Literature, part 1.
I have inquired recently, but in a relatively shallow manner, into the nature of literature--specifically, what makes it, and is there a way I can parlay my fascination with (predominantly epic) fantasy novels into a sort of literary credibility? The touch-hole for this line of thought has more often than not revolved around the use of impeccable vocabulary: depending on the subject, I often find adjectives such as 'chthonic,' 'gelid,' 'postprandial,' 'marmoreal,' 'vatic,' nouns on the order of 'Hydriotaphics,' 'tumbrils,' 'epigones,' 'abattoirs,' and very few verbs of note. But there is a limit to the literary value of the crepusculum of the perspicacious, and I wonder whether I haven't been conflating knowledge with skill. This merits a future disquisition into the nature of creativity--a marvelous essay introducing the Mervyn Peake novel Titus Groan assures us that true creativity exists in a vacuum rather than a plenum--but suffice it to say for the moment that, holding the question of surfeit aside, the literature I've encountered and recognized as such has been defined more often than not by the stylistic rather than the substantive. In other words, the window-dressing has done more to sell products than the engineering.
Granted, it's probably a mistake to dither over the proper delineation of concepts which need not be delineated. There exists a powerful argument that style and substance rely upon each other and furthermore that whatever interpersonal transmission of concepts that occurs is enabled solely by the expert matching of style to substance. However, to the extent that we are going to define literature (i.e. quality) and further differentiate between members of a subgenre not generally noted for its literary qualities, I hold that we must begin somewhere (viz. a facile, but necessary, distinction of debatable merit). We are not wedded to the concept, however, and will revise accordingly upon examination.
Granted, it's probably a mistake to dither over the proper delineation of concepts which need not be delineated. There exists a powerful argument that style and substance rely upon each other and furthermore that whatever interpersonal transmission of concepts that occurs is enabled solely by the expert matching of style to substance. However, to the extent that we are going to define literature (i.e. quality) and further differentiate between members of a subgenre not generally noted for its literary qualities, I hold that we must begin somewhere (viz. a facile, but necessary, distinction of debatable merit). We are not wedded to the concept, however, and will revise accordingly upon examination.