That's a difficult question to search, there are many definitions of literature, but only subjective opinions about good and bad literature. Karahasan has good thoughts on what makes 'bad' literature. He says there are 2 kinds: 'Art of Art's sake' and 'Heroic/dogmatic'. Well, my books aren't art for art's sake. When I was a teenager I read lots of high-brow stuff, then tried to emulate it, it was terrible! When I picked up the pen again this (last) year, there was still a thought to go 'arty-farty', but then I found my 'style'. Mmm, the 2nd is difficult. Dogmatic? I'm kind of anti-dogmatic, attacking those characters based on religion and beliefs, making those type of characters my 'villians' and not my 'heros'. My heros are single entities, whereas my villians are slightly dogmatic, though based on real people. So, I guess I don't write 'bad' literature...I think. So why isn't anyone buying them?...
No comments:
Post a Comment