- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
Why Book Criticism and Literary Culture Needs a Poptimist Revolution
- Thread starter William Haskins
- Start date
- Status
Liosse de Velishaf
Banned
I mean, I've seen tons of writers say "This is the book that made me want to become a writer." That seems like a big change.
Roxxs mentioned a parent dying. Lots of people experience that, or adopt pets; they don't all go out and join the peace corp. So perhaps it changed Roxxs life, and books didn't, but to me that just suggests that it's equally valid to argue that books might not have made a significant change in Roxxs life, but maybe they did for someone else.
I think I provided a reasonable example earlier, too: If I had not read Tolkien and subsequently looked into the parts of his conlangs not included in the main four books, I would not have gotten into linguistics as a field of study. I've often seen it argued that influencing someone to become a doctor has made certain events considered "life-changing", so I think it's a reasonable parallel by most standards.
When I was younger, I remember discussing a book with a friend of mine (him being the one who recced it to me) who was in a really dark place, and he admitted that seeing something of himself in that story helped convince him that that suicide was not the answer. I'd think that qualifies as fairly life-changing.
Honestly, I question whether the majority of people experience a truly "life-changing" event in their lives, going from the apparent high standards suggested by responses to this thread.
as a personal point of order. my use of the world literature in this context is used in its broadest sense, a written work. it is not assuming "literary" distinction.
also "life-changing" need not mean bolt-of-lightning, radical change.
it can be incremental, it can be subtle, it can be particular to one aspect of one's life.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
It ought to mean substantial change. However, if any old change will do, then yes, many books have changed my life by introducing me to new words.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
If I think something is stupid and the people who enjoy it lack taste, it does not follow that I despise the people who make up most of its fans as a class. There are genres and media that are dismissed as lowbrow entertainment for "fourteen-year-old boys" or "middle-aged white dudes" - this may or may not be a fair criticism, but I don't assume the critic is saying that middle-aged white dudes, as a class, are terrible. (Unless they make other statements indicating they do.)
I have seen criticisms of female-consumed media that veer into misogyny, implying that the media in question is of lower worth because it's popular with women, or that its popularity is evidence that women lack taste or discrimination. But I did not see that in this particular article.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
Substantially, it's....
Eh. Changing your career, changing your partner, emigrating, having a child. But that's only one opinion. Usually when I see events described as 'life-changing' they involve near-death experiences, serious illness, and so forth.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
No, he was not. I used to believe this particular literary urban legend, but it's not true. Dickens did have his share of critics, who thought he was maudlin, sensationalistic, self-indulgent, and so on - criticisms you'll often see made of contemporary "big social novel" writers - but he was highly-regarded. It would probably be more accurate to say he was the John Irving or Haruki Murakami or Kurt Vonnegut of his day.
drollish trollish.
nah... a new perspective on nature, a deepening of appreciation for love or art or music, an incremental enriching of empathy... all of these change lives, glacially perhaps, but change is a continuum and its results are felt over time.
When I think of "life changing", I usually think of more internal changes, like a new outlook on life, a different way of seeing the world. Even a small epiphany is an epiphany. Even if it's as simple as realizing someone who looks like you can be a writer/lawyer/scientist, etc.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 5,147
- Reaction score
- 2,040
And they are cumulative, or else directly affected by what came before, and therefore individual reactions that are mostly seated within the individual, rather than the work itself, I think, although certainly the work can affect multiple people, and certainly multiple people can be struggling with the same issues and share the same views...
I know that some of the ways in which I have come to view the world are not the result of singular things, but rather the cumulative effects of stories, philosophies, histories, personal experiences, and so on. So if I read a book and it has a profound or not-that-profound effect on me, is it the book or is it me, or is it the vague thing in between that is the interaction with the book, and how do we gauge that in an objective manner such that it matters to someone else, except to couch it in internal language that we hope is shared by others?
IMO almost anything can be transformative (or not), depending on the state of the individual interacting with it. I'm not sure what that says about the singular thing in question. Frankly I'm not sure what I'm saying at all...lol
i get exactly what you're saying, and it's spot on.
a work of art interacts with the psyche as it exists individually. this is why even the most celebrated "profound" works can impact some deeply and leave others cold.
this is also one of the reasons that a contrived intent to be profound is almost certainly destined to fail, often spectacularly.
a work of art interacts with the psyche as it exists individually. this is why even the most celebrated "profound" works can impact some deeply and leave others cold.
this is also one of the reasons that a contrived intent to be profound is almost certainly destined to fail, often spectacularly.
Liosse de Velishaf
Banned
I don't think we should be telling writers their primary goal is to change someone's life. That's only one among many possible effects of reading a book or story. I totally agree on that.
Aye.
A work of art is only really completed by the reader or viewer interacting with it.
The reader is an active participant in the creation of a great book. Otherwise, it's just so many words.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
I would think you've been at AW long enough to know better. But apparently not.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
We're just going round in circles in a semantic argument, here. My bad. But actually I would think realising you can pursue a career you previously thought closed to you would be a major rather than a minor event. But I'm done with the OP anyway. Been fun talking to you
.
of course not.
however, there is certainly no harm in telling a writer that if they will refine their craft through attention to quality and challenge themselves philosophically, and not chase only the siren-songs of money or gratification of ego, they may well write something that has the capacity to make an impact upon the lives of their readers.
Last edited:
We're just going round in circles in a semantic argument, here. My bad. But actually I would think realising you can pursue a career you previously thought closed to you would be a major rather than a minor event. But I'm done with the OP anyway. Been fun talking to you
Like I said, I do credit a single movie with changing my life, getting me through a period of depression, and allowing me to start getting control over my social anxiety. I admit I can't do the same with a single book, but I think fiction is at least as transformative as film, so I certainly think a novel can change lives. And it's what I hope to do through writing.
I think it's fine for other writers to have other goals.
Last edited:
Except I never said that is doesn't have teh potential to be transformative. Implicit mindset? I gave merely what reading does for me, not what it does to everyone, and never said it can't be transformative. I said that's not why I read. Sometimes I am changed, but I don't read to be changed. TO not accept that others do not read for the same purposes is severely narrow minded....
ETA: So yuck yourself
Last edited:
Mod note:
So, I went to a yoga class, thinking things were going to be spirited and respectful for a bit.... Eh, "drollish trollish" could be revised to something a bit more respectful.
In any case, William, please refrain from further derogatory remarks about others here.
So, I went to a yoga class, thinking things were going to be spirited and respectful for a bit.... Eh, "drollish trollish" could be revised to something a bit more respectful.
In any case, William, please refrain from further derogatory remarks about others here.
Last edited:
that was the revision.
i disagree that it was derogatory. it was merely an acknowledgement that i caught the gist of the snark implicit in the absurdity of "learning new words" as the sum-total of "life changing."
so, really it was a compliment.
even so, i will endeavor to play nice.
Thank you for the initial revision. I understand your points and I also do intend the room to remain respectful here. Calling out someone else's real or suspected snark doesn't usually forward the conversation, in my opinion, so I hope no one feels the need to do that.
The "report a post button" is always handy.
Thanks.
The "report a post button" is always handy.
Thanks.
- Status