2 ms·

This is a gripe, so excuse me for nit-picking, but I don't think this is exactly "literature." It's not particularly well-written, and it still has the attitude

by unalone 18y ago

This is a gripe, so excuse me for nit-picking, but I don't think this is exactly "literature." It's not particularly well-written, and it still has the attitude of an enthused amateur. I'm not saying I didn't like the article. I did: it's the first Yegge I've actually cared to read in its entirety. But people, particularly people who aren't word people, tend to attribute superlatives to things that they like, and the word "literature" in particular is one that bugs me. This was a good story, absolutely. It was heartfelt and sincere. But that's only a part of what makes good writing good. Literature is about the art of crafting words, of putting them together in ways that are aesthetically pleasing. There are people who can write great yarns who aren't writing literature. And this blog post, while it's very good for a blog post, isn't literature. Which isn't to say it's not worth reading! Some people assume that literary merit is all that makes writing worthwhile; those people miss out on a lot of things that are beautiful and worth reading, just for the manner of the prose. I don't think that's true, and I agree with you with everything else you said. Just... don't assign attributes to a thing needlessly. It's like people that listen to a rap song and praise its harmonies. There are other ways to compliment a piece of writing. Excuse me if this was unwarranted with your writing. I'm hoping this didn't come across entirely as somebody's being a dick needlessly. It's just something little that sets me off, and it provoked my writing something this time.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 18y ago
Why do you get to decide what is and is not literature?
- unalone 18y ago
  I hold very specific definitions for terms. For me, literature is defined by aesthetic quality, and that is measurable. The rhythm of the sentences, the flow of the actual sound of the language, and the conciseness of the language... all of that is what makes writing literature to me. But I use literature as a very specific phrase. I don't hold it to encompass all of writing. I use it to define a very particular branch of writing: the sort of writing that has an emphasis on language. However, I don't dismiss things that I don't call literature, either, and I don't hold literature necessarily on a level above everything else, either. For instance: I think that the Narnia series is better-written than Harry Potter, and that it's a more literary series. However, I think that Harry Potter is a better story, and I think that it has more about it that interests me than Narnia. I think the characters are more interesting, the arc of the story is more powerful, and I think that Rowling singlehandedly changed the face of the "children's literature" genre. If I were to pick which of the two series to keep and cherish for the rest of time, I'd go for Harry Potter. So, as I said. Take what I said precisely for what I said. I'm not dismissing Yegge's article. I'm just saying that I take the term "literature" to define writing that is memorable for its aesthetic. Steve Yegge is an interesting writer, and at times he's compelling, but he is not particularly good with using the English language. He isn't bad, he just isn't good.
  - dusklight 18y ago
    and in what way is "aesthetic quality" measurable? can you ascribe a number to measure "the rhythm of a sentence"? If you can, what number is good? is a higher number good, a lower number good? You think Narnia was better written than Harry Potter. That is cool, and you are entitled to have your own asshole. What makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? What gives you the credentials to define the word "literature"? If you want to say you didn't like Yegge's work, that's cool, if you want to say you don't think it is literature, that's cool too. But to say no one else is allowed to consider it literature .. that is not cool at all.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Of course you're allowed to call it literature. I was giving an argument as to why I don't think it is, in the hopes that perhaps people would read what I said and change how they think about literature in turn. It's possible to determine aesthetic quality, but no measure is by any means accurate. However, aesthetic is absolutely present. The easiest way is to determine how things sound when spoken aloud. There's no "formula" to it. It's entirely a matter of personal taste. However, Steve Yegge is not somebody who writes for the sound of his language. He writes to express ideas. Is it worth reading him? Yes. Does his writing have aesthetic merit? No, and he doesn't care, and swombat probably doesn't either. As I first said: I didn't post that to try and be a writing nazi. It was just something stewing in my mind, and I wrote it down as a response to something small that swombat wrote. I upvoted both swombat and the story itself: this was not meant to be an assault on either. If you don't think there's a such thing as aesthetic in writing: read Joyce. Read Nabakov. Absolutely read Beckett. All three are writers with immediately identifiable styles, and each one certainly has a powerful aesthetic about his writing. "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins." There's a coupling of ideas (light/fire, life/loins). There's the name Lolita itself, which Nabakov expands himself in the story's opening paragraph. It flows. It spikes in the beginning, stretches out in the second and third phrases. These are all things that you can discuss. Compare that to "I write a column for computer programmers called "Stevey's Blog Rants." The second is informative without any styling whatsoever. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just isn't literature. Narnia almost certainly is better written than Harry Potter. Don't take my word for it: read both. Narnia focuses on its language much more than Harry Potter. That's not saying Rowling writes without meaning: I wrote a minor dissertation about the first line in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone once, because I thought it was interesting and because I like picking things apart. Harry Potter has moments where it sounds beautiful, but those moments are few and far between, and Rowling does resort to clichés rather often. That doesn't make Harry Potter bad: I think that it defined a generation, my generation, and that the final 200 pages of the final book move me like very few things in writing do - that despite its lack of emphasis on beautiful language. My credentials? I write. I've written since the sixth grade. I've gone to programs where I learn how to write. As such, I've developed informed opinions on things. My opinions are better than many people's opinions, because I've taken time to think about what I mean when I say things about literature. Most people don't think about how they define the term. I do. Therefore, I already know what I think about this. I'm certain other people have other opinions, but they haven't responded yet. Why would you call Yegge's article literature, if you do? We could talk about that, and chances are both of us would learn something new in the process. I don't want to dictate literature and its definition: I only wanted to start a discussion.
- echair 18y ago
  Because he has something thoughtful to say about the topic. Is there a better qualification?
johnyzee 18y ago
> people who aren't word people, tend to attribute superlatives to things that they like, and the word "literature" in particular is one that bugs me. 'Literature' is not a superlative.
- unalone 18y ago
  It is in this context. At least, it is if you look at "literature" as sort of the end-all compliment for a piece of writing. A lot of it, as I said below, has to do with the way you look at the terms.

by unalone 18y ago

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

jrockway 18y ago

Why do you get to decide what is and is not literature?

unalone 18y ago
I hold very specific definitions for terms. For me, literature is defined by aesthetic quality, and that is measurable. The rhythm of the sentences, the flow of the actual sound of the language, and the conciseness of the language... all of that is what makes writing literature to me. But I use literature as a very specific phrase. I don't hold it to encompass all of writing. I use it to define a very particular branch of writing: the sort of writing that has an emphasis on language. However, I don't dismiss things that I don't call literature, either, and I don't hold literature necessarily on a level above everything else, either. For instance: I think that the Narnia series is better-written than Harry Potter, and that it's a more literary series. However, I think that Harry Potter is a better story, and I think that it has more about it that interests me than Narnia. I think the characters are more interesting, the arc of the story is more powerful, and I think that Rowling singlehandedly changed the face of the "children's literature" genre. If I were to pick which of the two series to keep and cherish for the rest of time, I'd go for Harry Potter. So, as I said. Take what I said precisely for what I said. I'm not dismissing Yegge's article. I'm just saying that I take the term "literature" to define writing that is memorable for its aesthetic. Steve Yegge is an interesting writer, and at times he's compelling, but he is not particularly good with using the English language. He isn't bad, he just isn't good.
- dusklight 18y ago
  and in what way is "aesthetic quality" measurable? can you ascribe a number to measure "the rhythm of a sentence"? If you can, what number is good? is a higher number good, a lower number good? You think Narnia was better written than Harry Potter. That is cool, and you are entitled to have your own asshole. What makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? What gives you the credentials to define the word "literature"? If you want to say you didn't like Yegge's work, that's cool, if you want to say you don't think it is literature, that's cool too. But to say no one else is allowed to consider it literature .. that is not cool at all.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Of course you're allowed to call it literature. I was giving an argument as to why I don't think it is, in the hopes that perhaps people would read what I said and change how they think about literature in turn. It's possible to determine aesthetic quality, but no measure is by any means accurate. However, aesthetic is absolutely present. The easiest way is to determine how things sound when spoken aloud. There's no "formula" to it. It's entirely a matter of personal taste. However, Steve Yegge is not somebody who writes for the sound of his language. He writes to express ideas. Is it worth reading him? Yes. Does his writing have aesthetic merit? No, and he doesn't care, and swombat probably doesn't either. As I first said: I didn't post that to try and be a writing nazi. It was just something stewing in my mind, and I wrote it down as a response to something small that swombat wrote. I upvoted both swombat and the story itself: this was not meant to be an assault on either. If you don't think there's a such thing as aesthetic in writing: read Joyce. Read Nabakov. Absolutely read Beckett. All three are writers with immediately identifiable styles, and each one certainly has a powerful aesthetic about his writing. "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins." There's a coupling of ideas (light/fire, life/loins). There's the name Lolita itself, which Nabakov expands himself in the story's opening paragraph. It flows. It spikes in the beginning, stretches out in the second and third phrases. These are all things that you can discuss. Compare that to "I write a column for computer programmers called "Stevey's Blog Rants." The second is informative without any styling whatsoever. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just isn't literature. Narnia almost certainly is better written than Harry Potter. Don't take my word for it: read both. Narnia focuses on its language much more than Harry Potter. That's not saying Rowling writes without meaning: I wrote a minor dissertation about the first line in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone once, because I thought it was interesting and because I like picking things apart. Harry Potter has moments where it sounds beautiful, but those moments are few and far between, and Rowling does resort to clichés rather often. That doesn't make Harry Potter bad: I think that it defined a generation, my generation, and that the final 200 pages of the final book move me like very few things in writing do - that despite its lack of emphasis on beautiful language. My credentials? I write. I've written since the sixth grade. I've gone to programs where I learn how to write. As such, I've developed informed opinions on things. My opinions are better than many people's opinions, because I've taken time to think about what I mean when I say things about literature. Most people don't think about how they define the term. I do. Therefore, I already know what I think about this. I'm certain other people have other opinions, but they haven't responded yet. Why would you call Yegge's article literature, if you do? We could talk about that, and chances are both of us would learn something new in the process. I don't want to dictate literature and its definition: I only wanted to start a discussion.
echair 18y ago
Because he has something thoughtful to say about the topic. Is there a better qualification?

johnyzee 18y ago

> people who aren't word people, tend to attribute superlatives to things that they like, and the word "literature" in particular is one that bugs me. 'Literature' is not a superlative.

unalone 18y ago
It is in this context. At least, it is if you look at "literature" as sort of the end-all compliment for a piece of writing. A lot of it, as I said below, has to do with the way you look at the terms.