You Call This Literature? Part 3 - edited

Looking through the "Literature" section and expecting to find articles on Woolf and Morrison, Pound and Haslitt, it is disappointing to see Dan Brown's work everywhere.  This is not to criticise Brown, although his earth-shattering theory is, too be fair, not even his own; but what is truly dissatisfying is how a bestseller, based on a juicy story everyone loves to believe, is what can define what we all think we ought to read. 

Popular literature has hit a regrettable low, unfortunately to the point that fine literature is being overlooked.  Even Chapters has candles and calendars and journals and pens at the front of the store now, and we have go to the back to see what it says it's really selling.  Moreover, on the tables nearest the entrance are shiny bestselling books written by Dan Brown and anything with Oprah's Book Club's seal of approval sticker.  It took William Faulkner almost an entire century to finally be recognized as a valuable writer by most of us, when Oprah recommended a three-volume set of his "best"work.  It seems we all want what someone thinks is "best," the overarching narrative of a writer's career, without having to do any researcher to dig through piles of books.  Rather, we gather bits and pieces, as if all works were separate, only caring to read the author that the New York Times deems "brilliant" and "dazzlingly unique."

What is also disheartening is that many people haven't heard of good Canadian writers, or at the very least, Canadian writers who don't base their stories in the mid-western U.S.  Many of us have never read anything by Atwood or Munro (who are hardly even being considered in Chapters' best selling novels) while others like Henighan are being almost completely ignored.  It seems we'd all rather read up on astrology and Devils wearing Prada.   Granted, people read because they want to escape.  Lamentably, everyone these days wants to escape into a story that is predictable and superficial.  Have we become so passive that we cannot escape into a story that might enlighten us or enhance our knowledge of the world?  It seems we don't want to look around us, don't want to read about things that matter.  This is not only egotistical, but also irresponsible.  The need for enjoyment is recognized, but great writers like Brand and Rhys, Joyce and Chesterson inform and inspire as well as delight, which may take us further than a bestselling Dan Brown or Stephen King.  Literature helps make us human.  Since what we're reading is mass-market, cliched plot-driven books, society should be slightly concerned about what this says about our collective intelligence. 

Good and Bad Writing

The first example begins with somewhat of a truism, "within our society ... there is an individual."  Well, of course there is an individual.  Everyone is an individual. The author then tries to support the statement with claims that are all questions. "Who determines whether or not he is correct in their choices?"   "Are our thoughts brainwashed...?"  This is a stylistic flaw that I personally find quite annoying when it's overused.  Another subject, ethical relativism, is then introduced (again, with a question) seemingly out of nowhere.  This is the type of bad writing, then, that has too many directions.  The author continues to ask questions that are not quite rhetorical - "who is behind all the madness of ethical relativism?"  Ethical relativism, which was rather confusing, is at last defined as what one's culture says is right, is right for the individual.  The conclusion that the author draws from this is that a variety of diverse cultures will produce a variety of different moralities, which is almost a truism, especially since it's not supported with anything but the author's reasoning.  After all this, the closing sentence is a train wreck in which it is vaguely stated that ethical relativists think studying ethics philosophically is a waste of time.  This is the type of bad writing, then, that has too many directions that aren't supported - so, at the same time, it has no direction.  The last thing that condemns it is just all the grammatical and spelling errors.  "He is correct in their choices," "with it's hellish ideas," "your wasting your time,"  need I go on.

The second paragraph, if it can be called that, is one sentence.  Clearly this is the type of writing that is "too clever by half," the author using long sentences and big words to make himself feel grown-up and smart.  The author has not thought about his audience; his meaning is unclear and the entire sentence is not very cohesive.  This piece of writing is not likely to be read/understood because it does not say what the reader needs to hear.

This last example begins with a weak thesis, a question for the reader.  The supporting claim that follows is a vague and poorly worded "frankenquote" from Freud that does not seem to relate to what it is supposed to support.  (What does Freud's observations on religion have to do with the theories of science being the laws of origin and people having strong emotions from a science experiment?)  The author then notes that many children have parents who love them and take care of them and "give them their needs" (that could be worded better), and yet the children are still religious.  Unfortunately, the author thinks that "this proves" that religion doesn't fill the gap of a lost parent.  It might prove that religion can fill this gap, but doesn't always need to fill it - but the author has clearly not thought this over thoroughly and should take his final thought, "religion does not fill the gap of a parent which has been lost," and try and prove it as the thesis.  The original 'thesis' doesn't relate to the conclusion at all, for that matter.  This paragraph is definitely too "hyped up."

The first sample of good writing is indeed well written.  It is concise, coherent, and interesting, and never drifts off-topic.  No truistic claims are made.  The thesis is partly the opinion of the author (the capelins' mating ceremony is 'fascinating'), which could be a downfall; however, he supports and describes the ceremony well, and does makes it seems fascinating.  The wording used is almost poetic, and the description makes the audience pay attention, and really feel for those fish; they go to so much trouble, that seems so planned, just to reproduce and die. 

The second example of good writing begins with an interesting hook and then launches into the thesis.  The amusing quote at the beginning makes a potentially tedious subject interesting.  Unlike the examples of bad writing, the use of a question as an introduction to the subject in this paragraph is not abused and manages to capture the attention of the reader even further.  The subject is then explained simply and understandably, never mentioning facts irrelevant to the topic. 

The last example is quite an interesting one, controversial in nature.  Again, it does not abuse the use of questions as a hook for the audience, but instead uses them tactfully with a sense of wonder.  The thesis is intriguing: "humans are machines ... and so of course machines can think."  After this thesis is stated, it's supported by the fact that humans haven't researched and don't know a great deal about things like this, so thinking machines could be formed from anything.  In the next sentence, a new spin is put on the thesis by asking if a machine could think just by the implementation of a computer program.  The paragraph doesn't quite come to a conclusion and it is evident that the article continues to discuss whether our minds are computer programs.  It remains a good example; the author doesn't fall into any of the bad writing traps.