[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 280 KB, 400x300, index.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1962751 No.1962751 [Reply] [Original]

There seems to be a lack of real discussion threads here so I'm just gonna throw this one out there.

What do you guys think of formalistic literature as opposed to literature with moral, social implications?

For those who don't understand what I mean (without being patronising), do you prefer literature where the main focus is form and structure e.g. Nabokov, Joyce (self contained, art for arts sake), or novels that relate more to things exterior to the novel itself e.g. too many to mention.

>> No.1962753

i like both but i think the first one makes for better literature, in the sense of it being an art form.

>> No.1962755

I think it's impossible to create art that doesn't speak to the social situations of the creator, whether they want it to or not.

>> No.1962758

Right now I prefer things playful with form and style.

>> No.1962759
File: 12 KB, 200x300, 1307317203082.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1962759

Oh I'm definitely more for books with a social implication.

I always leave myself a good amount of time to consider what the book was trying to comment on/tell me as the reader. It sort of gives the read purpose.

>> No.1962763

OP here. I have another question. Do you think that a purely formalistic piece of literature (let's just assume it is possible to produce said literature) could impose any themes without falling into the first category. Say for example if the themes were general and universal, or if they were about the act of creating art itself, take John Keats for example. Would this type of implication be possible without straying from the whole point of art for art's sake?

>> No.1962766

trick question because all genuinely worthwhile moral, social, philosophical, or existential implications made by fiction always have to be executed through a self-contained emphasis on form and style exclusively. Everything else is bullshit.

Pic related.

>> No.1962767

>>1962763
>>1962763

I would consider Finnegan's Wake the perfect example of something like this.

You could argue many things regarding it - be it you feel that it was written masterfully in it's prose or was just rambling, or maybe you feel that there is no meaning in any of it or there is.

It could even be argued, regarding theme, that the theme of the novel itself could revolve around it's existence alone.

>> No.1962768
File: 312 KB, 711x948, Kafka_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1962768

>>1962766

well whoops

>> No.1962770

>>1962766
>>1962766
>>1962766

Explain a bit more please.

>> No.1962771

Joyce wasn't self-contained, he tried to encompass the world in his books.

I think there's a false dichotomy that's been set up between moral work and formalist work. The architects of this divide are 'realist' critics. The most profound formalist work is also moral. The most morally bankrupt 'social' writing is the stuff that makes everything subservient to a 'message' apparently too important to be incorporated into real art. Writing is making meaning out of form. To short-change form with the ostensible intention of being 'truer' to the meaning that can only ever be a referent in your work is to be an immoral writer. There's no melodramatic hoke a 'realist' won't stoop to, if he thinks he's convinced you with surface detritus.

>> No.1962772

>>1962751
I think formalistic literature is the best sort of literature. When I read a book for pleasure, I want it to be for pleasure. I'd rather not have an author trying to tell me about the completely subjective concept of morality, and focus more on entertaining me. IMO, if I'm not enjoying the book, it's a bad book.

>> No.1962773

>>1962766

This is basically what I was trying to say in >>1962771 - thanks Anon!

>> No.1962787

>>1962767

*its

And yeah I mean the whole fucking point of the book is to divulge the sacredness of the creative action and the riddle of existence itself, or some shit. Of course you could also say that about Dubliners or Harry Potter so meh. Finnigan's Wake I personally would classify as an artistic failure, because whatever its accomplishments which Joyce's prior works lack, it's overall very vain book. It grew from Joyce's vanity over the public response to his own increasingly experimental style, because Joyce was so egotistical and was always thinking about what he was aesthetically creating in a historical context. It's like he's trying to make the point in his writing that you can't actually write without a narrative voice or, in other words, a style, and he wasn't willing to pretend otherwise. But I mean, in Portrait at least he doesn't go to such lengths to conceal the self-involved bitchiness of it.

>> No.1962793
File: 79 KB, 282x325, reaction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1962793

>>1962787
>>1962787

This is a good point.

Also thanks for the correction, I'm so damn tired.

>> No.1962798

>>1962787

You've ENTIRELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE BOOK. Have you even read it? It's the most feel-good, warm-hearted book imaginable.

>> No.1962799

>>1962770

I recommend: >>1962771

Though I would probably say human history, psychology, & fate rather than just 'the world' but it works as well. In a lot of ways Joyce was like the ultimate realist.

And sorry for any vagueness here folks, I'm basically running on empty right now since I haven't slept in about 30 hours.

>> No.1962818

>>1962798

I've read parts, not all, and I don't intend to read it straight through, and I can still tell you it's not. A lot of it's unspeakably horrible thematically (or at least it tries to be) and even besides, it's ridiculous to label a book like that with a specific tone at all, because it shifts emphasis from beauty to ugliness/serenity to damnation continually in an attempt to unveil, in Joyce's terms, 'the infinite in the particular'. If there's a point, it's that mechanism, which he's self-consciously trying to convey, in itself. I mean christ, the book doesn't even actually have an ending and beginning, just a single sentence linking the first and last ordered page.

Tldr: I've never read the book? Clearly you've never slept for twelve hours after smoking kush, son.

>>1962793

Oh do I know that feel bro.

>> No.1962822

I don't believe in formalism.

It's the same as saying:

"There is no such thing as a truth statement"

Aesthetic morality is a more interesting concept.

>> No.1962828

good literature is formalist, great literature is aesthetic and societal referential, but a purely societal referential novel is never good.

>> No.1962836
File: 17 KB, 336x372, 721-pipe-smarmy-grin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1962836

>>1962822

>>"aesthetic morality"

'Hey, should I dedicate my genius to advocating national empowerment, or to writing a book that begins and ends with the same sentence?'

>> No.1963295

I believe it's: in the same sentence. Was it two sentences? I'm sure the book ended with the last sentence then began again on page 1.