|
First of all, minus several million points for suggesting that genre fiction can't be good enough to qualify as "Literature".
As to the nature of the art of writing, I very much reject the "hidden meaning" theories of literary analysis, particularly when conclusions are drawn about the author from what he wrote. I prefer to defer to the author in their own words "why" they wrote something and what they "meant", if they're willing to discuss it.
I think writing, like all art, is about evoking something in the observer, and so to that extent how you react to a work and what you get from it is ultimately what's most important. Nevertheless, art for the sake of evocation itself -- art designed not to convey anything in particular but purely to get you to react -- generally leaves me unsatisfied. This is particular true when the art is a *storytelling* art, such as a novel or movie. While my reaction to the work is paramount, my primary interest in those *particular* forms of art is to listen to what the *author* is trying to say. I may agree or disagree with their story upon reflection, but I still want a *story* to be there. It's the difference between a picture of food and the food itself; either will make you salivate, but only the latter provides a satisfying meal.
|