Who, or what is an author? What is the author’s importance to culture and history, and what motivates the author to write? I think one needs to examine these questions in order to truly understand text and print culture in general. In response to the first question, in all basic terms, an author is someone who writes. On this basis, almost everybody is an author, but does society view this as the case? I think not. The author according to society is an individual that has works published, and has these works readily available to the public. Is the author really valued in modern day society? There are a vast number of talented, struggling artists who create amazing works, yet are ignored. Pop culture is very fickle. Popularity of modern written works does not equate to the artistic quality of the work.
On to the second question, what is the cultural importance of authors? Well, in short, authors preserve culture like nothing else can. Through their art we can get a glimpse of the times. Whether it is on the Trojan battlefield represented in Homer’s the Iliad, or 18th century France represented in Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, we are taken to a manifestation of the author’s mind. The setting is, however, ultimately irrelevant. The historically important ideas lie in the content of the story, i.e. the underlying themes, conflicts, and use of language.
This leads me to my final question regarding motivation. Human beings have an intrinsic need to leave their legacy. As time proceeds and technology advances, the ways individuals can leave an imprint on history has become easier. Once someone posts something on the Internet it will remain there indefinitely, floating in cyber space. Next, one must consider economic reasons. Some author’s merely write to make a living, while others write simply to express themselves. Whether this commercialism takes away from the actual art, I’ll lead it up to you, the reader, to figure it out.
Sure, if someone posts something on the internet, "it will remain there indefinitely," but it will be of some merit to those cultural antrhopologists or art historians of the future, looking back and sifting through the piles and piles of internet refuse?
ReplyDeleteWe now, as a self-absorbed and narcissistic species, produce not just physical, environmental waste, but also abstract, intellectual waste as well. Have you ever tried to search for information for a research paper on the internet, only to be bogged down by the pages and pages of inarticulate and discreditable nonsense that proliferates this great shared Mind of ours that we call the World Wide Web?
Shouldn't there be some kind of a standard we all learn to at least try to adhere to? In music, there exists the concept of an "audio fidelity," a standard deviation of ideal human frequency to which the aural artist can then choose or choose not to adhere. The word "fidelity" I feel is quite poignant in this case, suggesting a faithfulness to the medium that shows respect, and not contempt, for the intended audience. But the choice of the artist is ultimately irrelevant; what matters is the existence of that choice. It is that universal vibration we should strive to uncover and articulate before we decide to embrace or renounce it.
Basically, after all this mumbo-jumbo, I admit I don't have a specific argument. I just like to fantasize about a world where popular art is not seen as distasteful and derived; where "high" art is not an impenetrable fortress of pomposity; where hermitism and brooding introspection is not the only genesis of interesting and unique viewpoints; where dissonance and melodicity co-exist; where "Units sold" is not compatible with prolificacy; and, last but not least, where, to be an artist, you have to put forth some effort, and not just "be there."
To loosely quote a student from our class, who himself was loosely quoting Lou Reed, "Just because you can type a thousand words per minute doesn't mean you can write a book."
-M.C.
I think another question that relates to the ones you pose, is the question of the author as an individual or as a franchise. For example, how the Kastan article kept saying that the first published works of Shakespeare often didn't even include the author's name. Compare that to the works of Shakespeare now...
ReplyDeleteI'm going to make a bit of a disclaimer, just so I'm not misunderstood. I am a HUGE DICKENS FAN. Other than Wilkie Collins, who just happens to be his protégé of sorts, Dickens is my man. That said, I truly cannot agree with your statement that Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities' can give us glimpse of 18th century France. For one, Dickens wrote the novel in the 19th century, in 1859. Good ole Boz wasn't even alive in the period he is writing about and therefore cannot give a proper "glimpse of the times" he did not live in. For two... well, have you ever seen those Dickensian re-creationists that tend to pop up around Christmas time (don't even get me started on our culture's misguided adherence to 'A Christmas Carol.')? That's not really what the Victorians were like. Dickens excelled at caricature - just take a look at some of the names he uses, it's pure genius! - and so we can't take his representations 100% seriously. Nor really of any novelist's. After all, we are talking fiction here.
ReplyDeleteMy point is not to criticize. I think we all should just be wary of making generalizations about literature. Literature is not history. It's useful to look at history as the sort of bookends of literature, propping up the story. But in the end, literature is never more than an interpretation and you don't always need a bookend.
Once you post something on the internet it is NOT there indefinitely. Stuff gets taken down all the time. I've never had a website, personally, that has lasted longer than a notebook of mine. Unless you own your very own server, hardware and all, you have no way of ensuring that your stuff will stay out there even close to 'indefinitely.'
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of music, that audio fidelity is just what we are used to hearing. Avant composers have detuned pianos in such ways where it just doesn't sound good to our ears. After listening compositions in these tunings for long enough the new scales become pleasing. Music is a really poor example for looking at the freedom of art, because the way we view it is completely corrupted by the concepts of melody, key and rhythm (though it is speculated that this idea comes directly from our own heart beats).
as for the literature to history value ratio
Fiction will always be more true to me than any history.
The most artistically valuable works of literature today are to be determined in the future, by both future writers who are inspired by them, and future critics who romanticize the will-be past (currently the present). Both of these rely a little bit on the works ability to stand the test of time, which relies on popularity. Who knows. The books we consider the greatest works of art of the past could be complete crap compared to books from the same time that have disappeared completely.
I think you raise some very interesting points here. With the vast amount of "knowledge" that is floating in cyber space, can we label any of it "useless knowledge?" I agree with Michal's point that there should be some sort of standard we should adhere to in substantiating some sort of quality to a piece of literature. But honestly, originality is not easily attainable as we have accumulated masses upon masses of knowledge and ways of thinking about that knowledge. Maybe our generation's contribution is that cyber-landfill. I think it communicates volumes about who we are and it might be for future generations to dissect and shift through to make sense of it all, just like we do to authors of different disciplines through out history
ReplyDeleteStephen, I think you're confusing the word "indefinitely" with "infinitely." No one said that digital content is not removed from the internet. I would assume there are at least a few "garbage-bots," if you will, out there perusing the uninhabited landscapes of the digital ether, crumpling the unused web pages or tearing them into tinier and tinier pieces... until... what?
ReplyDeleteYou see, therein lies the rub (a little Hamlet quote anyone?). Because the content has been digitized, translated to a concrete code, it can never completely be removed. There will always be a residue left, no matter how infinitesimally small; and as long as there is a single grain of digital information there will be somebody who can uncrumple and, yes, magically, untear that webpage.
Hence: "indefinitely."
-M.C.