Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: Abstrusiosity (Joyce's word, not mine)

  1. #1
    dubitans
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    72

    Abstrusiosity (Joyce's word, not mine)

    I believe most of us, whether or not we subscribe to a Rational school of thought, would like to view ourselves and our surroundings with Cartesian clarity and distinctness. Why, then, do we have such a tendency to venerate the abstruse?

    When I read "The Waste Land," or "Being and Time," or (heaven forbid) "Finnegan's Wake," am I more impressed by the author's erudition or my own? Do I harbor an empty pride at being able to comprehend and intelligibly discuss a difficult text, thereby distinguishing myself from the common rabble? If this is so, and I suspect it is, then shame on me and others like me!

    Even so, I still prefer to reread Faulkner, rather than Hemingway...
    Last edited by IntravenousJava; 05-21-2012 at 08:39 AM. Reason: anal-retentive about typos

  2. #2
    In the pines. Catamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    95
    I think the simplest answer is that often when people encounter something - a book or otherwise, which they do not understand but which seems high-charged, they are afraid of not understandin, of possibly being stupid; they are afraid of what change may occur; afraid it may be challenge to their very existence. People may read The Waste Land and think 'this isn't right! where is the old method?' etc. and rather attempt to understand, find rejectiopn and condemnation is easier.
    ''Actual self-awareness is the knowledge that we are all characters in someone elses dream.''

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by IntravenousJava View Post
    Why, then, do we have such a tendency to venerate the abstruse?
    Pure ego. If you're feeling insecure about yourself, maybe you can make yourself feel special by trying to understand a hard book that most other people can't read. Maybe being an 'intellectual' or 'the smartest' gives your life value.'

    Hopefully we all know better than that and can recognize that true mastery often lies in the simple.






    J

  4. #4
    Registered User /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by IntravenousJava
    When I read "The Waste Land," or "Being and Time," or (heaven forbid) "Finnegan's Wake," am I more impressed by the author's erudition or my own? Do I harbor an empty pride at being able to comprehend and intelligibly discuss a difficult text, thereby distinguishing myself from the common rabble?
    Culture is a useful tool to create good art. As long as the read is worth it, I don't blame them for standing on the shoulders of giants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
    Pure ego. If you're feeling insecure about yourself, maybe you can make yourself feel special by trying to understand a hard book that most other people can't read. Maybe being an 'intellectual' or 'the smartest' gives your life value.'
    Anti-intellectualism? Really?

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by /dev/null View Post
    Anti-intellectualism? Really?
    That's a useful (but inaccurate) way to describe it.

    If that's Herr Wittgenstein in your picture, he'd probably be in agreement. Or at least disgusted with us all.





    J

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Joyce is simple. Who said his writings are difficult? In fact he was so simple that the first shipment of his books to USA was simply burned.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    northern england
    Posts
    123
    When is pride empty and when isn't it? Or is pride something by its nature that must always be vacuous? I would say that there is nothing wrong with having pride in overcoming a challenge but your mates might get a bit fed up if all you do is talk about it...this is probably more to do with vanity

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by IntravenousJava View Post
    I believe most of us, whether or not we subscribe to a Rational school of thought, would like to view ourselves and our surroundings with Cartesian clarity and distinctness. Why, then, do we have such a tendency to venerate the abstruse?
    Who is "we" here? Don't include me!

    Some people venerate the abstruse, and so the hard books you mention have a (small) readership. Having tried reading the books you mention, I now prefer to avoid them - much preferring Dickens, Dresier, Tolstoy... almost anyone else

    I prefer an 'easy read' to puzzle solving. Some people prefer puzzle solving, they are no better or worse than 'easy readers' for preferring that (unless they become snobbish about it...)

  9. #9
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I prefer reading authors who are at least trying to communicate something. I guess that would put me on Jack of Hearts', mal4mac's and IntravenousJava's side.

  10. #10
    Registered User /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I prefer reading authors who are at least trying to communicate something. I guess that would put me on Jack of Hearts', mal4mac's and IntravenousJava's side.
    You mean... you dislike Eliot, Joyce and Sartre because they succeded at communicating something instead of just trying?

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    That's a rhetorically twisted response that has little intellectual substance to it. In other words, the perfect example of what this reader doesn't like in his literature.





    J

  12. #12
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by /dev/null View Post
    You mean... you dislike Eliot, Joyce and Sartre because they succeded at communicating something instead of just trying?
    Actually the first 10-25 pages of Ulysses is pretty good. By the time I got to page 50 I was wondering why was I reading this? Maybe I didn't get to page 50 before un-enlightenment struck. I can't remember. It reminded me of trying to read Wittgenstein's Tractatus that a co-worker said was really good. I didn't even get through the first 10 sentences before it ceased to make sense.

    I'm probably as proud to claim that it didn't make any sense to me as my co-worker was proud to claim that it did make sense to him.
    Last edited by YesNo; 05-26-2012 at 05:05 PM.

  13. #13
    Registered User /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts View Post
    That's a rhetorically twisted response that has little intellectual substance to it. In other words, the perfect example of what this reader doesn't like in his literature.
    Now I just fall in the same category with two Nobel prizes and one of the best prose writers of all time. That's awkward...

    So what literature does that reader like, so far away from modernism?

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    Don't understand your last post...






    J

  15. #15
    Registered User /dev/null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Actually the first 10-25 pages of Ulysses is pretty good. By the time I got to page 50 I was wondering why was I reading this? Maybe I didn't get to page 50 before un-enlightenment struck. I can't remember. It reminded me of trying to read Wittgenstein's Tractatus that a co-worker said was really good. I didn't even get through the first 10 sentences before it ceased to make sense.

    I'm probably as proud to claim that it didn't make any sense to me as my co-worker was proud to claim that it did make sense to him.
    Being familiar with Frege and Russell can make things easier, but Wittgenstein is pretty much as self-contained of a philosopher as you will ever get. You have to be patient and... that's pretty much it. If you're not afraid of rereading things a couple of times is should start to make sense at some point.

    Just like with everything else (Dante to Pound, Chekhov to Borges, Camus to Derrida) it depends on whether you think it's worth your time or not.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Son of Mine - By Kath Walker ... need help with anaylsis
    By seed_of_destiny in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 10:13 PM
  2. (( GAME )) Word Associations
    By jemiesranova in forum Forum Games
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-03-2011, 06:16 PM
  3. The Lady of Mine
    By Poetess in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 03:16 PM
  4. Love and Relationships # 4
    By Biggus in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 11:52 AM

Posting Permissions

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