3 ms·

I assume by "literally" you mean "literary" ? Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective.

coldtea 3y ago
>I assume by "literally" you mean "literary"? Yes, I do. Thanks! >Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective. That's not a set in stone aesthetic rule, just the preference of some writers, from whom art has be "untainted" by any desire to be didactic or influencial. Other artists explicitly set out to make politically and socially effective art, and struggled with the potency and effectiveness of their output. Some examples, out of the top of my head, Swift, Shaw, Steinbeck, Sinclair, London, Brecht, C.S Lewis, Orwell, and so on. Some of those were of course, more and others less blatant about it.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I guess it comes down to whether you can appreciate it without being a partisan of the political point. The Grapes of Wrath obviously had a political motivation, but one can be indifferent about that and still see it as art. Henry Fonda could find depth in the character enough to motivate him. Same with Swift. Same with Lewis. Brecht, not so much. And Uncle Tom's Cabin has virtually no appeal anymore.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >And Uncle Tom's Cabin has virtually no appeal anymore. It might have no appeal for the trend following people in the current US climate (for political reasons), but it remains a popular book around the globe. You can find it on most bookstores in this (much remote) place just fine. And in amazon.com it's in the top 200 of the African-American literature category by sales.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      yeah, but if it wasn't assigned reading for History and African-American Studies classes, who'd be reading it? I read Pilgrim's Progress in high school, too. That doesn't mean it's a popular book.

coldtea 3y ago

>I assume by "literally" you mean "literary"? Yes, I do. Thanks! >Anyway, novels are not "effective." A pamphlet is effective. Propaganda is effective. Editorials are effective. That's not a set in stone aesthetic rule, just the preference of some writers, from whom art has be "untainted" by any desire to be didactic or influencial. Other artists explicitly set out to make politically and socially effective art, and struggled with the potency and effectiveness of their output. Some examples, out of the top of my head, Swift, Shaw, Steinbeck, Sinclair, London, Brecht, C.S Lewis, Orwell, and so on. Some of those were of course, more and others less blatant about it.

AlbertCory 3y ago
I guess it comes down to whether you can appreciate it without being a partisan of the political point. The Grapes of Wrath obviously had a political motivation, but one can be indifferent about that and still see it as art. Henry Fonda could find depth in the character enough to motivate him. Same with Swift. Same with Lewis. Brecht, not so much. And Uncle Tom's Cabin has virtually no appeal anymore.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >And Uncle Tom's Cabin has virtually no appeal anymore. It might have no appeal for the trend following people in the current US climate (for political reasons), but it remains a popular book around the globe. You can find it on most bookstores in this (much remote) place just fine. And in amazon.com it's in the top 200 of the African-American literature category by sales.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    yeah, but if it wasn't assigned reading for History and African-American Studies classes, who'd be reading it? I read Pilgrim's Progress in high school, too. That doesn't mean it's a popular book.