Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose?

[Inderjit S]

Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few? Authors such as James Joyce and Thomas Mann are notoriously difficult to read-whereas authors and poets such as Maya Angelou, Graham Greene, Ernest Hemingway and Toni Morisson as well as existentialists such as Franz Kafka and Albert Camus are pretty easy to read, even if their messages are a little more hidden. George Orwell is critical of the over-complicated use of language, he views it a casuistic and undesirable-is he right, and are authors such as Mann and Joyce paradigmic of Rousseau’s lament over the arrogance of some intellectualists and their inflated belief in their own intelligence? Or are such works important as they allow the author to articulate his message in a allegorical way-Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus is a critique of the German populations acceptance of Nazism. (Mann's novel seems to be very allegorical, his novel which deals with the Faustian legend ( check out Marlowe's 'Doctor Faustus' and Goethe's Faust p.I&II for the more famous Faustian plays) barely includes the devil or any of the other things which were a part of the general Faustian legend. But novelists such as Bulgakov, Marquez and Twain are able to get their message across in an accessible way and what is the point of writing a book with a hidden moral message if few can understand it and the only ones who can understand it already knew it. Wouldn't people much prefer a simple, accessible Aesopian (who Herodotus claims was a slave) fables? And authors such as Yuko Mishima are able to write complicated, philosophical novels in a pretty accessible way. Or are novels such as Vladmir Nabokov's Pale Fire and James Joyce’s Ulysses good things, allowing a very intelligent writer to articulate his thoughts, and are such esoteric novels great examples of a novelists intelligence, with amazing moral messages or are they just great, great books?

Are some author’s ephemeral or do some authors have a ephemeral appeal? Will anybody care about the trials and tribulations in of the people in Thomas Hardy's world of Wessex or of the trials and tribulations of Dwarves, Hobbits and Ents in Tolkien's Middle-Earth? What about beat generation authors such as Jack Kerouac or African-American authors such as Alice Walker as well as new, and somewhat inchoate genres such as post-modernism (i.e Italo Calvino, magic realism i.e Gunter Grass, Mikhail Bulgakov, Angela Carter etc and other new genres: will they last? Which novels will be as long lasting as Gilgamesh, The Iliad and Beowulf? Will we really care about who marries Mr. Darcy, about the vices and virtues of Hester Prynne, the fall of the Buddenbrook family, as well as the fall of the House of Usher in 200 years time?

 

[novella]

Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia?

Okay, I'll bite.

Do Japanese maple trees serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed?

Point is, a decent author writes first and foremost for an audience of one--himself/herself. The author just IS, the work just IS the author's work.

Whether you choose to read it or not is another point entirely. What exactly are you driving at here? That authors who don't write to suit your simple taste should somehow be eliminated?? Bizarre idea based on a bizarre premise.

I wouldn't touch a Don Delillo book with a bargepole, but I respect his right to write them and if other folks enjoy them, that's cool with me.

I certainly DON'T think the world would be a better place without James Joyce's writing in it. Do you? Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

Novella

 

[Stewart]

All books are accessible to every reader - it's the concept of libraries.

 

[novella]

Good one, Abu. That's what a shared language is all about, isn't it?

 

[Ashlea]

As many of us still care about who Mr. Darcy married, and it's been almost 200 years now, I think we'll still care in another 200.

As for accessible, the language is as much a part of the novel as the plot. Who is to decide what is appropriate and what isn't if not the author?

 

[booksblog.co.uk]

Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few?

You're implying (in your devil's advocate role) that any literature should be written within specific confines so that it is easily digestible by the majority of people. Why I personally have no time right now for over-complicated authors (I'm sorry Gene Wolfe, I tried), I'm not bemoaning their right to write whatever the hell they like

 

[Litany]

If a book is enjoyed by even a minority of readers, then it's served a purpose. I don't go in for obtusely written books myself. I can't abide flowerly prose or overly complicated sentences or books that need you to sit with a dictionary. But some people like them, so shouldn't they be allowed to read them?

Literature is accessible to all, it's just that we don't all like the same things. If everything had to be written simplistically so we could all follow along we'd have nothing to read but Dr Seuss and Dan Brown novels.

 

[Shade]

Toni Morrison and Márquez are accessible? Not in my experience...

 

[Stewart]

Just thought I'd post a link to this.

 

[Martin]

He must really like this discussion.

Cheers

 

[Litany]

Maybe he has to write a paper on it and he wants to suck our brains dry. Well, ha! He's too late.

 

[Inderjit S]

Do Japanese maple trees serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed?

A strange analogy, but analogies are naturally strange. Heck, Socrates was able to defeat his opponents in debates using every-day analogies and paradigms. Using such an analogy though, would render everything superfluous-are tigers superfluous, are sharks superfluous? I am talking about literature-not nature. Literature has more narrow margins then nature-literature is ordained and controlled by man, and nature is partly ordained and controlled by man. (Unless, that is, a Japanese maple tree is some kind of artificial tree-I don't know, botany is not one of my strong points.)

Point is, a decent author writes first and foremost for an audience of one--himself/herself. The author just IS, the work just IS the author's work.

Yes-but would it not be better to make your message accessible, rather then obfuscated, casuistic and plain complicated in the name of erudition? If I wrote a book then I would much rather think that my book was accessible rather then inaccessible. Montaigne put it best when he said;

I am not prepared to bash my brains for anything, not even for learning's sake, however precious it may be, From books all I seek is to give myself pleasure by an honourable pastime...If I come across difficult passages in my reading I never bite my nails over them: after making a charge or two I let them be...If one book wearies me I take up another.

The portrait of the conversations of Socrates which his friends have bequeathed us to receives our approbation only because we are overawed by the general approval of them. It is not form our own knowledge; since we do now follow our practices: if something like them were to be produced nowadays there are few who would rate them highly. We can appreciate not graces which are not pointed, inflated and magnified by artifice. Such graces as flow on under the name of naïveté and simplicity readily go unseen by so course and insight as ours…Socrates makes his soul move with the natural motion of the common people: thus speaks a peasant woman…his indications and comparisons are drawn from the most ordinary and best known of men’s activities: anyone and understand him. Under so common a form we today would never have discerned the nobility and splendour of his astonishing concepts; we who judge any which are not swollen up by erudition to be base and commonplace, and who are never aware of riches except when pompously paraded.

Of course, I do not wholly agree with Montaigne, but I never wholly agree with anybody.

Whether you choose to read it or not is another point entirely. What exactly are you driving at here? That authors who don't write to suit your simple taste should somehow be eliminated?? Bizarre idea based on a bizarre premise

Where did you get those conclusions from exactly? I never said that the aforementioned views matched or represented my own, well not wholly so, I was putting forward ideas in order to spark a debate. Somebody can know about, put forward and elucidate upon points and ideas with which he disagrees, and naturally, with which he agrees. I am asking commonplace, (and I hope interesting) question, which may raise several interesting questions.

I wouldn't touch a Don Delillo book with a bargepole, but I respect his right to write them and if other folks enjoy them, that's cool with me.

I am not a despot. I never claimed we should ban books from being published-I never said you could and could not publish this or that-I am questioning the worth of some books-there is nothing despotic about questioning things, questioning things is the essence of democracy. Anything can be questioned, Plato teaches us to question status quo's which we do not agree with.

I respect the right for people to publish, write about and read whatever they like, but that does not mean I like it. I, of course, can recognise how great authors such as Joyce are, and how great their syntax, ideas and axioms are-but that does not mean I like them.

I certainly DON'T think the world would be a better place without James Joyce's writing in it. Do you? Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end of several sticks, in my opinion.

You're implying (in your devil's advocate role) that any literature should be written within specific confines so that it is easily digestible by the majority of people.

Not really. I'm implying that literature should be accessible rather then over-complicated. Of course, I recognise that over-complication is a fact of literature-but why write books in the hope of pleasing a few people so that they can praise your erudition? Again, I do not wholly agree with such an assertion-"all books are accessible to every reader" and so every reader has his or her own whims, likes and dislikes, and some authors cater for a certain audience. Some people enjoy reading over-complicated books-and Joyce etc cater to such a audience. I am not bemoaning much; I am attempting to raise a decent discussion. Just because I make a point in a post does not mean I agree with that point.

As many of us still care about who Mr. Darcy married, and it's been almost 200 years now, I think we'll still care in another 200.

Yes, but who knows about the whims and likes of people in a couple of hundred years time? People may, or may not like Austen then. Homer and Hesiod, for example, went through a great period of stagnation, though that was more because of religious zeal then anything else.

I can't abide flowerly prose or overly complicated sentences or books that need you to sit with a dictionary. But some people like them, so shouldn't they be allowed to read them?

Again, it is _not_about_allowing_or_dissallowing_anything_. I am not a master to command people what or what not do do.

What is with the rush of people asking me why I, or anybody else, should have the nerve to stop people from writing whatever they like? I am asking whether a certain thing is a good or a bad thing-not whether or a certain thing should be allowed. I of course, recognise that hard to read authors are good as they cater for a certain audience-but why the over-complication? Of course this caters for a certain audience and so on.....but that does not mean I cannot question it.

Toni Morrison and Márquez are accessible? Not in my experience...

As far as I know, Morrison does not use a plethora of different, hard to understand words. Therefore she is more accesible then say D.H Lawrenece. Anybody can _understand_ what Toni is writing about-but not everybody _likes_ Toni's work, and this Toni is not "accessible" in your expereience since you dislike her for whatever reason.

I notice there are quite a few contradicitions and ambigutiies in my post-it is nice to be a casuist sometimes.

 

[Inderjit S]

He must really like this discussion.

I just like posting the same topic at different forums-you get a lot of opinions.

 

[novella]

To reiterate, James Joyce writes the way James Joyce writes. To ask whether that "serves a purpose" is a spurious question, and you imply that he has a choice to write differently, like Dan Brown for instance. I disagree.

I don't think Faulkner could possibly write like JK Rowling or anyone else for that matter. Do you? The basic premise of your question is deeply flawed.

To again reiterate, the question of whether you choose to read a writer's work is another point entirely. James Joyce is read a lot (whether YOU deem him inaccessible or not), which is why he is still available. Again, the basic premise of your question (that some writers are "difficult" and therefore of questionable value) is deeply flawed--they continue to be in print because the ARE read. Publishers just can't afford to work it any other way. Market demand is the golden rule.

So what, exactly, are you asking? I sense a little sloppy thinking here?

Novella

 

[Shade]

Re Morrison's accessibility: I truly found that I couldn't understand what she was writing about from the short way into Beloved that I managed before giving up. It was a bad sign that I didn't realise until page 20 that Sethe was female; and still I found myself painstakingly following the story, or scene, for one page, starting to feel confident, enter into a flow, when suddenly another character not mentioned before starts talking or being involved and one of the others disappears and the scene changes or partly changes and I thought - is this stream of consciousness? Was it a dream? Is it a story being told by one of them? I would say that I knew who is saying and doing what about one third of the time at best.

And my feelings on Marquez's impenetrability are well marked on his own thread...

So yes to Orwell, Greene etc as accessible authors, but to me (as a reader whose main diet is what's termed 'literary fiction'), she is not 'accessible.' I would venture to suggest, Inderjit, that you are charactering Morrison and Marquez as accessible because you like them and you want broadly to defend 'accessible' literature. But if they are not widely considered accessible (and a lot of customer reviews on Amazon would back me up on this), then does that change your view?

I also agree with Novella in that you can't compare authors on the sort of qualitative level that "accessible/esoteric" suggests. With Ulysses, for example, the aim was to try to recreate the overwhelming mixture of senses and thoughts that impinge upon an ordinary man during the course of one day, and could not have been written without the variations in style, streams of consciousness and pastiches that the book comprises. Similarly Nabokov's Pale Fire (to choose another of your examples of esoterica) could not have been written any other way - although I don't think, for the record, that the prose in that book on a sentence-by-sentence level is particularly difficult. With Pale Fire the structure and form informs the whole book - a 999-line poem with two hundred pages of notes from the poet's insane literary executor. So it could not have been written with any of its subtlety or wit - its essential components - in Orwellian "clear glass" prose.

 

[Ashlea]

You seem upset that your audience here has assumed that you want to disallow writing. But if you are the one judging what is "accessible" and what is not, that is not all that different.

Your basic assumption is flawed by the fact that what is "accessible" is different for every individual.

You are correct in stating that books fall in and out of popularity, especially in academic circles. But I am confident that any book from the 19th century that still has a few million copies in print has spoken to the human condition sufficiently to last another few hundred years. For that matter, academic popularity does not have a monopoly on what is considered classic. I attended 4 years of college pursuing an English degree, and Dumas was not mentioned once. Ever. But he's next month's book of the month here.

 

[Inderjit S]

[/QUOTE] To reiterate, James Joyce writes the way James Joyce writes. To ask whether that "serves a purpose" is a spurious question, and you imply that he has a choice to write differently, like Dan Brown for instance. I disagree. [/QUOTE]

As somebody points out in this topic James Joyce does not always write in the same way, writers often employ a multitude of styles, and James Joyce, could even write in a simplified way. There is nothing wrong with writing in a simplified way. It is a lot more accessible. Wouldn't you rather have a book was more accessible, which more people could read it? Of course you could counter-argue that it is that certain writers style, that the writer chose to write in the way for a certain group of people, or for himself, and that things such as difficulty of style is a matter of relativity-and that some find this difficult and some that. Some find dialogue difficult and some do not. Some find Tolkien difficult and some don't and some find George Eliot difficult, whilst some don't. So it is matter of personal taste. So Joyce's work, in the end, serves a purpose, it benefits a certain group of people.

Again-you seem to twist my words: Some writers, because of their inherent difficulty are of a questionable value? I imply he has a choice to write differently? Of course he can write differently, he can write however he wants. I do not see your point here. I never said he could write like this-or that an author. (Though pastiche is, or was, quite popular amongst some post-modernists)

You sense sloppy thinking-where? Sloppy thinking usually implies that either your basic concept is wrong or that your thinking is too one-sided and you are not looking at the bigger picture. What I am saying is that, I would much prefer a simple work then a hard one-most people would, though some people would not. I think that it is better for a author to write in a simple way rather then an over-complicated way, or it is better to be concise then over-fastidious. A lot of people would agree. Just because somebody write in a simple way does not mean his or her work is a children’s story. Where did anybody get that idea from? And just because I prefer something does not mean that I will only read "simple" books, which only simple books should be read and only simple books should be published. Not by any means. I recognise the worth of all styles. I recognise the worth of less simplified books. In fact, I read (and enjoy) a lot of 'complicated' books. My preference then, is pretty superficial, since I read and enjoy things that go against my preferences. And my preference is exactly that, my preference. My argument may be classed as paradoxical too, or glib.

I intentionally exaggerated some of the points in my first post. Why? To raise an interesting debate. You then claim that I want to stop the publication of all of the books I do not like (from where did you get this?) and that I think we would benefit if there were no difficult to read authors (where did you get this?) I am simply stating that I prefer simple to read authors-most people do, some do not. I think that some simple to read authors are, fundamentally, more accessible, and at least as good as some hard to read ones. Orwell is by no means inferior to Joyce. I realise that hard to read authors cater to a certain audience, and that therein lies their purpose. I also realise that there is a sense of relativity with regards to what is and what is not difficult to read. Again, I point out that I see the benefit of a somebody like Joyce.

I also aknoweldge that esoteric authors benefit certain peoples. But must they be so overly-complicated? Surely if their message was conveyed in a simpler manner then they would not be as hard to understand. Here I run into two barriers. That relativity of what is and is not hard-i.e that some people find this difficult to read, and some that, and the fact that I find something hard to read doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it a poor book in any way or fashion. Ulysses, (without wanting to homogenise everyone) is generally regarded as a hard to read book. There are of course exceptions, since a generality would not be a generality without an exception and an exception would not be an exception without a generality. It is a duality. So Ulysses caters for these exceptions. Exceptions and hard to read books always will exist, they are, for example, dictated by the tastes and fashion of the times. Shakespeare is considered part of the literature canon at schools-if he wasn't would we like him as much? But why should certain books, because of their inherent difficulty cater for a few people? Is this elitism? Arrogance? Maybe. But why shouldn't books cater for a few people. Some like Sci-Fi, some Thrillers, some fantasy and some romance. Some like Dickens and some hate him. But these are, of course, based on personal taste. People will read Sci-Fi etc. because they are interested in science fiction. People will not read Sci-Fi because they dislike Sci-Fi, as a genre, and Sci-Fi is anathema to them. People will not read Ulysses because they do not like the genre. But people will not read Ulysses because it is so difficult to read. Of course, Joyce writes in his own unique style-I understand that, and I realise some people like Joyce again I understand that. But I prefer more accessible books. I am not saying that all books need to be simple to read. Or that hard to read books should be castigated. They have their value to. But should they cater for the certain few who can read and understand them? Of course, literature caters for everyone and different people have different tastes. Some like the complicated some do not. I am somebody who prefers the latter. I am stating my view. I prefer accessible books. Since accessible books are not inferior in any way then I do not see why my reasoning is faulty. I also like, to an extent, some hard to read authors, however ironic that may sound. But I base my thesis on my preference. I realise that hard to read authors are often original, inventive and ingenious. I do not deny it. But that does not mean I prefer less accessible authors. You would again point to the relativity of what is and is not accessible. Some find this and that accessible. But generally speaking, Graham Greene is pretty accessible, whilst James Joyce is not. You do not hear many people claiming Graham Greene is hard to read. In general, a person is more likely to pick up a The Quiet American novel then Ulysses simply because the former is easier to read. It, like Ulysses caters for a certain audience some will not like Greene no matter how easy to read he is. And again, you claim that Joyce cannot write like Greene and vice versa. I agree. But that does not mean I cannot prefer one to the other. Whilst I may ask why cannot convey their thought is a simpler way, you may reply that they cannot because they write in a certain way, and if they are hard to read, then so be it. I agree. But does that mean I cannot question it? No. But do these people write their books to seem erudite to convey a message. Are they intentionally being overly-complicated? Of course, again you would state that they cater for some people.

 

[Inderjit S]

I truly found that I couldn't understand what she was writing about from the short way into Beloved

I have not read Beloved, but I have read The Song of Solomon which was very simple to read. I can only make judgements based on my ignorance-though perhaps here I made a mistake. I mentioned Marquez because he had several interesting and complicated points to make, but in my opinion he articualted his points in a more accesible way then Joyce. Opinions are, of course, relative. But, generally speaking, we hear less about how hard to read Marquez is then Joyce though perhaps this is, again, a mistake.

Most of my views are in the above post.

 

[Ashlea]

You say that you prefer accessible books. I prefer accessible posts. Do you think you could sum up your long post, so I can figure out what exactly your view is? It seems to bounce around somewhat.

 

[novella]

"But must they be so overly-complicated? Surely if their message was conveyed in a simpler manner then they would not be as hard to understand."

This idea is just plain funny.

Conveying a big, messy challenging message in a "simpler manner" conveys a simpler message. Complex ideas fully conveyed most often take a complex form.


I guess one could rewrite Finnegan's Wake as a simple story, but what purpose would that serve, if books must--as you assume in your original post--serve a purpose? It would reduce a rich language-flooded experience to a flat account of events, which would then lose their potency. I don't think that's a change for the better.

Why not just be completely reductionist and publish two covers with "Born, grew, loved, hated, died. Whatever." between the covers. (The "whatever" panders to intellectuals, existentialists, and those who find ironic distance necessary.) Doesn't that just sum up all the big ideas that everyone's always nattering on about?