How do you feel about this Faulkner Quote?

Question

Faulkner, in his speech upon being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature that people must write about things that come from the heart, or "universal truths." Otherwise, he states, the ideas published signify nothing.

My question is, if this quote is true, how do you justify reading Harry Potter or Twilight or anything by Stephen King? I am not trying to coyly rant, I am seriously interested, I have read Potter and enjoyed King's DT books.

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. -Shakespeare

Answer 1

On some level, all of the best books appeal to human feelings/emotions. Harry Potter 7 I thought had some very good human emotions- sacrifice, fighting for a goal, etc.

Answer 2

Hmmm...

I would read all Harry Potter etc etc books but never never would I ever consider them to be 'great' books. Really.

They fall in the 'good/nice' book category. They're smart, imaginative, interesting and fun to read.

I justify reading them as light reading. My head may burst if all I ever read was poetry and Shakespeare and Philosophy and classics.

I would read very very few books if all I ever read was great books :-)

Nice-good books keep the flame of 'reading' or 'bookholism' alive till I find a really good good book.

None of them do truly ever - shake you.

A great book can - leave you reeling with thoughts or ideas or new perspectives or heck even breathless with the intensity of the 'way' it is written.

Now in terms of 'great books' - in my opinion - I point at Graham Greene. True he writes fiction but I appreciate more the 'way' he writes - there is essential a lot of 'things that come from the heart' there. Or Midnight's Children (go kill Salman Rushdie if you must - it doesn't bother me) but this book rises above the author just for the sheer language - the feeling in the book - it's the most chaotic-order book I've ever read.

I respect most of the 'classics' for the fact that there is a LOT of 'things that come from the heart' there.

There IS a difference.

Good books and great books have their thin thin lines separating them.

Everyone in this world should read one truly great book in their life. It's a damper at times - because then the - blandness of other books becomes obvious. Ouch :)

I haven't found a single book which doesn't have 'things that come from the heart, or "universal truths" to be truly brilliant - but I've zealously enthusiastically read them in enjoyment.

"the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat"

It is it is. It appeals more to your soul. It really does. Not to sound like a deranged fool - but even a paragraph written truly truly from the heart with thoughts behind it - the language - the way - that can tug at you.

Ah well. Just my two cents :)

Answer 3

I believe Faulkner was expressing his fear that the emergence of the Cold War was going to lead writers to focus on contemporary issues, rather than universal ones. I think it's a fair concern. How many readers today could honestly get into a book about the cold war without the constant fear of nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads?

Answer 4

Well, it may be that all literature, 'good' or 'bad' is on some sort of continuum. I would not rate Winston Churchill's writings as 'great' literature, but he won the Nobel Prize in 1953, just 3 years after Faulkner's speech.  And I agree with the others who say that we often read for pleasure, and not for 'conflicts of the heart.'  

You are making an assumption, perhaps, when you think that you should 'enjoy' great literature.  I think that sometimes literature can be agonizing, like Solzhenitzen's "Gulag Archipelago."  It does speak of "human hearts in conflict," but it is also some of the most bleak literature I have ever read.

You should have also written the first part of the Shakespeare quote:

It is a tale told by an idiot

Full of the sound and fury

Actually, Faulkner's "Sound and Fury" is also a very difficult book, but it does speak to "human hearts in conflict."

Good question.

  

Answer 5

The books are fun, but they do signify nothing, philosophically. Well, they might contain some moral theories in the text but basically, Harry Potter is not going to be the most *significant* book you've ever read (unless you don't read much). It may be your favourite or most fun - which is also important (reading is a leasure activity).