From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
Summary: I liked it, but I don't know what I liked
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 06:40:47 GMT

Gulp!

In article <1992Oct14.145310.5548@grebyn.com>, fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes...

>I may be miscontruing here, but they appear to be asking this question:
>"What qualities must a book possess in order to provide a certain
>threshold level of pleasure?"  Ron Nadel refers to this threshold
>valuation as a "benediction" that the reader dispenses only to those
>books which "rise in our esteem to the title 'Great.'"  Keith Morgan
>agrees that there is such a thing as a "benediction," but appears to
>differ with the either-or quality of the one Ron proposes, referring
>instead to a "hierarchy of pleasures."  Ron says that one cannot give
>the benediction to a book that does not meet a "Snob Requirement"--that
>is, it is not sufficiently satifying on an intellectual level.  Without
>disagreeing about the importance of a book's intellectual qualities,
>Keith proposes an alternative test: how difficult was the book, how much
>effort did it take to read and understand it?  Ron responds by asking,
>"What happens if you put a lot of effort into a really lousy novel?"  (I
>hope that isn't too oversimplified, as a summary of what's happened so
>far.)

Much as I like to be agreed with, I fear I have not made myself clear.
Mia culpa.  I did not so much state a position as ask a question about the
relative values of the intellectual pleasure obtained in contemplation of a
work versus the immmediate pleasure of experiencing the work.  My feeling is
that the intellectual part of a novel is like an essay - dealing with form, or
idea, or technique, etc.  An essay by itself may be of great intellectual value
but would not rate highly on a literary experience scale.  On the other hand
the immediate pleasure of a work; the plot, or a character to identify with, 
the climax etc., may be of little intellectual value, yet rate highly as
pleasurable experience.

Now the "Lord Jim" reader mentioned that she did not enjoy the book when
she read it, but that after she had it explained to her, she liked it better.
She apparently gained an intellectual appreciation for the book that was
able to compensate her lack of immediate pleasure so that she liked it better
AFTERwards.  I too have experienced this.  To me this is only a qualified
seal of approval.  It's like saying "I like what the author was getting at
intellectually, but the author failed to couch his intentions in an enjoyable
experience."  Well then, it may as well have been an essay.  Does it then
qualify as a "Great" novel?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  On the other
hand, the novel that is a page turner, but has little to say to us or is 
lacking in prose may get a high pleasure rating, but have low intellectual
value to distinguish it.  Does this qualify as a "Great" novel?  Again, 
I don't think so.  I would rate this kind of book as better, though, than
the first kind (and I think most others would too to themselves), because I 
believe (in spite of people's protestations to the contrary) that we place a 
higher value on the immediate pleasures in life.

It's like sex (isn't everything?).  We may find a person to be physically 
beautiful or a great lover - and so equate them with a high immediate physical
pleasure, and yet find them lacking in intellectual stimulation otherwise.  
OR, we may find a person great conversational company and an intellectual 
challenge, but feel no physcial attraction.  With whom do we seek pleasure
most often, and/or *enjoy* more?  Well, I think you can tell that I believe
we value the physical pleasure more (we don't discount the other, though, 
obviously).  I know we tout the importance of intellectual pleasure, content,
and pursuits, I just think that physical immediate pleasure is still more
important to us.

Therefore, I feel that a Great novel must have a high immediate pleasure
factor, AND reward further intellectual investigation as well.  Like the
ideal mate (to push my analogy even further), with whom, after great sex, we 
feel inclined to know them further, have great conversations with them, learn 
from them, are corrected by them, pushed by them, grow, change (if we're 
lucky).

>What about the circumstance when the effort expended while
>reading a book, is the very process by which the book gains in
>intellectual prestige, in our estimation?  

I would agree with you here, Fiona...this is experiencing the Great novel.

>This situation of having something "explained" is more passive, though,
>than what I have in mind.  

And this is what I was trying to get at, albeit unsuccessfully; that maybe
the novel does not deserve praise for this.

>I'm talking about the active effort that an
>educated reader can invest in a book--any book, however lame--that
>transforms it into a treat for the mind.  

And this is where we readers look for "intellectual trophys" for ourselves
and in a mutually contratulatory way, compliment the novel.

>The well-known version of this sort of pleasure-finding is when we find
>a "bad" movie to be be "good" on another level

Right.  And so it calls into question our criteria for benediction - when
we give this "other level" priority over other factors.

>It goes back to the
>quotation (from Auden, I believe it was) earlier in this thread--about
>how either you like a book and think it's good, don't like it and think
>it's good, and so on through the permutations.  While this typology made
>for some fun postings, I take issue with it because it has too much of
>an either-or quality, too much of a subject-object distinction.  I see
>liking a book, and thinking a book is "good," as taking place within a
>field of interaction between the text and the reader's mind. 

I agree with you, Fiona.  And so this gets back to my question of the
benedictions placed on works only AFTER some intellectualizing, instead of
WITH some additional intellectual reflection. And from here I go on to my
question of the motives behind the overvaluation of the intellectual
content above all else, the tendency to denegrate a work UNLESS it has
intellectual content, or praise a work we otherwise wouldn't like solely
because of the intellectual content.

To go back to my sex analogy; we know that many set love as a necessary
prerequisite for sex, that sex is somehow less if experienced without love
(or even unjustifiable without it).  This has always had the flavor of a
penance paid in advance for enjoyment of the otherwise forbidden pleasure,
and I think that there is a parallel here with other forms of pleasure,
namely works of art.  We are somehow not free to enjoy them unless there is
some intellectual reason d'etre to justify our indulgence.  Like the classical
sculptures of nude figures.  Nudity and the naked body was justified as a 
"work of art", but not for it's own sake, and to qualify, nudes had to be free
of lurid detail (pubic hair, realistic nipples) that might debase the work.
Doesn't this sound like our relation to Stephen King novels?  Exciting stories
for the sake of excitement alone are looked down upon.  But add interesting
intellectual conversation and better prose ala Anne Rice, and it's not nearly 
as criticized by us literates (I still wouldn't maintain that these "lighter"
novels are great, of course, just not so deserving of our scorn).  And when
we apply ourselves to the extra intellectual effort, then we are also entitled
to an egoistic boost for having worked harder than the casual reader.

Ron