Dual Level Writing

[oggbashan]

He's right.

I wanna know how come the Ozzies never produced one world-class author?

Arthur Upfield wrote and sold hundreds of thousands of his Napoleon Bonaparte (Boney or Bony - depends on market) detective stories while irritating the Australian Literary elite.

Poets? C J Dennis and Banjo Patterson wrote truly Australian poetry that sold world wide.

John O'Grady aka Nino Culotta wrote some great comic stories about 1950s Australia.

All four of them fit the world class author title as well as many from the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I was ok with this until the last sentence.

Radicalization may occur online here, but overseas it's occurring in mosques among other places. Islamic teachers should be serving as the last line of defense against radicalization for the simple reason that they have the authority to do that, and if they fail to stop the extremism the world should find them culpable. They have a hard job. Islam itself doesn't decry what we call extremism; it foments it. The Quran (2:191 et al) justifies and requires killing under clearly described circumstances, and it does it without limit or historical context, which makes it unique among major world religions. If you are a nonbeliever and you foment discord by openly rejecting Allah, Islam clearly and without restriction teaches you are to be killed, wherever you are, which is why the murders at Charlie Hebdo were nothing more or less than correct Islamic practice. It is up to the imans to moderate that message; they are the only ones that CAN.

You're right that the problem is political. But if the imans don't step up, there is no counterbalance to radicalization from anywhere else within Islam, including their own writing.

I'm okay with Muslim fanatics doing their carnage for Islam. And I wanna step on their dicks when they come around with luv in their eyes. I get it that Muslims don't wanna narc on their team-mates. 45 years ago a black pal of mine knew who broke in my place and stole all my stuff. I CANT NARC ON A BRUTHA he said. I got it. Race matters more than friendship. No problem. And for 45 years I fuck bruthas when I can.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Looks like this thread topic is done, it's now a political argument.

Still, there were some good thoughts in the first pages, so they're worth reading.

 

[lovecraft68]

Looks like this thread topic is done, it's now a political argument.

Still, there were some good thoughts in the first pages, so they're worth reading.

I agree, time to bail because my feet are getting sticky from the blood dripping from the bleeding heart liberals who are all but saying we should let muslims kill because its their code. The lay down and die attitude of the PC mobs ruining this country.

"Oh, let them kill, we shouldn't be mad, we shouldn't care. we certainly shouldn't get upset at them"

I can't imagine what the dwindling amount of living WW2 vets think of this. If WW2 was today people would be crying we're unfairly judging the Nazi's and Hitler would win a peace prize.

 

[oggbashan]

...

I can't imagine what the dwindling amount of living WW2 vets think of this. If WW2 was today people would be crying we're unfairly judging the Nazi's and Hitler would win a peace prize.

And that was exactly the situation in many places in the USA before Pearl Harbor. Declaring that a state of war existed with Japan was easy. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the US, the US might have had real problems in declaring war on him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)

Along with invading Russia, Hitler's declaration of war on the USA was one of his worst mistakes.

 

[SecondCircle]

Hm. Perhaps the original discussion isn't completely unsalvageable.

Let's see. Duel levels. Islam. Duel levels... Islam.

Ah! Certain people have a fetish for foreign women. Some folks love s Russian woman and her accent. Some enjoy tge beauty of oriental women. There are in fact people that think Middle Eastern women are hot (when not in full traditional conservative garb head to toe). Perhaps one could pen a saucy tale about a middle eastern (or <gasp> white! ) woman in America. Say a guy meets her, and she's such a moderate of said religion that he doesn't even realize she's a follower of Islam. (Regardless of what the doctrine is "supposed" to dictate. ) She's kinda like any other gal. She just believes differently.

They have a fun time. Date. Fuck. She even teaches him a thing or two in the bedroom (ooh, explicit sex you say?). They go through some ups and downs with religous profiling and some turmoil involving love and stereotypes. He realizes it's true love and rushes off in cliche fashion to catch her and profess his love speech to her before she boards a plane. (Oh, c'mon, I'm fucking kidding about that last part! Roflcopter!)

But through all said turmoil and ups and downs and kinky sex and romantic discussion of life and liberty, they fall in love.

... Oh! Right. Duel meaning. Love and lust can transcend common social stereotypes.

Eh? Eh? Discuss maybe? Perhaps this ole thread ain't off the tracks after all.

(Note: Uh, to be clear I don't support the doctrines of any religion whatsoever, and actually think they all are quite detrimental, but I also respect that people can believe freely in whatever they want.)

 

[oggbashan]

I have tried to include the sort of message SecondCircle is advocating. My story Muslim Roles is the first that comes to mind, but perhaps the messages were too blatantly obvious for some. It isn't popular.

The levels in my prize-winning Christmas story Christmas Truce should be easy to decipher - some of the comments indicate that people have read more into it than just the basic story.

It is a shame that the category Incest/Taboo has become solely Incest. There are multiple possibilities in Taboo to explore the Romeo/Juliet conflict between families and lovers; between conflicting religious beliefs; and even between feuding families. Such stories can have the basic message of "love conquers everything" or "love cannot reconcile deepseated hatreds" with exploration of the stupidities than human societies are capable of. The message can be one of despair, or of hope.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

All of what I produce is built upon cynicism. Your good fortune is entirely fortuitous and brief.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Shakespeare put entertainment and getting the bills paid high on his list of what to give priority to. That doesn't take anything away from his art, but I don't think he was all that "high brow" in his time. I believe that both Tolstoy and Chaucer were born wealthy enough that there wasn't pressure on them to write or not and what to write.

One thing to add: in Shakespeare's and Chaucer's time, anything 'high brow' was written in Latin. For many centuries - until the beginning of the 20th, the Classics (work written in Latin and Ancient Greek) were a key standard of 'high art' (and even of military strategy) in Europe. Even in the Victorian era there were fierce debates about what should form the ultimate standards in art, literature and architecture: classical (Neoclassical and Palladian in architecture) or 'Gothic' - the very choice of the name of the tribe who overthrew the Romans seems to speak of this conflict. Important work was written in Latin, because this was the lingua franca - the language which all academics and most high born people, could read, so it was the medium through which people could communicate across the European continent and many different dialects and languages.

Shakespeare and Chaucer were writing to appeal to bawdy low brow audiences, they were among the Literoticans of their day. They also managed to write enduring artistic beauty and humanist ideals into their work.

(I'm coming a bit late to this intriguing thread, after the hectic festive period. I have read about halfway through and hope to respond to some of the other comments too.)

 

[NOIRTRASH]

One thing to add: in Shakespeare's and Chaucer's time, anything 'high brow' was written in Latin. For many centuries - until the beginning of the 20th, the Classics (work written in Latin and Ancient Greek) were a key standard of 'high art' (and even of military strategy) in Europe. Even in the Victorian era there were fierce debates about what should form the ultimate standards in art, literature and architecture: classical (Neoclassical and Palladian in architecture) or 'Gothic' - the very choice of the name of the tribe who overthrew the Romans seems to speak of this conflict. Important work was written in Latin, because this was the lingua franca - the language which all academics and most high born people, could read, so it was the medium through which people could communicate across the European continent and many different dialects and languages.

Shakespeare and Chaucer were writing to appeal to bawdy low brow audiences, they were among the Literoticans of their day. They also managed to write enduring artistic beauty and humanist ideals into their work.

(I'm coming a bit late to this intriguing thread, after the hectic festive period. I have read about halfway through and hope to respond to some of the other comments too.)

Your interpretation missed the boat.

 

[sr71plt]

Your interpretation missed the boat.

That means nothing (just as your posts often fail to mean anything, even if they sound clever) unless you explain.

 

[SecondCircle]

One thing to add: in Shakespeare's and Chaucer's time, anything 'high brow' was written in Latin. For many centuries - until the beginning of the 20th, the Classics (work written in Latin and Ancient Greek) were a key standard of 'high art' (and even of military strategy) in Europe. Even in the Victorian era there were fierce debates about what should form the ultimate standards in art, literature and architecture: classical (Neoclassical and Palladian in architecture) or 'Gothic' - the very choice of the name of the tribe who overthrew the Romans seems to speak of this conflict. Important work was written in Latin, because this was the lingua franca - the language which all academics and most high born people, could read, so it was the medium through which people could communicate across the European continent and many different dialects and languages.

Shakespeare and Chaucer were writing to appeal to bawdy low brow audiences, they were among the Literoticans of their day. They also managed to write enduring artistic beauty and humanist ideals into their work.

(I'm coming a bit late to this intriguing thread, after the hectic festive period. I have read about halfway through and hope to respond to some of the other comments too.)

Someone mentioned it earlier on, too, that many esteemed authors that are praised in literature don't always set out with duel levels in mind. It may very well not be their intent.

Many times this is the case, but I don't think that dismisses the fact that duel levels can still be found within the work itself regardless of the author's intent. I think this is because when we are just trying to tell our stories to entertain, we don't readily acknowledge that certain types of plots carry deeper meanings inherently.

Perhaps Shakespeare himself was just writing a tragedy to move an audience when he wrote Romeo and Juliet, for mere entertainment. He may not have even attempted any deeper meaning. But nevertheless, it would up with meaning. I guess "love transcends all". The meaning is there, certainly.

This has me thinking that this is actually the point. That perhaps we shouldn't just set out with the sole intent of, "this should mean something deeper". We should do like we always do. Tell a good story ("good" being subjectice to an audience and our own taste and style as a writer). Often, these "deeper meanings" are already all around us, in the everyday goings on of society or people in general. By simply telling a tale of love and tragedy, the young love of two people whose obstacle was warring families, we see the limits of love pushed and find meaning beyond just the words given to us.

In a sense, and like in most art, we FIND our own meaning instead of manufacturing it. This is why I like art that is left open to the interpretation of the audience. In a simple poem, story, song, or painting, you and I may find similar yet entirely different meaning within. This to me, is the basis of art. Not just simply what is expressed, but what is perceived.

 

[sr71plt]

Perhaps Shakespeare himself was just writing a tragedy to move an audience when he wrote Romeo and Juliet, for mere entertainment. He may not have even attempted any deeper meaning.

Or if you've read the times, you'd likely decide that he didn't even go this deep in his intention--he may not have gone any deeper with Romeo and Juliet than meeting production schedules to make the payroll. That doesn't take away from his ability to be really good at what he did, but hindsight can get pretty sugary.

 

[SecondCircle]

Or if you've read the times, you'd likely decide that he didn't even go this deep in his intention--he may not have gone any deeper with Romeo and Juliet than meeting production schedules to make the payroll. That doesn't take away from his ability to be really good at what he did, but hindsight can get pretty sugary.

Aye. Point is it never necessarily had to be his intent. Intent could be entirely absent. But because he could apparently do it well, the meaning in the art was there.

When classics are made, rarely do people say "I'm going to make a classic. "

 

[Ewobbit]

One clarification and one additional thought;

Clarification. Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Tolstoy didn't attempt to write to trope. They were too busy creating them by virtue of just telling a story well. It is only historically that they are pointed to as THIS is how to do it. For Shakespeare to attempt to write like Shakespeare was not mimicry.

Thought. The creator of a work is fully entitled to credit for whatever the consumer may find in it. Good or bad. Intentional or not.

 

[SecondCircle]

One clarification and one additional thought;

Clarification. Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Tolstoy didn't attempt to write to trope. They were too busy creating them by virtue of just telling a story well. It is only historically that they are pointed to as THIS is how to do it. For Shakespeare to attempt to write like Shakespeare was not mimicry.

Thought. The creator of a work is fully entitled to credit for whatever the consumer may find in it. Good or bad. Intentional or not.

This.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Someone mentioned it earlier on, too, that many esteemed authors that are praised in literature don't always set out with duel levels in mind. It may very well not be their intent.

Many times this is the case, but I don't think that dismisses the fact that duel levels can still be found within the work itself regardless of the author's intent. I think this is because when we are just trying to tell our stories to entertain, we don't readily acknowledge that certain types of plots carry deeper meanings inherently.

Fortunately, some artists have answered the question for us. The German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller carried out a voluminous correspondence with other writers such as Goethe and Körner, in which they discussed and criticized their own and each other's works, and went into fine detail as to what they were attempting to accomplish. Edgar Allan Poe wrote The Philosophy of Composition, in which he examines the process of writing "The Raven." He writes,

It is my design to render it manifest that no one point in its composition is referrible either to accident or intuition — that the work proceeded, step by step, to its completion with the precision and rigid consequence of a mathematical problem.

I suspect that for many great artists, the process of creation was fully conscious, and neither "blurting" nor hack-writing.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well, except when they don't want to take credit for someone's interpretation. Then it's "You're reading too much into it" or "I never had that in mind," etc. It works both ways.

Thought. The creator of a work is fully entitled to credit for whatever the consumer may find in it. Good or bad. Intentional or not.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Perhaps Shakespeare himself was just writing a tragedy to move an audience when he wrote Romeo and Juliet, for mere entertainment. He may not have even attempted any deeper meaning. But nevertheless, it would up with meaning.

Fortunately, some artists have answered the question for us. The German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller carried out a voluminous correspondence with other writers such as Goethe and Körner, in which they discussed and criticized their own and each other's works, and went into fine detail as to what they were attempting to accomplish....
I suspect that for many great artists, the process of creation was fully conscious, and neither "blurting" nor hack-writing.

Writers like Chaucer, Shakespeare and many of those in our canon of 'Greats' had an education far above the mass population, and slept through their Latin and Greek classes, like Nathan slept through his Lit Crit classes. However it was such a major part of their education that they just absorbed principles of classic rhetoric and the management of themes: Love, Loss, Ambition. Like AlwaysHungry says, dedicated writers also discussed with each other how to write well. They took their writing seriously and worked at it as a craft.

Most of us just want to get Something Right, as indicated by the approval of our peers.

Our peers can help influence us to write better, as can education in classic well-written literature.

There is basic talent, you can have a skill at telling a good story; at turning people on with words. That's fun and can be a good thing. Then there is a level of professionalism about writing which can take a story up to another level, that takes work. I dislike it when people imply that you either can or can't write; anyone can work at their writing and learn how to do it much much better. I know my writing has immeasurably improved since I came on this site, and that's why I keep coming back. I love writing and would like to write much better.

When I was at school, there was a sort of democratic movement in favour of children's natural story-telling abilities, we were encouraged to 'just write' as if we could all tell stories. We all could, but those of us who had more talent at it weren't given the technical support to write better, we were just supposed to write not read about writing.

There is a distinction between High Art and Popular Culture, Michael Nyman's music and Madonna's. Both work hard at their art, and neither is 'better' than the other but one is more consciously informed by a longer tradition of classical music and may have a greater range of emotional resonance. That might or might not be a good thing. Not everyone is comfortable, all the time, having the full range of emotions played on while listening to a piece of music. When I do the washing up, I listen to some trite pop song rather than Elgar's Cello Concerto.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

That means nothing (just as your posts often fail to mean anything, even if they sound clever) unless you explain.

Its my compliance with the new AH policy. Naoko got it wrong but I cant do more than note it. Naoko's universe is bounded.

 

[Handley_Page]

Arthur Upfield wrote and sold hundreds of thousands of his Napoleon Bonaparte (Boney or Bony - depends on market) detective stories while irritating the Australian Literary elite.

Poets? C J Dennis and Banjo Patterson wrote truly Australian poetry that sold world wide.

John O'Grady aka Nino Culotta wrote some great comic stories about 1950s Australia.

All four of them fit the world class author title as well as many from the Northern Hemisphere.

Did you forget Jon Cleary, Ogg ?

 

[oggbashan]

Did you forget Jon Cleary, Ogg ?

No. But I was just picking the first names that came.

There are more Australian writers but the four I mentioned were those sold widely outside Australia before 1960.

I forgot May Gibbs who wrote Snugglepot and Cuddlepie once beloved of pre-school Australians.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

There is a distinction between High Art and Popular Culture, Michael Nyman's music and Madonna's. Both work hard at their art, and neither is 'better' than the other but one is more consciously informed by a longer tradition of classical music and may have a greater range of emotional resonance.

I think that there is another important distinction between High Art (I would not suggest Michael Nyman as a representative of that -- try Beethoven) and Popular Culture. High Art touches a part of the mind which is used all too seldom, but which is that which uniquely makes us human -- our capacity for hypothesis and irony. It is a cognitive capacity that is evoked by both high Art and Science. Popular Culture can make us feel good, although apparently it can also make animals feel good.

 

[lovecraft68]

Here's an example of crap vs substance and how time can change perceptions on what is what.

HP Lovecraft was reviled as a hack with a diseased mind when he was writing for the pulps and making next to no money.

Now? He's a pioneer, he's literary, he's recommended reading and if you're into the horror genre you would be hard pressed to find anyone whose influence can be seen the way his is.

Guess those people in the 20's to 30's didn't know 'literary' when they saw it.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

I think that there is another important distinction between High Art (I would not suggest Michael Nyman as a representative of that -- try Beethoven) and Popular Culture. High Art touches a part of the mind which is used all too seldom, but which is that which uniquely makes us human -- our capacity for hypothesis and irony. It is a cognitive capacity that is evoked by both high Art and Science. Popular Culture can make us feel good, although apparently it can also make animals feel good.

Um... citation needed. I don't know if High art is quantifiable at all and I don't think irony belongs in the definition. Irony is generally a cheap way to make a point.

As far as I know, the only uniquely human trait is Imagination, and I'm wary of that one, given that dogs can dream. Love, hate, social climbing and organization, even curiosity and remorse all have analogues in our animal cousins. I thought art was pretty cool and uniquely human until I learned that bowerbirds do it too, and for the same reason many humans do: attracting a mate. Worship's been considered a uniquely human characteristic at points, but I've seen dogs get pretty ecstatic and rapturous when the food dish gets filled, so I don't know if even Adoration is all that special.

It seems to me the writers here are very reasonably divided on whether the point of erotica is to efficiently get someone off (strokers) or to tell a story about the human condition that happens to get people off as a critical but secondary goal. As high art isn't "supposed" to appeal to baser instincts (remember when people thought sex was a base instinct?) it's kind of hard to consider much of erotica as high anything.