The problem with America today is that in trying to be productive, we have become absolutely useless. I say "absolutely" because in an immediate sense we are not useless; but ultimately, we are. We will not outlive our rate of production; once we stop delivering the goods, we become a liability on the world's radar. Poetry, literature, wrestlings with the infinite, things that can perpetuate a nation, people, and civilization beyond its own finite existence are generally wasted in America. We have no time for them, as they are not immediately useful. Perhaps America will fulfill T.S. Elliot's prophecy of the "Hollow Men": we end, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
April 28, 2008
April 10, 2008
On Good and Bad Literature: An Introduction
It should be the goal of every writer (especially a Christian writer) to be able to distinguish good literature from bad literature; it can help tremendously in your quest to become a good writer. Of course, exactly what constitutes good literature and how its constitution contrasts with bad literature often requires much studies; it has taken me four years of undergrad literature work just to scratch the surface of the issue, and I'm sure my graduate work will take me deeper still. Therefore, any findings I have are, at best, ultimately lacking in the end. However, regardless of how little I know, I think it still beneficial (for me as well as you) to write them down and give some concretion to my thoughts. I hereby propose to argue for at least one finding of mine: bad literature is more often than not an imitation of good literature. For this argument, I offer four proofs (a nowhere near exhaustive list, I assure you).
First of all, good literature is tradition bound, while bad literature is merely genre bound. By "tradition bound," I mean literature that has its roots firmly entrenched in a tradition of writing that gives it focus and structure beyond mere formality. By "genre bound," I mean literature that has the form of a tradition, and no more. For example: in a book bound to the tradition of science fiction and a book bound to the genre of science fiction, your will find them both utilizing similar forms: future settings (post-apocalyptic, alien, utopic, dystopic, etc.) and future elements (robots, spaceships, lasers, aliens, etc.). The similarities, however, end there; for you see, in the genre bound book, these elements are mere plot devices, i.e., things that move along the succession of events. To the tradition bound book, however, these elements are more than plot devices; they are carriers of the theme(s) of that tradition.
An example is needed: in the tradition of science fiction, the questions have often been asked and explored of whether or not man has the means to save himself and what are those means; to the genre of science fiction, however, such questions are irrelevant. Therefore, a genre bound science fiction book will have a war between humans and a race of aliens that use robots as weapons, and no more; but a tradition bound book will go further. For example, it may have the aliens telling humanity that its robot army was invented to destroy all weaponry, and thus the aliens found peace; they now demand that we surrender ourselves to this same peace. Now we are stuck with larger issues than merely winning a war: what is peace? is it the absence of conflict? the absence of weapons? is the absence of anything? have the aliens really done away with weaponry (for are not the robots their weapons now)? which aliens control the robots? do not they have the power now? have the aliens created universal peace or a new form of tyranny? To the tradition bound science fiction book, these questions are paramount; to the genre bound book, however, they are superfluous, and merely distract from the plot. Thus is the case with all traditions and genres; the former treats its tradition as fundamental, and the latter as superficial, which leads me to my second proof.
Good literature is thematic, while bad literature is merely formal. By "thematic," I mean driven by a theme; by "formal," I mean driven by the plot. As stated above, good literature typically concerns itself with deeper issues and ideas that permeate its entire composition, while bad literature deems such issues and ideas as irrelevant. To bad literature, only the plot is supreme (what is happening); to good literature, only the underlying ideal is supreme (why is this all happening). When a book is thematic, all the elements of that book serve to stress the theme; when it is merely formal, all the elements only serve to form and advance the plot, which leads me to my third proof.
Good literature has unified elements, while bad literature has wasted elements. By "unified elements," I mean all the elements of a book are bound up in the theme and are therefore necessary. By "wasted elements," I mean all the elements of a book are bound up in the plot and may as well have not been there as been there. For example: to the good science fiction book, all the elements are crucial; even the very color, shape, and movement of the alien robot army says something to the theme of the book. To the bad science fiction book, however, all the elements are expendable; the robots may as well have one color, shape, and movement as well as another. The elements in a good book are not there just to be there, for they serve a higher purpose (i.e., reflect the theme); the elements of a bad book, however, are just there, for they merely serve a mechanical purpose (i.e., advance the plot). That, at last, leads me to my fourth and final proof.
Good literature is presenced, while bad literature is hollow. By "presenced," I mean possessed by the theme. By "hollow," I mean empty of a theme. When the elements of a book are bound up in a theme, there is a certain life to them all; they are not mere cardboard cutouts dancing on an imagined stage. They become real people, with real issues, facing real evil, and real monsters. When the elements are bound to a plot, however, there is deadness; they are merely cardboard cutouts dancing on an imagined stage. They are no more real to you than before you even read about them. Good literature, because it is presenced, cannot leave you untouched in some way (even if you can't quite describe how); bad literature, however, can.
I conclude that bad literature is constituted as that which imitates good literature because it has merely the form of a tradition without the tradition, which results in hollow formalism with wasted elements. Thus concludes my argument (so far).
An addendum is necessary: these proofs, though I believe true, are nevertheless blanket statements that must be taken with a slight grain of salt. It is possible for a book that fits my scheme for "bad" to momentarily touches upon a theme of its tradition that moves you slightly in mysterious ways; it is possible for a book that fits my scheme for "good" to momentarily be hollow and plot driven. Not every book perfectly fits the "bad" scheme; no book (though arguments could be made) perfectly fits the "good"scheme (except for the Bible). Regardless, I still offer my argument and its proofs as at least guidelines, if not actually rules.
First of all, good literature is tradition bound, while bad literature is merely genre bound. By "tradition bound," I mean literature that has its roots firmly entrenched in a tradition of writing that gives it focus and structure beyond mere formality. By "genre bound," I mean literature that has the form of a tradition, and no more. For example: in a book bound to the tradition of science fiction and a book bound to the genre of science fiction, your will find them both utilizing similar forms: future settings (post-apocalyptic, alien, utopic, dystopic, etc.) and future elements (robots, spaceships, lasers, aliens, etc.). The similarities, however, end there; for you see, in the genre bound book, these elements are mere plot devices, i.e., things that move along the succession of events. To the tradition bound book, however, these elements are more than plot devices; they are carriers of the theme(s) of that tradition.
An example is needed: in the tradition of science fiction, the questions have often been asked and explored of whether or not man has the means to save himself and what are those means; to the genre of science fiction, however, such questions are irrelevant. Therefore, a genre bound science fiction book will have a war between humans and a race of aliens that use robots as weapons, and no more; but a tradition bound book will go further. For example, it may have the aliens telling humanity that its robot army was invented to destroy all weaponry, and thus the aliens found peace; they now demand that we surrender ourselves to this same peace. Now we are stuck with larger issues than merely winning a war: what is peace? is it the absence of conflict? the absence of weapons? is the absence of anything? have the aliens really done away with weaponry (for are not the robots their weapons now)? which aliens control the robots? do not they have the power now? have the aliens created universal peace or a new form of tyranny? To the tradition bound science fiction book, these questions are paramount; to the genre bound book, however, they are superfluous, and merely distract from the plot. Thus is the case with all traditions and genres; the former treats its tradition as fundamental, and the latter as superficial, which leads me to my second proof.
Good literature is thematic, while bad literature is merely formal. By "thematic," I mean driven by a theme; by "formal," I mean driven by the plot. As stated above, good literature typically concerns itself with deeper issues and ideas that permeate its entire composition, while bad literature deems such issues and ideas as irrelevant. To bad literature, only the plot is supreme (what is happening); to good literature, only the underlying ideal is supreme (why is this all happening). When a book is thematic, all the elements of that book serve to stress the theme; when it is merely formal, all the elements only serve to form and advance the plot, which leads me to my third proof.
Good literature has unified elements, while bad literature has wasted elements. By "unified elements," I mean all the elements of a book are bound up in the theme and are therefore necessary. By "wasted elements," I mean all the elements of a book are bound up in the plot and may as well have not been there as been there. For example: to the good science fiction book, all the elements are crucial; even the very color, shape, and movement of the alien robot army says something to the theme of the book. To the bad science fiction book, however, all the elements are expendable; the robots may as well have one color, shape, and movement as well as another. The elements in a good book are not there just to be there, for they serve a higher purpose (i.e., reflect the theme); the elements of a bad book, however, are just there, for they merely serve a mechanical purpose (i.e., advance the plot). That, at last, leads me to my fourth and final proof.
Good literature is presenced, while bad literature is hollow. By "presenced," I mean possessed by the theme. By "hollow," I mean empty of a theme. When the elements of a book are bound up in a theme, there is a certain life to them all; they are not mere cardboard cutouts dancing on an imagined stage. They become real people, with real issues, facing real evil, and real monsters. When the elements are bound to a plot, however, there is deadness; they are merely cardboard cutouts dancing on an imagined stage. They are no more real to you than before you even read about them. Good literature, because it is presenced, cannot leave you untouched in some way (even if you can't quite describe how); bad literature, however, can.
I conclude that bad literature is constituted as that which imitates good literature because it has merely the form of a tradition without the tradition, which results in hollow formalism with wasted elements. Thus concludes my argument (so far).
An addendum is necessary: these proofs, though I believe true, are nevertheless blanket statements that must be taken with a slight grain of salt. It is possible for a book that fits my scheme for "bad" to momentarily touches upon a theme of its tradition that moves you slightly in mysterious ways; it is possible for a book that fits my scheme for "good" to momentarily be hollow and plot driven. Not every book perfectly fits the "bad" scheme; no book (though arguments could be made) perfectly fits the "good"scheme (except for the Bible). Regardless, I still offer my argument and its proofs as at least guidelines, if not actually rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
