Win a copy of GANs in ActionE this week in the AI forum
or WebAssembly in Action in the JavaScript forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Can art exist without the artist?

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In the other forum we unwittingly touched on a topic that has intrigued me for some time: specifically, why a work of literature needs to be identified with its author at all.
(Believe me, I do not intend for this thread to be a continuation of the previous discussion; thus, the focus on literature and not on journalism, political discussions, etc. )
When I was publishing my novel, I thought seriously about not mentioning an author at all. My publisher responded with quite practical reasons why this would be undesireable, and I acquiesced. Still, it irks me that we aren't able to separate a work of art from the person who created it, as if the idea itself isn't sufficient.
It seems to me that this is one of the main problems with the state of literature today: we don't read books anymore; we read authors. This is one of the paradoxes that make it so hard for young authors to "break in" to the publishing field; publishers want you to be an established writer before they'll publish you. But in order to be "established", you have to be, well, published...
On a philosophical level, it comes down to credibility, and I can understand that. But who cares, really, who wrote this or that novel. Shouldn't the credibility of the book itself be the ultimate determining factor?
(I'm not sure how interesting this will be for other people, but I am interested to hear what you think.)

p.s. This is my first "New Topic", so please be kind...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And you simply close your ears to our request
Look, I am being kind enough to reply
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
i am also wondering can artist exist without the art?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:
And you simply close your ears to our request


I'm not closing my ears, but opening them: Actually, I'm waiting to see how this discussion turns out...!
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Al Labout>:
I'm not closing my ears, but opening them: Actually, I'm waiting to see how this discussion turns out...!


You are expecting unexpected.
Its MD, you dont know where it will end
PS: i am not sure whether its you or your ghost
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
On a philosophical level, it comes down to credibility, and I can understand that. But who cares, really, who wrote this or that novel. Shouldn't the credibility of the book itself be the ultimate determining factor?
Ideally, yes. If everyone had the time and resources to read all books, stories, articles, posts, etc. and evaluate them fairly. But in general, we don't - and one mechanism that we often use to avoid wasting time on crap is to favor authors who have proven themselves in some way. It's not the only mechanism, nor necessarily the best one - but it's there. The main alternative that comes to mind is to read works based on recommendations for that specific work. Which is probably preferable in general. But say you've read books A, B, and C from a particular author, based on recommendations from others, and really enjoyed them. Then you discover book D from same author, just released, no one's recommended it to you yet - isn't D worth a look? Moreso than some other randomly-selected book, anyway.
I would agree that in general, there's probably too much emphasis placed on reading authors rather than individual works. But I don't think the author's identity should be regarded as unimportant either.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here is what I think. The Western thought is that of classification, categorization, dividing the big and incomprehensible into different pieces. Object-oriented programming, so to speak. OOP is modeling the Western approach to understanding, -- once you break the world into Democritus'/Newtons' atoms/corpusculs, you will know everything there is to know about the world.
To understand a piece of art, the Western-minded man will invariably ask, "Who is the author? What is the style? When was it created? How much would it cost if I sell it?". That's an attempt to classify something, to neatly put it in a bag where it belongs, which (in the mind of a classifier) will explain the piece of art in terms of the well known attributes and boundaries.
This "clarity through classification" is an illusion, of course. First, the patterns are transitory, -- the history is full of examples of artists who ended up in poorhouse only to be labeled as geniuses some 100 years later. More importantly, the is an alternative to the "divide and conquer" approach, the Eastern unification, which I consider more valid in the context of art.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[b]But say you've read books A, B, and C from a particular author, based on recommendations from others, and really enjoyed them. Then you discover book D from same author, just released, no one's recommended it to you yet - isn't D worth a look? Moreso than some other randomly-selected book, anyway.


Perhaps. But there are also a thousand books that were published based solely on the merit of their authors. Second books by new authors tend to be the most obvious examples of this, but this is common with more established writers as well. It might be argued that by publishing books on their own merit we would have less trash to sort through in the first place. Each book would have to earn its place in the public consciousness as opposed to being a literary "child of privilege."

Al
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
[QB]To understand a piece of art, the Western-minded man will invariably ask, "Who is the author? What is the style? When was it created? How much would it cost if I sell it?". That's an attempt to classify something, to neatly put it in a bag where it belongs, which (in the mind of a classifier) will explain the piece of art in terms of the well known attributes and boundaries.
[QB]


I agree with this part. As for the other parts, I didn't quite understand them...
 
John Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Al: As for the other parts, I didn't quite understand them...
Maybe because you are a Westerner?
Ok, let me try again. Let's analyze a piece of art:

Rational interpretation: I see an artist impression of the concept of decay and relativity of time. The entropy can only increase, -- once broken, the clock can never reassemble itself. Once the clock is caught in a black hole, it stops ticking. In its world famous "melting clock", Salvador Dali masterfully uses shadows and colors to create a surrealistic reflection of nature to celebrate the triumph of the laws of physics and the Universe). Who pays $20 mililion for this, anyway?
Non-rational interpretation:
Here it is
So, which one of the two is better?
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Al: why a work of literature needs to be identified with its author at all
I cannot escape but to divide this question into two: 1) why a work of literature needs to be identified with its author in principle, in Platonic sense and 2) what are practical reasons for such identifications. Which one you are more interested in?
This is one of the paradoxes that make it so hard for young authors to "break in" to the publishing field; publishers want you to be an established writer before they'll publish you. But in order to be "established", you have to be, well, published...
I believe this is called the power law -- "rich get richer", well-known authors will sell well because they are... well-known. It's the same with web sites:

Research has shown that the distribution of links to all sites on the web approximates a "power law", that is, a small number of sites receive the majority of links and most sites receive very few links.
http://modelingtheweb.com/example.html


Shouldn't the credibility of the book itself be the ultimate determining factor?
Actually, when they had an International essay contest a few years ago (not sure if it was a single event or they have it every year), all the works were anonymous and the jury learnt the name of the winner only after they had voted. I do not feel quite comfortable about the idea of "contest" among literature works, but I can imagine that the publishers could employ some similar mechanism for a certain part of their titles.
we don't read books anymore; we read authors
I am probably even more radical in this respect, I barely read fiction at all (except for some special occasions ). As long as there is enough documentary prose (like this or this or this) I do not feel a need for "literature" It must have something to do with letting everyone speak for her/himself, rather than through the "author" medium. But again, exceptions are always possible.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think the answer lies partly in that we crave the best of what we know we like. At the same time however, we occasionally want something different, radical and untainted by over-exposure. Some people thrive on the latter and some on the comfort offered by the former. Most of us would like to think we want a bit of both experiences.
Knowing the author creates a sense of comfort because we can relax a little and know we're probably going to like what we're about to experience. Marketing strategies also play to this because they know fans are generally less critical of the next album/book/film/painting if they liked the previous offering, unless its a real stinker. They will try to like something (look at the Matrix!).
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
pardon by asking... but what about the SUBJECT??? I read a lot of non-fiction, so subject is key. When I do look at author, it is more for what they are rather than their other works. I almost always, don't give a damn what the author has written as long as the book in my hands at the moment is what is capturing my attention. If I like the topic, I usually look for a book by ANOTHER author, so i can get a different feel for the same topic.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It's all about communication ,really, like an interview between an expert sender and equal expert receiver of messages. It is only a mother or a father who'd really appreciate their child's first drawings or writings until that child learns to communicate with the rest of the world. Exposure to an appreciative audience develops the artist's work IMHO. That is why it's important to have a good publisher or agent or parent if the artist would like to see the fruits of their labour while still living.
Art can exist without the artist (a lot of art is only appreciated after the artist is long gone) but not without an audience either in the now or the hereafter.
regards
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I cannot escape but to divide this question into two: 1) why a work of literature needs to be identified with its author in principle, in Platonic sense and 2) what are practical reasons for such identifications. Which one you are more interested in?


I guess what I'm trying to get at is the following: at what point did it become prerequisite that a person should be inextricably linked to a work that he created? And what was the reasoning behind this? Of course we've been doing it for so long that we probably wouldn't know what to do without it. But this wasn't always the case. In some cultures individuals are not recognized for their creations. I've heard some interesting suggestions above (thanks!), but I still haven't heard why it should be that way. In other words, Map, I think I'm more interested in #1 than #2.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

[b]Non-rational interpretation:

Here it is


Sorry, Eugene, couldn't open this file. Probably because I'm a Westerner...!
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Can a piece of art be appreciated without looking at the artist's own experiences ?
Any examples ? Once the artist is forgotten they seem to disappear into
archeological or history museums. A book with the author's aura seems to be a pre-requisite. And even a socio-political aura.
regards
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Can plums exist without a plumber?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Can a piece of art be appreciated without looking at the artist's own experiences ?
Any examples ? Once the artist is forgotten they seem to disappear into
archeological or history museums. A book with the author's aura seems to be a pre-requisite. And even a socio-political aura.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]


Most culture's folk songs could be an example of art that is detached from its creator. When we sing these songs we don't wonder about the personal experiences of the composer, we just sing them; the songs themselves give us all the information we need to know. Most of the art that we dig up from ancient cultures has long been disassociated from the artists that created them, yet they continue to be appreciated as art. Architectural works are used and appreciated without necessarily stopping to consider who designed them. Perhaps it's different with the written word? But if so, why?
Alan
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
George Eliot was the nom de plume of the female author of Middlemarch.
That didn't stop it being popular for over a century. She probably had to create this male aura in order for the book to be accepted in it's time.
There is a lot of controversy of who actually wrote And Quiet flows the Don . That did not prevent the book from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1965. Or that it is any less appreciated.
It would seem "an appropriate" name should be associated with the book. That's all, Al.
George Brown writing "And Quiet Flows the Don" would have thrown the spanners in the works as far as winning the Nobel Prize, IMHO.
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov is credited with writing the book. The fact that he hasn't written anything since anywhere near as good, probably sparked the controversy that he is not the rightful author.
regards
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Al: Perhaps it's different with the written word? But if so, why?
Written words have better rational/irrational ratio Further on the same line lie scientific discoveries, many of which also bear names of their "creators".
Folk song, and also proverbs, and especially anecdotes - I am not sure they played the same function here as they did in the totalitarian state, where they were a form of resistance. And they enjoyed a special status precisely because they had no author, so they were like a collective wisdom of the whole society. They were more important than Soljenitsin, because average Soviet folk thought Soljenitsin was a nut, but everybody loved anecdotes. I bet, even communists loved them
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
There is a lot of controversy of who actually wrote And Quiet flows the Don . That did not prevent the book from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1965. Or that it is any less appreciated.

regards


Actually, the Nobel was awarded to Sholokhov, not to his book. Which further begs the question: why is it important whether Quiet Flows the Dawn was written by Sholokhov, or a White Army officer, or, for that matter, George Eliot? Of course, if this sweeping Russian epic had been written by an Englishwoman it would have been dismissed immediately. But wouldn't it have made the accomplishment all the more impressive?
I once heard it explained that society benefits from sports because athletic events provide "vivid examples of excellence." I think authorship does the same. Perhaps we're not really all that concerned with the work itself, but with the fact that somebody was able to produce it?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Folk song, and also proverbs, and especially anecdotes - I am not sure they played the same function here as they did in the totalitarian state, where they were a form of resistance. And they enjoyed a special status precisely because they had no author, so they were like a collective wisdom of the whole society. They were more important than Soljenitsin, because average Soviet folk thought Soljenitsin was a nut, but everybody loved anecdotes. I bet, even communists loved them


Good example. In my life I've probably heard a thousand different "folk anecdotes", yet I've never actually met anyone who created them. It's almost as if, as you said, they come from the society as a whole. Have you ever wondered where these jokes come from? Who makes them up? And how they're able to spread so quickly. Literally minutes after Natalie Wood died from drowning, I remember hearing a joke about the occurence ("What kind of wood doesn't float?"). And the person who told me the joke didn't make it up. Nor did the person who told him. Nor, probably, did the person who told her...
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7292
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Can a piece of art be appreciated without looking at the artist's own experiences?
Any examples? Once the artist is forgotten they seem to disappear into
archeological or history museums. A book with the author's aura seems to be a pre-requisite. And even a socio-political aura.


Knowing the author of a book might make it easier to find a copy in the library. That's a nice advantage.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Knowing the author of a book might make it easier to find a copy in the library. That's a nice advantage.


That's the one my publisher gave!
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Michael Ernest: Knowing the author of a book might make it easier to find a copy in the library
Al Labout: That's the one my publisher gave!

English majors! Is this how you locate books? :roll:
To find a book all you need is ISBN!
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
About anecdotes, Internet made this process transparent too! here is an interview (in Russian) with the guy who created anekdot.ru site. If it's not enough, here is more.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Al Labout>:

Of course, if this sweeping Russian epic had been written by an Englishwoman it would have been dismissed immediately. But wouldn't it have made the accomplishment all the more impressive?
......
Perhaps we're not really all that concerned with the work itself, but with the fact that somebody was able to produce it?


Not just anybody, but who produced it. Maybe it's also to do with being In Search of our Own Excellence taking your sporting example.
We won't be satisfied with "The record for running the mile is 4:56 minutes" but who broke it, where, what with , why....
Some people trace origin of anecdotes, particularly the ones they like.(But as Jim pointed out ,it's a question of having the time to follow trivial pursuits).
The more information we are given about the subject the more likely some art is to be appreciated, the author could take a back seat. Paintings used to be the photography of the past - a record - painters sought the approval of the rich in order to gain financial support. Photography these days panders to all the masses getting the richest gains. But then , the public doesn't care who actually snaps a winning photograph. The public only cares which publication it is published in where they can see more of the same.
While books, photographs aim for mass appeal, paintings, modern art ultimately look for a rich buyer. So perhaps it's the buyer who determines whether art exists , and by default, the artist.
An interesting point Map made : anecdotes and why do they become popular. There are no buyers and copyrights of anecdotes, only re-tellers. Anecdotes may also play a huge part in whether art in book or photography form continues to exists.
Enough anecdotes generated may ensure that Tracy Emin's My Bed the unmade bed may continue to exist for a long time. Charles Saatchi paid �150,000 for that piece of crap.
A film is soon to be made about chef Jamie Oliver in his kitchen ; Ewan MacGregor may get the leading role. Jamie Oliver on his own IS art of a kind in his own right. His chat on food are an interesting read and could be classified as literature. JO and AA Gill as restaurant critic are a powerful combination . AA Gill writes "Christmas is a fine example of how anarchy works in practice. It has simply grown like the holly and the ivy until everything is covered. At the heart of it all is food. Yet a convocation of the greatest chefs in the world would never have come up with Christmas dinner. From a purely gastronomic aesthetic point , it's the nastiest meal ever to have arrived on a paper table cloth with holly on it. No , I stand corrected : it's a tie with thanksgiving , it's remarkably similar ugly sister." Jamie Oliver does wonderful innovative things with turkeys.
Al,I know you just wanted to discuss Literature. I just wanted to introduce an example that crosses boundaries of food, culture, books and films.
regards
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here is what I think. The Western thought is that of classification, categorization, dividing the big and incomprehensible into different pieces. Object-oriented programming, so to speak. OOP is modeling the Western approach to understanding, -- once you break the world into Democritus'/Newtons' atoms/corpusculs, you will know everything there is to know about the world.
----
It's funny how Evgenii demonstrates typically "Western thought" (in his own terms) classificating, categorizating and dividing the ways of thoughts as "Western" or "Eastern".
But even accepting this theory me can make an opposite conclusions. "Eastern thought" which prefer not to divide objects would never separate art from artist, writer from his novel and reader from writer. All is one and one is all.
And it has a sence, because for understandin something in a book we read me have to have something common with the author - a language at least. And the better understanding presumes more common things. In limit, for complete understanding a reader needs to become the same person with the author, he need to be the author. It is impossible of course, but it also means that knowing more about person who wrote a book me can better understand this book.
Excuse me for my terrible English and also for my uninvited reply.
 
John Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Zirf,
I think you are the only one who understood what I was trying to say, and extended it. Indeed, attaching an author to a book can be thought of as a process of Eastern unification, but only if both the author and the book are thought of as the manifestation of the same. That's not how a Western-minded man thinks of it, though. To him, the author is a famous award-winning millionaire, and the book is that thing on the supermarket shelf labeled "30% off all bestsellers".
Thanks for your comment, Zirf, and I wish you post more often.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 100
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <zirf>:
It's funny how Evgenii demonstrates typically "Western thought" (in his own terms) classificating, categorizating and dividing the ways of thoughts as "Western" or "Eastern".
But even accepting this theory me can make an opposite conclusions. "Eastern thought" which prefer not to divide objects would never separate art from artist, writer from his novel and reader from writer. All is one and one is all.



If "all is one and one is all" then wouldn't it be more honest to list the author of all books as "humanity"? Why the emphasis on the individual? Can't we have this same experience of "knowing" the author, of melding with him, regardless of some abstract notions of personal identity?
Alan
 
Alan Labout
Ranch Hand
Posts: 100
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

Thanks for your comment, Zirf, and I wish you post more often.


Welcome, indeed!
 
Alan Labout
Ranch Hand
Posts: 100
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <zirf>:
In limit, for complete understanding a reader needs to become the same person with the author, he need to be the author. It is impossible of course, but it also means that knowing more about person who wrote a book me can better understand this book.


But if we need to know about the person in order to better "understand" his book, then doesn't it mean his book, in and of itself, is deficient? Shouldn't the goal of writing be to create self-sufficient pieces capable of existing without explanation?
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Al: But if we need to know about the person in order to better "understand" his book, then doesn't it mean his book, in and of itself, is deficient?
I do not think it does. Following the noble Western tradition of intellectual vivisection, I would roughly divide all writers into two categories: "extraverts" and "introverts". (These can correspond with how we normally understand extra and-introversion, but not necessarily directly). To understand the former you don't need to know too much about the author himself, while understanding the latter will be essentially deficient without some background information. I would put O.Mandelstam into "introverts" category. There was a place in his wife memoirs where she said Osip considered his reader to be intelligent enough for not to bother with making himself understood.
Shouldn't the goal of writing be to create self-sufficient pieces capable of existing without explanation?

Perhaps, but even a completely self-sufficient piece will have a very short life! Try to read a book written only a hundred years ago -- are you sure you won't miss or misunderstood anything?
But I am also interested to see how Eastern school of thought (currently represented by Eugene and Zirf) would approach the problem.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The fresh opinion of ignorARTS being valuable :

This may seem sacrilegious to some but I think it just proves the fact that book-reviewing is not a high paying job and that many people who do review in more established media do it as much for money or prestige as for actual interest in the subject. The reviews often read like something done as part of a job. They often lack the freshness that the best Amazon reviews have.
Many years ago I read an article from the 1800s I think about art reviews. The person suggested that the opinions of "ignorARTS" were often quite valuable, partially because they come from someone outside the established culture.

 
John Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map: But I am also interested to see how Eastern school of thought (currently represented by Eugene and Zirf) would approach the problem.
The book/author problem? Well, you know what Yaqui do with paper. Not exactly representitive of an Eastern school of thought, but the idea is the same, -- there is no book/author problem once you switch into a non-Aristotelian mode of thinking.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

[b]Shouldn't the goal of writing be to create self-sufficient pieces capable of existing without explanation?


Perhaps, but even a completely self-sufficient piece will have a very short life! Try to read a book written only a hundred years ago -- are you sure you won't miss or misunderstood anything?
But I am also interested to see how Eastern school of thought (currently represented by Eugene and Zirf) would approach the problem.


No, no. I'm not Eastern. I'm just humble Northern... or, may be, North-North-Eastern a little.
I suggest that the goal of writing is to create a bridge between two individuals - writer and reader; to make them little less separate (little more ONE).
For example two guys forgotten in prison chamber probably wouldn't write something to each other (may be only for entertainment?) - they are close enough. And the letter from one lover to the other may contain no brilliant descriptions of feelings, etc - behind the simple and vulgar words the adresse sees everything that he wanted to be seen - because they are also close, they have a resonance. But a writer has a deal with unfamous people and with a help of his language-tools he's trying to become a "lover" for them, to bring them his individuality. A kind of exgibicionism, shortly saying. Can exgibicionizm exist separately from exgibicionist?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Alan Labout:

But if we need to know about the person in order to better "understand" his book, then doesn't it mean his book, in and of itself, is deficient? Shouldn't the goal of writing be to create self-sufficient pieces capable of existing without explanation?


Shouldn't the goal of writing be to create self-sufficient pieces capable of existing without explanation?[/QB]
Everything can exist without explanation; every piece is understood/misunderstood more or less. It's not an "ON" or "OFF" switches, it's an uninterrapted function from total misunderstanding (a lection of integral algebra in Suakhili, for example) to almost complete understanding (our own thoughts when we lie and stare the celling).
I hope that I understand the Shakespeare's sonnets, I like his poetry, but I suggest that the girl he loved understood it better.
 
John Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Zirf: I suggest that the goal of writing is to create a bridge between two individuals - writer and reader; to make them little less separate (little more ONE). [...] But a writer has a deal with unfamous people and with a help of his language-tools he's trying to become a "lover" for them, to bring them his individuality. A kind of exgibicionism, shortly saying. Can exgibicionizm exist separately from exgibicionist?
That's very nice, Zirf.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You also have to take into consideration that in this society, an author's copywright is like a businessman's capital. If his name were not associated with the work, he wouldn't be able to defend his property.
 
For my next feat, I will require a volunteer from the audience! Perhaps this tiny ad?
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!