Crank is reading an excellent Sci Fi piece by Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem trilogy in an English translation by Ken Liu. Much better than Cat Person. The Three Body problem belongs to the Trisolarians. Their three-sun system produces constant instability, and they -- having become aware of earth because of a foolish astronomer's actions during the Cultural Revolution, have decided that Earth would be a better place for them to live, so they are on their way to wipe us out and take over the planet. It will take them about 400 years to arrive. In the meantime they have sent entangled protons to the earth (which unfold to higher dimensions, turning them into super-smart spies with instant communication abilities).

Earth is trying to figure out how to survive, given the advanced's civilization's numerous advantages. — Bitter Crank

That is way more interesting than this particular story, I agree!

But yes, modern dating seems to have turned into its own kind of unhappiness. That's because our routinely super-educated young folk insist on analyzing the meta aspects of rituals which lead to people getting properly laid. A metaanalysis of these rituals invariably leads to intensely unsatisfactory sexual experiences. The secret to getting properly fucked is to stop thinking about it and just do it. Of course it's an act of disgusting animality -- but that who we are, that's what we do. So get busy.

Just do it and enjoy every minute of it, and when you are all done and washed up, have had a smoke and a beer, go to sleep. In the morning think about something else. Do not engage in restaurant-review-criticism of your sexual partners. If it felt good, schedule a rematch. If it didn't, get back to the bar or go on line and find the next study partner with whom you can gain carnal knowledge. — Bitter Crank

I think this only works if you are interested in casual sex only, which perhaps would suit some people, and worth following. The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting.

I think it's telling that these thoughts pop-up in the text, in each situation, in context in which she put herself willingly and was actually looking forward to up until something made her uncomfortable. Basically she was fine as long as her expectations were met. — Akanthinos

I think the point is that her expectations were imagined and we have behavioural roles that articulate correct responses and reactions that is devoid of any authenticity and almost at the expense of ourselves. She realised that she did not want to have sex with him and yet she still did (it is unfathomable to me the idea of having sex with someone under such circumstances) and a kiss communicates sexual compatibility. She should have known (she did know) and yet time and again she allowed those feelings to be overlooked.

He behaved in the right way. For him - and judging from what men are saying in this thread - he did not do a thing wrong, he followed the system every step of the way, from asking for her number up until the actual date, he obediently and strategically did what he was supposed to do and his final and aggravated response in the end was almost a declaration of his confusion. Why the fuck don't you want me? I did everything right, but was it? As @StreetlightX said so perfectly, he seems to be alienated from himself. He had no admiration or value for her, he was terrible sexually and he mistreated her. I literally felt repulsed that moment he called her sweetie, like hang on, why would you be saying that? That's what old married couples say to each other. He thinks he should and she thinks she should like it, yet they didn't even know how old the other was.

You are right that this is telling of the authenticity of her motivations, but not that this display some form of fear on her end. It just shows that she was no more authentic in her willingness to open herself and engage another in a relationship. Her retreat to safety was this move to "maybe his a murderer - lol - not really", which saved her from having to realize that she's as guilty of playing games as he is. — Akanthinos

Only for me the difference was she was playing games with herself whereas he was just playing the game and why after he had that horrifying sex with her felt like everything was dandy. She subjectively felt that something was wrong with him and that became visible when she was in the car, as though she momentarily awakened from some flirtatious slumber only to realise that cat person may not actually have any cats. And that made me think well hang on, what girl doesn't like a man who likes cats? It is an attractive quality for a man as it shows sensitivity and affection, and for me this aspect to the story highlighted that something was wrong with him and she felt it.

It fails aesthetically because it's poorly—if competently—written. It would be impressive as an actual diary scribbled down by a relatively well-educated young person similar in age and experience to the main character herself. But artistic renditions of the real thing are supposed to be aesthetic distillations not faithful copies. And I haven't heard a lot of argument in support of the writing anyway, so I'll take it as not particularly controversial at least that we're not dealing with the top-level here. — Baden

A diary would have been as worse as naming short story characters Billy or Jack, a typical template that is almost expected for such a narrative. If the author wrote this story intentionally, then she did a brilliant job in articulating the mind and subjective monologue of a twenty year old as though I were actually there as it was occurring in her mind. This oscillating imagery particularly with her feelings of repulsion when he took his clothes off actually made me feel as uncomfortable as she depicted to a point that I felt sorry for her almost naive inability to summon the courage to say no to him. I felt ashamed - despite never having experienced what she did - because the recognition emerged that even I am in danger for being as potentially vulnerable and guilty - again not to the level she did - of imagining some men to be something that they are not.

It has a very stale and unengaging opening. — Baden

This, I agree with. The first thing that came to mind when I started reading had nothing to do with the narrative but thoughts of how good Dostoevsky is and how contemporary writers lack that depth and skill. It went away soon enough as I trusted in @csalisbury' initial commentary that the plot may have some possibilities beyond the skills of the author. So, I kept reading. I came to see that any critical analysis of the style or skills of the writing was irrelevant because the story is some sort of a gateway into the psyche and experiences of many people, commentaries about her and about him seem to project the experiences as though there is a personal familiarity with the content.

I especially find it interesting when we overlook the first person narrative and somehow claim that Robert is thinking 'such and such' when no one can ever really know, as though verifying their own subjectivity in their analysis. Even a critique of the story is in itself a projection that validates guilt or sympathy or anger. It isn't a story anymore. It is an experience we are all having. We are angry for her for thinking he is ugly and fat. We are angry at him for his sexual failures. It is him. It is her. That is what a short story is supposed to do.

I like Julian best, maybe because I'm a Roman history fan, and am especially interested in the transition from pagan to Christian civilization. But also because I enjoy how he used correspondence between the two philosophers who knew the Emperor, Libanius and Priscus, to tell the story. He was a very clever, perceptive man who wrote very well, and did his research (at least for his historical fiction) but could be fiercely malicious in argument and criticism. That evokes a certain admiration in a lawyer (this one, at least). In fact, judging from his writings he knew lawyers quite well.

I think this only works if you are interested in casual sex only, which perhaps would suit some people, and worth following. The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting. — schopenhauer1

Casual sex is a good thing but the methods for obtaining it are not the basis for long-term relationships, except that sometimes a casual sex partner turns out to be the love of one's life, or at least one's life long sex partner in a more or less satisfactory relationship.

Obtaining and maintaining long-term-to-life-long satisfactory relationships is difficult no matter what. For one thing, we change over time and recalibration is required. For another, we cling to delusions about what a perfect life should be like. White picket fences and roses, the little cottage, an attentive partner, and rosy cheeked children is a delusion. (There are also delusions about the perfect work place, the perfect car, the perfect neighborhood, etc.)

We have unreasonable expectations (not delusions) about a prospective mate. We have unreasonable expectations about sex. We have unreasonable expectations about life in a relationship with another adult who has ideas as unreasonable as ours.

Happy people, or happier people, or at least reasonably happy people either started with fewer delusions and lower expectations or they learned how to adjust.

The conditions people experience in 2018 are NOT exceptional. Happy marriage has always been problematic (given that people have always been problematic). Lucky children had parents who were responsible people who kept their noses to the grindstone and were reasonably kind to each other and to their children.

Getting back to Cat Person:

Who is the intended audience of the New Yorker Magazine?

About a million people bought the New Yorker in 2015, mostly by subscription. How are the subscriptions geographically distributed?

Despite its title, The New Yorker is read nationwide, with 53 percent of its circulation in the top 10 U.S. metropolitan areas. According to Mediamark Research Inc., the average age of The New Yorker reader in 2009 was 47 ... The average household income of The New Yorker readers in 2009 was $109,877 ...

According to Pew Research, 77 percent The New Yorker's audience hold left-of-center political values, while 52 percent of those readers hold "consistently liberal" political values.[41] — Wikipedia

Compare that to Sports Illustrated with a circulation of 3,155,000:

Average Income: $60,913
Average Age: 37
Percent Male: 77%

Obviously a much different audience than the New Yorker.

The New Yorker is read by an aging, fairly prosperous New York dominated audience. Sports Illustrated is younger, less wealthy, geographically dispersed across the US, and (not surprising) mostly male. Suppose @Cat Person had appeared in Sports Illustrated. What kind of internet reviews and commends would the story be getting? Probably a lot different than the New Yorker generated commentary.

@Cat Person was published for a particular demographic, and reactions were typical of a narrow slice of the public as a whole.

All this adds up to more reasons why this story is unimportant. It's "chick lit" for New Yorker and L.A. types.

All this adds up to more reasons why this story is unimportant. It's "chick lit" for New Yorker and L.A. types. — Bitter Crank

Yep and yep.

Do you think, Bitette, that you probably lack an understanding of what the story means given you've enjoyed penis for supper for these long years?

Are these the sorts of things you say to your glowing underlings in real life?

How's you cats?

I'm assuming that's a "no"

He's right in my view. The decision to publish was almost certainly commercial rather than artistic. Because as I keep contending, it's not art, it's just topical. That's it. You could do just as deep a critique as you guys are doing on the real Ansari story.

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

There you go. That's just some stuff that happened. It's not art. So, other than the fact that it's worth discussing sexual relations in our tech-commodified modern world, as they are complicated and confusing, the story itself qua short story is a big yawn.

I especially find it interesting when we overlook the first person narrative and somehow claim that Robert is thinking 'such and such' when no one can ever really know, as though verifying their own subjectivity in their analysis. Even a critique of the story is in itself a projection that validates guilt or sympathy or anger. It isn't a story anymore. It is an experience we are all having. We are angry for her for thinking he is ugly and fat. We are angry at him for his sexual failures. It is him. It is her. That is what a short story is supposed to do. — TimeLine

I'm none of those things. I'm unmoved except at the fact that it was published in a magazine that has a history of publishing good work in this genre.

There you go. That's just some stuff that happened. It's not art. So, other than the fact that it's worth discussing sexual relations in our tech-commodified modern world, as they are complicated and confusing, the story itself qua short story is a big yawn. — Baden

I see it more aligned to Salinger' Catcher in the Rye because it attempts to ameliorate the inner subjectivity of a young person' mind that references those ugly qualities that we are each threatened to have, whereas the biographical account of the Ansari debacle is outside of us, something we will ever know. I feel you are taking some conventional approach to the meaning of art - as well as Bitter - that is indicative to the adapted tastes of the literary scene as though quality writing were contained within the limitations of particular features, and this only illustrates to me your dependence on definitions. Kant called this: "[a] kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication,” which is exactly what this story did. It is not aesthetics, but art.

I think you and Bitter may not have found any interest in the piece because there is no alignment or identification to the experiences and that severance to the nuances the author attempts to convey - i.e. authenticity and how we fool ourselves - is a shame, really.

I feel you are taking some conventional approach to the meaning of art - as well as Bitter - that is indicative to the adapted tastes of the literary scene as though quality writing were contained within the limitations of particular features, and this only illustrates to me your dependence on definitions. — TimeLine

But how could this not be used as a defense of any kind of any badly written and/or kitschy story that just happened to be topical? If we're going to disagree about whether something is art or not, its features and the context in which they are set are all we've got beyond the bare plot. Besides, which "particular" features are you referring to? Which features do you think I'm missing in my analysis?

Kant called this: "[a] kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication,” which is exactly what this story did. It is not aesthetics, but art. — TimeLine

But you seem to be focusing on the content, the plot, and its relevance again. If that's all there is to it, then anybody can make socially important art. I contend that the form is a major failing with this piece, and you don't seem to be addressing that. So, to try to clarify: could you or could you not do an analysis on the level that you've been doing on the news article about Ansari, taking the main characters and their social context as the subject matter? If so, either you need to contend that that news article is art or that you need to go deeper into the form to determine whether or not this story can be considered art. If you could not do that, then tell me what this piece gives you beyond the events? Then we may get to the bottom of our disagreement. As I said earlier I'm open to learning more on why people like this story and consider it worthy.

I think you and Bitter may not have found any interest in the piece because there is no alignment or identification to the experiences and that severance to the nuances the author attempts to convey - i.e. authenticity and how we fool ourselves - is a shame, really. — TimeLine

Why do you presume that of me as opposed to the other males commenting here? I mean of course I don't identify with the young woman much, and that may make it more difficult for me to appreciate the story, but there's a man in it too. Anyway, it's not a defense of your opinion that it's good art to assert that the author wants to convey something about authenticity and how we fool ourselves. That's a major theme of a huge amount of stories; some do it well, others not so well. So, what is special about the way this author does this? What elements of form ally with what elements of content to make this good art? You tell me.

But how could this not be used as a defense of any kind of any badly written and/or kitschy story that just happened to be topical? If we're going to disagree about whether something is art or not, its features and the context in which they are set are all we've got beyond the bare plot. Besides, which "particular" features are you referring to. Which features do you think I'm missing in my analysis? — Baden

That is why I mentioned my initial reaction and how that changed as I continued because there are a plethora of badly written narratives deprived of underlying structures or ideas that would thus cultivate fragmentary opinions; your criticism is evidence of the contrary. There is no exclusivity that demonstrates quality in literature because you are imposing yourself by directly expressing boundaries, claiming there to be right and wrong properties in literary representation according to some framework that consists of aesthetic standards. We know this is a work of fiction and yet still felt shock, revulsion, anger, and even fear because the meta-narrative contains psychological and cultural themes that broadly explains shared experiences and the very "features" that are missing in your analysis. Art does not impose anything other than making you feel as though revealing a mirror that enables a discourse with your own psyche and clearly - by this thread and socially - it has cultivated this broader communication; if you felt little, it is likely because the story did not resonate and you were left with nothing other than critiquing the skeleton.

But you seem to be focusing on the content, the plot, and its relevance again. If that's all there is to it, then anybody can make socially important art. I contend that the form is a major failing with this piece, and you don't seem to be addressing that.. — Baden

I am saying that the form is irrelevant. You content that form is a failure in this piece and yet suggested a diary, which to me explains your limitations that are governed by definitions of credibility in literary form. Why not stop for a moment and listen to me; it made me think about how vulnerable to self-deception I can be. You are telling me that it was a terrible story that undermines my - and clearly a number of other people' - experience with this particular piece. You are forcing an ideology by failing to analyse this and the subject matter overall, the psychological experiences of young people and thus failing to appreciate the interconnection between a triptych.

Ansari is a terrible comparative that you selected and have likely done so based on base similarities - sexual experiences and text messages - but that is biography and fails to elicit a similar effect fictional literature can in similar vein to the symbolic power of parables to moral reasoning. It is these symbols within the fiction - and indeed in the case of Cat Person - that effects emotional responses.

I am saying that the form is irrelevant. — TimeLine

Ok, that is the crux of our disagreement then. I'm saying form is always relevant along with content in assessing any text in terms of its artistic merit.

Why not stop for a moment and listen to me; it made me think about how vulnerable to self-deception I can be. You are telling me that it was a terrible story that undermines my - and clearly a number of other people' - experience with this particular piece. — TimeLine

I'm listening and I'm not trying to denigrate how anyone felt about the story. Emotional impact can be achieved as far as I'm concerned in many ways not just through art. It's not the story that fails, it's the story qua short story that does.

Ansari is a terrible comparative that you selected and have likely done so based on base similarities - sexual experiences and text messages - but that is biography and fails to elicit a similar effect fictional literature can in similar vein to the symbolic power of parables to moral reasoning. — TimeLine

Hang on, I thought that was my point about art and your point was that form doesn't matter? If form is irrelevant then the fact that the Ansari story is biography and not fictional literature is irrelevant.

It is these symbols within the fiction - and indeed in the case of Cat Person - that effects emotional responses. — TimeLine

What symbols? One thing I liked about @csalisbury's story in the creative writing discussion (not that he likely wants us to go into that here) was the use of the cat as a symbol. So, what is the important symbolism I'm missing here in "Cat Person"? (Maybe you mentioned it already somewhere and I missed it. If so, please direct me to the appropriate quote).

Ok, that is the crux of our disagreement then. I'm saying form is always relevant along with content in assessing any text in terms of its artistic merit. — Baden

You seem to be confusing art with aesthetics here, because this structuralism is irrelevant in this particular story - as I have already iterated in our initial discussions - since there is a triptych here that overall explains one narrative account that draws attention to realising a psychological and social reality, namely that of authenticity in our sexual relationships. The devices used to reach that explanation are irrelevant once it is reached and that is why I said that I was able to overlook those initial reactions because I began to understand what that idea was that the author was attempting to convey.

I thought that the form in The English Patient was awful and intended to promote an air of literary sophistication by making you read and re-read paragraphs as you try to figure out what he is attempting to convey, but is that literary snobbishness what made it win all those awards? If writing something that goes over my head and forces me to second-guess myself or try to interpret and read into what you are saying, is it verification of some supreme quality to be admired simply because it goes over my head?

Edward Said perfectly articulates how writing with the intention to complicate our understanding of the broader subject or theme is intentional and that explaining the content sympathetic to the variety in our audience is a skill worth recognising. I loved the story in the English Patient, by the way, so I am going to ask you again, if you suggested the author used a diary instead, how would that improve the content?

I think there are a couple things I can add here. This falls under the category of short story form. It may further be considered a "slice of life" short story. Certainly both of these can be considered "art" in that it is literature that is readable and has a structure. I as one who never produced something with too much literary value can see the value that others are able to produce in the realm of narrative and the general form of literature.

However, does this piece stand up as a "great work of art"? That to me would be harder to contend for this story. To make something great, it has to do something great- whether that be its use of symbolism, its compelling plot, its use of visualization and description, its character development, its ability to bring together philosophical or abstract themes. Does it even inform you about the world around you? Did you learn something about politics, science, history, art? No, not really. It was a very limited point of view. This story probably does little of these things, in my opinion. It provides a good view into a certain perspective of perhaps a certain demographic.

That brings me to the real issue. A real question from this is why do so many people not identify or would not want to identify with the character, even in this very limited scope of dating dynamics? Well, I'll throw something out there- the main character is privileged in a way. The reader is getting a point of view of someone who can get who she wants (well, at least from the content we are given in the story). This is not an underdog story. This is about a person who does have ability to attract others and keep their interest- to the point of them being possessive. There is something not that interesting about those with a privileged perspective. A person who can get what they want (in this case in the dating world), but finds out they don't really want it, is just not that interesting to a lot of people, and hard to identify with unless you are someone who also falls into that demographic.

You haven't addressed my questions on specifics. Anyhow, if it helps to clarify...

I loved the story in the English Patient, by the way, so I am going to ask you again, if you suggested the author used a diary instead, how would that improve the content? — TimeLine

I haven't read it although I saw at least some of the movie a while back (I don't think I bothered finishing it). Anyway, I said this story would have had the same emotional impact and been analyzed similarly here if it were just a diary. You could have got just as much out of it on the level you are getting something out of it. Ergo, the form is superfluous to the commentary. But, the story qua short story can't be analyzed without reference to the short story form by definition. That doesn't mean it has to follow a standard form just that the form is necessarily relevant as a reference point.

But here again:

You seem to be confusing art with aesthetics here, because this structuralism is irrelevant in this particular story - as I have already iterated in our initial discussions — TimeLine

No, because I've consistently emphasized the importance of the interplay between form and content. And form is never irrelevant to a work of art qua art (As for "this structuralism", I don't know what you mean by that or how it relates to my general contention re form). Have you read my Von Trier example? Any comment?

What I'm saying is that this means the story fails as a short story because it offers nothing more than a straight diary account would while seemingly trying to follow the standard short story structure and failing to do so effectively, for example, in terms of the beginning and ending (which most here seem to agree with, so I'm not sure how anyone could can continue to contend it succeeds as a short story). But I don't want to be sound overly pedantic. I don't want to deny the work may have some value. That's a different question. Considering its effect on some people here, it seems that it does.

I thought that the form in The English Patient was awful and intended to promote an air of literary sophistication by making you read and re-read paragraphs as you try to figure out what he is attempting to convey, but is that literary snobbishness what made it win all those awards? If writing something that goes over my head and forces me to second-guess myself or try to interpret and read into what you are saying, is it verification of some supreme quality to be admired simply because it goes over my head? — TimeLine

No, did anything I say suggest this? The example I gave of a good short story by Joyce Carol Oates was about as direct as you can get. I can't imagine it going over anyone's head.

This falls under the category of short story form. It may further be considered a "slice of life" short story. Certainly both of these can be considered "art" in that it is literature that is readable and has a structure. — schopenhauer1

No. Or anyone could create art. They can't. That's what's valuable about it.

This is not an underdog story. This is about a person who does have ability to attract others and keep their interest- to the point of them being possessive. There is something not that interesting about those with a privileged perspective. A person who can get what they want (in this case in the dating world), but finds out they don't really want it, is just not that interesting to a lot of people, and hard to identify with unless you are someone who also falls into that demographic. — schopenhauer1

That's a perceptive point.

@Baden

George Dickie makes a useful distinction between two uses of the word "art".

There is "art" in the categorical sense, as in "All paintings in the museum count as art"

And there is "art" in the evaluative sense, as in "That sculpture is a real work of art"

The former designates the set of all works of art, where the latter designates that something counts as good art.

In the categorical sense I'd say that Cat Person certainly counts as art. I think what you mean by art is in the latter sense, though let me know if you disagree.


I'd say Cat Person is more than a diary entry because it has a character which follows a progression from distinct uncertainty to certainty -- she undergoes a change of character, though not one that is exactly specified but more negative. It's not that she knows what she wants at the end, it's that she knows one particular she does not want.

In some sense the ending is what provides that journey for the character, so I can understand why it's there even though I actually prefer ambiguity (but not everyone does -- in fact narrative ambiguity drives some people absolutely nuts). The entire time she is always uncertain until the moment that Robert declares himself the villain by calling her a whore. She wasn't even able to break it off with him without the aid of her friend, in spite of knowing how she felt.

What was in her way the entire way was herself -- she had various feelings of disease, but she didn't listen to them. She instead listened to convenient concoctions that allowed her to continue in the role set out for her by the rules of Dating. She did so because of imagined possibilities which, at every turn, Robert gave evidence to contradict. The only times Robert seemed to do something nice would be when the rules of dating and mating seemed to mandate to him that it was time for him to be the nice guy he wanted to portray himself as.

It's this nice guy portrayal that the title "Cat Person" is meant to elicit. He was a cuddly cat person who would perform gallant acts of kindness, but when it came to actually asking what his object of affection wanted he wouldn't ever ask.

What Cat Person does over and above Aziz Ansari is portray the stream of conscious of Margot in her various decisions and conflicts. The plot isn't the point as much as her thinking through her desires in what is a rather mundane (and hence actually relatable) situation.

It's actually kind of interesting in that while it is a stream of conscious narrative, it's also in third person partial. Usually stream of conscious narratives are in first person. I'm not sure why that choice was made -- perhaps we are meant to take on the role of someone who is thinking through their experiences after the fact, looking at them from a standpoint that differs from living through the moment.



Just trying to give some more of my thoughts on why I thought it was pretty good. I don't know if it qualifies as the pinnacle of art, exactly, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to a diary entry or a news story either -- and not just in a categorical sense, but in an evaluative sense -- as in "That's a real work of art"

Though I must admit that I'm not entirely fixed on what makes a short story good, either. But a lot of the elements of basic good storytelling are there, when you look at it from the perspective not of two persons in conflict but rather one person in conflict with herself. There is conflict from the beginning (Flirting out of habit because that's just what you do in this role, not out of a desire to flirt with Robert), and a resolution at the end. There is a character arc. And there's the interesting choice of using third person partial in spite of it being a stream of conscious narrative.

So, sure, maybe it doesn't live up to some great work of literary fiction, but I'd still say that it's good, I think, in spite of being uncertain about all the qualities that make a short story good.

In the categorical sense I'd say that Cat Person certainly counts as art. I think what you mean by art is in the latter sense, though let me know if you disagree. — Moliere

I'm talking evaluatively, and my evaluation is that it's not art at all and therefore it's not good art either. Being published in the New Yorker doesn't make it art in the categorical sense you quote. The New Yorker is a business and despite having a good historical record can make commercial decisions that have little or nothing to do with considerations of artistic merit. As I said to Schope, just writing words on a page that follow the structure of a work of art doesn't make what you create a work of art. And as I suggested to TL, emotional impact alone is not enough because that can be got from texts other than the artistic. It's the interplay of form and content that counts.

I'd say Cat Person is more than a diary entry because it has a character which follows a progression from distinct uncertainty to certainty -- she undergoes a change of character, though not one that is exactly specified but more negative. It's not that she knows what she wants at the end, it's that she knows one particular she does not want. — Moliere

Maybe you've misunderstood me. I agree it is more than a diary entry or is intended to be (in terms of structure but doesn't offer more in general because it largely fails structurally and aesthetically). It does give us the standard character transformation, and the point would be to analyze that because it's relevant. I was arguing earlier that without bringing the form explicitly into the critique, no amount of discussion of its emotional impact would wrap up the question of its artistic value as a short story. (But I feel I've said something along those lines too many times now, so I should just let it be.)

So, sure, maybe it doesn't live up to some great work of literary fiction, but I'd still say that it's good, I think, in spite of being uncertain about all the qualities that make a short story good. — Moliere

And you are in the majority. I'm happy to remain in the minority in thinking that it's not of any artistic merit but is possibly useful as a conversation starter. Leaving that aside, as we're unlikely to agree and neither of us has a monopoly on artistic wisdom, what are a couple of short stories that do live up to being great works of literary fiction in your view?

A quick thought on the ending that I just had, though... I'm starting to second guess myself.

The ending actually shows us why Margot may have been looking for reasons to follow along the scripted path. He may have been doing all the right things, but it shows that there was a reason for her fear. Without the ending we do get a more balanced view of the two characters, and more ambiguity, but you don't understand why Margot is in conflict with herself. The ending shows that she was actually both an object of affection and possession, which she was not explicitly but may have been implicitly aware of.

Yes, it shows us he was a bad guy and that her fears were justified with a metaphorical sledgehammer in the form of a text message. I can think of a million more subtle ways to do a similar thing. But maybe the author felt the readership would need a sledgehammer to get it. And judging by the amount of shares, she may have been right. That to me is sad. Sorry, I mean SAD!!!

I'm talking evaluatively, and my evaluation is that it's not art at all and therefore it's not good art either. Being published in the New Yorker doesn't make it art in the categorical sense you quote. The New Yorker is a business and despite having a good historical record can make commercial decisions that have little or nothing to do with considerations of artistic merit. As I said to Schope, just writing words on a page that follow the structure of a work of art doesn't make what you create a work of art. And as I suggested to TL, emotional impact alone is not enough because that can be got from texts other than the artistic. It's the interplay of form and content that counts. — Baden

Maybe you've misunderstood me. I agree it is more than a diary entry or is intended to be (in terms of structure but doesn't offer more in general because it largely fails structurally and aesthetically). It does give us the standard character transformation, and the point would be to analyze that because it's relevant. I was arguing earlier that without bringing the form explicitly into the critique, no amount of discussion of its emotional impact would wrap up the question of its artistic value as a short story. (But I feel I've said something along those lines too many times now, so I should just let it be.) — Baden

Ah, OK. I did misunderstand you because I was thinking you meant the second use. You meant the first.

I pretty much adhere to the institutional theory of art. What makes a work of art a work of art is that it is part of an artworld -- which includes creators, audiences, histories of art, various and changing standards for evaluating said art as good or bad, and (in our case) institutions which showcase art. So the difference between a can of Campbell's soup in the grocery story and one in a museum is that the can of Cambell's soup in the museum is part of the artworld, whereas the one in the grocery story is not.

So I'd count the short story here as categorically a work of art, though separate the discussion on how good it is from that categorical distinction. It's been published in a venue for short stories. There is an author. There is a readership. And there is a history of the short story as well as norms being applied to evaluate how good or not good said short story is.

And you are in the majority. I'm happy to remain in the minority in thinking that it's not of any artistic merit but is possibly useful as a conversation starter. Leaving that aside, as we're unlikely to agree and neither of us has a monopoly on artistic wisdom, what are a couple of short stories that do live up to being great works of literary fiction in your view? — Baden

I really love Robert Coover's The Babysitter. I kept thinking of it while thinking about Cat Person because of how it deals with the ambiguity of desire.

I'm also very fond of the naturalists -- so Steven Crane's The Open Boat and Jack London's To Build a Fire are some of my favorites. I just like the themes of naturalism, and they were both really good writers.

I pretty much adhere to the institutional theory of art. What makes a work of art a work of art is that it is part of an artworld -- which includes creators, audiences, histories of art, various and changing standards for evaluating said art as good or bad, and (in our case) institutions which showcase art. So the difference between a can of Campbell's soup in the grocery story and one in a museum is that the can of Cambell's soup in the museum is part of the artworld, whereas the one in the grocery story is not. — Moliere

Just to quickly note that I would agree with that, but the New Yorker is not the literary equivalent of a museum (even if it does have a historically good record). If that short story were to be taught in our top universities as art, I'd have to accept it as institutionally art, but I'd still evaluatively deny it was.

"To Build a Fire" is great. I'll read "The Babysitter".

↪Bitter Crank Do you think, Bitette, that you probably lack an understanding of what the story means given you've enjoyed penis for supper for these long years? — TimeLine

Real class.

No, because the problem of establishing relationships is the same among gay people as it is among straight people. Gay men may have a more casual attitude toward sex (being men) but in the search for more complex relationships, we, like straights, entertain delusions.

Yes, it shows us he was a bad guy and that her fears were justified with a metaphorical sledgehammer in the form of a text message. I can think of a million more subtle ways to do a similar thing. But maybe the author felt the readership would need a sledgehammer to get it. And judging by the amount of shares, she may have been right. That to me is sad. Sorry, I mean SAD!!! — Baden

I think that's a fair point. My original thinking was to read the story without the ending, but now that I'm rethinking that the story doesn't make as much sense from Margot's perspective without it I can see that it was over the top and that a more subtle approach would work better.

Just to quickly note that I would agree with that, but the New Yorker is not the literary equivalent of a museum (even if it does have a historically good record). If that short story were to be taught in our top universities as art, I'd have to accept it as institutionally art, but I'd still evaluatively deny it was. — Baden

I guess I think of museums as paradigmatic examples of institutions, but not exclusive ones. So they are sufficient to include something within the artworld, but not necessary.

For me the necessary conditions for inclusion is an artist and an audience. There are some problem cases that this doesn't deal very well with, but I think it get's at something important that's essential to inclusion into the artworld. The institution which brings these together, from my perspective, can even be informal -- it doesn't need a tax designation and a name and so forth. It can be a writers group that meets at the coffee shop to share poetry, for example. There you still have artists and audience applying evaluative standards and coming from a history of doing art.

"To Build a Fire" is great. I'll read "The Babysitter". — Baden

Let me know what you think!
(edit: Maybe even start a new thread so we don't get too far off topic here)

Let me know what you think! — Moliere

So far, I can see it's in a different (better) universe to "Cat Person". The writing is light and jazzy and it functions to bustle us along almost against our will through some extremely heavy and disturbing imagery. Here (as with Von Trier) you've got conflicting layers of form and content that make you do some important cognitive work. And the play with cuts on top of that makes my head hurt. In a good way. Much here to digest. I like. :up:

(edit: Maybe even start a new thread so we don't get too far off topic here) — Moliere

Just saw the edit. If you have a lot to say on it and want to start a new discussion I'll join it and try to contribute more.

You haven't addressed my questions on specifics. Anyhow, if it helps to clarify... — Baden

What exactly is your specifics? If we keep this real, you edit written content for a living so I feel that you are more defensive then actually ready to have a discussion about what it is I am attempting to convey.

You could have got just as much out of it on the level you are getting something out of it. Ergo, the form is superfluous to the commentary. But, the story qua short story can't be analyzed without reference to the short story form by definition. That doesn't mean it has to follow a standard form just that the form is necessarily relevant as a reference point. — Baden

I am not sure what you are saying here.

Nevertheless, it would not have had the same impact if the style were written as a diary, on the contrary, fictional narrative as a literary device offers a broader link that enables one to re-imagine symbolic and psychological significance and if the writing - however it is written - is capable of doing this, in this case Cat Person was successful, then the author has been successful in reinforcing that symbolic relationship.

No, because I've consistently emphasized the importance of the interplay between form and content. And form is never irrelevant to a work of art qua art (As for "this structuralism", I don't know what you mean by that or how it relates to my general contention re form). Have you read my Von Trier example? Any comment? — Baden

I am not (for heaven's sake) saying that it is not relevant, I am saying that it is purposive and if it is successful in explaining the content and thus capable of expressing that representation and therefore cultivating "the mental powers for sociable communication" then it has succeeded and no longer relevant to analyse. What is so hard about understanding that?

I have not read your Von Trier example admittingly, I am about to go on a hike so I'll read it when I return tonight (is it on here?)

What I'm saying is that this means the story fails as a short story because it offers nothing more than a straight diary account would while seemingly trying to follow the standard short story structure and failing to do so effectively, for example, in terms of the beginning and ending (which most here seem to agree with, so I'm not sure how anyone could can continue to contend it succeeds as a short story). But I don't want to be sound overly pedantic. I don't want to deny the work may have some value. That's a different question. Considering its effect on some people here, it seems that it does. — Baden

You are still making the same mistake, talking about short story structure because the value of the work is not a different question, that is what this discussion is entirely about. I have always wondered whether Doctor's enjoy the human form after seeing so many.