What is your favourite type of literature?

[The Voice of Time]

Please say what is your favourite type of literature and a short reasoning why from a psychological point of view (what kind of need does the literature fulfil).

I'm very prone to literature which I find to fulfil my need for expanding my ability of understanding a wider range of science and thought or which talks about forms of life (as in life spent) or ways of living (shorter periods of some lifestyle), notably with some relevance to specific topics I am in a mood or phase of wanting to know more about (for instance, during a phase where I was very into sadomasochism, I read a very intriguing and arousing book called Kushiel's Dart which used fantasy and rich story to blend in the life of a purely sexually masochistic girl, today, having past that phase, I probably wouldn't find it as interesting, although it was a very good book overall). This sort of selective literature, which in periods is majorly non-fiction, makes me feel like what I read will have a hard value and a stronger asset later in life, it gives a kind of comfort to a feeling of the necessity to spend ones time in productive ways, which I often fail to see myself as doing.

[tbieter]

The essay. Specifically, the standard of excellence, Montaigne. Enough said.

But, then there is Fr. Schall who I once met. http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/boo ... ry/schall/
A brilliant, learned political philosopher and man of letters.

[marjoramblues]

.

[The Voice of Time]

No particular favourite.
What ever comes along that fits my need for easy escapism (comfort or thrill); knowledge, understanding - and is a page-turner.

Doesn't that make you feel rather trivial as a reader? I've found that I need to feel like my own reading is important, that I, as a reader, am important in what I do. If I were to follow an escapist path I would feel overly dependent, like a baby in a crib, and trivialized for my participation in the literature phenomena.

[marjoramblues]

.

[The Voice of Time]

It's called The Phenomenology of Literature. It's serious business and no joking.

But yes, to a common sense perspective, it sounds rather absurd I agree.

[duszek]

Anything that is not "cheap" is good.

Literature explains the world and life in a story.

A myth also explains in a story, as opposed to logos which explains in a discourse.

Robert Coover tells me new and interesting things about life in a small American town.
Lots of the things I read in the novel "John´s Wife" are new to me. The same book might be boring to someone else, I cannot tell.
What is very bad for me personally is the amount of pornographic passages. I read them swiftly and then concentrate on the really good parts.

Literature makes my life interesting.
It helps to survive in real life, too, because it gives one ideas. These ideas can occur to one when one needs to react in the real world and to make a decision.

Inspired by a fictitious story one can try things out in real life and see what happens. One can start one´s own personal experiments.

[duszek]

If one wanted to find out about life in Norway what could one try ? Knut Hamsun ?

Henning Mankell, the Swede, is supposed to be good, but thrillers also aim at entertainment and shocking people and this tends towards "cheap", from my experience.
Of course also thrillers tell you about what people care for in a particular country.
That is why I read some thrillers by Gianrico Carofiglio, to find out about life in southern Italy, in Bari to be exact.

Agatha Christie tells you indirectly about the cosy atmosphere of English life. Who killed whom is not really what I am interested in. Only the decorations matter. The feeling behind the story.

[marjoramblues]

.

[duszek]

Escapism ?

In cheap literture, yes.

But real literatue is when you expose yourself to unpleasant truths, when you risk to get disillusioned.
After reading Coover´s novel I may be a little more cautious about Americans here on this forum. Perhaps they are as "bad" as some characters in his novels.

Good books can make you less naive and trusting.

[marjoramblues]

.

[duszek]

Not just the author but the world he lives in, the community he knows from personal experience.

If Coover tried to write a novel about a village in Norway what would occur to him ?
Not much, I suppose. An elk or two. A lonely Viking singing a song and eating a sandwich. Anything else ?

A good writer can only write well about a world he is thoroughly familiar with.
And this is the value of good literature.

[duszek]

A good writer gives you a psychological view of a community he knows.
Its workings and hidden strings.

He does not report like a psychotherapist or a scientist or a sociologist would report about it.
He tells what he has discoverd and understood and what he wishes to share with other interested people via a story (= a myth).

Whereas a writer who wishes to entertain and to be paid for his performance is a completely different matter. He wants to sell a marchandise or a service rather.

[marjoramblues]

.

[duszek]

Extensive research, yes.

But this would be second-hand experience.

Whereas if you describe your own world (and most novelists do) then you use first-hand experience or at least better experience. You have a better feeling about what you are talking about. Because your access is more immediate.
And a good novel always talks about complicated things.

In the novel "Quo vadis" ancient Rome is being described by a novelist who lived centuries later.
Can we trust him ?
He must have read the ancient writers and historians as part of his research.