/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3117460]

“And literature is written to be entertaining?” Wooley suggests again, “Absolutely. My God, to read without joy is stupid.” - John Williams

Why do certain e/lit/es still deny this truth?

[Anonymous No.3117514]

>>3117460
Because it's false.
Literature can be entertaining, but is not done to be entertaining.

Literature is not entertainment, it's art. The aesthetic experience differs from being entertained

[Anonymous No.3117518]

They have fun by denying themselves fun.

[Anonymous No.3117523]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/reading-and-guilty-pleasure/

[Anonymous No.3117549]

>>3117523
I do agree with the article.
But denying that literature should be entertaining, is not claiming that literature should be boring or deny us fun.

It means that it should not be it's primary concern.

[Anonymous No.3117557]

'entertainment' is a loose term.

Sometimes things that aren't exactly 'enjoyable' can be enormously rewarding in a more complex fashion than that which is easy to digest. This is still 'entertainment', it just requires work. There's an important line there

[Anonymous No.3117567]

>>3117557
Pleasure is not entertainment.
Pleasure is entertaining, but is not entertainment.

[Anonymous No.3117582]

>>3117567

Certainly it is. Pleasure is entertaining. Pleasure is entertainment.

[Anonymous No.3117575]

Art is for the experience, if a piece bores you then leave. Sometimes art does cause displeasure though that isn't a bad thing if you are having a reaction towards it. John Williams is awesome btw

[Anonymous No.3117601]

>>3117582
1) If you are bored you are not entertained.
2) A massage is pleasurable.
3) You can receive a pleasurable massage and still be bored.

C1) Pleasure is not always entertaining.
C2) Pleasure is not entertainment.

[Anonymous No.3117603]

>>3117601

"boring" isn't the same thing as "challenging"

But I see your point, and am willing to concede it.

[Anonymous No.3117620]

>>3117603
No I agree.

They can go together, but they don't always go together.

My fear is that by saying that literature should be fun people are going to obsess over making it fun and realize that it's ok if you don't make everything fun.

[Anonymous No.3117634]

>>3117601
P1: I've done your mother.
P2: She enjoyed it.


C1: Your mother likes hot pork injections.
C2: Your mother is a cheap whore.

[Anonymous No.3117669]

If you're going to write a story, your first priority should be telling the story. Just do poetry if you're writing it to jerk off over your flowery, vivid imagery or to make some sort of allegory steeped in abstract, pretentious imagery. If you're able to add that kind of stuff to your story, great, but the story should come first, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.3117675]

>>3117634
My mom is well known, I agree.

[Anonymous No.3117677]

>>3117669
>abstract, pretentious imagery
symbolism*

[Anonymous No.3117688]

>>3117669
One of the characteristics of the novels is that in the same way it includes a large variety of different forms of literature it is written for very different reasons.

There are exchanges of letters, pages from diaries, poetry, reflections and also a story. None is more important than the other.

So no the story should not be the first priority.

[Anonymous No.3117693]

We all find joy in reading, don't be fucking retarded.

We just enjoy different thinks about reading to the common pleb.

I love knowledge, there is simply nothing I enjoy more than knowing things, and so there is nothing I enjoy more than reading.

[Anonymous No.3117699]

It is also "fun" to challenge your understanding and relationship to new forms of literature, if you are of the mind to learn.

Allowing yourself to try to understand different literary forms and prose you might not have been able to tackle in the past can be viewed as "fun" - if you are of the type who considers learning new things and expanding your knowledge fun.

Light entertainment isn't always the truest of pursuits, both have their merits.

[Anonymous No.3117719]

Morality in the Pejorative Sense.

[Anonymous No.3117764]

First, there is the problem that it says literature is "written to be entertaining" and then it goes on and the other guy says "to read without joy is stupid". There is a huge difference there. As others have said before, what you take from something is not the same as saying that something is made for that.

Literature is written to satisfy the writers heart above all, whether he does it for recognition, or to ease certain aspects of his life, or as an instinct which remains unconscious and difficult for him to understand. Generally, it is a personal necessity that he tries to supply.

Now to read literature also vary in nature. One may read out of an obligation for school or out of a sense of learning and studying, one may also be searching to ease pain or loneliness. But above all, when it comes to enjoying literature, one enjoys it without the need to justify that pleasure with any idea of a "goal". That is, the reading itself satisfies him, it's not something to be done to achieve a second thing.

Is that what entertainment means? But then again, it would be weird to say you read to be entertained, because they emerge mutually, without the need for any self-awareness on that sense. "Entertainment" also holds a strange light-weight sense which excludes that the pleasure that happends throughout the act of reading is much more complex and varied and might even carry certain aspects of suffering in the unexplainable web of emotions that is build underneath our actions.

[Anonymous No.3118996]

bump

[Anonymous No.3119543]

Do you seriously think the "HURRR JOYCE IS A PRETENTIOUS HACK" fantasyfags would find "Stoner" entertaining?

[Anonymous No.3119544]

Marx would posit that we revel in shaping ourselves through the literature we read and, by circumstance, define ourselves in relation to.