The Need For Literature
To my entry of Monday regarding the Nobel Prize for Literature, my friend Will comments:
Discuss.
Cheers.
R. Sherman
Quite frankly, in this day and age, I'm kind of surprised this category [Literature] still exists. Literature is such a small part of a much vaster Arts category, from which many more choices could be made available.I suppose the easy answer is that Alfred Nobel's will says so and doesn't endow prizes in cinema, drama, visual arts or music, whether or not those media are valid or beneficial aesthetically to Humankind. Nonetheless, the question remains, in this era of numerous means of artistic expression, is literature even important? Does the smorgasbord of choices we have, combined with the frenetic pace of our lives, minimize or eliminate the necessity/benefits of pondering over the written word generally, and fiction specifically?
Discuss.
Cheers.
R. Sherman
Labels: Art, Culture, Literature
posted by R. Sherman at 3:55 AM
13 Comments:
I think the easy answer is the correct one. Literature was what Dr Nobel believed had the power to change ideas. I don't believe that even now the same can be said for any other artistic medium.
I suppose my own answer would have to question what we call literature. The narrow modern definition is books. But if you look at classic literature, its everything from Epic Poems to Plays to written down Oral Histories. Unfortunately, the Nobel committee has taken this narrow definition and narrowed it even further by somehow suggesting that American's can't contribute to this telling of the human condition.
What I was suggesting was opening the definition not on a technological basis, but on a philosophical basis. Great literature these days can be found in all sorts of media - not just books. There are powerful plays, powerful teleplays, powerful film scripts, powerful poems, powerful graphic novels, powerful blogs even. To limit the selections to a narrow band of narrowly defined literature is to not see the forest through the trees. Just as Newspapers are going the way of the Dodo Bird, I'm guessing that traditional books will soon follow. Why spend all that money and kill all those many trees to make a book, when you can disseminate your "literature" over the internet that much faster and cheaper?
P.S. By the way, I'm a lover of books - I have many overflowing bookshelves and I cherish each one that I have. But I also enjoy other forms of literature as well. The written word is still extremely powerful, even in a cartoon bubble.
It does seem the demise of the printed page may not be far off...
For so many years ideas were passed along loosely--oral or by stories, poems, plays--but the printing press allowed us to "Canonize" more and more literature... With electronic media, are we entering unchartered waters or going back to where things were passed along without the control of the press?
W B Yeats in '23, G B Shaw in '25, O'Neill in '36 and Sheamus Heaney in '95. None of them known for the novel.
But the problem with the American novel is that it is in English, if you really want to win the Prize produce work in one of the -as Canada - first languages.
Is Canada considered a European nation or an American one? Are they as insulated from the literary world as America, or is the insulation cultural and not geographic? ;)
Will, Canada in English or the French is European. For those followers of the Aga Khan who moved there after Uganda, now the hell on earth that would result is a book I would read. The interface of three, four or five cultures, the bloody book would write itself. You might even see a logical possibility of a son killing his dad at a crossroad. Anyhoos, V S Naipaul if you get a chance. He has that something that the short stories in the New Yorker dream about, which changes that brittle hardness into Toledo steel.
I wrote a longish and (I thought) thoughtful response then pressed the backspace button after Preview and lost it, along with the will to retype.
But here's an interesting, somewhat relevant story: A Quest to Read a Book a Day for 365 Days.
Sorry, I was trying to watch T.V., play with the new puppy, and read the blog post at the same time.
Literature, still worthy of praise, but the prizes appear tainted (at least the Peace prize) by questionable decision making on the part of the judges.
I think you should be nominated for the literature prize next year so we can test the broader definition of literature.
To my mind it encompasses any work involving the written word, But then it doesn't matter a jot what I think as I don't award the prize(s).
Interesting debate though, one which I do not have the energy to join in with right now.
Sorry I have been absent for awhile. I hope to return to more regular blogging very soon and hope that you, the EMBLOS and the Official Family are all well.
Gee, I hope that 'the written word' will always be with us and personally I don't think it can be minimized. As to The Nobel Prize, what you said is absolutely true. These were the terms of his "will", One would hope that THAT in itself will always be Honored. There are lots of other prizes that cover all the other ARTS...And not to minimize their importance---because I believe ALL the ARTS can change lives---But Literature is what Nobel wanted to Honor, and it was his money and his wishes. Amen.
Literature, yes, as still viable from my perspective. I'm in agreement however with many others- the whole Nobel prize process is suspect to me, and no longer has nearly as much credibility. Too politicized and used to foster social aims of the committee...
Literature rates very highly in my book(sorry). What could ever replace the joy of curling up with Jane or Ernest or Marcel?
Let's simplify things. How many times have we all heard, "yeah, I saw it, but the book was so much better."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home