Why Book Criticism and Literary Culture Needs a Poptimist Revolution

William Haskins said:

people buying into the false dichotomy of art vs commerce.

Click to expand...

And there I think we agree


Books have been written to pay the rent that have changed people's lives, or at least made them think (different things, for another thread perhaps) - Clockwork Orange was famously written in three weeks because Burgess needed the money. People still dissect it now. Three are multiple other examples.

The artist's intention has little to do with the end reception.

William Haskins said:

not with that attitude.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm telling you I am trying harder.

William Haskins said:

bullshit.

Click to expand...

So, is your thesis that the author's intention does affect how it's perceived? I suppose that is true inasmuch as a good author will probably convey what he or she intended, well enough that at least some readers will "get it." But clearly not all works are interpreted or perceived the way the author intended.

You've never howled with laughter at a horror movie that was trying REALLY REALLY HARD to be scary?

I went to college with Dale Peck, book critic and author (see Hatchet Jobs and Martin and John.)

His criticisms are not what you may expect.


In the end, I believe the question comes down to whether or not anyone connects with the novel.

William Haskins said:

my response was based specifically on this statement:



i would suggest that author intent has much to do with reception. i don't believe that every draw of a bow equals an arrow in the bulls eye.

if intention had "little to do with the end reception," the genres of comedy, thriller or horror couldn't and wouldn't exist, as all are undertaken with the intention of readers ultimately receiving it as funny, or suspenseful or terrifying.

this is a matter of crafting language with the intent of provoking a response from some sensibility in the reader.

Click to expand...

I do wonder why you didn't write this in direct response to that statement, and instead simply put "Bullshit."

That question's especially poignant given the long thread of confusion that resulted in your "Yuck." on the first page.

Amadan said:

I hear that. Except I was interested in linguistics jobs - there just weren't any, if all you had was an undergraduate degree.

Click to expand...

Well, that too. I hated the aspects of undergrad that I feel would be even more common doing a grad degree, and so while I think working in the field of machine translation or AI as it relates to natural language processing might be fun, getting the degree required to get a job or a research position in that area is incredibly unappealing to me. So maybe I was being a bit overly simplistic.

My solution when I found my B.A. in Linguistics got me a retail job I hated was to join the Army. Which paid for my graduate degree (in a more employable field).

Click to expand...

And now I'm back to A) not wanting to be in the military, but mostly B) not having an interest in another field that would have significantly better employment prospects.

Anyway, I think you have to be pretty dedicated to decide to make a living as a writer, and you still need some combination of luck and talent.

Click to expand...

Yup. Definitely agree on that.

I'm still a little confused by the OP and what the real point of the argument above is. Sounds like yet another rehash of Art for Art's Sake? Or does chasing filthy lucre denigrate your Art?

As I've said whenever people start mocking Fifty Shades of Gray and saying they would never, ever write such trash even if it did make them rich - Are you crazy? Write a trashy book that makes you rich, and you can spend the rest of your life writing books to please your muse, if that's what suits you.

I think whether or not you're trying to move people or just pay the bills is pretty orthogonal to whether you will move people. How many people have been inspired by an author who was just trying to pay the bills? The author may have genuinely liked what he wrote and wanted to make it good, or maybe it was something he tossed off in a few days with the help of copious amounts of stimulants under intense financial pressure - but if his chief objective was to pay the rent, that doesn't lessen the effect it might have on those who read it.

Click to expand...

I think it is basically one of the common complaints about Art vs. commercial art.

Now personally, I would say that I wouldn't write what I considered to be a trashy but commercial book, even to get the money to support writing stuff I liked better. Partly because I suck at judging commerciality, quality notwithstanding. However, I wouldn't judge anyone who did make that choice, because that's their personal choice, is none of my business really, and I do think intent is rather orthogonal to the reception of a work of art.

Hapax Legomenon said:

I wouldn't think that most fiction writers write to pay the bills, at least not at first. They have to write because they love doing it. But loving to tell stories does not really make you philosophical or intellectual or anything like that.

Click to expand...

Mr Flibble said:

And there I think we agree


Books have been written to pay the rent that have changed people's lives, or at least made them think (different things, for another thread perhaps) - Clockwork Orange was famously written in three weeks because Burgess needed the money. People still dissect it now. Three are multiple other examples.

The artist's intention has little to do with the end reception.

Click to expand...

I think certain parts of an artist's intention have something to do with the end reception, but the art vs. commerce aspect is much less relevant than Haskins's point about comedy and horror and those aspects of authorial intent.

William Haskins said:

bullshit.

Click to expand...

You are of course entitled to your opinion

But I call bullshit on you bullshit and add "bollocks" to it because you are clearly talking it.

You've never howled with laughter at a horror movie that was trying REALLY REALLY HARD to be scary?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Or a work that tries, oh so very heard to be meaningful, but is just tripe. And then an artist (as Wombat said earlier) rattles something off for no other reason than to fill a space and everyone loves it.

if intention had "little to do with the end reception," the genres of comedy, thriller or horror couldn't and wouldn't exist, as all are undertaken with the intention of readers ultimately receiving it as funny, or suspenseful or terrifying.

Click to expand...

Moving the goalposts now are we? I thought we were talking about artistic merit, not genres. But OK.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try -- shouldn't aim for this genre or that, should not try to be the best every time. I am saying that overall literary merit has much less to do with intent than you are trying to make out

In fact, trying too hard for that merit often has the opposite effect...

I think certain parts of an artist's intention have something to do with the end reception, but the art vs. commerce aspect is much less relevant than Haskins's point about comedy and horror and those aspects of authorial intent.

Click to expand...

Yes

But frankly I hold with the death of the author. My intentions don't matter, what matters is what the reader sees.

So, is your thesis that the author's intention does affect how it's perceived? I suppose that is true inasmuch as a good author will probably convey what he or she intended, well enough that at least some readers will "get it." But clearly not all works are interpreted or perceived the way the author intended.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

My point was more that the art vs. commerce thing probably has almost no effect on the end perception of the reader, unless you pull an Allende when switching genres, whereas, while it's moving the goalposts a bit, the issue of genres with a specific intent does reflect an area where intent might(maybe) have more of an effect.

Ah my mistake there then, apologies

I think intent of genre and intent re art v commercialism are two separate things though (I think we agree on art v commerce intent having little effect on the perception)

Mr Flibble said:

Ah my mistake there then, apologies

I think intent of genre and intent re art v commercialism are two separate things though (I think we agree on art v commerce intent having little effect on the perception)

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. There are many possible types of intent when writing a book.

So, I just had an experience reading a book that might speak to the several questions in this thread.

It's the first book I've read in one sitting in about ten years. I ran across it at a library sale, though it's a recent publication, 2012 is the copyright date.

The title is Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, by Ben Fountain. It won some awards and got good reviews. It's described as a debut novel. I picked it up for 75 cents because the voice on the pages I read sounded true enough to intrigue me.

It's about a squad of soldiers on leave from Iraq, who've been heroes in a firefight over there and are being given the grand treatment, sort of. That includes being hosted to the Superbowl and participating in the halftime show.

Told from close 3rd POV, it's a guy book most definitely, no punches pulled, but so gorgeously done I drank it up.

I really don't like football. I worked to oppose the Iraq war, and supported efforts to offer soldiers a way out, even. I'm telling that because it factors into the plot of the novel; a sister pressures the MC to go AWOL and let this group help him escape.

What happened to me as the reader was this: I was so deep in identification with the MC's point of view that not only did I understand his decision to go back to the war, I wanted him to in the same ways he wanted to.

I got it.

I have no idea if the novelist wrote this to make a political impact but I doubt it. I believe he wrote it to get that deeply inside the heart and mind of someone in his MC's shoes and convey what that's like.

It did cause me to revisit those days when I hoped to convince soldiers to stay out of the war, to take advantage of opportunities to do that. Not in a way that would change my decisions, if I had that situation arise again, nor in a way to make me feel what I did was in any way wrong; what it did was deepen my sense of the nature of the times and the immense stresses placed upon those who fought, and who fight these wars.

The change is one of (I believe William said this) an incremental increase of empathy. Or compassion, perhaps.

Books that don't grab me like this one did, I'm not all that interested in anymore.

William Haskins said:

that said, i will clearly state my position:

there is both a market and a place in the collective human mind for writing that is merely consumed for entertainment and distraction/escapism.

but there is also a rich history and a compelling need for works that seek to shape human consciousness and advance human progress. and while this cannot be carried out in ham-fisted and overwrought manner and still be effective, the complexities and potential of language make it possible and worthy of effort.

and, ultimately, there is no need for writers of either stripe to resent the other as low-brow or high-brow.

Click to expand...

But are they necessarily mutually exclusive?

Charles Dickens clearly wanted to shape human consciousness and advance human progress. He also wanted to entertain, and make money.

Amadan said:

But are they necessarily mutually exclusive?

Click to expand...

Ofc they aren't

That's where the whole art v commerce argument falls down

You can write for art's sake

You can wrote for commercial's sake

Readers may not be able to tell (eta probably will have no damn clue) why you wrote it,

And neither is a guarantee that a) anyone but you will think it is art and b) you'l make any money. It is possible that something you bang out to pay the rent will be the work you are remembered for

so write your little heart out for the reasons you know. Wrote because you love it, because...whatever reasons you write

It does not matter why you wrote it. It matters how people read it, and you have no control over that. You can influence that (by being bloody good) but you have no control over the end game

So just write, the best you can, and let everyone else argue about it later, while you sip margaritas.

And ofc a book written for commercial sake cn still change people's lives. An a book written to change people's lives can..leave the reader stone cold.

Many of our most beloved writers wrote (and write) for money/goods/beer.

Shakespeare wrote his plays and a couple of the narrative poems for money or "advancement."

Chaucer absolutely wrote for lucre, and complained when he didn't get it.

Dickens was all about making money.

Emily Dickinson had a handful of published poems in her lifetime; I don't think she was paid for any of them.

Is it wrong to want to write to change the world?

kuwisdelu said:

Is it wrong to want to write to change the world?

Click to expand...

No. Nor is it "wrong" to want to earn income from writing.

Writing intended to do harm may be "wrong." I'm not even sure about that—is the writing "wrong" or the writer?

And then there's always the problem of the intentional fallacy, waiting to pounce.

Medievalist said:

Writing intended to do harm may be "wrong." I'm not even sure about that—is the writing "wrong" or the writer?

Click to expand...

Well, what counts as "harm" is relative.