spirituality’. The argument can easily be made that existentialist pieces like Tom Stoppard’s ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead’, Pirandello’s ‘The Late Mattia Pascal’, Satre’s ‘Age of Reason’ are all examples of work that extend themselves towards spiritual values. I am not sure if there is anyone in the world of literature who is lamenting about the lack of anything given the amount of writers there are on the scene. The human experience does not have to relate to anything at all, man locked in his own experience does not have to look towards the heavens for his story to have significance, that’s the beauty of literature, if you want stories that look towards the heavens then its best to look towards religious texts, philosophy or mythology. The human experience has always been enough in terms of literature, spiritual themes may or may not be included but its not necessary.

To use a different type of storytelling as an example, Wagner wrote a tale of the time of the Gods and men in 'The Ring' as he was dealing with myth but La Boheme and Pagliacci stand very well on their own just telling the tale of love, passionate love without any undertones of spiritual ethics or values.

Whether I personally LIKE modern literature or not has nothing to do with the point of this thread...which is posed as a question:

Can literature survive without spirituality?

Carcano: Whether I personally LIKE modern literature or not has nothing to do with the point of this thread...which is posed as a question: Can literature survive without spirituality?

Yes and I have been saying that it has been doing so all along for a very, very long time.

Carcano: I have no argument with what he's written.

I wasn’t saying you did, I was saying that everything we have been discussing so far in regards to the OP never touched on the points Signal raised. Hence you’ve been making a different argument from the points Signal raise. Signal’s points are straightforward whereas its been difficult to ascertain what yours have been from the beginning. You have said many things but still haven't stuck to one point so anyone can glean what you really mean.

Carcano: Again, any fictional prose is literature. Whether you like it or not...does not define what is it.

Not at all and its not my definition. All this proves is that you really do not know the difference between fictional prose and what is considered literature. Its the reason why Harlequins written by Georgette Heyer are not part of the syllabus in in an English Lterature course, for sure she was probably more prolific and more read than Bronte and Austen but the latter are considered literature and the former nothing more than popular fiction of its day.

Carcano: Whats more important is that without understanding why the principle of continuity is important, even if you've read a billion books...you wont understand a single one of them.

Again explain your position rather than using an abstraction to describe an abstraction. Just because you have read many books doesn’t mean you have been reading literature nor know of anything about literature. My mother has tons of books and not one of them can be classified as literature.
So go ahead describe what you mean by ‘principle of continuity’, it cannot simply mean that an authors ideas survive him or her as Signal partly inferred as this is an aspect of culture and is hardly an interesting point. That the thoughts of a piece of work is extended towards the reader and future generations goes without saying but its like pointing out that a painting in a gallery will be viewed by more than the artist himself, to which someone can say 'so what. what were you expecting?' :shrug:

So far you have yet to prove that your claim is anything more than the idea of one man who seems disgruntled with everything in modern society. If your claim is to be taken seriously you have to prove there is a lack of something but not only have you yet to do that using authors and text you have yet to describe what it is you believe lacking. In short you have yet to prove that what you claim is even a problem in the world, world of literature or literary circles.

... All this proves is that you really do not know the difference between fictional prose and what is considered literature.
...


Two points here:

First, how do you know that "what is considered literature" means the same thing as what the OP meant when using the term "literature"?

Secondly, you're arguing that "what is considered literature" is defined by a specific group. Can you identify that group? And can you then explain the rationale of that particular definition?

...just curious. I think the entire topic is bogus myself.

All this proves is that you really do not know the difference between fictional prose and what is considered literature.
1. According to Webster's Dicitionary literature is "all writings in prose or verse of an imaginative or critical character, without regard to their excellence: often distinguished from scientific writing, news reporting, etc."

2. According to Lucysnow literature is all writing that Lucy likes.

3. According to Carcano literature is all fictional prose.

You can see here that number one is far too broad, number two is too vague and subjective, whereas number three is *just right*.


Stephen King probably didnt do himself any favours by referring to his work as "the literary equivalent of a cheeseburger and fries".

However, anyone who's read the last chapter of The Gunslinger would have to call it a 'gourmet' cheeseburger and fries...at the very least!!!

With added wheat germ, lemon pepper and paprika...on sesame egg bread!:cool:

I was saying that everything we have been discussing so far in regards to the OP never touched on the points Signal raised. Hence you’ve been making a different argument from the points Signal raise.
Now how would you know if Signal's points are relevant to the OP if you dont even understand the OP???

His comments and mine are two paths up the same mountain.

That the thoughts of a piece of work is extended towards the reader and future generations goes without saying but its like pointing out that a painting in a gallery will be viewed by more than the artist himself, to which someone can say 'so what. what were you expecting'?
Not just MORE people than the artist himself, but multitudes of people for centuries ever after!

Do you think this is important to the great artists of history?

Why should they care???

If the high priests of scientific materialism are correct, the universe is nothing more than a chaos of randomly appearing, bundles of particles...so what difference would anything make?

Not only would events after your lifetime be meaningless to YOU, but there would be no basis for any structure of VALUE altogether...or indeed anything that could be called cultural.

Remember, the principle of continuity profoundly affects everyone's psychology, either by its active presence, or its reactive absence.

Two points here:

First, how do you know that "what is considered literature" means the same thing as what the OP meant when using the term "literature"?

Secondly, you're arguing that "what is considered literature" is defined by a specific group. Can you identify that group? And can you then explain the rationale of that particular definition?

...just curious. I think the entire topic is bogus myself.

Well I have been trying to figure out what Carcano means by the term and which books and authors he is referring to as being without continuity and spirituality but he has yet to offer any examples to prove his point.

This may be long so please bear with me. Literature can be quite broad but it generally has these distinctions.

Literary work tends to have a lasting cultural effect, it exemplifies the mood and values of its age, it explores the thematic problems of its time and brings them to light, to a clarity that can speak to all in that society even if it focuses on the fringe like the work of Gibson when it first hit the scene (who knew back then how important computer technology would be to us in the coming decades, Gibson was a seer). These thematic values through individual experience could be religious as in Dante's Inferno, or socio-economic affecting the individual as was encapsulated in Death of a Salesman, individual alienation as reflected in the work of Camus and Satre. It brings society to a consciousness of itself, its challenging its readers to look at themselves and their society and the concerns of its time but, another important criteria is that the work extends itself past its age by speaking of a deep human universal experience OR is prophetic by speaking intimately of a time that is close at hand. These works had their finger on the pulse.

A work may be popular but dated in the sense that it doesn't speak a universal truth of the human experience though it be a story well told. Carcano seems to think that all modern and contemporary literature fails to fulfill this criteria of universal truth, I disagree. A work isn't always popular or well received but it is eventually recognized like the remarkable story of Confederacy of Dunces written by Toole. The man wrote this one book fell into despondency and topped himself. His mother found the book, insisted that a university professor read it, it then goes on to win the pulitzer prize. If only he had hung on long enough to know his efforts were not wasted and he wasn't a loser after all:p. The title of the book ironically enough is derived from a quote by Jonathan Swift:

“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

Ha! I just love that. Anyway I digress.

The work either breaks or introduces a new literary style like Wallace has done with 'Infinite Jest' or James Joyce with 'Ulysses' or even Knut Hamsun with 'Hunger'.

Style and beauty. The work surpasses the prosaic in style and beauty. Even a story about the ugly aspects of human nature needs to emphasis this with style to expose what makes darkness just that black and recognize that all of us have a sinister nature to varying degrees. Its this sense of style, sparse and terse that delivers the chill in the following lines:

The second time I meant
To last it out and not come back at all.
I rocked shut


As a seashell.

They had to call and call
And pick the worms off me like sticky pearls.

Dying
Is an art, like everything else,
I do it exceptionally well.

I do it so it feels like hell.
I do it so it feels real.
I guess you could say I've a call.

Sylvia Plath, Lady Lazarus

If this were written sentimental and florid we would have missed the true violent depression that the unrelenting demon suicide leaves on the mind of a scarred and ruined survivor. Its so cold, so clinical. By insisting on integrity of style Plath offered an unadulterated naked truth without any buffer.


Construction. It exemplifies the 'architecture' of a master builder, complex or simple it shows the skill of story building. A great example is Vonnegut's play with time in 'Slaugherhouse-Five' where not only was the protagonist unstuck in time but so was the flow of the text. You are aware of the time shift but its so imperceptible that you didn’t even know how it happened, he just built the experience into the structure of the work (I get goose bumps just thinking about it. Genius!).

Uniqueness. The work is innovative or the voice of the author so singular that it cannot be reproduced nor does it emulate anything else that is out there.

These are a few of the basic qualities that separates literature from popular fiction.

Believe it or not critical appraisal is not a great indication of the quality of a literary work. For example Anais Nin couldn't get published, she was criticized by the literary elite of her day and was only later accepted as an artist and exceptional writer. Her intimate portrayals, ambiguous lyricism (poetic prose) and psychological insight were too new for the publishing world she encountered; she never told a straight structured story from beginning to end, she turned her characters inside out so you only saw the internal world to the exclusion of the external. She didn't build dramatic affect but distilled all that was unnecessary until all that was left of the character and situations was the fragrance, she never objectified the work. It was only later when psychology was mainstreamed, when the use of myth in stories was beginning to be explored and mainstreamed by scholars, when the 60's revolutionized everything was her work then accepted. So oftentimes the critics of the day are unable to pick up on what is important as they tend to uphold the status quo.

Its not one specific group that acknowledges a work as literature but various institutions; the universities (scholars) and literary critics, literary quarterlies and magazines, recognition by other living authors. It can also come from the recognition of institutions like Société littéraire des Goncourt or the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Ultimately though none of these groups nor institutions are the deciding factor since much of what they readily acclaim disappears into the ether. Its time that creates the literary body whether the work is accepted by all or none of these groups, its when a work persists no matter if it be banned or unpublished or unread by the masses of the day or criticized, its a mystery how some novels just do not disappear but grow and grow until eventually it cannot be ignored. I truly believe that truth and beauty cannot be buried for long. In short literature is the accumulation of the creme de la creme, the jewels in cultures crown, exemplifying everything that was of cultural relevance.

And it got me thinking if great literature is even possible without at least the suggestion of a spiritual dimension???

By 'spiritual' I mean primarily a sense of CONTINUITY...that consciousness and consequences extend beyond the life of the body...that thought and emotion extend beyond the brain.

Literature does not need a spiritual dimension, but it does need a sense of greatness. By that, I'm not saying something cliched, but a sense that the characters in the book are experiencing something out of the ordinary, and whether it be in the mind of the reader or in the universe of the book, there has to be a sense of impact, but at the same time a sense of uncertainty. Certainly there has to be coninuity, but there are various ways of achieving this. Do you for example mean, physical continuity, as in terms of a legacy... or a mental/profound impact apon the reader..

Carcano:

"2. According to Lucysnow literature is all writing that Lucy likes".


Hardly anything I like, I find Wallace a tedious read, Faulkner too but I still recognize that it is correct to refer to it as literature. Shakespeare has become cliche but its still an example of literature.

Stephen King was just being honest. He was also being honest when he called Barker a greater artist than he could ever hope to be and said by comparison he was hardly worthy though he is more widely read and accepted than Barker. King obviously understands the difference between popular fiction and literature and is acknowledging that he will be remembered as a mediocrity whereas Barker will go on to symbolize the 'Edgar Allen Poe' of his time (Kings own words)

You still haven’t a clue as to what literature is Carcano. Ya wanna know why? You had to look it up in Websters.:rolleyes:

Carcano: Now how would you know if Signal's points are relevant to the OP if you dont even understand the OP?? His comments and mine are two paths up the same mountain.

You have a variety of explanations of the opening thread and I am not the only one here who doesn’t see your point. If it was as Signal had pointed out so very clearly and succinctly then the answer to the opening thread would be ‘literature then as now continues to be passed on’. It would have been simple and the discussion would not have continued for this long. To say that an author leaves a bit of their consciousness in a work is not a particularly interesting point to make as it is obvious, nor does it have anything to do with ‘spirituality’.

Carcano: Not just MORE people than the artist himself, but multitudes of people for centuries ever after! Do you think this is important to the great artists of history? Why should they care?? If the high priests of scientific materialism are correct, the universe is nothing more than a chaos of randomly appearing, bundles of particles...so what difference would anything make? Not only would events after your lifetime be meaningless to YOU, but there would be no basis for any structure of VALUE altogether...or indeed anything that could be called cultural.Remember, the principle of continuity profoundly affects everyone's psychology, either by its active presence, or its reactive absence.

So what? This is what culture does, literature is an aspect of culture. Its not a novel idea. Some artists die without ever seeing this occur like Van Gogh for example. As far as he knows he only sold one painting in his life and it was to his brother. He didn’t create art for this purpose he created it out of his personal need.

Whether the universe is made up of ‘randomly appearing bundles of particles’ is irrelevant in terms of art. Colette working through some of the most incredible stories of love and passion could care less about ‘bundles of particles’. Art is not dependent on science. Annie Prolux who loves small towns isn't concerned about the particles when she is working on stories about human fragility.

You haven’t a clue what is meaningful to me.

Do you have anything relevant to say about literature? I mean spit it out man! You make a claim about literature, its proven incorrect and then you go on blithering about continuity and its psychological importance with such urgency when you haven't provided not one single proof to back up your claim that there is something wrong with the state of literature. You fail to see that there is no 'lack' in literature, probably because you are not well exposed to literature. Literature is more than what your thimble will hold. You're claim is nonsense.

Methinks you are projecting a personal concern onto literature. Perhaps you should look towards yourself and ask what does 'continuity' mean to you in your life.

You make a claim about literature, its proven incorrect and then you go on blithering about continuity and its psychological importance with such urgency when you haven't provided not one single proof to back up your claim that there is something wrong with the state of literature.
To say that there is something wrong with the state of literature is not the point of this thread. The point is to describe how literature cannot survive without spirituality...as defined in the opening post.

Which you still dont understand. :rolleyes:

To say that there is something wrong with the state of literature is not the point of this thread. The point is to describe how literature cannot survive without spirituality...as defined in the opening post.

Which you still dont understand. :rolleyes:

You are not saying anything Carcano. We have been through this, there are literary works that do not contain any spirituality, so your point is irrelevant whether you think it can survive or not, it has been and will continue to survive exploring all aspects of life and some of those themes have little or no 'spiritual' content. As Challenger pointed out it does not need a 'spiritual dimension'. It is you who fail to properly argue your point of view. Or actually to make any kind of claim that can be discussed without a complete clarification about what you are going on about.

So since you seem to think you know what you are trying to communicate explain to the rest of us why literature cannot survive without spirituality without completely repeating yourself.

You see for this to make sense you have to give an example of, or show how, literature will either lose something that it innately contains eg spirituality and show where this threat comes from or prove it is missing already. Because as it stands right now, you are placing a de facto statement without any proof. There has to be proof that literature is actually in 'danger' of something. Hence 'Can literature 'survive'..

Signal I do not find the notion that art outlives the artist of spiritual significance anymore than the notion that a child might outlive its parents. It is not a particularly interesting nor novel idea to say that culture passes its ideas towards a new generation.

First of all, I did not say that "culture passes its ideas towards a new generation". I am talking about interactions between author, text, audience and wider culture, which is not the same as "culture passes its ideas towards a new generation".

It may not be novel, but that doesn't mean it is not relevant.
For example, the fact that humans usually need to eat in order to keep their bodies functioning is not novel, but that doesn't mean we can gloss over issues of food and eating.

Given that large portions of studying and researching literature are devoted precisely to the interaction between author, text, audience and wider culture, this interaction is hardly considered "not particularly interesting" or "outdated, thefore irrelevant".
You yourself have made several examples in this thread of taking interest in these interactions.


That you don't find these things "spiritually significant" probably has something to do with what you understand by "spirituality".

You said:

What do you mean by 'strictly materialistic'? As a matter of fact you haven't really laid down any proof of your claim that spirituality is an INTEGRAL component of literature. Perhaps it would help if you described spirituality a bit further so I know what you mean? Things pertaining to the spirit in my mind have to do with the living not the afterlife, it refers to man and not god.

But even with such an understanding of spirituality - "things that have to do with living" - I wonder how come you don't find literature spiritual?

When you read "Ice", for example, surely you have also wondered how you would have acted in the scenario given in the book? Or when you read a book, you examine the ideas it presents and reflect how they apply in your life or not.
Reading your replies here, it appears this is what you have been doing anyway, but you don't make the connection that this is spiritual in some way.

Can literature survive without spirituality?

I think this is part of a bigger question: Can humans survive without spirituality?

And further:

Can humans survive with a strictly materialistic "spirituality"?

Is it possible to read literature merely for entertainment, without reading having any active role in shaping our thinking?

Can we really survive while thinking that this one lifetime is all there is, that we are our bodies, that there is neither soul nor God, that the Universe has no controller, that all the laws that we perceive in nature are merely man-made concepts imposed on an otherwise undifferentiated and indifferent reality?


To me, the main spiritual dimension of literature is in how literature plays in in these questions, how it reflects on these questions, the social discourse that it provokes, both in the individual reader as well as in the strata of readers and wider culture.
In this sense, spirituality is unalienable to literature and reading literature.

Since when has Bret Easton Ellis been considered literature? Neither John Grisham nor Douglas Coupland are accepted as literature but David Foster Wallace is. Given that they are not accepted as examples of literature they have nothing to do with your point or this thread unless you see all and any book as an example of literature. At least I took the time to read some of Elli's work instead of having to refer to the film I can refer to text, the film is a far cry from the novel. If the novel was unremarkable the film was worse. Again I ask what do you actually read? Which authors? You want to discuss literature but you give no indication that you ever read any literature

You seem to think that any written novel is accepted as literature and that's plainly untrue.


Accepted as literature by whom?


Many "introduction to literature" textbooks point out how the science of literature is one of the few sciences that does not have a clear definition of what its field actually is.


Sure, there are literature teachers, critics and authors who make claims about what is literature and what isn't.

But as far as literary theory goes, there is currently no clear definition of what exactly is literature and what is not literature, a definition that could serve us to distinguish between actual texts and separate them as literature and non-literature. There are some guidelines, but no hard and fast rules.

Can we really survive while thinking that this one lifetime is all there is, that we are our bodies, that there is neither soul nor God, that the Universe has no controller, that all the laws that we perceive in nature are merely man-made concepts imposed on an otherwise undifferentiated and indifferent reality?

To me, the main spiritual dimension of literature is in how literature plays in in these questions, how it reflects on these questions, the social discourse that it provokes, both in the individual reader as well as in the strata of readers and wider culture. In this sense, spirituality is unalienable to literature and reading literature.
Thats right...human beings can certainly PRETEND to live without it, but they cannot hide from the reactive force of its denial.

This reactive force manifests itself in all the pessimistic imagery that shows up like a bulldog at the garden gate...whenever nihilists try their hand at any of the arts.

You are not saying anything Carcano. We have been through this, there are literary works that do not contain any spirituality....
Well I'm not going to follow you into a corn maze...if thats what youre asking.

http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20071030/Corn_Maze_1_540x359.JPG

You seem to be spending a lot of time there recently, wandering about, wondering why all the time you've spent reading cant get any recognition.

Again, if you dont even understand what is meant by spirituality, as spelled out rather clearly, you cannot say which books engage it and which do not.

Annie Prolux isn't concerned about the particles when she is working on stories about human fragility.
Of course she is...although perhaps not consciously.

Where do you think human fragility comes from???

Heres another example right from our very own sciforums archives.

Note the thread title penned by Oli:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93332

Whatever you do:
1 year from now who'll have any passion for it?
10 years from now who'll care?
100 years from now who'll remember?
1,000 years from now would it have made a difference if you hadn't?

When the universe is dead and cold what will it matter what you did?

http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/gsergakis/crumbdespair.jpg

Observe the use of TIME in this paragraph...the principle of continuity, glowing and strong like the sun rising from dark mountains!

Signal

Signal: First of all, I did not say that "culture passes its ideas towards a new generation". I am talking about interactions between author, text, audience and wider culture, which is not the same as "culture passes its ideas towards a new generation".


I know which is why I also used the example of the painting and the viewer, the fact that there is this interaction isn’t a very interesting point to make. Of course there is this interaction. And its exactly what I meant by ‘how culture works’. There’s an interaction, yeah so what, we know that. I do not believe there is anything spiritual about this interaction unless you want to believe that all interaction is spiritual in that case the OP would have lost all meaning since all and any interaction is a spiritual happening and hardly worth discussing.

Signal: I wonder how come you don't find literature spiritual?

I said from the very beginning that some works might have spiritual value but much of it does not contain a shred of spiritual value and yet is still considered great literature.

Signal: When you read "Ice", for example, surely you have also wondered how you would have acted in the scenario given in the book? Or when you read a book, you examine the ideas it presents and reflect how they apply in your life or not.
Reading your replies here, it appears this is what you have been doing anyway, but you don't make the connection that this is spiritual in some way.

No I do not think that wondering what one would have done under a certain scenario is spiritual, unless of course you want to make wondering if I should go to tahiti or back to south east asia and wondering what the difference would be if I do one thing and not the other as a spiritual happening.

Signal: Accepted as literature by whom?

Read post #156.

Signal: Many "introduction to literature" textbooks point out how the science of literature is one of the few sciences that does not have a clear definition of what its field actually is.

Science of literature? Is it that you wish to completely absorb the very breath out of the art. I have heard of this stylometrics and its exactly the kind count the angels on a pinhead intellectualism that threatens to strangle any love of literature. It has absolutely nothing to do with literature's importance or place, Gottshall's is a scientist who wishes he was a writer and wants to form a bond between the two but using a computer to solve what he calls literary mysteries. Just because a computer can glean an author based on phraseology is cute but irrelevant to a reader as well as a writer. Its mainly a statistical tool. Wow, that sounds exciting:D No wonder literary scholars roll their eyes at this new 'science of literature'. Its a way of saying 'hey literature is dead now lets look scientifically ponder the remains'. Hmmm and he bemoans that young people are not interested in studying literature :rolleyes: Any creative writer would be better to run from that class and take a roadtrip instead...at least they'd have something to write about. Its as dry as a bone honey.


Signal: But as far as literary theory goes, there is currently no clear definition of what exactly is literature and what is not literature, a definition that could serve us to distinguish between actual texts and separate them as literature and non-literature. There are some guidelines, but no hard and fast rules.

As I pointed out to you in a different thread. Again read post #156. There are still accepted guidelines though criteria is always shifting with time. For example teachers and critics seem to agree that there has never been a formula harlequin that has been considered literature. Funny that. You crack me up! On the one hand you want to speak of ‘science of literature’ and then you want to say ‘hey man literature is all watery and mercurial so much so that you can’t even pin point what it is.

Carcarno


Carcano I am not in a corn maze, I am asking you to clearly communicate what you think the problem is that makes you ask ‘Can literature survive...’.

Carcano: You seem to be spending a lot of time there recently, wandering about, wondering why all the time you've spent reading cant get any recognition.
Again, if you dont even understand what is meant by spirituality, as spelled out rather clearly, you cannot say which books engage it and which do not.

Its statements like these that makes me wonder about your intelligence. Where have I ever said anything about reading and recognition? Or is it that distractions are easier than the subject you have broached. Reading is a personal pleasure, I collect books, it doesn’t have anything to do with recognition since I don’t give a toss if anyone recognizes that I am alone in my room reading a book. One reads for personal fulfillment not personal recognition.

Again I can discern which books are written in that vain and which ones are not. You still have yet to properly define spirituality in terms of literature. As a matter of fact you haven’t used your mind much to say very much at all on this subject save some de facto statement you cannot even come up with ONE example to rest your statement upon. I’m not going to dumb down to make it easier on you. Give us an example of what you mean and stop pissing about.

Carcano: Of course she is...although perhaps not consciously. Where do you think human fragility comes from???

Living. When she wrote Brokeback Mountain where did you find the spirituality in a love story of two men who cannot come out with their love because society sees it as taboo?

Carcano: Note the thread title penned by Oli. Observe the use of TIME in this paragraph...the principle of continuity, glowing and strong like the sun rising from dark mountains!

So Oli gets depressed and opens a thread about how life doesn’t matter because it won’t matter in a thousand years and you great genius discovers the ‘principle of continuity’ in the remark. Which reminds me, I asked you to define and outline this principle but you have yet to do so. But anyway back to Oli’s thread, I recall saying to him that it doesn’t matter what happens in a thousand years, thinking of life in those terms is a sign of impotence in the face of life. Notice how people who are busy doing do not concern themselves with this fact? Funny isn’t it that those who actively build something, create something are happy enough in the doing of a thing, of its outcome and not sitting around pondering if it will be here in a thousand years. If someone is so depressed about their life that everything is without meaning well that’s no indication that acts are fruitless. Nor does it seem to have anything to do with spirituality unless as a cure for said depression. Truth is that many works will not be know but to a few if any at all in any given period of time but so what. That something will exist or not in the future is not the impetuous of creating something in the NOW. God how I love those who live in the now and do not waste their energies on what is completely irrelevant as they are the ones who usually have the most impact on the world. Even if they succumb to the worse depressions it is what they produced in the now that succeeds them not masturbating over and bemoaning the future. It seems to me that the fear of death and the realization that one is just an insignificant speck of dust is what motivates threads like Oli's as most of humanity will die unaware of what significance they had if any. But to sit around PONDERING the notion of meaninglessness is in itself meaningless. I would suggest that they write a poem instead, hey at least the mechanics would get their head out of their assess and they might even feel a little better. :)

You seem to buy some argument that the universe is dead and cold therefore so is literature. Maybe it is, I mean I don't really care if the universe is dead and cold because I know I am not, and the fact that I will one day be dead and cold has little meaning for me as I won't be around to think about it. There is still passion and life in the world and in artists who may even use their art to deal with despair but despair has not enveloped the world nor has it quelled passion.

Actually the more I think of Oli's thread the more I see the subject as a sickness of those who have culled themselves, those who are not active in living. What a waste but hey maybe that waste can be fodder for a really good story, a recycling if you will but that would come from someone else and be of use to someone else not those who have culled themselves.

I would take one drunken passionate Bukowski any day over the passionless at least he knew what it was to live and he never complained about it. What did Bukowski's work bestow on his readers? Strength even if they were on skid row. Humor and a nonchalance we hadn't seen since Henry Miller. These people were engaged with life they didn't sit around pondering dry bones. Given the choice take the artist and lose the scientist

Urgh! They should take away these people's computers.

Carcano: Of course she is...although perhaps not consciously. Where do you think human fragility comes from???

Living.
Its not living which gives rise to human fragility but rather its cessation...dying.

If human beings lived forever the vast majority of fears and frustrations would simply vanish.

The aura of eternity is so pervasive in every culture, so profound in its psychological implications, that one cannot even imagine a literature that denies it...unless that denial itself was its primary emotive force.

Lucy no doubt, will continue to wander in the labyrinth of denial...as the world falls down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-m-RWUgWPM&feature=related

Its not living which gives rise to human fragility but rather its cessation...dying.

If human beings lived forever the vast majority of fears and frustrations would simply vanish.

The aura of eternity is so pervasive in every culture, so profound in its psychological implications, that one cannot even imagine a literature that denies it...unless that denial itself was its primary emotive force.

Lucy no doubt, will continue to wander in the labyrinth of denial...as the world falls down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-m-RWUgWPM&feature=related

Why should the fact that I will die make me frail? Everything ceases to be at some stage, its the stuff of life that can make one fragile, our vulnerability isn't necessarily due to our death but to what can break us emotionally during the course of a life, disappointment and vulnerability.

What human being would be like if they lived forever is speculation at best, we don't know so we cannot speak of it instead of in a 'twilight zone' fashion.

Again it is about content and context, any given novel deals with whatever themes are relevant to the author and this doesn't always deal with death.

The world is falling down?:bugeye: As usual you make these chicken little statement and believe that its a fact simply because you have made it. You would have to provide proof of how the world in falling down.

Again more speculation, I'm not in denial I am actively disagreeing with you. Big difference:rolleyes:

Your drivel over eternity doesn't really say much about your point of view in terms of literature. How's this for speculation; the world isn't dying you are, you are aging and are aware of it so you lash out at everything modern as it doesn't represent nor include you. You're concern for eternity has nothing to do with literature but you're feeling of impotence in life. Death awaits you and you feel fear so you attach yourself to the notion of 'eternity' but this doesn't ease your fear because if you were sure of 'eternity' you wouldn't fear for literature or anything else, you wouldn't see the world as falling apart. Maybe you should go hang out in the religion forums.:p

Cheer up!

http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF130-Book_World.gif

http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF096-Earth_Disorder.jpg

http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF131-Lord_Gloom.jpg

Does Jazz bother you? Is it an affront to your sensibilities the improvisation that breaks and re-creates form in irregular fashion?
Modern Jazz has no form to break.

Theres something very important to understand about music.

*Simplicity is more potent than complexity*

All great music, even in the classical genre, is created around simple melodies. The simple 12 note tune or riff you cant get out of your head, that seems to fall into the composer's mind as if from the moon.

Musicians often say that if a composition is taking shape in the conscious mind with great difficulty, it should probably be abandoned.

The best music comes through intuition and without much of a struggle.

When a composer loses his way his music becomes more complex and formless...like modern Jazz.

Everything ceases to be at some stage, its the stuff of life that can make one fragile, our vulnerability isn't necessarily due to our death but to what can break us emotionally during the course of a life, disappointment and vulnerability.
The goal of spirituality is NOT to create more highs and eliminate the lows, but to identify with what stands behind and prior to BOTH...the immortal spirit.

Thats why its call Spirituality.

And from this point of view, there is no fragility or sense of separation...the alienation and fear that dominate literature as the reactive force of nihilism.

The American mystic Antoinette Roberson describes this state well in this little blurb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdshiy7CrwA

Modern Jazz has no form to break.

Theres something very important to understand about music.

*Simplicity is more potent than complexity*

All great music, even in the classical genre, is created around simple melodies. The simple 12 note tune or riff you cant get out of your head, that seems to fall into the composer's mind as if from the moon.

Musicians often say that if a composition is taking shape in the conscious mind with great difficulty, it should probably be abandoned.

The best music comes through intuition and without much of a struggle.

When a composer loses his way his music becomes more complex and formless...like modern Jazz.

Indeed there is form, even a random throw of fractals produces structure. Form is structure and the improvisation utilized in Jazz is genius precisely because it does create structure. Improvisation is intuition. Jazz compositions are not a matter of a composer 'losing his way' its a matter of losing ones inhibitions and fear of 'losing ones way'.

What does this have to do with Literature's survival?

Nothing? I didn't think so.

The goal of spirituality is NOT to create more highs and eliminate the lows, but to identify with what stands behind and prior to BOTH...the immortal spirit.

Thats why its call Spirituality.

And from this point of view, there is no fragility or sense of separation...the alienation and fear that dominate literature as the reactive force of nihilism.

The American mystic Antoinette Roberson describes this state well in this little blurb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdshiy7CrwA

Please! Please, do not ever ever direct me to a mystic as if they were an authority on anything. This is supposed to be the intelligent community not the woo woo community. I know we are discussing a subject very far from science in terms of rigor but please let us stick to scholarship if we can and if we cannot then at least let us try and back up our statements with something that is at least logical in terms of the arts, society or intellectual discourse. Mystics make and create assumptions about life and meaning that isn't necessarily there nor necessarily true. They in short prove nothing, show no evidence of any of their claims which they accept as de facto truth and espouse speculation.

You have raised a point of view, you should have been able to use an example out of the canon of literature to back up your point of view, you have failed to do so.

I agree with your above description of spirituality but as far as it goes you have failed to tie it in with literature or the claim you have made. You would first have to show evidence that literature's survival is dependent on spirituality as you have defined it, then you would have to show evidence of what you believe this spirituality to be, examples of how it has played a part in literature from its conception and why it is no longer present. All you have said is that literature is reacting to nihilism but all of literature doesn't contain nihilism as a subject of content nor of structure nor within context. Its like saying 'every poem is about nature', it would be untrue since some poems are and some are not. Remember you are using 'literature' or 'music' which includes every genre, every musician and author you cannot build a statement to cover them all and if you do you should be prepared to back it up with examples in that field.

There is such a thing as 'intellectual honesty' which amounts to keeping ones convictions in line with 'valid evidence'. By saying 'here listen to the mystic you might as well have said 'listen to the gypsy down the road she's clairvoyant' this means nothing to anyone unless you can prove that A. Clairvoyance is more than pseudoscience B. the gypsy is indeed clairvoyant, which amounts to proving that the evidence you provide is valid.

You are obviously convinced of something which is derived from your belief system, fine, but you are involved in a dialectic with others who do not share you personal beliefs so relying on your belief system as evidence is like the religious person using religious text to convince a non-religious person that something is indeed true. It might be true but using religious text to prove a claim would always fall apart during a dialectic. At this point I would have a better chance of proving YOUR claim (whether I believe it or not) because I would have enough knowledge of literature to tie it in with social change and nihilism without calling on mystics.

Either you should try and make an effort to use literature as an example, as evidence of what you are trying to propose here or its like talking to someone who says 'the quran says such and such and that is the evidence' it might work within a conversation of religious folk but it won't work in a community that is trying to adhere to some intellectual rigor, we don't always do so perfectly but it is the reason why we are here and what we are striving for.

This is supposed to be the intelligent community not the woo woo community. I know we are discussing a subject very far from science in terms of rigor but please let us stick to scholarship if we can and if we cannot then at least let us try and back up our statements with something that is at least logical in terms of the arts, society or intellectual discourse. Mystics make and create assumptions about life and meaning that isn't necessarily there nor necessarily true.
Your point of view is that spirituality isnt real, that it has nothing to do with human psychology, and therefore has nothing to do with literature or indeed any of the arts.

An opinion reduced to sub atomic particles by the testimony of cultural history.

So naturally you will reject any inquiry into the subject as unintelligent or lacking in academic integrity. :cool:

Your point of view is that spirituality isnt real, that it has nothing to do with human psychology, and therefore has nothing to do with literature or indeed any of the arts.

An opinion reduced to sub atomic particles by the testimony of cultural history.

So naturally you will reject any inquiry into the subject as unintelligent or lacking in academic integrity. :cool:

Then why did I agree with you on this definition you provided: " The goal of spirituality is NOT to create more highs and eliminate the lows, but to identify with what stands behind and prior to BOTH...the immortal spirit." I mean if viewed spirituality as unreal? You see Carcano you are full of assumptions, you don't ask you assume, you don't provide speculation without evidence.

You haven't yet tied it in any way to human psychology never mine literature or the arts. You in short have made a statement and failed to proved any evidence whatsoever the OP. So....

Then why did I agree with you on this definition you provided: " The goal of spirituality is NOT to create more highs and eliminate the lows, but to identify with what stands behind and prior to BOTH...the immortal spirit."
You have no basis for agreement as long as you deny the word any valid definition...something you do in almost every post! :p

To give it a valid definition would be to affirm its reality.

You have no basis for agreement as long as you deny the word any valid definition...something you do in almost every post! :p

To give it a valid definition would be to affirm its reality.

Listen you are the one who started the thread, the onus of responsibility for defining spirituality lays on you not me. I can agree with the definition or not agree with said definition as of yet it is not even the definition of spirituality that is of question but the entire premise you have claimed simply because you have failed to provide evidence.

Reading Lucysnow's posts here, I am lead to posit this thesis:

The more art (including literature) becomes the domain of a particular elite;
the more the production and reception of art is seen in terms of art for art's sake;
and the less art is integrated in people's experience and reflection of their daily lives and value system:

the more the production and reception of art loses its spiritual dimension,
and with it, it loses relevance to people's pursuit of true happiness.

And what kind of novel or book would you use as an example of this? As art for art sake and not having any relevance in our daily life. Because from what I have been reading it deals precisely with modern life, especially postmodern writers like DeLillo and Wallace. I think that its the classics that are moving further and further away in relevance to younger readers unless they are fantasy adventure filled works.

Also there are many people who read for enjoyments sake alone as an escape, not because they are looking for validation anything more meaningful.

Funny enough the book you suggested, The Literary Mind, has just been delivered in the mail.

Oh Lord, this is so good!:eek:

Check out the Stephen King interview #3 The Art of Terrifying...where he explains the literary necessity of accommodating what he calls 'the sense of futurity'.

Known also on this thread as 'the sense of continuity'! ;)

http://www.bordersmedia.com/borderspresents/king

Bonus: Steve reads from one of Arthur Machen's immortal works 'The Great God Pan'!

http://alangullette.com/lit/machen/machen2.jpg