Home  •  Forum  •  Blogs  •  E-Mail  •  Support Categories
MyCopper Categories Finance Travel Real Estate Games Autos Entertainment
Nearly Relevant
Nonsense, Fiction, and Miscellaneous Things

Amalgamation of Slogs
"Vrrrrrrrrr!!!!" He stepped on the gas in yet another attempt to propel the car out of the mud.  "Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrr."
In the author's mind, not one word of the story rang true.  Trying to decipher where the idiocy lay, he thought, "Maybe it's the 'vrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.'  It sounds like a car but it looks like a cat purring."
"Maybe adults don't use 'vrrrrrrr.'"
"ALLRIGHT, cut it out.  We're not going anywhere doing it this way.  This is a waste of time."
"You had to drive off the main road like some idiot."
"Main road sounds doltish. Interstate.  Highway."
"You have no sense of adventure.  If all mankind acted the way you do we'd all be an amalgamation of slogs."
'Sense of adventure.'  It sounds like I'm selling a 7 day, 6 night vacation deal.
"Amalgamation of slogs?!?!"
"'Amalgamation of slogs.'  I like it.  Stupid, ridiculous.  Fits well with the story."
"Yes, slogs.  Stuck in the mud is better than being a slog."
"I don't know about that. We could have been picturesquely riding down the highway."
"I don't do picturesque."
"'I don't do picturesque.'  Cute. Colloquially cute, but not at all original.  Let's see, "'I don't do fun.'  Or, 'I don't do serious.'  Or, 'I don't do . . . literature.'  Certainly don't do literature."

" . . . but don't be afraid to show yourself foolish; . . ."
  - Anton Chekhov
Invested: Poignancy and Literature
So, I have this idea where I, occasionally, invest in these blogposts a little more of myself.  I suppose I should emphasize 'occasionally.'  I don't know how it'll work out.  After all, no investment is guaranteed to bring benefits.

Here's the first post.

The thing with literature, as a conception, is it's quality to pool.  Virtually, all literature involves poignancy.  It is a sea of poignancy.  The body of this Poignancy Sea is comprised almost exclusively of  literature.  That part of the sea which is an actual non-fictionalized poignancy, the experience of poignancy itself, leaves the body of this sea as it feeds into tributaries which in turn resolve into fertile valleys nourishing life.  All that remains within the Poignancy Sea is the virtually stagnant portion known as literature.

Here is most of the fifth comment copied and pasted here in the body. 

Its' is plural possessive which I think is correct. I don't often distinguish plural unless -s or -es etc. is involved. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, I think 'poignancy' refers to a response. But writer's are readers as well and know when something will elicit a poignant response. They don't elicit this as a manipulative scheme, but to illustrate a tenderness concerning the human condition. For example, the widow who entrusted the flag to the scouts brings up an emotion of tenderness and fragility in our human experience. This I think of as poignancy. So, here's my point.

1. This body of literature, short stories, novels, etc. all contain poignancy or more aptly a description of poignancy. True or not, mistaken or not, I don't know, but that's my contention. And I think of this characteristic of literature as so common and necessary to literature that literature can, metaphorically, be classified as one great, big body of water all of which has to contain poignancy.
2. Some poignancy, the kind we experience rather than read about is also part of this 'Poignancy Sea.' But the only part of the sea that ends up feeding into rivers and stuff is the experiential part. Metaphorically, this experiential part becomes shores, feeds into valleys, grows food, etc. off of which we are nourished or grow. The descriptions of poignancy as contained in literature never feed into these tributaries which sustain life because of their fictiveness. They are not experiential. They are still poignant but only make up the body of this sea rather than becoming rivers, etc. So literature, in never being experiential but only descriptive, is a big rolling body of this poignancy. And although it tries to be noble in describing the poignant aspects of the human condition, this poignancy is so pervasive in literature that it's almost a cliche. Literature is not unlike the cliche of romance novels, for example. Only instead of love and passion, literature has poignancy. This cliche aspect is what I meant by stagnant.
3. The 'pool' part is meant as a verb. Literature pools into one big body of water. It kind of means literature is an ignoble consolidation rather than the generally proclaimed noble opinions of discreet discernment.
4. I probably should have called literature out as nothing more than a genre not unlike the romance genre, mystery genre, science-fiction genre, etc. rather than using metaphorical oceans and rivers.

Also, I honestly prefer fiction as a label and don't like the term literature, but literature describes a class of writing which is the class to which I'm referring.

So, I don't know what else to say except that these opinions aren't meant to be adamantly accusatory of literature. I enjoy it and appreciate it, but sometimes it seems writers and publishers of literature can't see the forest for the trees, and think literature is without biases of generalizations. They're almost unaware of this necessity for poignancy which borders on classifying literature as a, sort of ignoble rather than noble, genre..


Blog Search