/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3500740]

What is it with people today and their fascination with art and literature in particular that is or is about things "fucked up"? I find works whose sole purpose is to shock or disturb the reader tend to wear out their welcome; are often very shallow.

I think of Pahlahniuk's work, for example. He tries to outdo himself in each work, but only manages to succeed his one-note style until the strawberry milk spurts out. Even Kafka strikes me as being one-dimensional; unworthy of the fame and reputation he has since accrued. (Writers such Abe, Walser, Borowski, Karnithy, and Gogol are far better at "Kafkaesque" than Kafka was himself.)

This isn't to say that elements of the grotesque and debased have no place in art. Yukio Mishima is a superb example of a writer who not only used these situations with great power and artfulness, but understood that they were a means of conveying a greater message. But when I feel that the writer is only focused on "grossing out" his readers, the results tend to be shite.

What do you gentlemen think?

[Anonymous No.3500750]

>>3500740
>Even Kafka strikes me as being one-dimensional; unworthy of the fame and reputation
He wanted most of his work destroyed, he probably doesn't think he deserves his fame either.

[Anonymouse No.3500764]

>>3500740
Can you give an example of an author who writes solely for shock value other than Pahlahnyuck?
Are you implying that Kafka writes solely to give people the heebie-jeebies?

[Anonymous No.3500791]

>>3500764
>Can you give an example of an author who writes solely for shock value other than Pahlahnyuck?
Bret Easton Ellis.

>Are you implying that Kafka writes solely to give people the heebie-jeebies?
No. I just think he's a weak writer. His ideas were interesting, but the skin he encases these brittle bones seems jaundiced and scaly to me.

[Anonymouse No.3500839]

>>3500791
>>3500791
>but the skin he encases these brittle bones seems jaundiced and scaly to me
That could have been a nifty sentence, illuminating your critique of Kafka with flair and poise. But, the grammatical choppiness made me 'Whut.'

Ellis is a valid author to accuse of capitalizing on cheap thrills, but he does put in the effort to make his gore worthwhile. I'd say most writers attempt to utilize 'gross' scenes and situations to shed light on the actualities of certain lives. James Purdy, who I recommend in the "I want to read about rape halp /lit/" thread, is an excellent example.
Ellis, by contrast, heightens and overuses it for a different purpose. Sometimes, admittedly, it's senseless thriller, but at his best he's doing something with it.

I think on the whole you're right, the bizarro genre is a joke. That said, finding a well-respected author -- Brett only barely counts and Pallyknuckles doesn't -- who incorporates "fucked up" elements just for shits and giggles is tough.

[Anonymous No.3500891]

>>3500839
There are some that, again, do it well because bizarro shock isn't an end in itself. Jim Thompson comes to mind.

I should note that my critique isn't aimed at well-respected authors since many of them steer away from this trap. My main gripe is with people who crave this genre and seem to judge a book's quality by how "fucked up" it is.

[Anonymous No.3500898]

When you hide violence from kids in all their childhood books/movies, etc, its only natural that they become curious about that which was hidden from them.

[Anonymouse No.3500903]

>>3500891
Legit.

>>3500898
Welp, that's what goddamned cinema is for.

[Anonymous No.3500911]

>>3500898
You must not be from Amurrica, sir. Unless you keep your child sequestered from TV, Internet, and pop culture in general, there is no way you could "hide violence" from them.

[Anonymous No.3500930]

>>3500903
It's the same for literature too. I don't know what you're talking about. Only a teenager/adult who hasn't seen much violence in their life would be genuinely fascinated by violence in books/art.

>>3500911
Yeah, I'm from America and this is my point exactly. I was looking at gore and writing short stories about microwaving then fucking kittens when I was 14 years old. I see violent art and I don't get the fascination. A bunch of sheltered, white, upper class people who weren't beaten by their parents think that violence is "art" because it is something they haven't personally experienced.

[Anonymous No.3500934]

>>3500930
>Only a teenager/adult who hasn't seen much violence in their life would be genuinely fascinated by violence in books/art.
>A bunch of sheltered, white, upper class people who weren't beaten by their parents think that violence is "art" because it is something they haven't personally experienced.
I like you, man. I really do.

[Anonymous No.3500935]

>>3500930
> I was looking at gore and writing short stories about microwaving then fucking kittens when I was 14 years old. I see violent art and I don't get the fascination

probably because you were busy looking at core and microwaving kittens

[Anonymouse No.3500978]

>>3500903
>>3500930
My point was that people who are "fascinated" by it can go to the movies for a more visceral experience instead of skewering publishers priorities and fucking my preferred medium. Pure selfishness.

> I see violent art and I don't get the fascination
>bunch of sheltered, white, upper class people who... think that violence is "art"
I'm detecting some straw dogs here, mayng. Give me some examples of "violent art," or some violence that white people think is art, or whatever it is you're lashing out against.
is it football?

[Anonymous No.3500982]

>>3500978
Any time death or blood is shown in a book, film, or piece of art.

[Anonymouse No.3500998]

>>3500978
So an otherwise innocuous YA novel would be considered "violent art" because it has a scene where menstruation is briefly mentioned?
Not trying to nitpick, but that definition really needs to be cleared up a little bit.

[Anonymous No.3501001]

>>3500998
You think too much in black & white terms. You need a good beating to fix that, so I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.3501011]

>>3500935
>He has seen the core of things, to which nothing else can compare!

[Anonymouse No.3501032]

>>3500982
>>3501001
> cannot voice the object of his frustrations beyond a definition that includes a vast swath of artistic production
> accuses others of black and white vision

Aww, mayng. You make a good point and I partially agree, but it's certainly one that's gonna incite debate. Pony up and express your opinions.
Or is the chip on the shoulder too big?

[Anonymous No.3501041]

I'm seeing this trend more and more in art these days. Art has become more about forcing the viewer to feel uncomfortable than accurately portraying an emotion.

[Anonymous No.3501044]

>>3501032
Words are like fine suits, in that they make men feel larger than they actually are. A creation, a construct. People get lost in words. But blood and violence is real, and when such things appear and interrupt a fine person's "unviolent day" they get to experience a feeling that they infrequent experience, and it is nothing deep.

[Anonymous No.3501051]

>>3501044
>coming up with this weird violence/language dichotomy

[Anonymouse No.3501084]

>>3501044
Your critique is a little too general. American society is obviously going to be shocked and fascinated by material designed specifically for that purpose -- Hostel, for example. I can see someone getting frustrated by the extreme reaction to a shallow piece of work.
That said, violence and death are intimate parts of human life, and can bring about deep and lasting impact other than raw shock. The tragedy Antigone and pictures of the Emmit Till beating come immediately to mind. One is an enduring work of human brilliance, the other will be remembered as a dark proof.
Being interested in these subjects isn't inherently shallow, and pretending that they aren't critical components of life and narrative is silly.

[Anonymous No.3501094]

>>3500740
>What is it with people today and their fascination with art and literature in particular that is or is about things "fucked up"?

People are shocked when they find out the world doesn't fit the idealistic notions they developed during adolescence.

Instead of taking the world as is, they become fascinated with the grotesque as a means of escapism from the realities of every-day life.

[Anonymous No.3501160]

>>3501041
Discomfort is an emotion

[Anonymous No.3501218]

This is discouraging. I tend to find the value in "violent art' and am interested in its aesthetics, the same way Edgar Allan Poe was fascinated in, to put in broad terms, dark and brooding atmospheres contained in his stories. I would like to write and encapsulate the "beauty" of violence and the grotesque, but yes, I agree that it is something very difficult to accomplish without seeming very shallow.

[Anonymous No.3501278]

>>3500740
I think shock value is a form of making people react to something in our indifferent times.

[briteremo No.3501332]

In many ways violence can be art. In many ways violence can be just a tool used to get eyeballs looking and tongues wagging. A lot of art schools and artists say that art must evoke emotion and create a feeling and convey something the artist wants to express. A violent expression can be the artists/writers frustration. But I get your point, there is an overload. Consider it an aftermath of the prevailing fad. Great artists/writers excel in a particular field using a particular manner/medium of expression. Stephen king uses his horror bordering on gross style to achieve his form of expression. When mediocre peers in the field see this particular medium doing well, they attempt to create their own version. The pioneers are always appreciated but the 'others' get covered in crap that everybody else is churning out. Like the Android mobile phone overload. During the noir film era, some directors were appreciated for their movies as pioneers of the style, but the artistic height of noir was IMO "Dead on Arrival" released 1950. Back then it was reviewed as "fairly obvious and plodding recital, involving crime, passion, stolen iridium etc." but in 2004 it was chosen as a significant addition to the US National Film Registry. Sometimes the beauty and creativity that goes in to the making of the genre is lost under a torrential downpour of what attempts to be great. It is an issue of separating the grain from the chaff. You need to know what you are looking for and choose what you read.

[Anonymous No.3501435]

Inb4 Harlan Ellison = Genius

[Anonymous No.3501456]

We live in an age when we see drastic, violent things all the time. On the news, in our movies and shows and games, even, depending on where you live, in real life. We've become desensitized to things that would've been extremely shocking to people even 30 years ago.

Not only that but a growing epidemic of indifference and apathy syndrome lead us search for art and literature that's even more fucked up and deprived and disgusting than we are used to. Something different and exciting and out of the ordinary in the already fucked up and disturbing world we live in now.

[Anonymous No.3501470]

I'd rather read about flowers and trees and shit than some edgycore violence


Just saying

[Anonymous No.3501483]

>better at "Kafkaesque" than Kafka was himself

I saw this and did not let anything stop me from immediately making this post and hiding this thread without reading anything else

[Anonymous No.3501498]

Harlan Ellison = Genius

[Anonymous No.3502549]

>>3500791
Ellis only really goes for shock in American Psycho. Less Than Zero has a bit of at the very end, but The Rules of Attraction (his most solid novel imo) is mostly devoid of any spectacle, as it's mostly a campus love affair novel.

[Anonymous No.3502605]

>>3501084
>That said, violence and death are intimate parts of human life, and can bring about deep and lasting impact other than raw shock. The tragedy Antigone and pictures of the Emmit Till beating come immediately to mind.
Antigone is about a conflict between personal allegiance versus national allegiance in which everyone involved is in the right. It could only end with either violence or sin. You could say it's about resolute heroism in face of a world of conflicting interests. I don't know how you can compare it to a picture of a corpse that makes you feel wistful and morally right, or a film that makes you feel squeamish.

[Anonymous No.3502623]

>>3500791
So you shoehorned Kafla in this shit because you couldn't think of a better writer to prove your point?
Your criticism is general and has nothing to do with the point of your thread.

[Anonymous No.3504164]

>>3502627
>Oh, he transformed into a bug. So edgy.
That there are people who do think this is sad.

[Anonymous No.3504573]

here is an honest question

what do you guys think of James M. Cain

I like him

[Anonymous No.3504620]

>>3504573
does he have substance, in the opinions of you all

[Anonymous No.3504636]

I don't know why I'm here, because this is true for all literature pieces; and fuck, all art pieces in general. And if you think this, it makes discussion on whether or not a piece is "good or bad" not worth your time.

The problem is OP, what if the point of the piece IS to be one-dimensional and only there for shock value? If art can exist for art's sake (which I'm pretty sure it can; because if it can't then why write stories with "deeper meanings" and not just opinionated essays?), then why can't these exist for their own sake? It falls under the same category.

Anything that contains an expression is an art form; and there can even be an art to being philosophically meaningless and low-brow. If you can't enjoy the piece; that's not the fault of the piece, that's on you.

It's not capable of understanding itself, YOU are what interprets it. Not liking something does not make you more keen (though that is not what you are implying, I'm guessing).

That's why the best literature discussion is when both parties are already interested in the piece and have read it.

[Anonymous No.3505373]

>>3500740
>What is it with people today
>today
>he thinks sensationalism is new
>he didn't know people cheered at executions and torturing with their little children on a fun day out yesteryear
>he doesn't know that civilisation is a theater of cruelty