I am of the opinion that who we recognize in literature history is more who we think has had some impact than on who is a very good writer. Literature books are filled with poeple who have pushed the social envelope--such is the nature of writers. But writers are too often remembered for their impact on society.
Political correctness drives what establishment recognizes as good writing. If a writer heralds morally objectional lifestyles of any type, then they get points toward being remembered beyond their generation.
There is nothing wrong with being objectionable. I am often objectionable myself. But why do we continue to hold up some writers as being particularly worthy in history. It is not because they are especially good. It is because they had some impact on society. Writers are supposed to have some impact on society, it is most certainly true. But who can or should try to quantify that. I say measure a writer for his or her merits as a writer, an artistic organizer of words. Leave the readers to determine the degree of impact on society.
Political correctness drives what establishment recognizes as good writing. If a writer heralds morally objectional lifestyles of any type, then they get points toward being remembered beyond their generation.
There is nothing wrong with being objectionable. I am often objectionable myself. But why do we continue to hold up some writers as being particularly worthy in history. It is not because they are especially good. It is because they had some impact on society. Writers are supposed to have some impact on society, it is most certainly true. But who can or should try to quantify that. I say measure a writer for his or her merits as a writer, an artistic organizer of words. Leave the readers to determine the degree of impact on society.
