Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
@HarryT
I find your definition of 'literary author' to be a bit juvenile actually. Anyone can claim to be writing only "for the art of it". So does that automatically make them a "literary author" in your eyes? I'll answer for you; "of course it doesn't." They have to claim they're writing for art's sake only, you have to believe them when they claim it, and you have to think their writing has merit.
So why don't we just dismiss the "writing for art's sake" as the unprovable and largely irrelevant criteria that it is (because let's face it "art" and "entertainment" have never been mutually exclusive--or even dependent upon its creator's intent, for that matter), and just accept the fact that a literary author, to you, is someone that you've been told is literary author; and one that you (and many others, to be fair) personally feel has "a little sumthin' extra." Which is, of course, entirely subjective once again (intelligentsia target-group be damned).
|
I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with you. If you ever take an interest in the subject (and I don't blame you in the least if you don't), do a little reading on the background of the so-called
Bloomsbury Group which included authors like Woolf and E.M. Forster. They despised authors who wrote to make money. To my mind, that makes them hopelessly pretentious, but in their own eyes they were creating "art", not writing for the uneducated masses. That probably explains why their books are so un-enjoyable.
We'll have to agree to differ, I suspect.