The Importance Of Real Literature

[Laudate_Dominum]

Why is literature valued in the first place? Literature is an irrelevant waste of time, as are all the humanities. Technology is all that really matters now and education should be designed to effectively train people as specialists in the technical and/or scientific field to which they have to most natural aptitude. Homo sapiens who do not have sufficiently competitive intelligence and/or technical aptitude ought to be doing menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific elite. The purpose of our species is to bring about the technological singularity, after this we are done, we will have served our purpose. The humanities are a hindrance to this sole purpose of our existence.

The best thing at this stage of our evolution would be a highly regimented, one-world government in which high-level decision making is in the hands of super computers. It will not be long before homo sapiens will be nothing more than a burden. Perhaps an elite race of cyborgs will be required for a short time, but this is mere speculation which probably overestimates the value of humanoid lifeforms; the singularity is beyond our understanding.

In any case, why is literature assigned more value in this culture (by force on the young anyway, or among primitive cultural elites) than shows and movies when it is obvious that this is the reverse of reality? Seems a bit silly to a futuristic outsider. If it is believed that archaic stories, and narrative entertainment are important in the training of sentient biological units I would suggest that movies and shows are superior. If part of the purpose is to create a shared experience among members of the culture then surely something like [i]Batman Beyond[/i] or [i]Toy Story 2[/i] would be more meaningful and interesting to youth of today and at least as beneficial to their development. Such entertainment is ultimately about pacification anyway, if it has any value at all.

Just trying to start conversation. *facepalm*

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='31 October 2009 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1257019912' post='1994482']
Why is literature valued in the first place? Literature is an irrelevant waste of time, as are all the humanities. Technology is all that really matters now and education should be designed to effectively train people as specialists in the technical and/or scientific field to which they have to most natural aptitude. Homo sapiens who do not have sufficiently competitive intelligence and/or technical aptitude ought to be doing menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific elite. The purpose of our species is to bring about the technological singularity, after this we are done, we will have served our purpose. The humanities are a hindrance to this sole purpose of our existence.

The best thing at this stage of our evolution would be a highly regimented, one-world government in which high-level decision making is in the hands of super computers. It will not be long before homo sapiens will be nothing more than a burden. Perhaps an elite race of cyborgs will be required for a short time, but this is mere speculation which probably overestimates the value of humanoid lifeforms; the singularity is beyond our understanding.

In any case, why is literature assigned more value in this culture (by force on the young anyway, or among primitive cultural elites) than shows and movies when it is obvious that this is the reverse of reality? Seems a bit silly to a futuristic outsider. If it is believed that archaic stories, and narrative entertainment are important in the training of sentient biological units I would suggest that movies and shows are superior. If part of the purpose is to create a shared experience within members of the culture then surely something like [i]Batman Beyond[/i] or [i]Toy Story 2[/i] would be more meaningful and interesting to youth of today and at least as beneficial to their development. Such entertainment is ultimately about pacification anyway.
[/quote]



You forgot war. The technology is so that we can make the lives of others better through war.

[add]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='31 October 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1257019912' post='1994482']
Why is literature valued in the first place? Literature is an irrelevant waste of time, as are all the humanities. Technology is all that really matters now and education should be designed to effectively train people as specialists in the technical and/or scientific field to which they have to most natural aptitude. Homo sapiens who do not have sufficiently competitive intelligence and/or technical aptitude ought to be doing menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific elite. The purpose of our species is to bring about the technological singularity, after this we are done, we will have served our purpose. The humanities are a hindrance to this sole purpose of our existence.

The best thing at this stage of our evolution would be a highly regimented, one-world government in which high-level decision making is in the hands of super computers. It will not be long before homo sapiens will be nothing more than a burden. Perhaps an elite race of cyborgs will be required for a short time, but this is mere speculation which probably overestimates the value of humanoid lifeforms; the singularity is beyond our understanding.

In any case, why is literature assigned more value in this culture (by force on the young anyway, or among primitive cultural elites) than shows and movies when it is obvious that this is the reverse of reality? Seems a bit silly to a futuristic outsider. If it is believed that archaic stories, and narrative entertainment are important in the training of sentient biological units I would suggest that movies and shows are superior. If part of the purpose is to create a shared experience within members of the culture then surely something like [i]Batman Beyond[/i] or [i]Toy Story 2[/i] would be more meaningful and interesting to youth of today and at least as beneficial to their development. Such entertainment is ultimately about pacification anyway.

Just trying to start conversation. *facepalm*
[/quote]
---------
sounds kind of boring , literature makes my day

[Hassan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1257011461' post='1994426']
I hope you're not serious.

Harry Potter is terrible literature with a self-contradicting plotline, "facts" about characters that the author invented after writing the books, not to mention the extremely low reading level. Twain and Dickens have at least a much higher reading level. I'm not really a fan of Twain, but his books deal with real issues and were extremely controversial because he challenged the status quo. Dickens' books were even more important in fighting corruption and hatred of the poor in Britain, and he dealt with other social issues as well. These books are classics because they are well written (somthing Harry Potter will never be able to claim) and because they speak to something timeless in every man. Harry Potter is trash guising as literature, and as much as some people will always consider it to be a classic, it will always be a fraud.
[/quote]


No they don't. Both were compulsory reading in my school for 6th grade or even younger. That's hardly a higher reading level than Harry Potter. I'm happy that Twain and Dickens challenged the immoralities of their times through their stories. I'm happy that JK Rowling used the popularity of her novels to combat homophobia. I don't know what's particularly well written about them. They both write better than most people, but so does Rowling.

What timeless issues do they speak to? Harry Potter shows the value of enduring friendships. You could claim that as timeless.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Hassan

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='apparently' date='31 October 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1257020858' post='1994493']
---------
sounds kind of boring , literature makes my day
[/quote]
But it is only technology that has actually changed the world in any significant way. Architecture, agriculture, industry, medicine, interwebs, phones, thermonuclear weapons, flying, etc. The wasting of time and resources on stories and fables reflects a most perverse hierarchy of values, an injustice against humanity really. More technology and science; away with worthless cultural mumbo jumbo. The Great Gatsby? What has this silly story ever offered on a practical level? Mathematical discoveries? A new microprocessor? Insight into the working of the brain? At least shows and movies inspire technical achievements from time to time (for this reason we ought to prefer computer animation and flashy special effects).

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='31 October 2009 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1257021745' post='1994505']
But it is only technology that has actually changed the world in any significant way. Architecture, agriculture, industry, medicine, interwebs, phones, thermonuclear weapons, flying, etc. The wasting of time and resources on stories and fables reflects a most perverse hierarchy of values, an injustice against humanity really. More technology and science; away with worthless cultural mumbo jumbo. The Great Gatsby? What has this silly story ever offered on a practical level? Mathematical discoveries? A new microprocessor? Insight into the working of the brain? At least shows and movies inspire technical achievements from time to time (for this reason we ought to prefer computer animation and flashy special effects).
[/quote]

and war.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1257021579' post='1994504']
What timeless issues do they speak to? Harry Potter shows the value of enduring friendships. You could claim that as timeless.
[/quote]
Star Trek shows the value of such things too. But why spend many hours reading the Harry Potter books when one could watch the films in under two hours a piece? If you must be pacified by such imaginary nonsense at least be efficient and modern about it. Books are so pre-Edison. If bookish nerds are perceived as cultural elites (at least by their own kind) then one would half expect primitives telling stories around a fire to be the ultimate.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1257021807' post='1994508']
and war.
[/quote]
Yes! War is the very essence of life itself.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' date='31 October 2009 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1257014677' post='1994445']
In my opinion, good literature is ultimately not about "learning" anything. It is an experience, not an intellectual exercise.

Just because literature is popular does not mean it cannot be considered great literature. Whether or not Harry Potter will ever be considered great literature, I don't know. I haven't read it. But if it's going to be compared to Dickens, it has a pretty high standard of writing to live up to, before you even consider the story itself.
[/quote]
I'd compare Dickens and Twain to Turgenev because in both cases I don't consider the aesthetics of the works much at all, and therefore their only real merit can come in what they teach the reader. In the case of Dickens and Twain this seems to be painfully obvious moralizing. I agree that I shouldn't have given the impression that all of literature can be evaluated by a single standard. Perhaps I just don't get Twain and Dickens.

[kafka]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1257021972' post='1994514']
I'd compare Dickens and Twain to Turgenev because in both cases I don't consider the aesthetics of the works much at all, and therefore their only real merit can come in what they teach the reader. In the case of Dickens and Twain this seems to be painfully obvious moralizing. I agree that I shouldn't have given the impression that all of literature can be evaluated by a single standard. Perhaps I just don't get Twain and Dickens.
[/quote]
moralizing and perhaps a little propagandizing.

The literature which affects me are the ones which lift up my spirit, fill me with a sense of wonder and mystery. Transcendent type stuff. You know the whole Truth, Beauty, Freedom and Love Bohemian stuff The ones which reach up to God, but fall a little short.

[Hassan]

[quote name='kafka' date='31 October 2009 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1257022473' post='1994524']
moralizing and perhaps a little propagandizing.

The literature which affects me are the ones which lift up my spirit, fill me with a sense of wonder and mystery. Transcendent type stuff. You know the whole Truth, Beauty, Freedom and Love Bohemian stuff The ones which reach up to God, but fall a little short.
[/quote]


It's nice to have you back

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kafka' date='31 October 2009 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1257022473' post='1994524']
moralizing and perhaps a little propagandizing.

The literature which affects me are the ones which lift up my spirit, fill me with a sense of wonder and mystery. Transcendent type stuff. You know the whole Truth, Beauty, Freedom and Love Bohemian stuff The ones which reach up to God, but fall a little short.
[/quote]

Do you like Thoreau? I'm almost done with [i]Walden[/i]. I'm not sure what I'm reading next, though I've begun [i]Call of the Wild[/i]. Methinks my next stop will be Tolstoy's [i]Confessions[/i].

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='31 October 2009 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1257019912' post='1994482']
Why is literature valued in the first place? Literature is an irrelevant waste of time, as are all the humanities. Technology is all that really matters now and education should be designed to effectively train people as specialists in the technical and/or scientific field to which they have to most natural aptitude. Homo sapiens who do not have sufficiently competitive intelligence and/or technical aptitude ought to be doing menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific elite. The purpose of our species is to bring about the technological singularity, after this we are done, we will have served our purpose. The humanities are a hindrance to this sole purpose of our existence.

The best thing at this stage of our evolution would be a highly regimented, one-world government in which high-level decision making is in the hands of super computers. It will not be long before homo sapiens will be nothing more than a burden. Perhaps an elite race of cyborgs will be required for a short time, but this is mere speculation which probably overestimates the value of humanoid lifeforms; the singularity is beyond our understanding.[/quote]
This is an interesting point, and I think it gets at something true about modern society. I'm reading a book right now which argues that the pedagogue's goal should not be to impart information, but rather to hold a dialogue, so that there is no "teacher-student" relationship, but rather, both parties are "teacher-students" and "student-teachers." This is a dangerous proposition, because once you create a relationship of freedom and independence, then the kind of "menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific [or political, or cultural, etc.] elite" becomes impossible, because people become conscious that they are not merely "objects" in a world to which they must fit, but rather they are "subjects" in a situation that they must constantly reflect on, engage, and affect.

You ask what is the value of literature, and I think literature is a sort of "stand in" for that kind of pedagogue (i.e., the dialogic pedagogue). Literature should make us aware of our freedom to not merely to live in the world, but to help shape the world. That is why I don't think literature should be about "learning" something. It should be about an experience. I don't agree with all the literature I read, but I can still have an experience with literature that I disagree with on an intellectual level.

In modern schools, however, literature becomes something to be "taught." And that kind of relationship, where the teacher (either the literal teacher or the book being read) teaches and the student learns, takes away the power of literature to liberate people, to make them aware of their ability to be aware.

You mention technology, and I think it's necessary to see the literary roots of modern technological society. Consider that language is itself a technology. Ancient pre-literate societies could have not "literature" because they did not have "literacy." They did not have "literacy" because they did not have "words." And they did not have "words" because they did not have an alphabet. They spoke, but they did not have "words" (because words, in the alphabetic sense, are just combinations of letters). They understood sounds (their sounds were not alphabetic). With the advent of the technology of the alphabet, suddenly sounds could be frozen on a page, and "words" could be created and recorded. In the twelfth century, a major historical shift takes place in Western Europe, and people increasingly begin to conceive of reality in terms of literacy. Even illiterate people begin to see reality more and more in terms of literacy. This historical shift evolves to our modern technological society, where words are no longer sounds that must be heard from another person to be understood, but rather are bytes of information that don't require another person at all. We are all turning into computers and "communicators of information."

We approach literature as something that we need to "get." We want to understand the "information" that the author is "communicating." But as you said, literature has no strict purpose. I would say that it is an "experience." I think of literature as a sort of icon of reality. It is a threshold through which we can see and enter reality. But modern schooling treats literature, not as a sort of religious icon, but as a computer screen. It is seen as a text that we need to download into our brains. Modern schools are inherently divorced from real life, so that the experience of reading literature in modern schools (in my opinion) is sort of like downloading a text file. Maybe the student will "need" it someday, maybe not. But the school makes the download available so that the student has the "information." In that kind of model of pedagogy, literature cannot be a sort of religious icon into reality, because such an icon requires living movement into the real world; it is an experience, not a visual exercise; the purpose of literature is not to be chained to the literature itself, but rather for the literature to bring you closer to the real world. Modern schooling is an imprisonment from the real world, preventing living movement. Schoolchildren are like computers in a factory. They have to go to schools to be formatted, to have the correct operating system and software installed, etc. Only then can they be released to the public.

[quote]In any case, why is literature assigned more value in this culture (by force on the young anyway, or among primitive cultural elites) than shows and movies when it is obvious that this is the reverse of reality? Seems a bit silly to a futuristic outsider. If it is believed that archaic stories, and narrative entertainment are important in the training of sentient biological units I would suggest that movies and shows are superior. If part of the purpose is to create a shared experience within members of the culture than surely something like [i]Batman Beyond[/i] or [i]Toy Story 2[/i] would be more meaningful and interesting to youth of today and at least as beneficial to their development. Such entertainment is ultimately about pacification anyway, if it has any value at all. [/quote]
I think modern visual technology is part of the same problem I discussed above. We speak of "icons" on a computer desktop. That is the modern icon, and I think it's obvious how it differs from a religious icon. We are bombarded with meaningless images in modern society, so that the experience of an icon as threshold is almost impossible. We see literature as a sort of desktop icon, rather than as a sort of Christian icon. In modern society, literature is not a threshold into reality; it is rather a means to open up Microsoft Word and type an assignment.

[quote]Just trying to start conversation. *facepalm*
[/quote]
You are my hero.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1257021972' post='1994514']
I'd compare Dickens and Twain to Turgenev because in both cases I don't consider the aesthetics of the works much at all, and therefore their only real merit can come in what they teach the reader. In the case of Dickens and Twain this seems to be painfully obvious moralizing. I agree that I shouldn't have given the impression that all of literature can be evaluated by a single standard. Perhaps I just don't get Twain and Dickens.
[/quote]
If you are working within the tradition of Western literature, then it is basically an inarguable fact that Dickens and Twain were great writers, both technically and creatively. That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything in their art, or even that you have to like them. For example, if you want to argue for another tradition of literature as superior to the Western tradition, then I think you can make a legitimate argument. But if you are looking at them from within the Western literary tradition, then by the usual major categories of analysis (depth, characterization, creativity, etc.), they were great writers.

[add]

[font="Garamond"][size="4"][b]Autumn Dusk's writing is real, legendary and blue.[/b][/size][/font]

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Era Might' date='31 October 2009 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1257026471' post='1994566']
This is an interesting point, and I think it gets at something true about modern society. I'm reading a book right now which argues that the pedagogue's goal should not be to impart information, but rather to hold a dialogue, so that there is no "teacher-student" relationship, but rather, both parties are "teacher-students" and "student-teachers." This is a dangerous proposition, because once you create a relationship of freedom and independence, then the kind of "menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific [or political, or cultural, etc.] elite" becomes impossible, because people become conscious that they are not merely "objects" in a world to which they must fit, but rather they are "subjects" in a situation that they must constantly reflect on, engage, and affect.

You ask what is the value of literature, and I think literature is a sort of "stand in" for that kind of pedagogue (i.e., the dialogic pedagogue). Literature should make us aware of our freedom to not merely to live in the world, but to help shape the world. That is why I don't think literature should be about "learning" something. It should be about an experience. I don't agree with all the literature I read, but I can still have an experience with literature that I disagree with on an intellectual level.

In modern schools, however, literature becomes something to be "taught." And that kind of relationship, where the teacher (either the literal teacher or the book being read) teaches and the student learns, takes away the power of literature to liberate people, to make them aware of their ability to be aware.

You mention technology, and I think it's necessary to see the literary roots of modern technological society. Consider that language is itself a technology. Ancient pre-literate societies could have not "literature" because they did not have "literacy." They did not have "literacy" because they did not have "words." And they did not have "words" because they did not have an alphabet. They spoke, but they did not have "words" (because words, in the alphabetic sense, are just combinations of letters). They understood sounds (their sounds were not alphabetic). With the advent of the technology of the alphabet, suddenly sounds could be frozen on a page, and "words" could be created and recorded. In the twelfth century, a major historical shift takes place in Western Europe, and people increasingly begin to conceive of reality in terms of literacy. Even illiterate people begin to see reality more and more in terms of literacy. This historical shift evolves to our modern technological society, where words are no longer sounds that must be heard from another person to be understood, but rather are bytes of information that don't require another person at all. We are all turning into computers and "communicators of information."

We approach literature as something that we need to "get." We want to understand the "information" that the author is "communicating." But as you said, literature has no strict purpose. I would say that it is an "experience." I think of literature as a sort of icon of reality. It is a threshold through which we can see and enter reality. But modern schooling treats literature, not as a sort of religious icon, but as a computer screen. It is seen as a text that we need to download into our brains. Modern schools are inherently divorced from real life, so that the experience of reading literature in modern schools (in my opinion) is sort of like downloading a text file. Maybe the student will "need" it someday, maybe not. But the school makes the download available so that the student has the "information." In that kind of model of pedagogy, literature cannot be a sort of religious icon into reality, because such an icon requires living movement into the real world; it is an experience, not a visual exercise; the purpose of literature is not to be chained to the literature itself, but rather for the literature to bring you closer to the real world. Modern schooling is an imprisonment from the real world, preventing living movement. Schoolchildren are like computers in a factory. They have to go to schools to be formatted, to have the correct operating system and software installed, etc. Only then can they be released to the public.



[/quote]

I'm pretty sure L_D was joking, but this is still interesting.

[Era Might]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1257038688' post='1994640']
I'm pretty sure L_D was joking, but this is still interesting.
[/quote]
I prefer to think of it not so much as joking, but rather as subversive wit.

[add]

[font="Garamond"][size="3"]i can relate to "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson[/size][/font]
[font="Garamond"][size="3"]better that Shakespeare everwas or couldbe [/size][/font]

Edited November 2, 2009 by apparently

[Winchester]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='31 October 2009 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1257019912' post='1994482']
Why is literature valued in the first place? Literature is an irrelevant waste of time, as are all the humanities. Technology is all that really matters now and education should be designed to effectively train people as specialists in the technical and/or scientific field to which they have to most natural aptitude. Homo sapiens who do not have sufficiently competitive intelligence and/or technical aptitude ought to be doing menial labor to support the lifestyles of the technical and scientific elite. The purpose of our species is to bring about the technological singularity, after this we are done, we will have served our purpose. The humanities are a hindrance to this sole purpose of our existence.

The best thing at this stage of our evolution would be a highly regimented, one-world government in which high-level decision making is in the hands of super computers. It will not be long before homo sapiens will be nothing more than a burden. Perhaps an elite race of cyborgs will be required for a short time, but this is mere speculation which probably overestimates the value of humanoid lifeforms; the singularity is beyond our understanding.

In any case, why is literature assigned more value in this culture (by force on the young anyway, or among primitive cultural elites) than shows and movies when it is obvious that this is the reverse of reality? Seems a bit silly to a futuristic outsider. If it is believed that archaic stories, and narrative entertainment are important in the training of sentient biological units I would suggest that movies and shows are superior. If part of the purpose is to create a shared experience among members of the culture then surely something like [i]Batman Beyond[/i] or [i]Toy Story 2[/i] would be more meaningful and interesting to youth of today and at least as beneficial to their development. Such entertainment is ultimately about pacification anyway, if it has any value at all.

Just trying to start conversation. *facepalm*
[/quote]
I'm going to let this go because I know you're mentally divergent.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Obviously, Laudete Dominum is just trying to provoke responses from everyone.

Anyway, who doesn't love the smell of an old book and the feel of the pages in your hand? It has much more character than staring at some computer screen.

Of course, [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] is the greatest work of literature of the 20th century, objectively speaking.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.