Monday, February 2, 2009

Bear with me

First of all I must give props to Miku's bout of sickness inspired literature. The part about the phlegm was truly vivid.
In class we all had decently strong opinions about Madonna's little ditty in regards to whether it was "good" poetry or not. Several musicians were mentioned in previous blogs and it pressed me into a realm of thought that I was not completely comfortable in (which is fabulous please keep it up) which is the idea of whether or not writers like T.S. Eliot can be compared to the songwriters who wrote "She's not me". I have always been of the school of thought that there was "good" literature and "bad" literature, but isn't the epitome of good literature literature that connects with the intended audience?
I have always had disdain for bands such as Fall Out Boy (pardon me for all the fans out there) who I thought were pretty whiny and really had nothing original to say regarding youthful ennui, but then I thought about the masses of 14 year old kids who apparently felt that they had something very worthy to say. Fall Out Boy has reached a much greater audience than Mark Z. Danielewski who is said to be one of the most brilliant authors of our generation. Perhaps they are not comparable; Danielewski's writing addresses a completely different set of problems than Fall Out Boy.
I mean I can hardly understand the problems that a 8 year old faces, and I tend to dismiss said problems as "not a big deal" but to that 8 year old dammit that missing lunch box is a gigantic issue. So perhaps what we tend to dismiss as unoriginal or mundane is quite original to the audience absorbing it, because a song about a missing lunch box would be relevant to that 8 year old who has never before experienced misplacing an object of comfort.

1 comment:

  1. I think that's a very solid argument. But when you mention songwriters (meaning Madonna in that context), then the question of authorship comes up. Many pop singers don't actually write their own songs [I'm not discrediting Madonna, because I honestly don't know how her songs come about].

    But let's use Britney Spears as an example. One could argue that her songs speak to many- but they are songs she has not written. Since she is the one singing them and performing them around the world, does she gain authorship to them? Same goes for ghost writers. The person they are writing for gets all the credit and authorship credo.

    So what literature are we losing in the face of fame? Are we putting too many variables into the literature debate? Is it better to simplify our understanding of what literature is? Is it right to be exclusive (good lit) or inclusive (good, bad, ugly lit) in literary theory? I have so many questions!