Really, of late. I've begun to wonder if that really is it. Wait, I suppose I should clarify. I have a dilemma that has been rattling around in my skull for some time now. The situation, or dilemma if you prefer the parallel structuring, is that there are tons and tons of literature that comes out each year, and most of that literature is of the fantasy, science fiction, and fiction type genres. This bothers me because those are exactly the genres in which I would like to finish something. So, I wonder how it is possible that these people who churn out a book nearly every year can possibly be putting out anything good? Or is that perhaps not the right question, but should I be more concerned with personal amounts of time spent on a book versus the proximal area of time?
The dilemma, in short, is exactly what does it take to make good literature, good literature? I don't want to write just for sales, neither though do I want something I've written to never enter the public square. Essentially, I question the validity of the living democracy's favorite picks for each year. After all, the nature of democracy is towards the hedonistic, so initially in theory at least, looking at their picks would at least reveal what is enjoyable, right? Where then does one draw the line between a good book and cheap thrill? After all, I guarantee you that if you had one hundred people try meth for a day, they would tell you that they love it and it was the best thing since sliced bread. However, the masses inclination towards something doesn't make it 'good'.
The dilemma being, of course, and at the risk of sounding redundant, what is 'good' literature? Following this path of logic further, I have determined that I must find examples of good literature and go from there. Of course, this decision in itself has it's own set of dilemmas pre-installed, but I can deal with most of those later. However, the dilemma in finding good literature becomes the major problem. In order to prevent further lock down in my progress, I have theorized that I must rely on friends, family, and other like-minded people as resources in this matter. As a matter of fact, I must let the thread unravel in due time and not press for an instantaneous answer.
In thinking about literature that I already hold in high esteem, one such book(?) immediately comes to mind: The Lord of the Rings. I have, of course, on many occasions tried to define what it is that makes Lord of the Rings so epic. There are the obvious things such as “Elvish Poetry,” “Detailed Density,” and “the realness of the characters.” However, that doesn't even begin to enter into a description of the writing style employed by Tolkien which can only be described as of the “high heraldic” variety. Therein a new dilemma arises, correct?
Does his “high heraldic” writing style belong only in pseudo-medieval type stories? Before this question can be answered though, the first issue becomes what exactly it is that makes something “high” or “heraldic”? Essentially, the dilemma becomes yet again defining something. Furthermore, I know it is something that I cannot do simply come up with on the fly. However, I will attempt to make a basic outline now.
I believe, first of all, that “High” refers at least partially to the intellectual level involved. “Heraldic,” on the other hand, must be connected with the “Epic-ness” of the matter involved. Therefore, the combination of the two, ie. The High Heraldic, points to a style that is justifiably complicated but at the same time potent with imagery, deeply solemn, and able to tug at one's heart strings. This style has to pervade the adjectives, the characters involved, and the story-based situations. Perhaps, If I were to try and define it in another way, I would say that “High Heraldic” draws on something very core to our being, perhaps because it resonates with truth, and has the ability to break one's heart through minor, yet epic, intricacies. Above all, perhaps this is no longer contained in the matter of defining the “high heraldic” but nonetheless, the book that employ's “high heraldic” must have replay value. When you read it a second time, it should feel like you are gaining a deeper knowledge not doing a robotic replay.
P.S. Perhaps, I am indeed a madman. I mean this is the Chestertonian sense because perhaps I rely on logic too much. Or do I really not only rely on logic? I leave you with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment