Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 110

Thread: "Elitism"

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    53

    "Elitism"

    The idea of "elitism" seems to come up a lot around here. But in the "hard" sciences you NEVER hear people who are knowledgeable referred to in this way. They are usually congratulated for their hard work and education, even by the public at large. But a writer or "soft" science person is degraded as being an "elitist" if they seem to know anything beyond "common sense" and include it in their works. What a bizarre double standard. Just wondering what others think about this?

  2. #2
    Registered User Lambert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by nathank View Post
    But a writer or "soft" science person is degraded as being an "elitist" if they seem to know anything beyond "common sense" and include it in their works. What a bizarre double standard. Just wondering what others think about this?
    Yes, excellent point. What annoys me about the general reading public is there general dislike of writers with a large vocabulary or erudition (eg. Joyce, Faulkner, Nabokov).

  3. #3
    Reader plainjane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The Outer Limits
    Posts
    196
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Lambert View Post
    Yes, excellent point. What annoys me about the general reading public is there general dislike of writers with a large vocabulary or erudition (eg. Joyce, Faulkner, Nabokov).
    I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques. Faulkner and Nabokov are two of my favorite writers and I am not the smartest, or most learned person by a long shot.

    "Popular fiction" in general does not require analysis or any sort of deep thinking, sort of like junk food as opposed to real nourishing food [Nabokov, Faulkner]. IMHO

  4. #4
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Yes, it is rather bizarre double standard; although the word "elitist" seems to be applied by people who envy the learning of people in the humanities.

  5. #5
    Registered User Lambert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by plainjane View Post
    I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques. Faulkner and Nabokov are two of my favorite writers and I am not the smartest, or most learned person by a long shot.
    Thank you Jane, I should have digressed more on that vocabulary point. But of course I was too damn lazy always to do so....

    I think you've summed it up pretty nicely. There seems to be a fear of intellectual engagement with serious literature nowadays. In the eyes of the general populace, literature has to conform to their demands for a basic vocabulary, accesiblilty and an easy going nature.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    41
    There's something to this, but scientists can be elitist too - if you read Richard Feynman's books, he is always complaining how scientists seem to make many things unnessesarily complicated, inaccessible to the common person.

    Another thing - authors like Joyce and Nabokov were elitist, I would say. They really enjoyed leaving people behind, baffled. I don't think anyone could deny that Finnegan's Wake is for anyone beyond a tiny minority of devoted & talented readers.

    There's nothing really wrong with this, I don't think, there are authors who write stories that are easy to read, and others that are deeper and more complex. It takes all kinds.

  7. #7
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    I agree that a large part of the charges of "elitism" placed upon artists in all fields is rooted in a certain degree of jealousy, dislike and even fear of that which is challenging... difficult... and not immediately accessible. I would note, however, that another large part of the equation is rooted (ironically?) in certain aspects of academia. Since at least the 1960s we have been "blessed" with those academics who confuse the teaching, criticism, and study of art with social activism. Such academics have been quick to suggest that anyone who who believes that Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, or Milton are inherently greater writers than Sylvia Plath, Toni Morrison, or Jack Kerouac (sorry... I couldn't help myself) are "elitists". Some would go so far as to argue for an artistic "relativity"... ie. would suggest that as all is subjective no artist is better or worse than another... and to suggest such is "elitist". Some go even further and suggest that the great artists themselves were "elitist" as they benefited from a social structure that favored white males. Of course that would make Japanese woodblock artists and African sculptors just as "elitist". Personally, I have no problem with the notion that art is "elitist". Democracy and Egalitarianism certainly have their place politically (although even there they are not perfect), but art and Democracy or Egalitarianism make horrid partners. I want nothing to do with an art of mediocrity... an art designed for the masses. I'll take that which challenges and makes me think... that which has certain high standards... and I'll gladly be called an "elitist" and say "thank you very much".
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    53
    I could see the idea of "elitism" as applied to art appearing at that time in academia. That helps to give it some more context in a sense.

    It's too bad the idea of "better" or "worse" even entered into this. The idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has been around for millennia. We could simply say that some works are more complex and dense and require a larger background to be fully understood.

    Perhaps we are using two different ideas of "elitism." I was thinking of "complex works" by any author of any age as being labeled elite simply because they are more difficult. You seem to be thinking of academic complaints in terms of "greater or lesser works" based on socially entrenched stigmas, etc and the professors goals to liberate these "oppressed" writers.

    I'm more interested in the former version and particularly why the general public labels these works as elitist, when they look up to highly knowledgeable scientists, even confusing scientists, as Gods. They are baffled by quantum mechanics, but think those who understand it are great. They are equally baffled by Faulkner, Joyce, and Nabokov and they label them as elitist, arrogant, etc. Strange. Sad.

  9. #9
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    But is "elitism" as you have suggested, solely related to the "difficulty" or "complexity" of the work? Certainly James Joyce, Beethoven's late string quartets, Heironymous Bosch's symbol-laden paintings or Mallarme's poetry can be dense... difficult... challenging... and as such one can surely understand the charges of "elitism" lain upon such art. Indeed, with Finnegan's Wake or one of Philip Glass' operas or much of what passes for "conceptual art" it becomes quite understandable that a general population would find the work completely "meaningless" and proof of the notion of the "elitists" in their ivory tower... artists/intellectuals creating "art" which has no relevance to reality. On the other hand... there is a good deal of great art which is not overly "difficult". Certainly the greater experience the audience has the more likely they are to appreciate further levels of "meaning" and form. Really, is Mozart that difficult, or Rembrandt, or Dickens, or even Shakespeare? Yet there are undoubtedly those who would suggest that they (and those who appreciate their work) represent a certain "elitism" as well. Personally, I feel that I am open to a broad range of art. I love Bach, but I also am greatly enamored of Miles Davis, Johnny Cash and iris DeMent I don't, however, imagine that all art is equal by any stretch of the imagination. I think when it comes to literature I am a bit more stringent... preferring not to waste my time on mediocre, light entertainment. This is probably owing to the fact that reading often involves a far greater investment in terms of time than most music or painting. Surely we all have some notion of an artistic hierarchy, however vague that may be. We create this when we choose what we will spend our time with and what we won't. We create this in our own "creative" endeavors... whether writing, painting, creating music, or building book shelves when we edit ourselves... when we decide that this works better than that. To suggest that questions of "good" and "bad" or "better" have no place in art seems completely absurd to me. As a visual artist I can tell you that this question is forever in the fore... as I lay down every brush-stroke.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  10. #10
    Torchbearer Demian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    177
    I would say that if there were an exception to this rule it is in the realm of science fiction. In science fiction the better educated are usually the most revered. But science fiction has never really been taken seriously as a genre of literature anyway.

    "When you listen to the radio you are a witness of the everlasting war between thing and idea, appearance and reality--the human, and the divine."
    -Hermann Hesse

  11. #11
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Demian View Post
    I would say that if there were an exception to this rule it is in the realm of science fiction. In science fiction the better educated are usually the most revered. But science fiction has never really been taken seriously as a genre of literature anyway.
    Science Fiction was part of general littersture in the 1950's. Orwell's 1984 was taken as general fiction, and some of the early SF was considered general fiction, Jules Verne's novels and H. G. Wells The Time Machine are examples. Earlier SF was not regarded as any different from general fiction, consider Cyrano de Bergerac's "Autre Mondes". The differentiation was between general fiction and pulp fiction until the 1960's.

  12. #12

    elitism

    Quote Originally Posted by plainjane View Post
    I'm not sure if it is the large vocabulary that puts some off these writers, I'd have to say it is more actually having to think, having to analyze the layering techniques.
    "Popular fiction" in general does not require analysis or any sort of deep thinking, sort of like junk food as opposed to real nourishing food [Nabokov, Faulkner]. IMHO
    I am new on this site. Let me introduce myself. I am from Hungary, but I live in New York for over a year now.

    I have to write American book reviews on a monthly basis for a Hungarian magazine but I am not really familiar with American contemporary literature.
    I am not looking for the popular bestselling authors (because it does not necessarily guarantee the quality I am searcing for) but those who would be considered strong literary authors and meet high standards in style, vocabulary, require analysis and deep thinking also. I feel a little lost because I have not studied contemporary American writers. Could you suggest some current American writers (poet, novellist, playwrite) that I should pay attention to? Do you know any websites, or periodicals which contain reliable information on this topic? Can I trust the Sunday New York Times literature section?

  13. #13
    The Word is Serendipitous Lote-Tree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,536
    Blog Entries
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by nathank View Post
    The idea of "elitism" seems to come up a lot around here. But in the "hard" sciences you NEVER hear people who are knowledgeable referred to in this way. They are usually congratulated for their hard work and education, even by the public at large. But a writer or "soft" science person is degraded as being an "elitist" if they seem to know anything beyond "common sense" and include it in their works. What a bizarre double standard. Just wondering what others think about this?
    Erm...Hard Sciences are OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE...unlike art which is subjective Experience of the Individual...
    I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
    Some letter of that After-life to spell:
    And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
    And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell :"


    Blog: Rubaiyats of Lote-Tree and Poetry and Tales

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    50
    okokok
    Last edited by ClickForth; 10-31-2008 at 05:30 PM.

  15. #15
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,360
    Most people who criticize "Elitist" literature haven't read much of it I would think. Anyone can insult Finnegan's Wake, or Remembrance of Things Passed, or Pale Fire, but how many have read those works.

    On first hearing about Finnegan's Wake, I too felt baffled, and shocked that anyone could purposely write something as complex, and unintelligible as that. Upon reading it however, I began to understand why and how someone could do that. He was experimenting, without the intention of appealing to everyone. He had the intention of appealing to those who would care. The work isn't as chaotic as it is made out to be I find, it just isn't meant to be straight forward, and is designed to play around with language in an unknown way.

    The reason why people don't like this sort of stuff is because they want things either easy, or fast. Not many want to have to cut open something, and try to extract from it some meaning. Others don't want to have to think about heavy themes, while others just want to escape their lives for whatever reason. There is of course the other group who want the opposite, and call them Elitist or Enthusiast it makes no difference. There always will be that group, and there always will be that type of literature, the "ground breaking" literature, which breaks the rules, rewrites the rules, journeys to the uncharted, or digs into the deepest recesses of our minds.

Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •