Re: Sequels (was Re: Universitatlity)

Jim writes:
<< I disagree that works from antiquity are necessarily "better." >>

I didn't mean to suggest that they were necessarily better, only that they
were much less likely to be crap. And this estimation does not extend to
all works written in antiquity, but only to those that survived and
continued to be esteemed (and I take it to be the case anyway that people
are more prone to preserve texts that are exceptional). I don't doubt that
they miss many (we nearly missed Moby Dick), and sometimes they love
something that doesn't deserve it (though then their children or
grandchildren usually correct their mistake). And the text need not be from
antiquity either -- survival through a decent number of generations usually
does the trick, maybe 80 or 150 years is reliable enough. You suggest later
in your post that you might not be sure that this is how texts get
preserved, but I will speak to that when I get to it below.

I have nothing but support for amateur or professional writers who write for
love of the craft or for fame or glory or money or whatever -- I do hope,
however, that they forgive me for not reading their work. I take it that
most of what is written presents little to no interest for me aside from
occasional trivia. I do not think at all poorly of people who enjoy reading
schlock, even of those who insist it isn't schlock. But I take it that they
derive from that something very different from what one derives from Homer
or Shakespeare or even Garcia Marquez, and something that I'm either not
interested in or get my fill of from other sources. In a society like ours
that churns out such a remarkable quantity of text, I doubt that even 1% of
the total output is what I want. In those contemporary authors I've read,
even on highest recommendations from people whose opinions I trust, I will
find perhaps some appreciable amount of pretty good stuff but very rarely
better than that and a ton that I don't care for all. But the wheels of
time really weed out the shit. Perhaps some great stuff slips away, too,
but it's worth the sacrifice.

Of course, I *have* encountered very recent and contemporary authors (like
Garcia Marquez, for instance, and several others) that enchant me, and I am
not prejudiced against their work. I just count it as lucky that I've found
them and I don't waste time in the New Releases section looking for more.
More there certainly might be, but I don't so much enjoy my time there that
I'm willing to forgive the unfavorable odds.

And:
<< The Odyssey reads like an episodic adventure story to me, with some
subtext about the fulfillment of desire. >>

This is a most unfortunate malady that I'm afraid has been becoming
increasingly common for perhaps the last century and a half. If it existed
long before that, it must have been so rare or so shameful a disease that it
failed to be recorded. The only known cure is extended and intense exposure
to the Odyssey and similar literature.

And:
<< Delillo or Pynchon or Gabriel Garcia Marquez seem like much more
sophisticated storytellers, so far as the sheer storytelling goes. >>

Many writers have been much more complex than Homer -- and complexity is
sometimes nearly a virtue to us today -- but I am doubtful that any have
surpassed him for sophistication. Some few have perhaps matched him, but at
that great magnitude I question the meaningfulness of greater claims than
that.

And:
<< The preservation of ancient texts may not necessarily have to do with
their quality, at any rate, but simply with luck, their value as an ancient
artifact, and their archival cultural value. >>

The bulk of preservation does not take place by our finding original or even
nearly original manuscripts that survive. They very seldom survive. The
bulk of preservation takes place by the ongoing process of preserving what
is esteemed from generation to generation. When we find very ancient
manuscripts -- with the exception of clay tablets and other nearly
indestructible media -- they are usually either tiny fragments or, when they
are closer to complete, found in clay pots hidden in caves, or other similar
places where they were put because they were so highly esteemed, and
eventually forgotten because the people who put them there died or were
killed and nobody found their stores since.

We sometimes find half-erased texts recycled into the bindings of other
books, or decayed bits between layers of clay in trash heaps. But with the
exception of extraordinary finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have most of
our complete ancient books in no whole or even nearly whole manuscripts
dating within centuries or even millennia to their supposed composition. We
simply have complete or nearly complete copies of a text -- some of them
perhaps 1,000 years old if we're very lucky -- that are copies of texts that
are copies of texts that are copies of texts, going back a very long time.
We (essentially) trust that they are (essentially) uncorrupted in
transmission only when we have extensive fragments that are much older, some
of them quite tiny, that verify enough of our received texts over a wide
enough area and with sufficient precision, and from other early authors who
quote or paraphrase the text, acting as ancient "witnesses" to more ancient
manuscripts. It appears that we have, for instance, texts of Oedipus and
Homer that are at least essentially like those had by Aristotle, though our
oldest manuscripts -- especially the oldest complete manuscripts -- might be
much less old than that.

And this sort of survival, though luck surely plays a large part, is
primarily motivated by the extensive, careful duplication that happens when
a "standard" text exists and is widely cherished.

And in any case, I was not so much talking about survival as texts, but
survival as texts held in esteem as literature. If Homer can go a few
thousand years being frequently called a great poet, often called the
greatest who ever lived (and called this by many people spanning many
centuries speaking disparate native languages), I figure he's a safe
purchase for me. I'm not so sure about the guy who's getting rave reviews
in the papers. And while I use Homer as a convenient example, this
principle isn't relegated only to his level of greatness. I have read
widely in many literatures from many times, and when texts survive many
generations being regarded as great literature, without vanishing or being
demoted, I find that I am hardly ever disappointed with them -- and even
when I am, if I put them back on my shelf and return to them in a year or
two, I often find myself shocked that I ever didn't see it. Recommendations
for great contemporary literature don't have nearly so great a track-record
with me. I insist that I'm not prejudiced against modern literature -- I
have read great or nearly-great books published in the last few decades, and
I'm sure there are more that I haven't read. But the superlative writer, or
the superlative book, is extraordinarily rare. One or two in a century is
not bad. I'll let you and Kozusko and Omlor argue over what's great from
the current crop, and the generation that follows you can elimate some or
nominate others, and so on for the next generation, and I'll trust that
whatever is still passing muster in 150 years will be something I'd be proud
to have on my shelf. But since I don't have 150 years, or the patience to
read all the crap that you or your grandkids will read and dismiss as crap,
I like generally to stick to what's already passed this test.

-Robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Dec 9 21:43:35 2003