The Guardian click-bait - Get real. Terry Pratchett is not a literary genius

[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).

"Literary"--in its genre-like manifestation--is nothing more than a mechanism for cherry-picking the best works from all the other genres and claiming it as its own ... for art's sake. It's a self-perpetuating, intelligentsia-inspired synonym for "good (by our invisible criteria)."

NOTE: I'm not dismissing the authors labeled as "literary" or their works. I've appreciated (and even been entertained by) many of them. Not because of the mainly mythical Literary burden they carry, but because I thought they were "Good."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

I'm confused. In the first post that I've quoted, you hold Agatha Christie up as an example of an author who made a significant contribution. In the second quote, you dismiss her as the writer of "somewhat formulaic novels".

Which is it?

Shari

I'm not dismissing her at all; you really can't dismiss the most successful writer of novels in history, can you? Her novels were rather formulaic (and after reading all 85 of them in order, believe me when I say I know that!), but extremely influential on later writers. She, Dorothy L. Sayers and Ngaio Marsh together basically define the 20th century classic British detective novel. Being formulaic doesn't preclude being influential.

[dickloraine]

Innovation is one possible aspect. There are some authors who were very innovative, but they are few and often considered as the greatest authors. But many more authors aren't that innovative and still considered literary. Look at any literary movement. Is only the first considered literary?

If some of you are interested in how authors become literary established, Paul Bordieus "The rules of art" is very interesting. Unfortunately for what I think Pratchett deserves, it is very unlikely that he gains much traction in the literary field as he is in the wrong discurse (as all genre authors are too). The way the literary discurse has been historically, it is difficult to get inside.

[HarryT]

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.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not dismissing her at all; you really can't dismiss the most successful writer of novels in history, can you? Her novels were rather formulaic (and after reading all 85 of them in order, believe me when I say I know that!), but extremely influential on later writers. She, Dorothy L. Sayers and Ngaio Marsh together basically define the 20th century classic British detective novel. Being formulaic doesn't preclude being influential.

Ok...so you didn't dismiss her. In the first quote, you hold her up as someone who made a significant contribution, and use her as a counterpoint to Pratchett, implying that they are very different. In the second post, you imply that they are very similar, in that their writing is very formulaic.

Also...if one of the ways that you define great literature is that it influences other writers, then the author of the "Twilight" books would definitely count. Hmmm...sparkly vampires as literature?

Can we just agree that different people have different definitions of "literature"? I can guarantee that my High School English Lit teacher did NOT think of Agatha Christie books as "literature", even if you obviously do.

Shari

[doubleshuffle]

Of course all definitions of capital-L "Literature" are problematic, especially if the idea of quality enters - that Literature is somehow better than literature. I hope I have praised Pratchett enough in my posts here not to be suspected of that fallacy.

For me the distinction (with a very blurred dividing line) is about what Literature does with language. It uses language in a way that makes me look/read twice. It does something new to language that draws my attention to it and gives me a new perspective on it. It presents me with sentences that make me gasp - be it due to their images, their rhythm, their musicality; that resonate in me on levels that great music or great painting can. The joy is more than intellectual.

Pratchett does have those moments occasionally, but it is not what he focuses on. (Again: This is no value judgement. And I am absolutely aware how hard it is to write a style that seems so effortless. Pratchett was a brilliant writer.)

Let me put it this way: I can fully enjoy Pratchett (or Wodehouse or Agatha Christie, for that matter) on a full train with my iPod on listening to a Bob Dylan bootleg. I couldn't do that with Literature because I would be missing too much.

[DiapDealer]

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.

[MikeB1972]

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 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.

Surely that definition disagrees with your own views on Literary as well though, considering you use Shakespeare and Dickens as examples.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

For me the distinction (with a very blurred dividing line) is about what Literature does with language. It uses language in a way that makes me look/read twice. It does something new to language that draws my attention to it and gives me a new perspective on it. It presents me with sentences that make me gasp - be it due to their images, their rhythm, their musicality; that resonate in me on levels that great music or great painting can. The joy is more than intellectual.

If there must be a literary distinction, I can get behind that one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Surely that definition disagrees with your own views on Literary as well though, considering you use Shakespeare and Dickens as examples.

Shakespeare and Dickens are certainly not literary writers in the sense that Woolf and Joyce considered themselves to be, absolutely. They were very much writing mass-market entertainment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ok...so you didn't dismiss her. In the first quote, you hold her up as someone who made a significant contribution, and use her as a counterpoint to Pratchett, implying that they are very different. In the second post, you imply that they are very similar, in that their writing is very formulaic.

Also...if one of the ways that you define great literature is that it influences other writers, then the author of the "Twilight" books would definitely count. Hmmm...sparkly vampires as literature?

Can we just agree that different people have different definitions of "literature"? I can guarantee that my High School English Lit teacher did NOT think of Agatha Christie books as "literature", even if you obviously do.

Shari

"Influential" writing and "great" writing aren't the same thing at all. Christie was influential; heck, whatever the name is of the woman is who writes the sparkly vampires thing is influential, but I'm don't think either was "great". Dickens was great.

Yes, we can certainly agree that we all have different definitions. I'm telling you mine; yours may be completely different. Jon thinks Shakespeare is rubbish; I feel otherwise.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Shakespeare and Dickens are certainly not literary writers in the sense that Woolf and Joyce considered themselves to be, absolutely. They were very much writing mass-market entertainment.

As is Pratchett, which brings us back to the start of the thread

Sorry, it's turning into a bash Harry thread isn't it

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

As is Pratchett, which brings us back to the start of the thread

Sorry, it's turning into a bash Harry thread isn't it

Not at all. Bash away . It's a fun discussion. I'm happy to talk about it as long as anyone else is interested. If it exposes some inconsistencies in my own beliefs, it's a valuable exercise.

[dickloraine]

The "not for money" aspect is important in the discurse that leads to being recognized as an artist. We actually talk on two different layers here. Do we want to talk about aesthetics, what makes something a piece of art, or about how an author get recognized as literary? Of course one influences the other, but the latter is a social process.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

The "not for money" aspect is important in the discurse that leads to being recognized as an artist. We actually talk on two different layers here. Do we want to talk about aesthetics, what makes something a piece of art, or about how an author get recognized as literary? Of course one influences the other, but the latter is a social process.

Do you think there's a difference between money-grubbing hacks who are later recognised as great artists (eg Shakespeare and Dickens) and authors who self-identify as "artists" rather than crass commercial hacks?