Does litterature still evolve?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Blossom

No but I think changing how you write to make more money is they are just depriving the world of their true writing talent and I find that sad especially when it's a favorite author and you know they can write better than what their latest book shows. It's like they are no longer even trying anymore.

I understand what you're saying, Blossom, but it seems to me that if by changing her writing style an author is making more money, then she's being a successful businesswoman. Adapting your product to fit the needs of the market is what success in business is all about, and can't writing be popular entertainment rather than great art? There's room for both in the marketplace, but the popular entertainment end of the market is always going to make more money than the "literary" end.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

My feeling is that the evolutionary model doesn't really work for the arts. In terms of levels or permanent traits, literary excellence isn't linked to any particular time period. In that sense, the plays of Aeschylus are more "evolved" than, say, the Twilight series.
.....

Nor does evolution.

There is no such thing as 'more' evolved, only 'better' suited to the environment.

In other words I'm disagreeing with you and your understanding of what evolution is. Literature certainly evolves as does anything that has the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I understand what you're saying, Blossom, but it seems to me that if by changing her writing style an author is making more money, then she's being a successful businesswoman. Adapting your product to fit the needs of the market is what success in business is all about, and can't writing be popular entertainment rather than great art? There's room for both in the marketplace, but the popular entertainment end of the market is always going to make more money than the "literary" end.

"Popular" means more pocketbooks and wallets. Ergo, more money!

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Blossom

No but I think changing how you write to make more money is they are just depriving the world of their true writing talent and I find that sad especially when it's a favorite author and you know they can write better than what their latest book shows. It's like they are no longer even trying anymore.

But this would appear to presume that Harry's examples of Dickens and Shakespeare didn't do exactly that - change how they wrote to make more money.

There are pressures on what professional writers produce. There used to be a book-a-year thing, now the expectation can be even higher. And there are many examples of authors writing under a pseudonym so they could publish in a different genre because of the pressure to always publish something like what they've written before. I imagine that some pressures have changed as society has changed, but those two (produce to a deadline, and produce what the paying audience wants) have probably been around forever.

[kennyc]

Sure wish some moderator would 'evolve' that title of this thread......

[murg]

I think that 'Fifty Shades of Gray' is proof that 'litterature' is still evolving...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

But this would appear to presume that Harry's examples of Dickens and Shakespeare didn't do exactly that - change how they wrote to make more money.

Which is exactly what Dickens did do. He found, for example, that sugar-coated sentimental scenes of dying children sold like the proverbial hot cakes, and put them in several of his books precisely because of that.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nor does evolution.

There is no such thing as 'more' evolved, only 'better' suited to the environment.

In other words I'm disagreeing with you and your understanding of what evolution is. Literature certainly evolves as does anything that has the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Indeed - there are fish that live in dark caves that don't have eyes. These eyeless mutants wouldn't survive outside of the caves, but inside, they have an advantage because they don't have to spend the energy to grow and maintain eyes. Neither the eyeless fish nor their sighted cousins are 'more' evolved, they are just adapted to their environment.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Indeed - there are fish that live in dark caves that don't have eyes. These eyeless mutants wouldn't survive outside of the caves, but inside, they have an advantage because they don't have to spend the energy to grow and maintain eyes. Neither the eyeless fish nor their sighted cousins are 'more' evolved, they are just adapted to their environment.

I don't think it's wrong to attribute degrees of success to evolution, because we are judging here in Darwinian terms. Like, bacteria are not lifeforms we aspire to or discuss in pubs but in Darwinian terms they are the most successful lifeforms.

If one remembers some of the Science Fiction of previous decades, like 2001 A Space Odyssey, there are better evolved lifeforms. These are species that only exist in fiction but it's worth taking them into account. Like if there are aliens whose technology is like magic, or whose bodies allow them to survive in space, I'd argue these are better organisms because they transcend their mother planet and are free from their environments.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Luffy

If one remembers some of the Science Fiction of previous decades, like 2001 A Space Odyssey, there are better evolved lifeforms. These are species that only exist in fiction but it's worth taking them into account. Like if there are aliens whose technology is like magic, or whose bodies allow them to survive in space, I'd argue these are better organisms because they transcend their mother planet and are free from their environments.

More versatile, perhaps. The result of more/longer evolution, maybe. "Better evolved," not so much.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Exception taken to the phrase "more evolved" disregards:

(a) The nuances of meaning and history of usage of the word evolve; cf., to develop and work out, which has correlations in the idea of Darwinian evolution but also precedes it and suggests less specialized and literal applications.

A typical example:

"Toward a Visual Discourse" (from In the Mind's Eye: The Visual Impulse in Diderot, Baudelaire and Ruskin)

(b) The context of scientific usage, which routinely employs the phrase "more evolved." The phrase can mean better adapted, but it can also mean greater complexity, sophistication, etc. That's one reason why scientists (and social critics) talk about life forms that are "more evolved" than the amoeba.

A few examples:

"It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success - chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research."

"Effect of Humic Fractions from Urban Wastes and Other More Evolved Organic Materials on Seed Germination"

All of which is splendidly irrelevant to my original point, which was this:

I don't believe literature to be subject to evolution in the Darwinian, populist or fashion-centric sense. If there is such a thing as "evolved" literature, then I believe it is of a kind that incorporates pre-Darwinian meanings of the term. When we talk about "evolving theories," we don't mean theories that are adapting to survive the ice age of the lit crit section of your local self-dismantling library. We mean that such theories are undergoing changes that bring them to states of greater applicability, clarity, fecundity, etc.

* * * * *

As for those who feel that disagreeing with someone else's ideas = laying down the gauntlet, what sort of a forum would this be if we were all expected to adhere to the same point of view? Sometimes the friction of disagreement can create energy that leads to new ideas.

I often find discussions most comfortable when there's a balance of agreement and disagreement, but sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes we have to pry our asses from our comfy chairs to glimpse unfamiliar truths.

[Kasper Hviid]

Browsing around, I have noticed that a lot of novels today draws inspiration from the movies. Everybody watches movies, so there is a lot of established genre tropes for the author to borrow, especially since litterature hasn't invented any new genres itself lately. Movies are a bigger medium than the humble novel, and so the author is able to connect with a "greater" medium by making his novel a sort of fan art of a belowed movie genre.

SHUT THE **** UP AND DIE is inspired by the torture porn genre.
THE GIRL FROM THE WELL is J-horror.
HELL TRAIN is about a fictional Hammer movie (the book has a cover by fameous poster artist Graham Humphreys!)
THE CUTTING ROOM is a horror anthology on the theme of movies.
And don't forget: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S STAR WARS

Movies of the campy varity have traditionally used over-the-top titles to sell themselves. Titles such as 'I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE' or 'MY WIFE IS A GANGSTER'. Some books tries that too:
HOW TO DATE A WEREWOLF
HOW TO DATE A VAMPIRE
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES

ON WRITING WELL - 50 ESSENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR EVERY WRITER has a chapter called "Writing Tool #28: Writing Cinematically". Here, the author tells us that 'Many authors now writes books with movies in mind' and goes on explaining how to replicate close-ups and arial shots in your writing. (This is silly - litterature shouldn't limmit itself to just trying to immitate another medium.)

[mandy314]

Don't know about literature in general.
But at least The European Novel is dead since 1939 - so no evolving, only decomposing.

[DDHarriman]

Does literature still evolve?

Yes. Just like imagination...

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which is exactly what Dickens did do. He found, for example, that sugar-coated sentimental scenes of dying children sold like the proverbial hot cakes, and put them in several of his books precisely because of that.

Another thing he did (100+ years ahead of the soap operas doing the same thing) was to try out a character in one monthly instalment, then bring him/her back 3 or 4 instalments later if the public liked him/her.