Of real literature

By Quazi Zulquarnain Islam

Before I embark upon this long essay I have a few confessions to make. Firstly, I would like you to know that I love Steven King and almost all his work. As a teenager I remember being crazy about Agatha Christie (Hercule Poirot and all). Going back further I distinctly remember being fond of the Hardy Boys and going back even further (the golden childhood years) I remember my tastes were largely inclined towards Enid Blyton. I read a variety of stuff- I am largely fascinated by Rowling, find Ludlum exhilarating and I have read my fair share of South Asian Literature. I take great pleasure in reading Dahl's work as I do with a certain Tolkien. Finally, I happen to think that Charles Dickens is the best thing in English Literature since sliced bread.

Well now that I have got my Literature interests on the table, a lot of you purists out there have undoubtedly got your knives out sharpened and all ready to strike me down any moment. Before you do though, I think I am entitled to a few parting words.

So, without further ado let me begin.

The inspiration to write this article came about quite by chance. I was at this meeting at university when fate intervened. We were discussing authors and their integrity and contribution to Literature. What started as a lively debate soon developed into a blazing row when one overeager critique made certain derogatory comments about one of my favorite contemporary authors'. I was not best pleased when the critique went as far as to say that the author in question had little or no contribution to English Literature (his work his not real Literature is what was said) and was just interested in selling books.

Now don't get me wrong here. I have read my fair share of authors in my time (as the above list will no doubt prove), grizzled veteran of a thousand books that I am (purely figurative). There have been good books by relatively obscure authors that I have doted upon. There have also been awful books by obscure, and famous authors alike, that at times, makes you wonder how it ever got printed.

But speaking from a personal level I have never ever read books or judged them from their contribution to literature. I consider that attitude very elitist or academic and not least snobbish. Recently I have come across a number of people who seem to consider that you should only read books which you think are 'contributing to literature.' This attitude has surprised me to no ends.

I have always read books just for the heck of it- I mean just go out there and read it-if you like it good, if you don't move on… It shocked me then, and bothered me too, when I found that a certain 'class' of people looks down upon us omnivorous readers. This essay is more about clearing their opinions than anything else.

Now as far as I am concerned fiction, modern fiction come to that, is a key part of English Literature as we know it. Fiction is fiction. Literature is literature. Some are bad, some are good but there's no such thing as 'REAL' literature (IMHO). For me the book is all about the story. Who cares how much the author contributed to literature? Sadly not all people share this point of view and sadder still is the fact that I know a number of them.

To be honest I pity these people. I can do an analysis of Shakespeare but still appreciate South Park the movie, watch football Saturday nights and still take time to watch the WWF. As to why I pity these people well I think they live in small academic bubble- a world that they struggle to break out of.

By this time I am sure all of you who have bothered to read this far are already divided into groups. (some supporting me and some just sharpening their knives further) People who are on my side of the see-saw have probably been able to identify the kind of people I am talking about.

These people are what I would refer to as either a typical academic (someone who is perhaps well versed in historical literature, but lets that cloud any consideration that modern literature holds any importance) or a typical elitist who only considers non mainstream literature to be of any importance (all the famous authors are just trying to make a quick buck, that's all). And if their favourite slightly unknown and under appreciated artist suddenly gains some recognition, they will abandon their admiration for that artist because said artist has "lost his/her flair for real literature, and only produces things for fame and fortune"). The kind that doesn't think comic books are real literature probably, right? (And if you tell them this, they will probably ignore the rest of what I have to say, because I consider comic books to be real literature. Hell, who doesn't love Archie?) They use the cliched idea that because Stephen King or Grisham or Ludlum are modern, because they are mainstream, because they are rich, their books cannot be considered on the same plain of literature as Charles Dickens or Poe.

All authors want some sort of recognition. Even if they say, "I don't want any sort of recognition for writing this." If they sign their name to it they want some recognition. Plain and simple. But does that mean they don't enjoy what they do? Or that what they did should not be considered "literature" just because part of their motivation just happened to be "if this is good enough, I could be famous"?

Also, consider this. Academics who only consider historical literature as "real literature" are forgetting something. These great, great authors like T.S. Eliot and Poe and Dickens etc. etc. all wrote in the language of their time. This is why people consider that literature as a "challenging read".
But, what if we were to take a time machine and take some books with us ("The Pelican Brief", "Jurassic Park", "It", "Phantoms", "Patriot Games", you get the idea) and let Edgar Poe read them. He would consider them a challenging read. These books are written in the language of our time. So there's one ratio you have to get rid of. Historical literature is not better than modern literature simply because of language.

What about what they wrote about? The best author is someone who writes about things people care about. Things that touch on modern culture and politics. Something that brings the story to our level of understanding. If Dickens were alive today, what sort of book would he write? What would a "Christmas Carol" look like if it were written by Charles Dickens of the 21st century?

Along that line. Another reason people love what they call "the classics" is because they are historical of that time. A century from now, would people's reactions be the same towards say Steve King's "The Dark Tower" or Terry Brooks's "Sword of Shannara"? Trying to compare how a book was written in the conquest of trying to prove that the "classics" are better than modern literature starts becoming a little useless. This same thing goes for people who only consider non-mainstream artists as "true" artists.

I highly doubt however that the people in subject would change their mind. Even if (when) they are old, ancient crones and watches the news one day to find out that college professors are offering entire courses on Stephen King, Terry Brooks and/or "The Dark Tower" & "Sword of Shannara" or even "Harry Potter."

If you looked at that last sentence and laughed out of disbelief that explains a lot about what you're willing to accept. It's even a little hard for me to accept. It seems almost funny to think about the fact that when we're old, Snoop Dog and Jennifer Lopez will be considered historical artists and Metallica will even earn maybe up to 3 pages in a Music History book. Our grandkids will be looking at us and saying comments like, "Granddad, likes that old s#I@." Think about that! Isn't that nuts?

Also consider this, If you take Animal Farm (wonderful satire that it is) at face value then it could be seen as pointless commercial writing rather than engaging social commentaries... If you read the said modern authors with the idea that they have nothing more than entertainment to offer then you'll never be able to see them as anything more. To the elitists 'Want a great study of the human condition?' Read The Long Walk (by Steve King) and tell me it's just commercial entertainment to be put down and dismissed.

Perfection and originality you say. Take Shakespeare. Was he perfect or original? Hell no! Shakespeare was not perfect. My favourite play by him is Julius Caesar and it's pretty flawed. Shakespeare is neither perfect nor is he original. He has an original way of presenting things. An original mix of elements. But he's got his influences as well.

I will concede on one point though. I think that with the way the world is now there are probably many people of distinction who slip through the cracks and are never heard because writing books and making art and all those other things which were fairly exclusive 80 years ago are now open to a much wide variety of people. But as they say "…ultimately its all down to luck."

Well, I think that should about cover it for now. I think I have told enough. Do you not think so?

If I'm able to live to see the end of this 21st century and have the privilege to witness someone saying something like this: "These modern authors have nothing to offer. All they want is a quick buck. The real authors who wrote real literature are people like Stephen King." I will laugh... That is if I have the capacity to remember this article.

Finally, I think it just comes down to taste and your own opinions. Read what you enjoy, and who really cares what is considered 'real literature' by some people…if its literature to you…that's all that matters.

Long days and pleasant nights.