Literature is still powerful stuff

[alice wellintown]

Rich,

You read lots of books. Some are better than others. Other than your
personal preferences, why are some better than others? Why do people who
study literature, people like Wood, people like Bloom, agree that some
works are better than most? When I read a Run DMC "poem" about poetry, like
this one here, a lyric that has been anthologies, I know why it is
not equal to or even close to a Keats poem about poetry, like this one
here. It's not preference, but criteria that support my claim. As a
carpenter, I know a solid structure from a house that Jack built. As
musician, I know Mozart from Michael Jackson. Of course, this last one is
an unfair one because MJ is a pop music star and Mozart is not. Still, we
know that Mozart is a musician on a whole not her level. Leveling doesn't
prevent labeling. And, as Bevis and Butthead sey, ya can't polish a turd.


http://rapgenius.com/Run-dmc-peter-piper-lyrics#note-100085


http://poetry.about.com/od/poems/l/blkeatsonsonnet.htm

On Thursday, April 25, 2013, rich wrote:

> M--
>
> my point was not that literature is crap, just that you can't define
> it via a certain set of criteria/assumptions/insights, what have you.
> maybe i should have said literature just is. I don't like planting
> labels on things thats all.
>
> Im just an averge guy Im not as well-versed as alice or others here. I
> just read the books (or try to).
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Rich,
> >
> > You say that literature is nothing, surely you can't mean this,
> otherwise why would you be here commenting on literature. Literarture may
> be a cultural product and all the pomp and play that surround it no more
> than one of the games we play, but make no mistake, literature is powerful
> stuff. Ask Rushdie, go ask Orwell's ghost. You don't think Tom Clancy
> novels are as important as western movies for understanding a certain
> segment of U.S ideology? Do you think Ernst Jünger's 1924 edition of Storms
> of Steel didn't contribute to the rise of german fascism as much as
> economics and other factors?
> >
> > As for Wood's attempt to distinguish between the good and the bad, and
> convince us of that distinction, he is only doing what he must to establish
> his position and garner the capital and prestige that will make him a
> dominant agent within the dominated section of the social field. OF course
> he doesn't recognise it as such, but who does?
> >
> > Envy him? Well, the job doesn't sound bad, but no I don't envy him. Have
> you read his essay on Harold Bloom? Jimmy didn't learn from Harold. Like
> that elder critic, whom Wood aims to dethrone, Wood wrote a book that
> apparently made him look like he didn't know so much about what makes good
> literature; I bet he wishes he could make that book disappear sometimes,
> just like Bloom. The danger of critics trying to write fiction.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > To: Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com <javascript:;>>
> > Cc: Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net <javascript:;>>; Matthew Cissell <
> macissell at yahoo.es <javascript:;>>; "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>" <
> pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Modern world and paranoia
> >
> >
> > why wood and company need to make such distinctions is beyond me. I
> > guess thats where is bread is buttered, to have "opinions" and how
> > awful that must be over time. I dont envy him one bit. Literature isnt
> > anything.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130425/5b8cbf0a/attachment.html>