The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Do you trust literature?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
One of my more recent revelations has been that, on the whole, I distrust literature. I distrust books.
And within this framework, I get why people engage in book burning.
The thing which has always struck me about fictional literature is that, unlike the painting, the picture, the motion picture or the video game, the written word gets inside your head. The limitation of the media form increases its power - it requires more, cerebral engagement, it's allowed to insist more on it's own importance.
This isn't to say that movies, video games, artwork and photography are not important. Each has it's own importance, it's own ability to "frame" the narrative.
But the thing that really hits me about all of it is this: it's that framing which I worry about. As human beings, we don't have the ability to look inside each other's heads - we can't hear the internal monologue of other people, we can't really comprehend how anyone else does the things they do. I date Bulgarian girl - she speaks 3 languages. I have no idea how she does that, since I've never had the patience to learn another language. And yet she on occasion feels inferior to me, whereas I feel constantly inferior to her for that very trait.
Now, in literature, this is an ability commonly presented as fact. Someone just "does" speak a bunch of languages. The benefit of the godlike power of the author. But in interpretation, any given work's characteristics - in my opinion - are not objectively considered by the responder, no matter how strong their resolve. Even if you think of yourself as objective, I question whether you can read about the fictional or real exploits of someone and not try and imagine how that person accomplished that. You read about characters who can "just do" certain traits, or "just have" certain skills and wonder how they did that. Could you do that? Why can't you do that?
And thus the question of this thread: do you trust literature? Do you think yourself able to objectively respond to a work of literature - whether based on fictional or real-experience.
I certainly don't. These days I worry about what I let in, because I know that once I do, it's not so easily diminished or forgotten.
And within this framework, I get why people engage in book burning.
The thing which has always struck me about fictional literature is that, unlike the painting, the picture, the motion picture or the video game, the written word gets inside your head. The limitation of the media form increases its power - it requires more, cerebral engagement, it's allowed to insist more on it's own importance.
This isn't to say that movies, video games, artwork and photography are not important. Each has it's own importance, it's own ability to "frame" the narrative.
But the thing that really hits me about all of it is this: it's that framing which I worry about. As human beings, we don't have the ability to look inside each other's heads - we can't hear the internal monologue of other people, we can't really comprehend how anyone else does the things they do. I date Bulgarian girl - she speaks 3 languages. I have no idea how she does that, since I've never had the patience to learn another language. And yet she on occasion feels inferior to me, whereas I feel constantly inferior to her for that very trait.
Now, in literature, this is an ability commonly presented as fact. Someone just "does" speak a bunch of languages. The benefit of the godlike power of the author. But in interpretation, any given work's characteristics - in my opinion - are not objectively considered by the responder, no matter how strong their resolve. Even if you think of yourself as objective, I question whether you can read about the fictional or real exploits of someone and not try and imagine how that person accomplished that. You read about characters who can "just do" certain traits, or "just have" certain skills and wonder how they did that. Could you do that? Why can't you do that?
And thus the question of this thread: do you trust literature? Do you think yourself able to objectively respond to a work of literature - whether based on fictional or real-experience.
I certainly don't. These days I worry about what I let in, because I know that once I do, it's not so easily diminished or forgotten.
electricitylikesme on
0
Posts
First, the book burning comment is... no, I don't think you get why people burn books. That's far more a social thing than a quality-of-literature issue.
This kinda sounds like you have a problem with suspension of disbelief.
I disagree with the concept of objectively responding to the written word, just as I feel it is impossible to objectively respond to any form of creative art. Every person brings with them biases, and all written word has the biases of the author and the environment inherent in them. Maybe the author is writing about something they are not familiar with. Maybe they are trying to push an agenda. Maybe they were under the influence of drugs. Maybe the consumer is. The trick is to observe, understand, and comprehend those influences, and take them into account when responding to a work. Charles Dickens wrote many pieces influenced by the deplorable conditions of the poor in and around London at the start of the industrial revolution. Heart of Darkness was a travelogue to Africa. Tolkien's writings reflected the beauty and the horrors he saw during WWI. Beowulf was an orally passed story meant to pass down the traditions and ideals of the Vikings - Ditto with Homer's epics.
An interesting piece with me was reading The Da Vinci code for the first time. After hearing about the book for so long, I tore through it within a couple days. I really, REALLY enjoyed the ride, as silly as the events were. But then I read the articles about how much Dan Brown made up, or was fed misleading information, or whatever. That really soured me on the book because it was written from shaky grounds. It's still a hell of a mystery novel on its own rights, though, and I'd recommend a read-through if you go into it knowing that the organizations depicted may or may not actually be like they are presented.
I love books, and I love literature more and more this days. Personally, I don't quite understand your point. Is it like Henroid said, that you can't suspend your disbelief?
And as much as you want to portray other mediums as different than books, I think you're wrong. All those mediums(with videogames perhaps being the rarest example) has the ability to get into people's heads.
So your advice to humanity is to not read the works of fiction of other people, because the imagination of the author might cloud their judgement?
2) There is no one, clear cut "how people actually think, work, find inspiration" etc. There are many different versions, some closer to each other, others pretty distinct. Any given piece of literature will not capture this any more than our perception of the world does. In that sense, literature is as trustworthy or not as people are. So... erm... what exactly is your point here? Because, frankly, I'm lost. How is literature inherently more treacherous, less trustworthy than other ways we have of perceiving or thinking about the world?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
That's true of non-fiction as well. Any written account, fictional or non-fictional, is focused and edited and trimmed through the lens of the author/journalist/professor/whatever.
There is no way to convey what is "actually" happening.
No one 'forces' you to endure something from their perspective, though. You can choose to stop reading/watching whatever you're watching? Or choose to not accept their worldview?
It seems your problem is more a worry that some people are too gullible, or easily manipulated, than a worry about literature.
Books are fictional and written by flawed, limited humans, so no, I don't trust their worldview implicitly and completely. Most people probably reach that conclusion around age 8 or so, although I suppose understanding the same about "nonfiction" books can take considerably longer.
EDIT: I regret nothing!
So in the sense that it makes sense to be skeptical and use critical thinking when taking in media, I agree with you. I'm not about to let it stop me from enjoying literature, though. Keeping an open mind and observing media from sources you don't agree with can only expand your frame of reference. If I'm reading a book of pro-conservative historical revision, it doesn't temporarily or permanently displace my existing knowledge and ideas of history. I can keep an open mind because I'm not likely to hit the upper bounds of brain capacity and I'm capable of differentiating between "what I think" and "what I've read".
I think you have the wrong impression of why a lot of works are considered 'vital reading'.
They aren't taught in English classes as a way to show us how life was lead, or how we should be living life-not most of it anyways. Yes, a good teacher will include a bit of history lesson with books, but I don't think anyone is saying that England in the 18th century was the way Dicken's wrote it.
I'm reading Lolita right now. Do I think this is the way that pedophiles think? No, I don't. However, it paints a very interesting, fictionalized character that I'll keep reading along.
They're not. If anyone tells you they are, they are lousy teachers/people. Honestly, I can't decide if you're overthinking this, or not thinking about it enough.
Have you met anyone that has made big, life changing decisions based of a single book?
I think you're too hung up on objectivity, and it reminds me of how some people think of evolution - that there's some perfect point we're all evolving towards, when really we're just adapting to our current environment. Media reflects the viewpoints of the people who create it, in the time they create it. Is my "picture" of the world (which, yes, is based on the media I've consumed) useful? Very much so, because it allows me to understand what other frames of reference people I meet might have. Would it be useful if I was suddenly transplanted into the future? Well, no, of course not, but after some period of time consuming the media of the future, I will have created a picture of the world that is useful.
That said, the question of whether I "trust" literature, especially fiction, seems pretty meaningless. Fiction is fiction. I don't expect it to be an accurate depiction of anything. I expect that the story will not violate conditions it has set itself (inconsistency bothers me more then just about any other "mistake" in writing), but as long as the world ticks to it's own internal clock I'm satisfied. Also, I read a lot of things, so the answer to the question of usefulness changes depending on the book we're talking about. I don't think that any fictional novel has changed my worldview permanently, except in the minor, subtle way that all experiences do.
Proud owner of the Veggie, Constellation and Cephalothorax badges
How is that a disturbing thought rather than an enjoyable and liberating one? I am quite literally befuddled by this and in no way mean to diminish what you're trying to say, I just can't really conceive of how that is disturbing in any way.
The problem is, if we were side by side as something was happening around us, and we remained side by side throughout the duration, and then were called on later to relay the events, our stories would be similar, but different still. Because we perceive the world differently. Perception is everything, even in fiction writing.
I don't even read books really. I've read probably one for each year since I've been out of highschool. And that's with reading multiple books in some years.
I also agree that the slower input method of a book can make a poisonous idea more dangerous, given that it can sneak up on you, but I don't really think that its unique. Look at the way Hollywood reinforces heteronormative, racist and sexist stereotypes. Each given story often has mitigating factors which you can argue makes it "not racist/sexist/normative", but over a set of given works the totality arises to paint a very clear and biased picture of reality. In both cases, we see a harmful norm or idea being gradually imposed over a long period of time.
But that has nothing to do with books. Or at the very least, it isn't contained to them. Television shows and movies have the same impact on people.
There is a sort of self-validation that goes with writing books, for some authors, yes. And people do tend to give more credit to books because, hey, it's a book. But I'm sure more people have books published these days than ever before, and with that comes some inherent scrutiny on the part of everyone who reads. Some people will just fart out material to make themselves feel special, or make a buck. And like real life interaction, or seeing them on TV or whatever other medium there is, we decide for ourselves how full of it, truthful, insightful, or creative the author is or isn't.
A bit off topic, but I absolutely loathe that sentiment and cannot wait for it to die a horrible death. And I'm a librarian.
The thing is, the problem with a book warping the 14 year old is less the book, and more the lack of maturity and sense of self of the reader. The reason we toss around that one quote about Atlas Shrugged:
- is because fourteen year olds don't have the experiences and mental filters that protect against seductive and dangerous concepts. To use the example, Rand tends to be seductive to teens because they are both in a phase of life where they are self-centered (which isn't a bad thing, they're that way because they're trying to figure out WHO they are) and they don't have the life experiences yet that help them critically process these arguments. Her arguments play on that self-centeredness, give it "justification", and as a result stunt their growth, because while you do enter a phase of self-centeredness that is natural, you are also supposed to grow out of it.
Honestly, ELM, I think you've got some issues to work out. I might not trust a book, but I don't fear literature, because I have the tools that allow me to critically process it. I know who I am - a realization that was hard fought and hard earned - and as such, I can approach ideas with an open but critical mind.
Books can have a profound effect on people. Books do not describe exactly how humans work. These are true statements.
If you're worried about the transmission of Bad Ideas, then you should be more concerned with media, or simply people speaking. The spoken word is typically much more powerful than the written one, as it allows the speaker to inject his/her personality and charisma into the words, turning stupid shit into gold if done properly, especially if done to crowds. Books are inherently more complicated, and more individual as well.
If I understand the thrust behind the thread, then I find the idea absolutely abhorrent. I'm a very difficult person to offend, but burning a book is a great way to make me hate you. I despise censorship in all its self-righteousness.
The idea that you wouldn't read a book because you might be infected by its ideas is.... baffling. If the idea is so infectious, then it must have some merit. Conversely, if you don't trust yourself to think out the ideas instead of being taken over by them, then you are an extraordinarily weak minded person.
Political authors tend to push this idea onto the market, for the record.
I think you're giving far too much credit to your ability to critically process books. Not that you're not better at it than a fourteen year old, but you make it sound like you're now immune to falling for seductive concepts. Saying that you know who you are and that that somehow leads to you being awesome at dealing with these ideas sounds like hubris.
Communists weren't (aren't) all 14 year old kids. To suggest that you're now smart enough not to fall for shit sounds kinda arrogant.
I mean, if I hadn't read some criticism I'd be at the moment smugly talking in a coffeeshop about how Malcolm Gladwell is a genius.
Edit: And I don't think a clear-cut distinction between fact and fiction can be made.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Literary theory and artistic movements aside the answer is simple. I do not trust fiction (and no one should) to be an accurate depiction of reality because it is fiction and not reality. Fiction is, by definition, made up, not real, not reality. (Non-fiction is pretty much just fiction pretending to not be fiction, but, that is perhaps a different argument for a different day). All of your issues with fiction, ELM, seem to me to be neatly resolved by the simple recognition that fiction is not and can never be reality.
Now, this isn't so say that reading fiction isn't worth doing, and that fiction can not impact someone's life and world view in a major way. But those things are fine. Not real things can still have a tremendous effect on people. But expecting reality to conform to fiction is well, purely fiction :P
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
What I find funny is that the exact opposite argument has been made regarding TV - that because books require more thought, they invite more criticism, whereas TV just passively feeds you information.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not sure why this is a problem. I can't speak three languages, but I acknowledge that some people do. It isn't an unreasonable leap for me to imagine a person speaking three (or more.)
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I gotta say, I'm very accepting of texts. If it's stated that a character has traits, I'm happy to oblige the text and not worry about where they came from. Judge Holden of Blood Meridian, for instance, has skills of reasoning, language, warfare and science that make him remarkable compared to me and a goddamed wizard compared to the other characters in that book. It gives me great pleasure to merely go along with that and let myself be seduced into the world Cormac McCarthy creates, rather than to second guess him with mundane reality, such as I know it. I guess I like the uncertainty. I may like my reality illuminated, but I prefer my stories dim.
Yeah, I find this concept really strange as well. I read as saying 'it is disturbing to think that those who write about human experience are themselves human.' Which is quite the opposite of disturbing, to me.
For instance, in my chosen field of study (and gods willing, employment soon; wish me luck) of archaeology, at a hypothetical site there might be multiple interpretations of what activities took place there, all of which might be perfectly valid interpretations. Each person, whether consciously or not, will view the site through a lens of their own experience (and education). Now, some might see this as 'disturbing', in that since there is multiple theories of what actually took place at the site in the past we can't really know the objective truth, and yes obviously it would be nice if we could truly 'know'.
But for better or worse, that's how interpretation of the archaeological record, and to some extent the universe we live in and experience, happens: collaboratively.
I don't know if I am really articulating what I'm trying to say very well here, but there's my thoughts.
A book is just a thing, it has no more power than what you give it. Read, read well, read much and, most importantly, think about what you read.
You shouldn't be scared of books, electricitylikesme, and if you are I would suggest you seek professional help. I can recommend a few books on the subject if you like.