…the art of writing something that will be read twice. (Cyril Connolly)
I am, on occasion, asked if I stock any ‘real’ literature. With-a-capital-Luh.
“Why, yes, Sir! It’s all over the building! On the shelves! Hidden amongst the books!”
I have always wanted to enquire of the enquiree the exact definition of ‘real’ but no-one as yet has been able to given me a satisfactory explanation (or even one that is in any way consistent to the previous enquiry of an enquirer’s answer. So to speak). So in the interests of clarity I did a little research, and I have come to the conclusion that ‘real’ literature fulfils a set of personal and individualistic criteria which are inconsistent, incomprehensible and, as yet, unrecorded. So for future reference I have listed some possiblities:
-
any written works which have been used as a set book in a degree course. Bronte, Dickens, Sartre and Carroll. Possibly Twain. Anything listed on literature.org. Anything which requires a dictionary for comprehension. Anything which weighs at least 10lbs and will break the strap of your bag should you attempt to carry it to a coffee shop to show everyone that you are reading a ‘real’ book.
-
any text written by an individual who lived at least 100 years ago. Mr Connolly’s defintion (1903-1974 – so he fulfils this criteria by dint of birth date at least) puts Pratchett next to Shakespeare and Donne and something incomprehensible that Bob is wrestling with for her PHD. Unfortunately he fails on the age requirement. Bummer.
-
any text adhering to rules 1 & 2 which has been subjected to a BBC adaptation. The range of applicable titles in this category are too myriad to mention – just remember that if Gwyneth Paltrow has been involved you get extra points.
-
any text which is incomprehensible without translation into modern English. Chaucer. Definitely Chaucer. Have you read the Wife of Bath’s Tale? Pure Jackie Collins for the 1300’s – I can only assume that it hasn’t received a Hollywood re-make because they’d already covered that particular area of mainstream pornography with Basic Instinct and the BBC doesn’t do overt smut (unless it’s artistic, of course) therefore he deserves his own rule. Chaucer.
-
written works, especially those regarded as having artistic merit. Now this is obviously an OED definition as it leaves the way open to a huge difference in opinion – I mean, define artistic. Pratchett created the Discworld;
Pullman wrote of parallel universes. Both are ‘having or revealing creative skill’ so wouldn’t these be considered ‘real’? No? Okay, Shakespeare was a popular play write during his lifetime – it’s only now that his works are considered classics and require a special facial expression, but who’s to say that Rankin won’t be considered on the same terms in 100 years – he deals with murder, violence, guilt and love. Just like Shakespeare; and as far as I’m aware neither have ever gained practical experience of nefarious activities so it shows creativity and imagination, therefore Rankin=artistic=Shakespeare=‘real’. -
any written works where the characters are dressed in corsetry and/or highly impractical attire. Laurell K. Hamilton doesn’t apply because she fails on rules 1 through 4. Rule 5, possibly, because the woman has a seriously inventive imagination, but as far as I’m aware Gwynnie has never formed a ménage-a –trois with a werewolf and a vampire so, no. Although the commercial possibilities of dramatisation boggle the mind…
-
any work of fiction translated from/to the original. Always inspires awe when you’re reading a book in a foreign language. Could be ‘Winnie the Pooh Does Dunstable’ for all people know, but requesting it ‘in the original’ somehow confers ‘real’ status. (Tiffany Haligua – your secret is out…)
Just remember that Literature-with-a-capital-LUH, irrespective of the title, must be asked for VERY LOUDLY. That way you will make it clear that you are a PROPER reader. You are EDUCATED. You are ERUDITE. You are SPECIAL. Above all, you are a connoisseur of distinction – and your shelf is halfway up the stairs, above the toilets…
Posted by biblocafe 