Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose?

[Shade]

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 ... etc. etc. etc.

Ahh ... one never fails to begin reading Inderjit's posts.

 

[Inderjit S]

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

Not really no. Complicated messages do not have to be conveyed in a complicated form. Just because the message is complicated does not mean you have to articulate it in a complicated manner. Just because a message is complicated does not mean people will not understand it. Making a message complicated due to over-complication of language will. Complicated ideas do not have to be needlesly over-complicated. Adam Smith was able to convey the complicated nature of economics in The Wealth of Nations though maybe it is I who find it easy, and others difficult. One does not need to convey their message in a complicated manner in order for it to be clever or intelligent. You can convey your message in a simple manner and it would be as intelligent as if you conveyed your message in a complicated one.

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?

So because I prefer simplified means of expression I am a reductionist? I never said you should reduce the number of words in your novel to the bare bones. Again you are twisting my words. Simplified does not mean simple minded.

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.

Sorry about that. (And here I am going on about inaccessible books!) In a nutshell: Complicated messages do not have to be conveyed in a complicated way. I have already gone into that. I prefer to read simple to read authors. They are; generally speaking, more accessible and not really inferior to hard to read ones. I know that what is simple/hard to read is the persons opinion and a matter of relativity. I understand the other flaw-that certain books cater for certain people and if a book is published and sells well, then it serves a purpose of being appreciated by a certain group of people. I know that such things are a matter of preference. I do not wholly support the idea of complicated books being bad. I am trying to spark a debate, and a controversial one too, and an interesting one, however long-winded my posts are. I agree with many of the things that other people say. Hope that is clear enough. (I realise my last post was a tad long-winded.)

Ahh ... one never fails to begin reading Inderjit's posts

And falling asleep after the first line.

 

[Stewart]

Finnegan's Wake

Joyce would smack you.

 

[novella]

Pure force of habit . . . but I don't think he would smack me. Twist my nose, perhaps.

 

[Stewart]

I think he'd be annoyed that you put an apostrophe in the title of his book.

 

[novella]

I know . . . I got that. Hence "pure force of habit."

 

[Ashlea]

This has been covered by others, but to sum up, I would say that Joyce work written in an easy to read style would be removing a terribly important part of the work. The style is the point, really.The same holds true for Hemingway, who would be more accessible by your definition. How you say it is as important as what you say. You cannot separate an author from his/her style of writing, it's what makes the concept of Reader's Digest Condensed Books so awful.

 

[scburch]

Ummm

I don't see you as attacking any authors or as possing an unworthy question, but I'm unsure it's an answerable one. It would be my best guess that many of these authors that some see as dificult to read, are simpley writing in a style they find useful. There have been many times when someone has recommended a book to me and I have found that book quite dificult and confusing... However, the reverse is also true. There have been many occassions when someone has talked about how they just couldn't get thorugh a book that I loved.... The problem becomes... How is an author to tell if they are being overly complicated in style or just writing in their own personal style.... And even if an author knew he/she was being complicated... Who would he/she be being complicated for? Me... or one of my friends.... or someone else.....

 

[buddi]

Do they serve a purpose? I think they do. New ideas often require complicated language. When we read something simple, we often assume we understand it right away. By making something seem deliberately obscure an author can encourage us to reject the facile interpretation, forcing the reader to become more engaged in the play of language. A straight path may get you where you are going, but a winding path gives you time to linger among the flowers.

buddi

 

[jamieo8040]

franz kafka was not necassarily existentialist.

 

[eclair]

^ Care to elaborate?

 

[jamieo8040]

^^^
To elaborate, Kafka's use of nihilism and absurdity can appear to be emblematic of existentialism, however many see his criticism of the beurocracy as marxist. His works can be read socially as a jewish man's struggle in a non jewish country or psychologically as interpretations ( freudianism) of his feelings towards his parents. seems as hows he's dead no one can ask him, so his works are not necassarily existentialist.

 

[Abecedarius]

Inderjit it seems to me that your basic flawed assumption is that the author's goal it to write in as complicated a manner as possible. Perhaps you should reconsider that the author's purpose is merely to write his/her book as he sees it should be. You seem to be implying that the author is trying to prove some intellectual superiority, some mastery of the language which is denied to his/her simple reader, to "show of" as it were.

I can't abide that assumption.

Also as book is more than just it's story. It's goal much more than conveying the events. The style and composition, the voice of the author as it were, are just as important to the finished product.

Read what you like. Avoid what you don't.

 

[garryg]

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?

Surely the whole premise is too subjective to give an absolute answer on!

For example, my wife is a fairly prolific reader but can’t read the Diskworld books, and those are hardly written for the intelligentsia.
Surely it’s entirely down people liking and not-liking different styles.

Hoards of teenagers, and others, love the Harry Potter and Twilight books but I personally find them unreadable; and no I don’t see that as ‘book snobbery’ I have tried to read the HP books especially. I do think the story is engaging, likewise with my wife and the Diskworld stuff.

I do personally think the Twilight books are badly written, but then they are not for me, and they are obviously fitting for the audience, so who am I to cast stones? Although I am entitled to have my own opinion, I wouldn’t foster it upon anyone else.

Some people may just be incompatible with certain styles of writing: something you quickly find this out from the pointy-end if you try to write yourself!