Literature, In Trouble?

"...I don't mean that literature has to always have a meditative and philosophical slant, but when writing descends to levels of serving only the senses and not the spirit, it becomes debauched and demeaning, "goes an op-ed in Khaleej Times. When people write cookie-cut books with the sole intention of adding the suffix of 'author' to their names to fuel their professional lives or to boost their egos, literature falls from grace."

While I agree with this op-ed somewhat, I don't know how writers alone can shift the needle in this when I feel publishers and audiences play a bigger role in what comes out. Is the writer taking aim at books by celebrities or influencers?

The piece seems to exhibit a longing for a time that may not have existed and a dread of an encroaching literary apocalypse that may not be. I recognise bits of my old self in some of these outpourings. Going into writing, one has – and will develop – certain ideas about what the craft is and what purposes it serves, which will be worn down by time and exposure to all sorts of material.

My early takes on certain genres and writing styles have been whittled down in this manner over the years, which is why nowadays I wince when I read takes like this:

I wonder what significance modern writing (I hesitate to categorise today's frivolous bookly endeavours as literature) will have for mankind and its future. Is the era of writing for change, to positively influence societies, to impart courage, to reflect the good and denounce the bad and to comfort a deeply wounded global civilisation over? Is literature now turning into mere candy floss with little gains for the reader except satisfying the senses?

I wonder what kind of "candy floss" literature is the writer referring to. No examples are provided. However, Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali, Anne Frank's The Diary of a Young Girl, and Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning were cited as examples of works that "shine a torch on the resilient nature of human beings in the face of hardships" and offer readers hope that they too can prevail, with "the will and mindset."

While there is acknowledgement of the need for chick lit and the like, "but as along as the written word does not bring perspective to our everyday struggles and give us an opportunity for emotional catharsis and empathetic considerations, no writer has done justice to this glorious craft."

It's 2024 and this sort of thinking still exists, steady as a rock in rough seas. I shouldn't be amazed. Silos are meant to be impervious. Either that or it's a slow op-ed day and they're fishing for engagement.


Lit is lit
I doubt there was ever a golden age of literature. Then and now, publishing has been a free-for-all since the masses were taught to write. Institutions can gatekeep but it's futile. Bawdy rhymes, gory horror, spicy smut and the like were the rage back then as they are today, and not all of it polished. Ever heard of the penny dreadful?

Now, it's Fifty Shades of Grey. The Secret. Partisan political punditry. Steamy yet toxic Wattpad romances. All existing side by side with the classics, scholarly works, investigative journalism, memoirs, and other bestsellers. And does "cookie-cut" refer to the slew of Instapoetry tomes in the wake of successes by the likes of Rupi Kaur and Lang Leav?

Authorship carries a certain cachet, so of course some would find it appealing. That aside, writing unserious stuff can be as fun as reading it, so it wouldn't surprise me if the genesis of some "serious" writers involved forays in spheres of mass-consumption such as fan fiction. And if more people are seeking escapes in such stuff, why? If more are writing material that serve "only the senses and not the spirit", why?

And who's to say that "fluff" doesn't "bring perspective to our everyday struggles and give us an opportunity for emotional catharsis and empathetic considerations"? Maybe the authors wrote it into the "fluff", or it's what readers feel after spending an afternoon with some. Surely there are other reasons for their popularity other than the nature of the contents.

For every score of "fluffy" titles that come out, there could be a handful of painstakingly crafted, well-thought-out works of some literary merit. Just about every writer writes for some degree of personal gratification – the most vital being able to eat – regardless of aim or what they tell themselves and interviewers. That their works somehow achieve an altruistic goal is at best happenstance.


Right words, right time
Les mots justes, to paraphrase Gustave Flaubert. When a reader chances upon a title, they could be in some sort of pickle. So if reading that title happens to open a door towards the solution to their woes or solve it outright, all well and good. The merits of such titles or whether they should be written can be discussed, but why toll the bell for something that isn't dying but thriving?

Writing "for change, to positively influence societies, to impart courage, to reflect the good and denounce the bad and to comfort a deeply wounded global civilisation" is a pursuit for the privileged. Who can think big if one is worried about food, shelter, and healthcare? If the highbrow goals of the craft need to be carried, that responsibility should fall to writers who can – noblesse oblige and all that.

In literature, fluff has always co-existed with serious. One does not have to thrive at the expense of another. The amount of fluff doesn't cancel the existence of other works, so they'll always be available. All one has to do is seek.