Sammiches, et cetera . . . .

[pgb451 at lulu.acns.nwu.edu]

J. Burgess writes:
 
> Not to be too blunt, but when one proposes "artistic relevance" as a term 
> of reference, my blood pressure starts upward, my eyes glaze over, and I 
> fasten my seatbelt for a few weeks' worth of battery and counter-battery 
> barrages with lots of noise and not much effect....  
> 
> Sorry, I fold on this hand.
> 

I agree: when I got my own message yesterday, I wondered where it was going,
you know, besides a semantic playground. To amend this, I wish to say that
good/bad books should not be soley judged from a point of "artistic
relevance." Rather -- and this is what I was trying to get at -- there should
be some structural basis from which writing is written, presented, and read.
That is to say, writing, in my opinion, should avail itself to a/any
referential context, albeit history, art, science, base humor, et cetera. 
Otherwise, in what ways can the writing be judged (if fair, applicable, and
sound measures can be agreed upon) or discussed? 

It seems completely reasonable that a universe exists which is all-inclusive.
GR is a fine example of this, as we find references to high and low art and
humor, history, science, religion, statutory rape, fantasy, et cetera et
cetera et cetera. Perhaps by referencing and manipulating this nearly
all-inclusive universe, TRP has been able to trace a truer-to-life version
of the human condition (no pun intended). 

As for the Grishams and Kings, et al, they are, after all, telling a story.
And they must be telling it well (50 Million Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong). And
one difference between SJK and TRP is a matter of accessibility. _The Stand_
is longer than GR yet it is more accessible, much more of an "easy-read." Not
that _that_ is "bad." I enjoyed it when I read it. Yet, beyond discussing the
dilemma of a SuperVirus, there really wasn't much to discuss (I found this to
be King's most palatable writing by far). So, whatever the measure, whatever
the setting on the noise-gate, books can be enjoyed at all levels, by most
literate peoples. Can we point out exactly what is good/bad writing?
I'm beginning to believe that once a discussion of such begins: battery,
counter-battery, messy flash . . . .

Oh, one last thing that ties into the above: if a book is "indiscussable,"
does it just perform as raw, bland information? Has anyone read Italo
Calvino's short story, "How Much Shall We Bet?" It's a pretty interesting
take on what is news or "discussable" information.

Anyway,

Sean:
pgb451 at lulu.acns.nwu.edu