From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:13:52 GMT

In article <70032@hydra.gatech.EDU> barclay@RAIL9000.gatech.edu (Barclay Blanchard) writes:

>Our class is getting more interesting.  I didn't like _Dubliners_ until we
>discussed it in class and our professor pointed out that the style reflects
>how Joyce saw Dublin... bleak, paralyzed, a place where not much happens
>(in an "event" sense).

Yours is an example of a very interesting reaction we have to any form of art
and one that I think reveals something of our relation to art and expression.  
This phenomenon (or is it a noumenon?) is the gut reaction versus the 
intellectual reaction.  Your gut reaction to Dubliners was not positive, but
after some intellectual discussion and thought about some of the technical
and/or artistic aspects, you acquired an appreciation for the work.  I have
had this reaction to books and music as well.  But I think it points to two
different kinds of pleasure, and would like to hear from others what you
think (after some reflection, preferably).

Is a work, as a whole, really good in your estimation if you don't like it
at first exposure?  Or more to the point, can you consider a work good if
it requires special background information or education (_Finnigan's Wake_ 
comes to mind)?  

Perhaps we've all felt that surge of appreciation when we learn some of the
artistic depth (vague term I know) behind some of the works considered great.
But it seems to me that great works have the distinction of having both a
pleasurable gut reaction and also offer further rewards when analyzed or 
discussed.  Which makes me feel that there is some form of intellectual
pleasure that is a seperate thing from what I'll call extemporaneous 
pleasure.

I think we all place a high value on extemporaneous pleasure of ALL kinds.
But in our relfective moments, we place an extra value on intellectual
pleasure/content.  Romance novels give much pleasure (if their numbers and
sales give any indication), as do Animal House movies.  But we all seem to
play this immediate pleasure down, and place some extra importance on the
intellectual aspects of a novel or "filmic" work.  But I don't think I'm 
wrong in saying that we place the highest value on a particular form of
pleasure that may have no intellectual content whatsoever.

I can hear the sound of a can opener running, but I would like to submit
that for most of us, a pleasureable experience must be mitigated by some
reason d'etre to gain complete intellectual exceptance, or it is devalued
somehow intellectually (not necessarily devalued extemporaneously, however).
Just as many/most/some people justify sex with love (although I would not
call love intellectual, I would call it intellectually mitigating), indeed
making love a qualification for sex.  So, I think there is an important
parallel here.  This may be of value in trying to understand why we 
express ourselves in the artistic modes we do - and why whole schools are
conducted to understand them.  

Let me dub this noumenon "The Price We Pay for Pleasure".  I'd like to hear
what others think of this, after giving it some thought.  Remember that
whether I'm right, or whether I'm wrong, I gotta be me.

As this of necessity deals with subjects not limited to the surface of a
novel, those of you who beleive that Kafka's character really turned into a 
bug may find this thread superfluous.

Ron