"Many critics, art aficionados and artists try to convince their audiences of the difference between the great works of literary import and the dismissible works of genre — to which they would be loathe to even call art. But for all their attempts to sever one from the other, I have never seen an adequate definition of literariness.
I can discern only a few qualities from the muck of their attempted definitions. First, that literary works of art should never fall into any genre, regardless of shape or form (it may be romantic, but never a romance). Second, that literary works should have the proper pretensions toward winning the Pulitzer (or Oscar, Tony, etc.).
As far as divisions of art go, this artificial definition seems horribly useless. It speaks less to the content of the art than to the ego of its creators and distributors. ...
Genre can be very, very low art indeed with a tendency to become too much of an in-joke. ...
Literary works can suffer the same ills, though. They too have their fanboys for pseudo-intellectual rambling."
More: http://www.dailyillini.com/opinion/columns/article_9084bbca-377b-11e2-9e85-001a4bcf6878.html
SpyWriter Jack King "A new King of Thrillers on the Horizon" www.SpyWriter.com
No comments:
Post a Comment