Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
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...
|
For god's sake Harry, can't you tell I already have an interest in the subject?! Your assumption that our difference of opinion is based on my ignorance of the subject matter is a little demeaning. A paper on pretentious authors who despised those who write for money is no more relevant to what defines a "literary author" than moon-phases are. The author's intent is immaterial. The relevant factor is that people thought their works were worthy. Not that their creators were smart and idealistic. If intent and intelligence were relevant, then where is the list of Literary authors who sucked? Who are the hack literary authors? There are none. Because writing art for smart people doesn't make one "literary." Being talented made them noteworthy, not their intent.