The Problem With 'Alice in Wonderland'...

I am often puzzled. When I am not puzzled I am bemused. Perhaps it is a sign of advancing years; I do not remember being either puzzled or bemused when I was young but, then, when we are young we are wise beyond measure.

“The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything, the young know everything.” Oscar Wilde said that, we are told. I believe it.

Oscar Wilde was an intellectual who dabbled in several forms of literature excelling at none of them according to his contempories. People like Rudyard Kipling described Wilde’s work as “Too scented”.

Perhaps he was ‘too intellectual’. People don’t like others who are ‘intellectual’. It makes them feel inferior. People don’t like to feel inferior.

Sometimes the smart way is to pretend to be dumb. That way you become liked. It is fine to be good at something. You might be good at computers or physics. Mathematicians are acceptable as long as they are not intellectual.

My problem, and the root of my puzzlement, is just that. What is an intellectual. At what point do you cease to be simply ‘good at something’ and become an intellectual.

This conveys into other subjects.

Religion.

Yes, sorry about that. I’ll keep this one brief.

When Christianity started out it was not a recognised religion it was a sect. Then there were what they call, I believe, schisms. Emperor Constantine’s Catholic Church became embraced by Christianity where it ultimately became the Roman Catholic Church.

Other schisms were Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah Witnesses. All of these started out as sects. The Lutheran Church started life as a sect in Germany; it was an idea that began in the mind of Martin Luther. He wrote a ‘Blog’ that ended up as the ‘95 Theses’ and then developed into a schism between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholic Church. In 1521 the ‘Diet (Edict) of Worms’—Worms is a town in Germany, we are not speaking of some sort of strange mediaeval dish, tore the Lutherans and Catholics apart. It is now described as a ‘Major branch of Western Christianity’.

When did they become religions? At what point does any sect, if it does not die out at some point, become a religion?

L Ron Hubbard said that he thought that writing science fiction at a penny a word would not make anyone rich, “It is far better to invent a religion.” He did. But it started as a sect and grew into a cult until Scientology is now an accepted religion. Maybe the mainstream believers of Christianity, etc., do not accept it but it is, nonetheless, officially recognised as a bona fide religion.

Moving on. Apace. Before sensibilities are upset and unwanted/unnecessary arguments develop.

Third.

Will someone please tell me what ‘literature’ means? Yes, yes, I am aware of the ‘literal’ meaning of ‘literature’ as being the ‘things made from letters, but what is it really? The pars pro toto term ‘letters’ is sometimes used to signify ‘literature’ as in figures of speech (‘arts and letters’ or ‘man of letters’).

Literature is commonly divided up into two forms—fiction and non-fiction, following which there are two techniques involved—poetry and prose.

We are accustomed to seeing ‘literary fiction’ from authors like Lewis Carroll; Anne, Charlotte and Emily Bronte; Mark Twain; Charles Dickens but why not Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan?

Broadly speaking, "literature" is used to describe anything from creative writing to more technical or scientific works, but the term is most commonly used to refer to works of the creative imagination, including works of poetry, drama, fiction, and nonfiction.

Let’s just play with that for a moment.

On the one hand we have ‘literature’ from which is derived the word ‘literary’. A distortion of a word, really, which belies its ‘intellectual’ meaning. From the Latin literatura/litteratura "learning, a writing, grammar,"

Yet your average publisher will say that they only publish ‘literary fiction’ with no explanation as to what they actually mean by that. What do they classify as ‘Non-Literary Fiction’?

I believe that they think of literary as something that is intellectually inspiring.

Despite the fact that all genres have works that are well written, those works are generally not considered literary fiction. To be considered literary, a work usually must be "critically acclaimed" and "serious". In practice, works of literary fiction often are "complex, literate (sic), multilayered novels that wrestle with universal dilemmas".

Even the great Vladimir Nabokov attempts an elaboration with this definition:

“A literary novel is true poetry written in prose, and it does what poetry is supposed to do in verse.”

It’s wrong. Sorry Vladimir.

Literary fiction is ANY fiction that attempts to engage with one or more truths or questions.

“Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree.” Ezra Pound, "ABC of Reading".

So here is why I am puzzled.

The definitions seem clear enough and yet the Internet, courtesy of ‘Google’ is almost overwhelmed by queries asking about this. This tells me that the definitions are, perhaps, inadequate.

What is ‘critical acclaim’? We have often wondered why the critics have a panned a film that we have enjoyed immensely. Why does the word of a ‘critic’ matter?

‘One or more truths or questions’. Many great stories from Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov, for example, explore just this but they are neither critically acclaimed and nor are they deemed to be examining one or more truths or questions’.

‘...with meaning to the utmost degree’. Thank you, Ezra. That really muddies the water.

Perhaps I am insufficiently intellectual to see the truth or, even, ask the question.