posted
I just finished Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, and it really made me think about the importance of literature, not only in my life but in society in general. Yes, it truly is something I’ve taken for granted, the ability to read books freely and openly without having to worry about political consequences, such as losing my job, being imprisoned, or even being stoned. I’ve never really been able to comprehend life in a totalitarian regime that aggressively forbids anything that even remotely alludes to Western lifestyles and ideas and all of its decadence. And yet, Nafisi along with seven of her students so greatly valued literature that they were willing to risk so much in order to read and appreciate forbidden books. From the description, “As Islamic morality squads staged arbitrary raids in Tehran… the girls in Azar Nafisi’s living room risked removing their veils and immersed themselves in the worlds of Jane Austen, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, and Vladimir Nabokov.” I wonder how much I would be willing to risk if I were in their position.
I think I can safely say that all of us here appreciate literature. But what is it about literature that is so powerful and so moving? In the introduction, Nafisi says that “what we search for in fiction is not so much reality but the epiphany of truth.” I think this is something most people would agree with. We don’t look for books to perfectly mirror reality but rather to tell us something about the reality that we live in. And literature has been very powerful and very effective at shaping thoughts and societies.
I think equally important is the ability of literature to take the reader to a new world, whether as a means of exploration or a means of escape. For Nafisi and her students, it was primarily the latter. It was a way of escaping their present reality, if even only for a couple hours. While undefined and barely existent in reality, they discovered and defined themselves through literature.
These are the prominent ways that I too am affected by literature. Some authors have a knack for clearly articulating the different ideas or emotions that I have a difficult time grasping myself. OSC is one such author, and that is one reason why I so thoroughly enjoy the Ender series. And while I can’t claim to have the problems that Nafisi and her students had, I do find it rewarding to be able to separate myself from everything in reality and completely lose myself in a book. On second thought, if I was living in a nation that crushed hopes and ambitions and then tried to steal my ability to dream, I think I would be willing to risk everything to protect that last place of refuge.
So in what ways do you appreciate and enjoy literature? How much would you risk to protect the right to create and read literature? Where do you think literature’s role in society is heading?
Anecdotally it seems that the importance of literature is diminishing, mostly because people have less and less time to read, myself included. Perhaps technology such as audiobooks will be the savior to literature, or perhaps that is the evolution of literature. What about it’s influence on society, in a world increasingly dominated by blogs and podcasts? What is the future of literature?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always loved books, and tend to go more toward the "literature" side of things than the "pulp" side of things (if that's a meaningful distinction to be made in this post-modern world we live in).
I think the importance of literature is diminishing not because people have less time to read, but because alternative methods of expression are so much easier and more accessible. Video has been encroaching on text for 100 years, and I imagine the trend will continue. On average, people have more "free" time now than they ever have. They just choose to spend their "free" time watching television, going to movies and posting on internet discussion forums, rather than reading literature.
I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other day about the change in reading habits over the last 150 years. I put the question to him of, if books cost 100 times their current value, what books would you own/read. When production and shipping costs were so much more (relatively), I think people tended to read more significant or important books, and read them repeatedly. Today I think the cheap availability of books skews people more toward reading pulp. Certainly there was pulp fiction 150 years ago, but it was less pervasive than it is today.
I think this is another reason that literature is diminishing in importance. As entertainment supercedes thought-provocation as the primal value for what books we read, text's edge over video media diminishes.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the importance of literature is diminishing not because people have less time to read, but because alternative methods of expression are so much easier and more accessible. Video has been encroaching on text for 100 years, and I imagine the trend will continue.
Very true. The temptation to sit in front of the tv and vegetate has been very strong for me. I've had to exert a lot of mental effort to not watch tv and movies and read instead.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Audiobooks are not books. They are the death of books.
Over the summer, I had a thirty minute commute to my job and would rent audiobooks from the library. I noticed it was a lot harder to pay attention to the audiobook than it was to read. Learning via audio is the least common learning style. I don't see books going anywhere.
Further, audiobooks have their place. It was very nice to feel like I'd accomplished something on my commute.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I've always loved books, and tend to go more toward the "literature" side of things than the "pulp" side of things (if that's a meaningful distinction to be made in this post-modern world we live in).
I think the importance of literature is diminishing not because people have less time to read, but because alternative methods of expression are so much easier and more accessible. Video has been encroaching on text for 100 years, and I imagine the trend will continue. On average, people have more "free" time now than they ever have. They just choose to spend their "free" time watching television, going to movies and posting on internet discussion forums, rather than reading literature.
I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other day about the change in reading habits over the last 150 years. I put the question to him of, if books cost 100 times their current value, what books would you own/read. When production and shipping costs were so much more (relatively), I think people tended to read more significant or important books, and read them repeatedly. Today I think the cheap availability of books skews people more toward reading pulp. Certainly there was pulp fiction 150 years ago, but it was less pervasive than it is today.
I think this is another reason that literature is diminishing in importance. As entertainment supercedes thought-provocation as the primal value for what books we read, text's edge over video media diminishes.
Interesting point. I read my share of 'pulp' literature, to use your term. I confess to an entire shelf on my bookshelf filled with Star Wars novels. Another shelf and a half are filled with OSC books (which are better by a long shot). Meanwhile, Dostoevsky, Camus, Fitzgerald, etc. are nowhere to be found! The only bit of literature commonly considered to be 'serious' is my collection of Shakespeare.
Then again, we must consider the times. Was Shakespeare's work considered to be serious theatrical literature at the time? Or was it pulp entertainment?
Similarly, many of today's films are produced for entertainment and profit, but contain gems of true cinematographic value. What will be considered 'great movie literature' in a century or two?
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
personally, I value books over movies and tv. This is mostly because books require more effort on the part of the consumer. But then again, there are also movies and tv programs out there that provoke thought. Unfortunately, mental effort isn't something that the majority of people dwelling on this planet actually enjoy. This is part of the reason why the 'pulp' that has been referred to above is so popular. You don't have to tell me about zonkin' out in front of the TV, I'm definitely guilty of that. And of course, there's that famous research that showed less brain activity in an average human being whilst watching television, than while staring at a blank wall. The blank wall requires you to use your imagination, because otherwise you're just staring into the void. Books tend to have kind of the same effect (on me at least). Since the book itself is only text, I have to create the imagery myself. This is probably why most books that are re-worked into another sort of medium (mainly film) are always slightly disappointing; they hardly ever come close to the movie in your head.
But what is literature? Do we confine this label to works of fiction? Not quite, since you specific information concerning a field of work and/or research is referred to as literature as well, and any professional is expected to keep up with the latest developments in his field to some extent. So how do we define literature when it comes to works of fiction? We could state that it entails those stories that deal with sensitive moral issues, trying to display to intricacies of human relations, all the while showing cause and effect, and avoiding as much as possible the injection of simple but gratifying scenes (aka sex and violence), while allowing the reader to empathise with the protagonist(s). In short, they tend to give a fairly realistic description of life. This would explain why some people complain that in established works of literature "nothing happens" (or they're boring). By the way, I'm really not saying that the above is a fully rounded definition of literature. What I really wanted to say is that even though one reads 'pulp' books (which going on the above seems to hold within it most fantasy and sci-fi), it is entirely possible to learn from them, albeit far more difficult to actually render these ideas into words, since the process tends to be more subliminal. I'll give you one example: Having read a large part of the saga of Recluce, I have found the idea of chaos vs. order entirely applicable to our reality. But if you were to ask me to explain it to you I would be rather hard put to do so.
This is why IMHO the title of this thread should really read: importance of stories.
posted
I think literature is unpopular because few people are ever taught how to appreciate it. Instead they are taught that they can't appreciate it - at least not without a degree in literature.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Literature is unpopular because most parents don't introduce their children to it and most literature teachers are incapable of creating excitement in their students about it.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot create excitement; you can only introduce things that excited you. I will admit that being told "Book X is extremely important, you have to be excited about it" is a good way to dampen any enthusiasm that was there.
Touching audio-books, I don't see how anyone can use them; they are so... very... sloooooooow.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
As a person with a degree in comparative literary, parent of a 3-year-old and spouse of a Grover devotee, I am obligated, but also highly pleased to award you with the Hatrack apt comparison of the year.
quote:You cannot create excitement; you can only introduce things that excited you.
That's the first step in the direction of creating excitement. I've been teaching literature for 12 years now, and my enthusiasm for the works I have my students read, my willingness to open up to show students the impact the texts have on me as a person, and my willingness to listen to their perspective and foment dynamic conversations have all won me many converts to the literary realm...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my nieces was not a reader for the longest time. She'd read what was assigned for school, but hated reading. Then, one day when she was visiting, either me or my brother (we both buy copious amounts of books for the nieces and nephews) brought her to a bookstore and told her to pick out whatever she wanted. She stumbled across true crime and crime fiction and became instantly intrigued and got a few.
Since then, she's been enjoying reading on a whole new level. I still wouldn't call her a reader to the degree that I or my brother or my niece are, but we're bookhounds. But still, she's discovered the joy of reading.
Sometimes, all it takes is finding books on a certain topic or in a specific genre to get someone started.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Literature is unpopular because most parents don't introduce their children to it and most literature teachers are incapable of creating excitement in their students about it.
It really is that simple. At stake, I think, is that literature has the power to ground society, and help the individual cope, with dignity and responsiblity, with a variety of problems endemic to our lives. It offers insight and perspective. Without it, one becomes the sport of the current crisis and prevailing sentiment, or on the other extreme, too easily brought into thoughtless rule worship or religion.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Another shelf and a half are filled with OSC books (which are better by a long shot). Meanwhile, Dostoevsky, Camus, Fitzgerald, etc. are nowhere to be found! The only bit of literature commonly considered to be 'serious' is my collection of Shakespeare.
