what is the purpose of literature??

[Unregistered]

what is the purpose of literature?? im intrigued to find out what people think about this. do you feel that it's a way of communicating your feelings? or a way of gaining a further understanding of the world around you? do you think that literature is a useful tool for gaining insight into people and situations, or do you think that is merely a way to put across another point of view??
i would love to know people's opinions on this topic!!!

[vedrimir]

Literature has no purpose. It serves only itself, its own purpose, its not useful for anything. It is world preserved in itself and its got nothing to do with history or society. And literature is about books, not about people.

[Goldfishies]

I disagree. Literature has a lot to do with history and society. If literature didn't exist, then past generations would not be able to pass down their wisdom and history to future generations. Literature, in essence is about people. If you say literature has no purpose by itself, then you are probably right. It's the value in relation to human beings that give it a purpose. And besides, if literature serves no purpose, then why do people bother to read it or have come up with it in the first place?

[oceanflower]

If nothing else, literature serves to stimulate the senses and the imagination of the reader, and provides great enjoyment to to the reader. Words used skillfully create verbal works of art. Books are like museums in which these works of art are showcased.

[TariNumenesse]

I think literature is very relevant to the existance of human beings. It contains many observations of us as a species, and often reacts to things taking place around the writer. Many feelings and opinions are expressed in literature, and I think part of it is the author trying to express this, as well as show man something about himself. Something like Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' reveals things about the class system in Victorian England, while war poetry reacts to the horrors that were occuring around the writers. I do not think that it is possible that there is no purpose to literature, else why would it have continued for so long?

[vedrimir]

Ok, one by one...

[vedrimir]

If literature didn't exist, then past generations would not be able to pass down their wisdom and history to future generations.

They could shove their wisdom and history up their... I dont even read philosophical works for wise advices, literature even less. "Historia est magistra vitam", thats a meaningless phrase that can be twisted any way you want. "Historia" is rather harmful, up to me, at least...



If you say literature has no purpose by itself, then you are probably right. It's the value in relation to human beings that give it a purpose.

Or vice versa? its the value in relation to literature/art that gives poor human beings their life and existance and sense of elevated emotions... Read oscar Wilde for more hints.



And besides, if literature serves no purpose, then why do people bother to read it or have come up with it in the first place?

To get a life. To enjoy its beauty. To escape from history and society, etc.

[vedrimir]

If nothing else, literature serves to stimulate the senses and the imagination of the reader, and provides great enjoyment to to the reader. Words used skillfully create verbal works of art.

Perfectly fine. But all these "stimulations", "imagination", "senses", and most and foremost - joy - come right from there - from "verbal art", from literature, and not from "the real life", "historical occasions", etc...


Books are like museums in which these works of art are showcased.

Ah, lets get the art hell away from museums! To me, museums are like next-to-fade-to-oblivion places where you depose scarcely needed garbage. Literature is vivid, it has its own life, its own history, it doesnt get freezed or conserved like an old fossil museum expo. Lit is not a dead dinosaur, its a living tissue.

[vedrimir]

I think literature is very relevant to the existance of human beings.

Absolutely, thered be no meaningful life without art.


us as a species, place around the writer, many feelings and opinions, show man something about himself, the class system in Victorian England, horrors that were occuring around the writers.

Come on! Literature! Who would care about class systems in Victorian England or accidents occuring around actors if it werent for pure joy of reading.


I do not think that it is possible that there is no purpose to literature, else why would it have continued for so long?

Because it has its own purpose.

[oceanflower]

Perfectly fine. But all these "stimulations", "imagination", "senses", and most and foremost - joy - come right from there - from "verbal art", from literature, and not from "the real life", "historical occasions", etc...



Ah, lets get the art hell away from museums! To me, museums are like next-to-fade-to-oblivion places where you depose scarcely needed garbage. Literature is vivid, it has its own life, its own history, it doesnt get freezed or conserved like an old fossil museum expo. Lit is not a dead dinosaur, its a living tissue.

I have spent countless wonderful hours in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., a sanctuary of art that is in no danger of fading into oblivion. I have yet to see any fossilized garbage there. Art of all kinds serves a variety of purposes, from stimulation of the senses to the imparting of ideas and a peek into the culture and atmoshere of people and places in an historical context.

[Jezebel]

I think there are lots of different "purposes" of literature. You could say literature is an introspective look at society or human nature. You could say its purpose is to pass on information to future generations (although one of the traits of a really good piece of literature appears to be "timelessness" so I suppose this does not apply as much, especially if you believe literature describes human nature which is largely unchanging). A more cynical person might say literature is just another form of a person trying to make money or become famous. A conspiracy theorist may believe it is a form of societal brainwashing. Someone more psychologically inclined might believe that the purpose of literature is for us to have an escape from out own lives and go live someone else's life for a while. Or the sociologist may believe it is a way of teaching societal norms. Others may believe that the purpose of literature is simply to entertain. I don't think there is one set purpose of literature, it depends on the individual.

[vedrimir]

Fair enough. But how possibly can you have anything resembling intimate relationship with artwork in places like museums? I mean people go around, talk, caugh, interrupt...

And then, even if sculptures or paitings can survive and be intensively observed by art lovers, how can one say the same for the boks? Literature really requires this delicate, one-on-one type of relationship, it requires solitude and patience. Literature requires literature.

[oceanflower]

Fair enough. But how possibly can you have anything resembling intimate relationship with artwork in places like museums? I mean people go around, talk, caugh, interrupt...

And then, even if sculptures or paitings can survive and be intensively observed by art lovers, how can one say the same for the boks? Literature really requires this delicate, one-on-one type of relationship, it requires solitude and patience. Literature requires literature.

As far a art goes, I've managed quite well to spend entire afternoons admiring great works of art at the National Museum of Art in Washington, D.C.. It's a museum visited by local art lovers as well as tourists from all over the world, and I've rarely been disturbed. Visitors to art galleries are generally respectful of the works of art and each other.

As for literature, it doesn't necessarily require "solitude and patience"....if the reader prefers it that way, that's fine. But literature is also to be shared...that's what we're doing here at the Lit. Forums. Literature serves the needs of the reader. Authors write for people, they do not write in a vacuum.

[TariNumenesse]

Fair enough. But how possibly can you have anything resembling intimate relationship with artwork in places like museums? I mean people go around, talk, caugh, interrupt...

And then, even if sculptures or paitings can survive and be intensively observed by art lovers, how can one say the same for the boks? Literature really requires this delicate, one-on-one type of relationship, it requires solitude and patience. Literature requires literature.

I agree with Liz about art in museums. I have certain paintings that I visit every time I go to the National Gallery of Victoria, and I would consider that I have developed an 'intimate relationship' with them.

For myself, I find that I usually need silence and solitude for literature. But I also know people who find it quite easy to become acquianted with literature whilst in a room with dozens of people.

[Winifred]

I think one of the reasons I turn to literature is to validate my own experiences on the planet. We all rocket around through our daily lives, reacting to all sorts of stimuli, and I always wonder what is going behind other people's faces. I watch a jet plane flying overhead and wonder where they are all going, what each is thinking. I think good literature creates a sort of contented, connected hum through the ages: yes, that's the way it is, isn't that perfectly wonderful/horrible/inspiring, or whatever the author's words captured about his or her own experience. Same with art: a resonance beyond logic.

[vedrimir]

As far a art goes, I've managed quite well to spend entire afternoons admiring great works of art at the National Museum of Art in Washington, D.C.. It's a museum visited by local art lovers as well as tourists from all over the world, and I've rarely been disturbed. Visitors to art galleries are generally respectful of the works of art and each other.

As for literature, it doesn't necessarily require "solitude and patience"....if the reader prefers it that way, that's fine. But literature is also to be shared...that's what we're doing here at the Lit. Forums. Literature serves the needs of the reader. Authors write for people, they do not write in a vacuum.

Yeah, respectful tourists and art lovers showing their apprecitaion for fine-arts. Anway, maybe we could raise another interesting question. How about music concerts? What kind of concerts do you prefere? Those in intimante atmosphere or 100000 stadium spectacles? Its not the same type of relationship either.

As for the second part of your post, i have a simple answer - only fully sensful way of sharing literature and communicating is through close reading. It is not a vacuum, it is necessary conditions that im talking about. There are books for the beach and books for privacy, i realize that, but i cant imagine reading Flabuert in a restaurant.

[vedrimir]

I have developed an 'intimate relationship' with them.

And you never wanted to stole these paintings for yourself, to take them home and study them in privacy:))

Where is the love, then:))

[vedrimir]

I think one of the reasons I turn to literature is to validate my own experiences on the planet. We all rocket around through our daily lives, reacting to all sorts of stimuli, and I always wonder what is going behind other people's faces. I watch a jet plane flying overhead and wonder where they are all going, what each is thinking. I think good literature creates a sort of contented, connected hum through the ages: yes, that's the way it is, isn't that perfectly wonderful/horrible/inspiring, or whatever the author's words captured about his or her own experience. Same with art: a resonance beyond logic.

I agree with this, these are standard thoughts on purpose of art.

Anyway, you are all very opneminded and thank you for being like that. Keep in my mind im not being perfectly honest nor perfectly tolerant here because i want to produce some controversy through this stiff argument im defending. Otherwise we wouldnt have a discussion, no...

[oceanflower]

Yeah, respectful tourists and art lovers showing their apprecitaion for fine-arts. Anway, maybe we could raise another interesting question. How about music concerts? What kind of concerts do you prefere? Those in intimante atmosphere or 100000 stadium spectacles? Its not the same type of relationship either.

As for the second part of your post, i have a simple answer - only fully sensful way of sharing literature and communicating is through close reading. It is not a vacuum, it is necessary conditions that im talking about. There are books for the beach and books for privacy, i realize that, but i cant imagine reading Flabuert in a restaurant.

I think what we've all come up with here (and we're bordering on beating a dead horse ) is that literature means something different to each person; each person enjoys it in their own way, and that is how it should be.

[JECompton]

I dont even read philosophical works for wise advices, literature even less.

a few lines later...



...Read oscar Wilde for more hints.


What's the difference between reading for advice and reading for hints?

I like Frye's continuum for meaning which he gets from Aristotle. At one end you have plot, or story-based literature. When you read myths and fairy-tales, the main purpose is to entertain. At the other end you have theme. Thematic literature is idea-centric, as with essays and non-narrative poetry. Here the purpose is to instruct, teach an idea, or express some experience or emotional quality.

Most works tend toward one or the other, but some are fairly balanced. Novels can be very close to the middle, concerned with telling a fun story and expressing some 'truth' of life.

Sure, there's going to be differing opinion, and everyone is going to get something different out of it. I will probably get something very different out of Wollstonecraft's The Vindication of the Rights of Women than a woman living in the 1800s would have. But the essay remains heavily theme-oriented. That work served a definite purpose: to raise awareness as to the unequal condition of women and argue persuasively for logical grounds for equal treatment of women and men. You might argue that the point she's trying to get across is a little different than I stated it, or that some points were stronger/weaker than others, but the work falls very clearly alongside works whose purpose is some sort of instruction.

It seems like there's always a battle between those who say there is no meaning, that it all depends on subjective opinion, and those who want to ascribe an exact meaning to every work and denounce those who don't line up with their ideals: Shakespeare vs. Jonson, the Romantics vs. the Neo-Classicists, the post-moderns vs. the moderns... I like them all! Is there anything wrong with that?

[vedrimir]

"When you read myths and fairy-tales, the main purpose is to entertain."


Eh, but i think myths have nothing to do with "entertainement". They ARE stories, but their purpose is not to entertain. They might be entertaining to us though, but to its initial "readers" myths meant something other than that.

The rest of your post is beautiful. I have particularly strong interest in "it all depends on subjective opinion, and those who want to ascribe an exact meaning to every work and denounce those who don't line up with their ideals" point. I think i tend to be on both of these positions, and while i may be the one urging for freedom of interpretation and individuality of reading, i really dont like these "free interpretations" that ruin the text and disrespect any intention of either the text or the author.

And theres nothing wrong with liking both, but i tend to disagree with extremes. Neither is everything "subjective", nor is there some objectivity that denies any chance of individual approach to literature.

[JECompton]

Eh, but i think myths have nothing to do with "entertainement". They ARE stories, but their purpose is not to entertain. They might be entertaining to us though, but to its initial "readers" myths meant something other than that.


Good point. Would it make more sense to say that the "purpose" of plot-based lit such as myth and tales is to tell a story? Kind of tautological, but hey, what else can you say?

Another idea, and I either read it in Frye or somewhere I forgot: that when myth, initially, counts as scripture and its purpose is to promote values or a shared understanding of gods and the universe. But when a set of myths lose their believing constituency, they still tend to remain valuable as seminal stories. They tend to have a closer connection with core archetypes and consequently retain some degree of universality long after their original purpose shifts. I need to think more on these things--it's still too foggy for me.

Another thing I wonder about is the "universality" of archetypes I just mentioned. At present, I think archetypes tend to be fairly universal because they deal with primal human experience. Some of these archetypes might even cross species lines: fire and some of its connotations of burning, pain, violence, fear, but also warmth and light may relate to dogs similarly to the human experience.

But what if we changed to a point where we no longer needed water to survive, so no longer thirsted? If we were transformed into spiritual beings, or through technology found a way to transfer our consciousness to a virtual world? Water might even be dangerous to a cybernetic human since it might fry vital circuitry. Water could take on connotations of fear and 'burning' like fire then. :confused:

Oh, well, that's drifting away from the topic. I looked back earlier in this thread and saw where you (vedrimir) advocated "close reading," and I agree. If there's any "purpose" of lit at present, it's to enjoy a surface reading, discuss it with others, maybe analyze some imagery or read some bio information about the author, compare it with other works, and do whatever to get close. I don't know if this makes a person better, but it's sure a lot of fun, eh?

But to your point on not letting a rage for objectivity to squelch individualism I have to agree. I don't know if we'll ever have an accurate enough understanding of pyschology, history, spirituality, love, morality, sociology, philosophy--I could go on forever!--to be able for a single structure to be the final word. And that's the final word, and I guess the same thing oceanflower said just a few posts up. :p

[rainrony]

hi !

I wanted to answer this question before reading the conversations , not to be affected .

I think as long as we have mind , heart & spirit

we need science for mind .

faith for the heart

&

Art for spirit

....


may be i truely believe that balance between the three equations causes the settlement of
some kind of human being .

literature gives us a [ ready - made ] experiences , thousands of lives we live ; without spending our life time .


may be not all the people need literature but those who contemplate or meditate , need literature & philosophy to reach a status of peace with theirselves !


thanx.


ran .

[blp]

In Powell and Pressburger's great film 'A Matter of Life and Death', a woman and a man visit a camera obscura, a kind of giant lense in which you watch a picture of the outside world reflected on an interior surface. The woman wonders why it's so compelling and the man says 'You see it all as in a poet's eye'. There's something about just putting a f-r-a-m-e round the world that makes it start to have an effect that feels like art. The same might be said about isolating and composing a few abstract elements.

Most people seem to agree that we need art in some way. Can we then avoid the idea that it is, in some respect, therapeutic? And if so, is it just that there's something comforting about the isolation and composition of a few elements, the promise of a simplicity that the world doesn't offer?

[vedrimir]

good points, blp, but i can only echo your questions:) The same for rainrony's post.

JE Compton made some more inspiring points though.

"Would it make more sense to say that the "purpose" of plot-based lit such as myth and tales is to tell a story? Kind of tautological, but hey, what else can you say?"

Well, i wouldnt say its tautological, its like that. "Mythos" means "story" in Greek. Myth is a story, more than anything else. What do we do with these stories is a different sort of question and i have to say your Frye excerpt is very accurate on that issue. For Ancient people myths were organized in one archetypical web of related stories about knowledge of the community. Myths were refering to truth. For us on the other hand, myths are much more just beautiful stories, we get affected by their aesthetic dimension not really believing in them. And indeed this happnes "when a set of myths lose their believing constituency" so that "they still tend to remain valuable as seminal stories" whereas myths are not obliging regarding truth and knowledge of community any more.

About "universality of archetypes", i have the same dilemma. Id say some archetypes are definitely universal while some other tend to have more local characteristics.

As for close reading, i really believe in such ideas, i just hope im not too stiff when it comes to it, but i really prefere reading literature for literature and recognizing values of literature as literary values no matter what implications (social, political, ethical, relgious...) they may contain.

[BLUE BABY]

Literature has no purpose. It serves only itself, its own purpose, its not useful for anything. It is world preserved in itself and its got nothing to do with history or society. And literature is about books, not about people.
I think you do not know what Literature is!!!! Go home and sleep and don't bother to come here again.

[vedrimir]

Sure, nice of you.

[Jezebel]

I think you do not know what Literature is!!!! Go home and sleep and don't bother to come here again.

People are getting pretty nasty lately huh? Is this a particularly stressful time?

[majestic62]

People are getting pretty nasty lately huh? Is this a particularly stressful time?

I really dont like the tone of some of these topics lately :mad: Everybody should accept each others opinions. And do not attack them. This is not a competition. Its a DISCUSSION. :(

[Jezebel]

I really dont like the tone of some of these topics lately :mad: Everybody should accept each others opinions. And do not attack them. This is not a competition. Its a DISCUSSION. :(

:good: :good:

[mazarane]

This is not a competition. Its a DISCUSSION. :(

Indeed :) Hopefully the stress or whatever that prompted the earlier comment has lessened now.

My reaction to the question is to ask whether it is possible to determine any kind of general 'purpose' for literature- when this is invariably linked to the individual author and its creation.

blp mentioned art as therapy, which is certainly one possible motive- but that could include both fantasy and cathartic work, for example- and then there are others like the desire to entertain, to share something, indeed possibly to make money, or aid in the reinvention of oneself.

Most works of literature or art are probably prompted by a mixture of these motives. As it doesn't seem to have been discussed much up to now I'm intrigued to see what people think- is this irrelevant to the general 'purpose' of literature, can it be generalised to a large degree, or what?

[BLUE BABY]

I sincerely apologise for the tone of my previous comment. I did not expect it to offend anyone of you here. It is just that it has always been my personal conviction that all subjects in this world are here for a purpose, whether be it History, Geography, Painting, Literature and so on and so on. At the same time, I would love to share with all of you here this knowledge that Literature itself is not entirely irrevelant to all of us. Basically Literature helps to share opinions and views in respect to a certain issues, whether be it social, political or current affairs through novels, poems, journalism or plays. Lets take the example of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe. While the writer expressed her strong views against slavery, she channelled her views through the novel which later changed the history of US. Another case to study is the example of "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck, the novel let an outcry in the US congress by expressing his views on the sufferings of the Okies immigration during the Great Depression. In short, I would beg to differ if anyone commented that Literature has no impact on the lives of the people today.

[vedrimir]

heh, its a hard one. I think fine literature's influence on "people's lives" is very limited. People mostly get this kind of naive sentiments from best selling literature, but few people are really sensitive to the finest literature. It takes some devotion and time id say, and modern life scarcely allows any.

Apart from that i can reaffirm my l'art pour l'art leaning statements from previous (and now long forgotten) posts. Even if you may find it pretty nihilistic i still dont think literature can be reduced to some banal "eveyday life" purpose. Even if there is some purpose, i would see it more like some higher cause or higher purpose. To me litreature is more than our narrow everyday reality. Of course, im not saying literature is not affecting people's lives, but it is not its purpose its a by product or whatever you call it. Its a consequence, not a purpose. So, like my 19th century French poetry brothers, id see literature as force in itself rather than some instrument or tool (political, ideological, ethical, religious...) serving some external purpose. Thats my basic point.

[BLUE BABY]

Of course I am not trying to insinuate that Literature is afftecting the people's lives to such an extent whereby people are changing their livestyles. But at the same time, my dear Vedrimir, in my personal view, bestsellers may not be literary good in quality and the finest may not be understood by the masses. There are many people in these world who are well educated and are professionals to know that bestseller may not be good book and the finest may not be of their tastes. Literature is a mean whereby the writer share his views or opinions regarding a certain issue through his work, whether diredtly or in a subtle way. "Narrow Minded Reaity"' I don't think so. If you ask any of the your Literature teachers around, they will surely tell you that there will be tons of people who will agree with the writer and tons of people who will disagree with him. Literature itself is very broad because it covers many topics, people and view.

Vedrimir, pardon me for asking, may we know what is your educational background and your career? I believe our people here prefer to exchange pointers with intellectuals

[vedrimir]

I think you are getting way to upset my friend:), i hope you understand im partly kidding and partly stating my otherwise very well known and pretty reputated "inside" position on literature. I didnt say anything new - so many writers before insisted literature was more about literature than "social reality" or whatever. Thats all i aimed to say.

"Literature is a mean whereby the writer share his views or opinions regarding a certain issue through his work"

That is the problem, i dont think literature is a sharing program where you can "share" your "views" or "opinions" regarding certain "issues". I simply believe that writer, when he sits down to write a poem, or a novel, or a drama, doesnt do that in order to "share his views" but in order to do just that - write a good poem, novel, drama... Views, opinions and all that come as secondary in importance. However much i may disagree with some writers on their "views", i cant deny their greatness because its just great literature. Particular works of literature are not great because of their views, but because of their literary values, their specific formal qualities. So i think, so i believe...

[BLUE BABY]

Your "well known and pretty reputated inside position"? It appears to me that your are more towards a "pretty reputated outside position" and well known for being ignorant about Literature. And I see no point in arguing with you over it. I rather conserve my points of views with those who are well versed with Literature.

[Jezebel]

And the nasty remarks continue! Blue, is it really necessary to insult someone's intelligence or familiarity with literature simply because you don't agree with them?

Vedrimir, would you agree that some authors (like, for example, Aldous Huxley) are attempting to share their views and opinions regarding certain issues? Likewise, others are simply writing for themselves or the stylistic aspects of writing?

I've been out of the loop on this thread for a little while...are we discussing the purpose of literature as per the authors or the audience?

[oceanflower]

I've been out of the loop on this thread for a little while...are we discussing the purpose of literature as per the authors or the audience?

Here's the original question:

"what is the purpose of literature??
what is the purpose of literature?? im intrigued to find out what people think about this. do you feel that it's a way of communicating your feelings? or a way of gaining a further understanding of the world around you? do you think that literature is a useful tool for gaining insight into people and situations, or do you think that is merely a way to put across another point of view??"

(Note to BLUE BABY - please don't be personally insulting when disagreeing with someone elses's opinions. Debate ideas, not personalities.)

[BLUE BABY]

Dear all members of the forums, pardon me for my previous insolences. I believe that Literature is a very broad subject. Not only does it serves as an entertainment, as some of us may have believe, it also serves to put across points of views of the authors to the readers (direct or subtle manners), it gives insight to situations and the people around us and allows us to communicate our feelings to others. Since the beginning of time when men are able to read and write, people wrote poems to express their love and anger and other feelings. Others wrote articles that tell tales of horrendous deeds and incidents in Journalisms. And there are some who wrote plays and novels comprising of tales of love, detectives, treacherous people, fantasy and ghost stories and so on and so on, for the sheer purpose of entertainment. There are some who put down their lives in the forms of biographies, to inspire others to be stronger in their crisises. But let us not forget that there are indeed many writers, some of which are world renowned writers and awards winners, brought international attention to certain issues like racial discriminations and poverty and even for political issues and so on. Which in turn brought about changes, whether for good or for bad. Take for example for writers like John Steinbeck, Norman Mailer, Alan Paton, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Thomas Kenneally. You people know what books they wrote, you people know what are the impacts of their works on our societies and our feelings. All of us here, I believe, can have a case by case study of different authors, if that is possible. All of us here have different ideas of what Literature is, but I hope that all of you here can look at Literature at a broader context and not following the narrow mindedness of Vedrimir (Pardon me for that). Maybe one of these days we can start another section in this website where we can dedicate writers we love and have a study of them and their works.

[Jezebel]

Here's the original question:

"what is the purpose of literature??


Oh, I know that was the original question, I wanted to know what Ver and BB were specifically discussing. At some points it seemed they were discussing the purpose of literature to the audience and at others the purpose for the author.

[BLUE BABY]

I believe that the purpose of Literature serves both the Authors and the Audiences. More or less they are interlinked with each other, a form of communication between both of them through the beauty of language.

[JECompton]

Here's another great place to look for more insight on the "purpose of literature." In Literary Theory: an Introduction (a standard in the field which I'm reading now), Terry Eagleton puts forth several positions on defining literature and its purpose. He ends with an interpretation that tastes bitter to me, but the argument is well-*****d enough to respect it, certainly. He is predominantly alligned with the school of thought that believes the purpose of literature is to promote a particular value system for the elevation of one culture/society/class/value system over another. He denies that any particular literature can claim supermacy over less-enjoyed works. I can't agree with his position, but he does a wonderful job explaining the various approaches to literature. I would highly recommend reading at least the intro of this work whatever your opinion of literature is--I'm sure it will challenge anyone who hasn't read it to reconsider what literature is.

I have to chime in and say Vedrimir is awesome. I'm sure my views don't match up exactly. But we've had good discussions, and I am always happy to see one of his/her posts (can't figure gender from profile). As to vedrimir's education, if you click on vedrimir's name, you can "find all posts" by ved, and you can judge for yourself. Ved recommended Jurij Lotman to me, and though I have yet to find an in-print book (I might have to break down and buy it new), I'm seeing Lotman pop up many places in my search for literary criticism books.

Again, not to scare you off Blue, but we're a friendly and tight community here. I haven't seen a forum this friendly before. That said, we don't always agree with each other, but we keep the acerbic stuff mostly confined to the Secret Debating Society section (and that's usually friendly, too). Please, continue to enjoy the site! :)

[JECompton]

I got starrededed! let me try this again. It's supposed to say well-defined(w e l l - d e f i n e d) let's see if it works... Hmm... looks like I must have had a very serious, obscene, or otherwise offensive typo. Now I'm really curious what I actually typed! :D

[edit]: as Liz says below, looks like I said well- f r a m e d.

[Jezebel]

I got starrededed! let me try this again. It's supposed to say well-defined (w e l l - d e f i n e d) let's see if it works... Hmm... looks like I must have had a very serious, obscene, or otherwise offensive typo. Now I'm really curious what I actually typed! :D

Maybe d e f i n e d is like f r a m e? (http://www.literatureforums.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=4335)

[Jezebel]

Terry Eagleton...this name is ringing a bell....

I'm sure you've mentioned it before JE, but what field are you studying? If I'm not mistaken you were the one who started up the thread about literary criticism? I've been wanting to post in there and have a good discussion with you (if you are who I think you are) but I never seem to have the time.

and to stay on topic.... Blue, then are you saying that you feel the purpose of literature is communication: the author can communicate their ideas and the audiece can receive them? In this line of thought, how, or does, the audience communicate their ideas to the author? Maybe through reviews of the book, how many books are sold etc? Does the author then communicate back with their next work? Is literature an ongoing conversation between author and audience? (sorry if this makes no sense I'm so tired)

[oceanflower]

I got starrededed! let me try this again. It's supposed to say well-defined (w e l l - d e f i n e d) let's see if it works... Hmm... looks like I must have had a very serious, obscene, or otherwise offensive typo. Now I'm really curious what I actually typed! :D

The censored word is "f-r-a-m-e-d." That word is always censored as a virus protection devise.

[vedrimir]

Thank you for your kind words, Compton, i wish i have more time to visit this forum and talk to you guys... I think Blue baby hasnt figured out i am more like playing a role than literally stating literature has no purpose and that is leading him/her to some rather quarrelsome conclusions.

"Vedrimir, would you agree that some authors (like, for example, Aldous Huxley) are attempting to share their views and opinions regarding certain issues? Likewise, others are simply writing for themselves or the stylistic aspects of writing?"

Absolutely, that is a very accurate point. I happen to enjoy Flaubert's stylistic approach more than Huxley's "engaged" one, but thats just me. Apart from that, i still believe Huxley's or Orwell's power is right in their literary power rather than in correctness of their political stance or their undeniable "visionary". Finally, i fully enjoy art that is politically or socially engaged when it is art and not tendencious ideology ridden program.

And yes, Lotman is one of "inside" theoreticians who had full awarness of social and political aspects literature has. I really recommend it as classy 70s theoretic reading... Lotman and his both "colleague" and "enemy" Bakhtin had really good points to make on what purpose of literature is or might be.

[JECompton]

The censored word is "f-r-a-m-e-d." That word is always censored as a virus protection devise.

lol, I guess I didn't get the memo. I don't think I could have plausibly engineered a more obscene-looking comment on purpose. So from now on I will avoid saying that an argument is well-*****d, or even that a particularly ugly abstract impressionist painting was originally not *****d. I will be careful to type "Who F.ramed Roger Rabbit" when referring to that movie. Hopefully I won't mess up by saying my girlfriend/wife has a nice *****. My ***** of mind would have to be very puerile to stoop this low. If I want to write a Xanth novel, though, this is exactly the mindset I want to be in.

I am still having trouble finding Lotman--I may have to order online. I found a bit at the UNM library, so that might work.

[vedrimir]

Hi, its such a shame Lotman is not easily accessible at your place. I have that book but in my mother language translation, so i cant help you with that. Of course, search may not prove worthwhile in the end:), and you may find that book uniteresting, but since i already noticed you have so much enthusiasm for good theoretic works im quite sure youd enjoy one of the structuralist/semiothic approach essential readings. So keep digging:)

cheers.

[aristocles]

Here are some conceptions of literature that I have encountered...

1. The Cherry Cough Syrup Theory
Literature is philosophy for stupid people. Some people cannot think well abstractly, so the only way they can understand things is if you put it in an engaging and 'concrete' narrative.

2. Literture as Ecstasy
Literature exists as a means of transcending the material world, not by rejecting the material world, but rather by embracing it.

3. The 'Ah, Yes!' Theory
Someone once said the purpose of art is not to reform the world but to realize it. We derive pleasure from an accurate painting or a dead-on impersonation. Likewise, when a writer describes the world in ways we recognize, we derive pleasure.

4. Reader as Co-Author Theory
The purpose of art is to stimulate the reader's imagination. Just as tradition/conventions allow a writer to express his personality, so too a work of art can give the reader a structure in which to express his personality.

5. Writer as Emotional Professor
Here the purpose of literature is to teach the reader to feel anger and to feel sorrow at the proper times and to the proper degree. When one looks upon a sunset, one is supposed to have certain feelings. Literature refines our appreciation of the beautiful and teaches how to react to the world.

6. Ethical Handbook
Literature is a forum for discussing the right way to act in life. It is meditation on proper conduct, often with differnt characters representing difference choices.

7. Fairy Tale Escapism
Literature is a garden where one goes to get away from the ugliness of life and to recharge one's batteries.

8. Wish Fulfillment
The author expresses the world as he would like it to be. The opposing political party is overthrown or the promiscuous are punished or a novelist character writes a novel greeted with acclaim. By this, the writer records an image of a more ideal world on the minds of the readers.

[modus]

it is my first post and i think that the purpose of literature is to teach people the ways of living.exactly, the ways of thinking that help us to live.sometimes the great ideas of the era is reflected in literature and not in other disciplines.

[genuis_tariq]

Apart from informative and entertainment value, literature provides offers you a broader look at the life. It takes you on a roller coaster to realms of people's mind. literature makes you understand yourself and others. One thing more literature has a psyohological effect on your mind. it sharpens yours sensibilities. it makes you choose the best that has ever been thought and written. with the study of literature your power of judgement increases. This is what I feel and it was also said by Sir Phillip Sidney when Stephen Gosson laid charges against poetry and he replied them in his book "Apology for Poetry". what do u say in this regard?

[nandu]

What an interesting thread.

I'd like to rephrase the question as "why does literature exist?" I'd say, because people write! Just take a look at a shelf in your neighbourhood bookstore. How many millions of pages? And how many words per page? People took the trouble to write all that!

The writer writes because he cannot NOT write. A demon (to borrow from Faulkner) sits on his shoulder, pushing him to write more and more.

Literature is simply the byproduct.

Nandu.

[stlukesguild]

What is the purpose of literature? This is indeed a tricky question... rather like "What is Art?" or "What is the meaning of life?" Personally, I take some offence at any utilitarian approach to literature: the notion of someone (with the exception of the actual writer) "using" literature as a means of illustrating a non-literary agenda... be it political, religious, social, economic, racial, gender related, etc... Some books do indeed touch upon or even center upon issues of religion or social concerns... but not all... and more importantly, not all books/writers agree. Thus... presented with the reality of a body of literature of vastly differing opinions, ideas, goals... how does one come up with a purpose for literature? The best (and probably best written) answer I have yet been able to come up with can be found in a some-what extended quote from the "Conclusion" of Walter Pater's The Renaissance At least it expresses something of my reasons for loving literature... and all art... in a manner far better than I might:

The service of philosophy, of speculative culture, towards the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life of constant and eager observation. Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist’s hands, or the face of one’s friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy of Comte, or of Hegel, or of our own...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve–les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world,” in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion–that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.


Another... far more brief quote... from Anna Quindlen, from her essay, How Reading Changed my Life suggests much of the same:

Books are the means to immortality:
... Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.

[oceanflower]

Another... far more brief quote... from Anna Quindlen, from her essay, How Reading Changed my Life suggests much of the same:

Books are the means to immortality:
... Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.

That's a wonderful quote. She's expressed exactly how I myself feel about books.

[angelhair]

Here's a quote I remember but can't think who said it.

*A person without a book is like a compass without a needle* I've remembered that for quite a few years now believing it to be oh so very true :)