Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I feel the essential importance of the arts, including literature, has been greatly diminished in the public's consciousness. People look on them as entertainment (Christie not Dostoevsky, using Lem's examples) and wonder why they matter at all, why they should be studied - especially the challenging stuff! But look at Lem's perspective:

No one in his right mind seeks the psychological truth about crime in detective stories. Whoever seeks such truth will turn rather to Crime and Punishment.

...

Joseph Conrad's elevated description of literature as rendering "the highest kind of truth to the visible universe"

To me the arts deal with the hardest questions, the ones that cannot be quantified, solved with an algorithm, or even with the infinite imagined powers of ML; the ones for which we often can't find the right questions. Despite all our technological advancements, the world around us seems to bend into pointless chaos and conflict, from peace and prosperity to war - but bizarrely with no enemy threatening us. I find the arts have more and more to say to me.

I don't agree.

Take Dick for example: whether his writing deals with "the highest kind of truth" is not important to me. I've read just about everything he's written because I enjoy his writing.

I think this is equally true for Dostoevsky, Conrad, and other acclaimed writers. When I read those authors, I have an emotional reaction. It's not research. I didn't come away from Crime and Punishment with a better understanding of why people commit murder. I don't understand "nautical psychology" any better for having read The Shadow Line. I was moved by those novels. I'd say that makes them entertainment.

I don't think acclaimed literature belongs in a different category than teenage supernatural romance. Twilight elicit an emotional response from its audience just like Ubik does. The emotions, technique, and the audience could hardly be more different, but I see no reason that one of those novels should be categorized as "base entertainment" and the other as "high art". They're both entertainment.

Some literature may contain a thesis but, in my opinion, it mostly doesn't. If someone has to "study" a novel to "get the point" then that novel has failed, at least with regard to that reader.

Just my opinion.

More on topic: I enjoy Roberto Bolano's thoughts on Philip K. Dick: http://www.electriccereal.com/roberto-bolano-on-philip-k-dic...

Sure, both are entertainment in that they provide enjoyment to their fans. However, the one deals with deep issues of existence, identity, reality, and meaning, while the other deals with superficial issues such as which vampire hunk is going to hook up with which vampire babe (or so I presume -- I actually haven't read/watched Twilight or any other supernatural romances).

To the extent that art deals with deep issues of critical importance to humanity, it at least strives to rise above the mass of "pure entertainment" which does not strive for anything more than entertaining and distracting its audience from just such serious contemplation. To the extent said art succeeds in what it tries to accomplish, and does so in a profound, engaging, and unforgettable way, it is great.

...which vampire hunk is going to hook up with which vampire babe (or so I presume -- I actually haven't read/watched Twilight or any other supernatural romances).

With the sole exception of an added vampire/werewolf hunk you nailed it. The subject matter though is less problematic than the really abysmal writing. PKD didn’t always have the best writing style, but made up for it with content. Twilight is derivative content delivered in appalling fashion.

> I don't agree.

Not to nitpick the parent who is entitled to their option, but I think there's an important distinction to add: I can't detect the difference between average and great sake, but the difference exists. I'm not so great at understanding jazz solos, but others know them better. Similarly, the parent might not see what I see in literature, but I promise that those things exist (and almost certainly, vice versa for some other domain of knowledge). And there are people who see more than I do in the same book - I don't think those things are non-existent because I don't understand them; I just assume that I don't see them yet and, if possible, I work a little harder and try to learn a bit more.

Nobody is born with the expertise in any of this. We're all learning as we go. I promise there is so much to see in literature, something I happen to have spent the time to understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com