accessibility as a criterion for great work

[whats a book?]

ok, here is my question:
must something be accessible to the masses for it to qualify as great? an example would be kant's critique of pure reason. it is brilliant, but it is also unbelievably dense and difficult to understand, which makes it inaccessible to most. can it rightly be called a great work if it is beyond the grasp of 99% of the world? there are more examples for any work of potential greatness, but this seemed like a sufficient one. weigh in.

 

[Freya]

Do you really need to know our weight before we can answer this question?

 

[novella]

It's what I think of as The Foreign Movie Phenomenon.

You're watching a simple movie about a fiery wench in weird clothes who wants her true love to stay home and eat baked potatoes. But it's in another language. And there are subtitles. You are catching some of the meaning, but not all, and the subtitles are oddly poetic and way too brief to be real translations. You think the movie is pure genius, subtle yet complex, a testament to the art of daily life. Yeah right.

So it is with Proust or Joyce. But if you let these stories wash over you the way they were intended to, like a flood that recedes leaving dead trout in its wake, you will probably have a much better experience.

 

[whats a book?]

Do you really need to know our weight before we can answer this question?

not worth a witty reply, and you're out like a fat kid going for a triple.

 

[whats a book?]

It's what I think of as The Foreign Movie Phenomenon.

You're watching a simple movie about a fiery wench in weird clothes who wants her true love to stay home and eat baked potatoes. But it's in another language. And there are subtitles. You are catching some of the meaning, but not all, and the subtitles are oddly poetic and way too brief to be real translations. You think the movie is pure genius, subtle yet complex, a testament to the art of daily life. Yeah right.

So it is with Proust or Joyce. But if you let these stories wash over you the way they were intended to, like a flood that recedes leaving dead trout in its wake, you will probably have a much better experience.

a friend of mine weighed in with the following: proust's remembrance of things past is a great feat, but it is accessible to at best 1% of the population, and that is not enough to make it great. however, most people do not know how a computer works, which does nothing to lessen the greatness of its creation. additionally, the big bang is really more of a mediocre bang if you make accessibility as a criterion.

i would also like to add that a philosopher (i think it was wittgenstein) argued that philosophy was pointless if it was not relevant to the life of a person in an everyday or accessible sense.

 

[beer good]

Depends on what you mean by "great". But it seems to me that most inventors get outsold by their followers. In literature as in everything else, you've usually got one weird guy (or gal) who comes up with something original and then a bunch of others who "dumb it down for the masses". More people have read The da Vinci Code than have read Focault's Pendulum; this is not because Dan Brown is a "greater" writer than Umberto Eco, but because it plays to a lower common denominator.

This isn't to say that great literature must be read only by a precious few; just that the number of readers is completely irrelevant. (Feel free to check out the list of most sold books ever and ask yourself if all those can be called "great".) Feats that push the limit of human ability - whether it be in sports, science or culture - will often seem inaccessible to the majority, not because they are too stupid, but simply because it takes a lot of dedication and hard work. The vast majority of people can learn how to fly a fighter plane, run 100 meters in 10 seconds, explain evolutionary theory to a Bible belter or analyze Proust; most people just don't think it's worth the effort. Those are extreme examples, but there's a sliding scale here that applies to most things; the more advanced it is, the more people will not find it worthy of their limited time on this planet.

 

[novella]

This peripherally relates to the Recommending books you haven't read thread, in that lots of the books people recommend but haven't read are demanding at some level. That doesn't mean they're over anyone's head, but there are many readers who suck on the low-hanging fruit because it's easier than climbing up to get the old coconut.

I think everything is accessible to the average literate person, but they are just too lazy or uninterested to try to crack that big nut. To me, it's mostly a question of interest and effort, but a consensus of greatness among those who bother to read deeply is enough for me.

 

[Ell]

. . . But if you let these stories wash over you the way they were intended to, like a flood that recedes leaving dead trout in its wake, you will probably have a much better experience.

Sometimes I think people get too caught up trying to analyze every little phrase, metaphor, comma and hyphen in "great works" while they're reading that they completely miss the big picture and wonder why they didn't enjoy the book. Letting the stories wash over you is a much more satisfying approach. Examine the dead trout after the water recedes.

 

[funes]

For what it is worth, I don't think that accessibility is essential. Indeed, there are some great books which qualify by virtue of their relative in-accessibility. Things like In the Labyrinth or Jealousy by Robbe-Grillet, or Julio Cortazar's Hopscotch.
I mean, turn the argument on it's head and you end up with the theory that the greatest book ever should be the easiest to understand. Dick and Jane won't be mistaken for great literature.

 

[aemy]

Accessibility

I'm with Beer Good on this one, I think.

Also, I'm not familiar with books "washing over" me. Seriously. I read them; I'm probably aware of how they're "shaped" (structure); I look for themes, issues, techniques, that seem to give them life internally - which should also
reach the reader, I think.

But "wash over"? Maybe it's just an expression. (Sometimes I have to fight with a book - it may have long and tedious sections, for instance - but I'll do it if everything else so far says: "Good things coming!")

If not, nope.

Anyone else on "washing over"?

 

[novella]

I'm with Beer Good on this one, I think.

Also, I'm not familiar with books "washing over" me. Seriously. I read them; I'm probably aware of how they're "shaped" (structure); I look for themes, issues, techniques, that seem to give them life internally - which should also
reach the reader, I think.

But "wash over"? Maybe it's just an expression. (Sometimes I have to fight with a book - it may have long and tedious sections, for instance - but I'll do it if everything else so far says: "Good things coming!")

If not, nope.

Anyone else on "washing over"?

Let's take a passage like the following, from Joyce:

The snotgreen sea. The scrotumtightening sea.

It is a symbol of Irish art. The cracked lookingglass of a servant.

Kingstown pier, Stephen said. Yes, a disappointed bridge.

I fear those big words, Stephen said, which make us so unhappy.

History, said Stephen, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

Stephen jerked his thumb towards the window, saying: -- That is God
Hooray! Ay! Whrrwhee!
-- What? Mr Deasy asked.
-- A shout in the street, Stephen answered, shrugging his shoulders.



To my mind you can either read something like that and try to put everything in its place, to find context and reference and to parse every phrase . . . or you can travel through it and take it in and let it go. That's what I mean by 'wash over you.' Each approach is legitimate, with its own rewards. Experiences like Bloomsday readings are in the 'washing over' school.

 

[Ell]

I don't know that 'my' washing over is exactly the same as Novella's meaning. When I say I let certain books 'wash over' me, it mostly means that I don't stop to figure out every phrase and unfamiliar word; don't try to dissect and analyze each descriptive passage or obscure allusion - particularly if reading something for the first time.

It doesn't mean I don't read with attention or look things up afterwards. I just don't let the unfamiliar prevent me from moving forward at the time I'm reading. Letting things wash over me allows the author's words to work - almost subliminally - towards my overall understanding. I'm not sure if I've explained this very well.

I guess the point I'm making is that if the writing is very dense and unfamiliar, it's easy to get bogged down in the minutiae of trying to 'get it' all the first time through. In my experience, this often leads to frustration and not finishing the book.

 

[aemy]

"Washing over"

Thank you both - I think I'm beginning to get "the drift!"

And actually, Ell's last paragraph sounds the most familiar - as long as there's a friendly sail in sight!

A.

 

[novella]

Yes, Ell is very perceptive and expresses herself with clarity. Her presence is a great asset here.