the love story
yanik tissera photographs vikram seth
if you are someone that is truly a fan of english literature, if you’ve ever been moved by salman rushdie or set free by george orwell, if you’ve ever been disturbed by anthony burgess or addicted to hunter s. thompson, if you ever laughed with jane austen or loved with william shakespeare, if you ever saw life through the eyes of virginia woolf, then despite all odds, the galle literary festival would have been for you. for all those that didn’t come or came and refused to enjoy it just to make a statement, you either lost a lot, or you aren’t truly a lover of literature. sure, everyone reads; but have you ever really felt? do you remember crying throughout most of ‘the time traveler’s wife’? do you remember losing faith at the end of ‘nineteen eighty four’? do you remember your heart breaking for ‘the hours’? do you remember holding your stomach as you laughed to ‘good omens’?
to smile casually at the writer that once sat down and wrote ‘a suitable boy’, to have heard the man that once found the courage, the audacity to write ‘the city and the pillar’ call george bush ‘dumb-dumb’, to have been told the simplest, greatest secrets of creative writing by the man that made himself a not only a gay icon, but a literary landmark by writing’funny boy’; it was a pleasure that i, for one, would not have missed for the world.
i didn’t get to have lunch with tim severin, nor dinner with william dalrymple, i could not afford this. but it was ok; it would have been ok to have just been there, inside the fort, if just to see them, feel them walk past you, humbly, quietly, shyly.
so, yes, it may have been somewhat exclusive, but anyone that claims that a festival of english literature can be open to everyone is an idealistic, unrealistic fool. english literature is esoteric, it appeals only to a minority rather than the masses. it is for those that can not only read and write english, but for those that can do it well enough to appreciate not just words, but literature written in it. literature isn’t just books, my friend. it isn’t just words. sydney sheldon is not literature. john lennon is. dan brown isn’t, c.s. lewis is. we cannot be so politically correct as to forget that clear distinction.
not to say that the festival itself was perfect. organizationally, it has a long way to go and many lessons to learn. but if i were to downplay the immensity of the experience it offered to me just because of it’s own imperfections, well then i would be silly and ungrateful. i was not there for the fancy jazz shows or the cocktails, the expensive lunches or dinners. no, i was there for them; to see them, to hear them, to get to know them. and i did. and for this, i am elated.
you cannot take that from me. i saw them, spoke to them, learnt from them; and that, for everyone, should have been the most important thing about the galle literary festival 2008.
“english literature is for the elite, for those that can not only read and write english, but for those that can do it well enough to appreciate not just words, but literature written in it. literature isn’t just books, my friend. it isn’t just words.”
I thought long and hard before I decided to say something because the last thing I want is another pointless flame war in the SL blogsphere, but…I had to say it:
I hope you realize how pretentious this bit sounds and it upsets me that someone who seems intelligent has the audacity to think this way… since I don’t know you personally and there’s a [good] chance (hopefully) I’ve misconstrued what you’re trying to say, I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by the1truecoolguy — January 25, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
english literarture for the elite. who is this cunt?
Comment by sanju — January 25, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
And hey! Did any one actually go for Nazreen’s workshop ? C’mon ! Spill da beans.
Comment by sanju — January 25, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
What’s amusing is not just the brattish assertion of a correlation between elitism and a love for literature, the more stupid point is that the elites have the exclusive ability to appreciate the highbrow works of CS Lewis et al(who wrote to help kids understand Christianity btw), while the hoi polloi can only stuff themselves with works of inferior artistic and intellectual merit. It’s not a politically incorrect point, it’s an idiotic one. If the common man could get through a paperback airport novel, why in Lewis’s God’s name could he not appreciate anything from Selvadurai to translations of Tolstoy?
Comment by galleface — January 26, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
ah, the irony of it all!
panel to discuss at next glf - does unconscious parody beat self conscious parody every time? and does that count as literature?
Comment by sittingnut — January 26, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
i used the wrong word. it did not convey my idea properly, so i have edited this post accordingly. its such a pity though (and how predictable) that you all latched on to that one tiny part of this post and looked past everything else i said.
firstly, you cannot honestly believe that english literature is open to the masses, especially in sri lanka where the majority of the population neither speaks nor writes english. it is a nice thought, but its not realistic. literature, or most art for that matter, is and always has been appealing to an esoteric group of people; mostly, but not always, well educated and belonging to the middle-class or upper middle-class.
the other question of course, the one that does infact make me pretentious, is the one of taste. do i believe that everyone can appreciate a well written book? no, i don’t. i do believe that anyone can do it, not depending on degree of education, or upbringing. but, pragmatically, one has to admit that maybe all these factors contribute to creating a mind that can appreciate a well written book. what is a well written book? that’s for later. suffice to say, i do believe that there are good writers and bad writers, not just writers who are loved by some and hated by others. so if this makes me a snob, then so be it.
and if either of you got off your petty barefoot hating asses and looked at what i’m really saying, then maybe you’ll see that i’m neither defending nor questioning the festival’s politics. that’s precisely what i’m saying didn’t matter. and this is precisely what i didn’t want to do.
Comment by electra — January 27, 2008 @ 6:53 am
3,2,1, we have liftoff … and a moving target
but then again, motion, change, relativity, personal perspective, (experience, appreciation and feelings,) individuality, are “good” in a way when it comes to art.. in contrast to absolutes (”good”and “bad”) , conventions, “clear distinctions”, “group” think (with groupies whether adjectived by “exclusive”, “educated”, “esoteric”, “elite” ( even not self styled elite) etc ), awards, brands, “taste” with a capital t, and stagnation.
(all those things of course do have various uses, making money for instance, a very creditable undertaking we should all encourage. really! )
btw “real” snobs too will probably find it inconvenient if there are “clear distinctions”. ( clear distinctions like all clear rules invites rigging by the impudent excluded ).snobs everywhere prefer fuzziness with possibilities that allow discretion. always have, and always will. c.s. lewis can be trash. can. so who preaches absolute clarity? if neither the snobs or the poor uneducated masses, who? hmmmmmmm..
a well written book is not necessarily literature is not necessarily a well written book … one of a kind book may be literature and probably will be “well written “. may, probably.
will one of a kind triumph brand names even exclusive and expensive ones? who will say “yes” who “no”? and who will confuse exclusivity with uniqueness ?
did anyone mention individual appreciation and social acceptance? did someone confuse the two?
Comment by sittingnut — January 27, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
subha,
u live in a bubble. a disappointing bubble might I add, coz i did expect a more mature angle from you.
english literature is for the masses, if the masses can read the language. it is only in countries where english is a language of the minority, such as sri lanka, that u get a smaller proportion of ppl who appreciate literature, and, unfortunately, in sri lanka the english speaking quotient is actually the upper and middle classes. however, this is not true of the world. literature is open to anyone who has an interest in the language that the given piece is set in. it is interest in the language and the piece that sparks a following of literature, and not ones social standing. literature is open to everyone. to prove a point, head out to england where everyone reads.
i think ur biggest issue is that u’ve already decided for ur self that certain pieces are just not literature, when they blatantly are! they may have differences in complexity, language and emotion, but sydney sheldon still is literature. so is dan brown. whether u like it or not. i think what u mean is their works are not literature just coz it doesn’t live up to ur high standard?
open ur eyes machang! literature may not be every person’s cuppa, but it’s open to the masses, not just to those who can read and write english and appreciate it. there are ppl who would sit down with a book and a dictionary and still appreciate the work better than u can, although they might need to translate the work as they go along.
i think what u should comprehend is that literature is much like sexual preferences. u might like it rough, u might like it smooth, u might like many twists and turns. but just coz it doesn’t float ur boat ur not gonna turn around and call it gay are u?
Comment by confab — January 28, 2008 @ 5:34 am
confab:
firstly: language is for the masses, literature is not. like i said, just because one is able to read and write, one is not automatically endowed with the ability and the knowledge to fully understand and appreciate literature. and here i mean literature of any language; whether is it english literature or sinhala literature or tamil literature or literature in any other language, you will find that while some view in its entire artistic context, others do not, regardless of being able to speak or write the language. any literature in any language will inevitably create an esoterism. i can speak and write sinhalese, but i do not profess to be a true follower of sinhalese literature; unfortunately, i’m afraid my command of the language, its subtleties and complexities, isn’t nearly as good enough as appreciating and understanding real literature requires it to be. what i’m trying to establish here is that merely being able to write or read a language does not naturally enable one to understand literature in it.
secondly: ‘it is only in countries where english is a language of the minority, such as sri lanka, that u get a smaller proportion of ppl who appreciate literature,’. this is exactly what i said, refer to ‘you cannot honestly believe that english literature is open to the masses, especially in sri lanka where the majority of the population neither speaks nor writes english’.
thirdly: it is, infact, true of the world. the fact that literatue is esoteric is not actually specific to the third world. your naivete will have you believe that over there in the west, everyone has an incredible command of the english language and that everyone reads shakespeare. this is not true. whether in the united kingdom or in the united states, you will find, through fact and statistics if nothing else, that the english language simply being the national first language does not naturally compell each and every citizen to appreciate and love literature. even in the west, a literary festival (although yes, it would definitely attract a substantially larger amount of people than it will here) would attract a small minority of people in relation to a country’s entire population. in fact figures show that the younger generation’s command of the english language in english speaking countries (england, the united states) is detiriorating rapidly, in terms of grammar, spelling and other such simple fundamentalities. schools have hit the panic button. what i’m trying to say is this; do not assume that this is merely endemic to us developing countries. the esoterism of literature, theatre, art etc can be found everywhere in the world.
fourthly: there is a definition of the word literature. look it up. everything that was ever written and published in the english language does not automatically become literature. there are books, and there is literature. this clear distinction in definition is not something i have decided, but something that people far more educated and experienced than i am have decided over centuries of academic and practical research and study. literature, by its very nature, by definition, is a written creative work that has been widely reconginzed as having high creative and artistic value. sidney sheldon, therefore, as valuable as it may be to thousands of fans around the world, is not literature. i don’t say this to belittle anyone that reads books i perceive as distasteful. i fully respect everyone’s right to an opinion and taste. i can be glad that people read at all. but this does not make it literature. why don’t we study sidney sheldon? what makes james joyce worth studying? if you are a student of literature, even one that does read sidney sheldon in your spare time, you will know why joyce is studied and sheldon isn’t.
Comment by electra — January 28, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
thank u for that. what I don’t think you’d expect is I’d agree with most of what you say. However, here’s a definition of literature that I looked up, upon your instruction of course.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/literature)
lit·er·a·ture (ltr–chr, -chr)
n.
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: “Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity” Rebecca West.
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.
so if i may, here goes.
Literature is for the masses. But literature is also for ppl who have an interest in it and have a taste for it. What you might not understand, and what i’m trying to say is that there is not a big enough audience in Sri Lanka who have an interest in, and a taste for, english literature. However, in other countries, the numbers amount to masses:). Sadly, it’s in narrow minded places like Sri Lanka that ppl think that literature and theatre and music and what not is a very exclusive thing, generally exclusive to what you described as the ‘elite’. It’s more a matter of what floats a persons boat. If for example Utopia has lots of ppl who appreciate English literature, then there’d be a mass following there. The level at which ppl may appreciate certain works might differ depending on their capabilities, but that doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate it at all. It’s very simple really. Literature is for ppl who take a liking to it. It is not exclusive. Rather, it is inclusive. If u like it, join the band wagon. So it’s really got nothing to do with masses and minorities:). If u really think abt it, we’re both saying the same thing, but in different ways. But my naivete, unlike urs, has help me understand that not everyone can appreciate literature for a few reasons: maybe they dont have an interest in lit or maybe they just dont care for lit. that doesn’t make them imbeciles either! Neither does it make u any cooler than them just coz u appreciate literature and they dont. Not that i’m saying ur not cool.
let me try and put this very simply to u. I love music, so i’m gonna use that as an example. I listen to music probably like how you would read a book. My emotions are easily stirred by a quality piece of music. However, pop music is not my thing. It’s still music, but it’s not my thing. It probably has no musical value lyrically, or even structurally but it’s still music, and still, not my thing. Heavy metal is still music. So is an impromptu bajaw session. What i’m trying to say is music is music, regardless of the differences in complexity, style, genre, instruments, structure, lyrics, et al. Similarly, literature is still literature, even if it isn’t shakespeare. Joyce’s work is probably like classical music; rich in value. Sidney Sheldon is to literature what Brittney Spears is to music; She’s made muchas money from what she does, but it may not have much literatic (is that a word?) value. If what she has written is not literature, then what in the world is it? Yes I know it’s a book. But what is important to understand that it is STILL literature! Obviously too naive for ur standards, but i’m sure ur mature enough to call a spade a spade right?
You ask the question ‘why don’t we study sidney sheldon?’. It would worry me if an advanced level music class were to study Brittney Spears. Hope that answers ur question.
Comment by confab — January 29, 2008 @ 10:32 am
excuse me for my mistake, i may not read his work but I do know that Sidney Sheldon is a man:)…apologies for my error, which I only discovered while re-reading the comment!
Comment by confab — January 30, 2008 @ 4:39 am
I thought the festival was open to anyone who could afford an entrance ticket?
Also, pretty much everyone in the UK and the US has had to study Shakespeare at some point. It’s sort of like how we had to study the Nalavenpa (or Sinhalese equivalent) in school. Some literature becomes part of your culture so it’s more than just a play. Maybe in Russia everyone has had to study Tolstoy or Chekhov. So it’s a bit unfair to say that a lot of people in the UK/US haven’t read Shakespeare because they have. Perhaps not willingly, but they have.
Would it be correct to say that you’re glad you went to this festival thingy because you got to see all these cool authors and talk to them about their work and hobnob with them? If so, then yeah, that’s cool.
I think the reason people have latched onto the elitism comment is probably because the sense of the post isn’t coming through too clearly. Are people supposed to read it and think, “yeah, I really liked those authors they’re cool”. Or are they supposed to think “it’s cool that I can be one of the select few who could affore the price of the ticket”, or are they supposed to think “thank the Gods I’m part of a wealthy minority that could afford to educate me in English to a degree that allows me to appreciate the nuances of English Lit”? Perhaps there will be less aggro if you were to clarify this. Or not, if the aggro is what you get off on, because you wouldn’t be the first person who does that
I’m curious as to who the people trying to take away your experiences of these authors are. Why on earth would someone do something so mean? Bastids. Are these the people at whom you are aiming this?
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 2, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Literature like art is subjective and personal. Reading the commentary on this post reminded me of a play I watched on the Westend. The play was titled “Art” and its central theme was whether this white canvas constituted ‘art’- esoteric or aesthetic and whether it really mattered. A book is like a work of art because its the readers opinion that really determines whether or not it is worthy of attention (be it the masses or high-school kids) and the type of pros I deem stimulating and literary may not be your cup of tea. But it may still be literature… and I think the dissention to your comment lies, not in your taste in literature but the certainty in which you dismiss more widely read authorship because of its appeal to the masses. You are right when you say that literature is not merely just words, it is language and composition and structure. But it is also history- the history of the reader, because his/her appreciation of the book is personal and reflects personal experience. I was apethetic to 1984 when I read it when I was 16 but I was enraged when I read it again at 22 and I will probably feel differently about it now. This could be true to any book, be it a Dan Brown bestseller or a Bernard Shaw play.
Also, a number of literary figures are celebrated for the single reason that they broke social norms either by the act of writing or through the content of what they wrote. Shakespeare, Shaw, Austen, Elliot, Joyce, Shyam Selvadurai (a number of which are your examples) are just a couple of names. There is and has throughout, been an openess in the appreciation of literature- an openess that has transcended space and time and has also altered with time.
Comment by sniggums — February 19, 2008 @ 11:13 am
I know I am a bit late to take part in the discourse here, but I’ll add my two cents.
“english literature is esoteric, it appeals only to a minority rather than the masses”.
I guessing you edited out the “elitist” bit and replaced it with “esoteric”. I still disagree with the choice of words while the implication of the sentence is stating the obvious: Yes, literature appeals only to a minority in the general population but isn’t that true of almost everything?
I like to think of English literature as ‘abstract’, just as I like to think of math and theoretical physics as abstract. There’s abstract some people ‘get’ and there’s ‘abstract’ people ‘don’t get’. I get English literature from time to time; I panic when math goes beyond BODMAS.
(As an aside, wouldn’t a Galle Math Festival (GMF) be grand? Imagine all those nerds salivating at the prospect of hearing Stephen Hawkins utter a few words on black holes and shit).
“it is for those that can not only read and write english, but for those that can do it well enough to appreciate not just words, but literature written in it. literature isn’t just books, my friend. it isn’t just words. sydney sheldon is not literature. john lennon is. dan brown isn’t, c.s. lewis is. we cannot be so politically correct as to forget that clear distinction.”
I prefer to distinguish them in terms of writers and storytellers: Dan Brown, Sheldon, Steel, Clancy, are storytellers; Lewis, Austen, Shakespeare, Bronte, (George and T S) Elliot are writers. John Lennon is a songwriter, albeit occasionally brilliant one, but to validate his sometimes nonsensical musings – his solo work which went ‘unchecked’ by McCartney and Harrison - as literature, and thus highbrow? Please.
If you think I am wrong, listen to the Lennon Anthology in its entirety. Disk 3 and Disk 4 of that anthology is drivel that even a child would to be ashamed of. And this is coming from someone who is a fan of the bugger’s work. By the way, no love for McCartney and Harrison? Or are they not considered ‘literature’? How rude.
“i used the wrong word. it did not convey my idea properly, so i have edited this post accordingly. its such a pity though (and how predictable) that you all latched on to that one tiny part of this post and looked past everything else i said.”
Personally, I’ve only highlighted those two (now edited) paragraphs because a) ‘esoteric’ is the wrong word; and b) you were stating the obvious when you said it appealed to a minority. The less said about the ‘elitist’ bit the better.
Like you, I’ve been left breathless by the writing of the Bard and Burgess, suffered many a headache thanks to Dostoevsky’s philosophical musings, become paranoid due to Orwell – and I worship them for it. Were it not for them, I’d have become a fucking number cruncher (as in accountant). Like you, I wish many more people took literature as seriously as you do, be as passionate about it as you are. But here’s the difference between the two of us: you dismiss inherent subjectivity of people with an ‘us and them’ attitude that is, frankly, disturbing.
Orwell’s politically-themed writings, for instance, are not meant to be ‘esoteric’ as you claim nor would Romeo and Juliet be as universally appealing were it ‘esoteric’.
“firstly, you cannot honestly believe that english literature is open to the masses, especially in sri lanka where the majority of the population neither speaks nor writes english. it is a nice thought, but its not realistic. literature, or most art for that matter, is and always has been appealing to an esoteric group of people; mostly, but not always, well educated and belonging to the middle-class or upper middle-class.”
I agree, but does that mean we continue to let English literature be ‘esoteric’? Just because the politicians cheated the general population out of an opportunity to learn the language doesn’t mean we, those of us who were touched by English literature and had our lives changed by it, allow for the continuation of that exclusivity. If anything, I would think a literary festival is a grand occasion to move away, albeit in a small way, from that unfortunate status quo.
“language is for the masses, literature is not. like i said, just because one is able to read and write, one is not automatically endowed with the ability and the knowledge to fully understand and appreciate literature. any literature in any language will inevitably create an esoterism. i can speak and write sinhalese, but i do not profess to be a true follower of sinhalese literature; unfortunately, i’m afraid my command of the language, its subtleties and complexities, isn’t nearly as good enough as appreciating and understanding real literature requires it to be. what i’m trying to establish here is that merely being able to write or read a language does not naturally enable one to understand literature in it.”
I quoted this with an intension of rebuking it, but then I’d be repeating myself. See above
I’ll respond to your other comments later.
Writing this reply took longer than it should have.
Comment by Theena — February 19, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
I know I am a bit late to take part in the discourse here, but I’ll add my two cents.
“english literature is esoteric, it appeals only to a minority rather than the masses”.
I guessing you edited out the “elitist” bit and replaced it with “esoteric”. I still disagree with the choice of words while the implication of the sentence is stating the obvious: Yes, literature appeals only to a minority in the general population but isn’t that true of almost everything?
I like to think of English literature as ‘abstract’, just as I like to think of math and theoretical physics as abstract. There’s abstract some people ‘get’ and there’s ‘abstract’ people ‘don’t get’. I get English literature from time to time; I panic when math goes beyond BODMAS.
(As an aside, wouldn’t a Galle Math Festival (GMF) be grand? Imagine all those nerds salivating at the prospect of hearing Stephen Hawkins utter a few words on black holes and shit).
“it is for those that can not only read and write english, but for those that can do it well enough to appreciate not just words, but literature written in it. literature isn’t just books, my friend. it isn’t just words. sydney sheldon is not literature. john lennon is. dan brown isn’t, c.s. lewis is. we cannot be so politically correct as to forget that clear distinction.”
I prefer to distinguish them in terms of writers and storytellers: Dan Brown, Sheldon, Steel, Clancy, are storytellers; Lewis, Austen, Shakespeare, Bronte, (George and T S) Elliot are writers. John Lennon is a songwriter, albeit occasionally brilliant one, but to validate his sometimes nonsensical musings – his solo work which went ‘unchecked’ by McCartney and Harrison - as literature, and thus highbrow? Please.
If you think I am wrong, listen to the Lennon Anthology in its entirety. Disk 3 and Disk 4 of that anthology is drivel that even a child would to be ashamed of. And this is coming from someone who is a fan of the bugger’s work. By the way, no love for McCartney and Harrison? Or are they not considered ‘literature’? How rude.
“i used the wrong word. it did not convey my idea properly, so i have edited this post accordingly. its such a pity though (and how predictable) that you all latched on to that one tiny part of this post and looked past everything else i said.”
Personally, I’ve only highlighted those two (now edited) paragraphs because a) ‘esoteric’ is the wrong word; and b) you were stating the obvious when you said it appealed to a minority. The less said about the ‘elitist’ bit the better.
Like you, I’ve been left breathless by the writing of the Bard and Burgess, suffered many a headache thanks to Dostoevsky’s philosophical musings, become paranoid due to Orwell – and I worship them for it. Were it not for them, I’d have become a fucking number cruncher (as in accountant). Like you, I wish many more people took literature as seriously as you do, be as passionate about it as you are. But here’s the difference between the two of us: you dismiss inherent subjectivity of people with an ‘us and them’ attitude that is, frankly, disturbing.
Orwell’s politically-themed writings, for instance, are not meant to be ‘esoteric’ as you claim nor would Romeo and Juliet be as universally appealing were it ‘esoteric’.
“firstly, you cannot honestly believe that english literature is open to the masses, especially in sri lanka where the majority of the population neither speaks nor writes english. it is a nice thought, but its not realistic. literature, or most art for that matter, is and always has been appealing to an esoteric group of people; mostly, but not always, well educated and belonging to the middle-class or upper middle-class.”
I agree, but does that mean we continue to let English literature be ‘esoteric’? Just because the politicians cheated the general population out of an opportunity to learn the language doesn’t mean we, those of us who were touched by English literature and had our lives changed by it, allow for the continuation of that exclusivity. If anything, I would think a literary festival is a grand occasion to move away, albeit in a small way, from that unfortunate status quo.
“language is for the masses, literature is not. like i said, just because one is able to read and write, one is not automatically endowed with the ability and the knowledge to fully understand and appreciate literature. any literature in any language will inevitably create an esoterism. i can speak and write sinhalese, but i do not profess to be a true follower of sinhalese literature; unfortunately, i’m afraid my command of the language, its subtleties and complexities, isn’t nearly as good enough as appreciating and understanding real literature requires it to be. what i’m trying to establish here is that merely being able to write or read a language does not naturally enable one to understand literature in it.”
I quoted this with an intension of rebuking it, but then I’d be repeating myself. See above.
I’ll respond to your other comments later. Writing this reply took longer than it should have.
Comment by Theena — February 19, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Sorry for the double post above. Please delete the first post as I hadn’t formatted it properly. Thanks.
Comment by Theena — February 19, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Read the poem ‘Jabberwocky’ by Lewis Carroll (who has a lot in common with John Lennon) and tell me whether electra is right or the others are wrong.all theses must have an antithesis against it, like electra’s view here against the others’ view, which balances the subject and brings it out more justly. But one thing that destroys it is the habit of picking out parts of one’s text and disagreeing with it. This eliminates the dimension of an intellectual argument replacing it with that of hate displayed in big smart words against the writer of the blog. If one agrees or disagrees with the whole of electra’s passage, then write about the whole thing (Not parts of it which can me misleading and easily misconstrued) including the good points and bad. furthermore the article is NOT about who can enjoy literature and who can’t,it is merely stating her awe at being so close to the writers and the distinction between literature and books. she is not aiming to undermine any class of people nor is she trying to seperate them.she merely states that literature can not be appreciated by everyone (Come on everone out there has at least one friend who loathes reading).
so lets just appreciate other people’s different perspectives for thats what makes us interesting.Also bear in mind the profound observation of Hunter S. Thompson,”A Word To The Wise Is Infuriating”
Cheers
Comment by Tavish — February 27, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
By the by,if your eyes are tired of reading,check out my photo blog for some refreshment
http://tavishg.blogspot.com/
Cheers,again
Comment by Tavish — February 27, 2008 @ 9:11 pm