Obscure and Difficult Works

[Alex.A]

In his book, subtitled Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, John Carey argues that modernist literature and art can be seen as a hostile reaction to the very large reading public created by nineteenth century educational reforms. The polemic may be expressed as follows: The hidden purpose of modernist writing is to exclude the newly literate (or semi-educated) masses and thus safeguard the intellectual's isolation from the multitude.

Among the examples of modernist literature which, according to Carey's thesis, have been deliberately made difficult or obscure in order to make them inaccessible to the "common reader" are, Eliot's The Waste Land, Joyce's Ulysses, and some of the novels of Virginia Woolf are cited.

Thoughts, anyone?

[LitNetIsGreat]

A very interesting topic.

I have not read Carey's thesis personally but I know of it, (I doubt it, but is it available to read online?)

I would say that there is some truth to this theory from what I have heard. High modernism in literature, especially from the books you list, seems to want to build a barrier excluding mass readership. Eliot’s overt obscurity and use of different languages within the same poem form an obvious starting point as a barrier to access the poem The Waste Land. According to what I know of Eliot, which is not very much, he was a shy, retiring person who was prone to feelings of inadequacy. Perhaps it is going a little too far to suggest that he would feel the need to construct such difficult work in order to boost his self-confidence and social standing, but the idea is there nevertheless.

When reading Mrs Dalloway I got the feeling that it is written with the intention of not wanting to involve the reader into the novel. It appears to be a work that certainly is deep and there is a lot to consider and discuss, but not one that the “common” Joe/Jane would want to read for fun. In the novel there is also a great deal of references to high British life, the palaces, the parks, the well spoken businessman etc, all of which seem to be viewed with a regret and sadness to its impending demise, (the references to time and Big Ben also would strengthen this reading). So this novel would definitely fit the theory.

I have not had the (pleasure?) of reading Ulysses as yet, but by all accounts this is in the same vein as those above. Considering that the 20’s were a time when literacy rates were soaring and books were becoming cheaper, and that the exclusivity of those at the top in literature was seemingly being threatened I think there is something to be said for Carey’s ideas. I am certainly interested to get my hands on it so I can read his ideas fully for myself.

Having read it yourself are you personally convinced of his theory?

[jgweed]

"The hidden purpose of modernist writing...."

That alone is enough to make it unconvincing. It is dubious enough to say that there is a common purpose amongst a group of authors, but to make it HIDDEN at the same time says much about the scholarship it represents.

[Etienne]

I think the thesis is interesting and that there is much truth in it, however I think singling out a single cause he somewhat over simplistic. I haven't read the paper though so I can't judge as his opinion is probably not limited to this simple postulate.

I think the word "hidden" does not have to be taken so literally, but rather more in the sense of "underlying". There doesn't have to be a common purpose as in some kind of premeditated conspiracy, but rather as some kind of general half conscious movement.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Perhaps the wording is a little off then, granted, but maybe there is something in this still? Was it not the point of modernism to embrace somewhat elitist ideals, as well as trying to hang on to past traditions?

It seems to me that this theory has some element of truth attached to it, though granted I have not read it myself, and so I will reserve full judgement until I have.

[LitNetIsGreat]

"The hidden purpose of modernist writing...."

That alone is enough to make it unconvincing. It is dubious enough to say that there is a common purpose amongst a group of authors, but to make it HIDDEN at the same time says much about the scholarship it represents.

Perhaps the wording is a little off then, granted, but maybe there is something in this still? Was it not the point of modernism to embrace somewhat elitist ideals, as well as trying to hang on to past traditions?

It seems to me that this theory has some element of truth attached to it, though granted I have not read it myself, and I will reserve judgement until I have.

[atiguhya padma]

Carey says something similar in another of his works, which I think was called The Intellectuals and the Masses. In that work, from the late 80's, he quotes DH Lawrence advocating a general eugenics programme for many of the working class, as, in DHL's opinion, they would not be able to appreciate high art. He also shows how George Orwell in the Road to Wigan Pier reveals a biased, class-conscious loathing of the working family he was staying with whilst reporting on the conditions in the North of England. In fact most famous writers of the 20's and 30's come under fire from Carey. Arnold Bennett, however, whom Carey obviously has some affection for, is praised by him for his moral defence of the working class.

[kiki1982]

"The hidden purpose of modernist writing...."

That alone is enough to make it unconvincing. It is dubious enough to say that there is a common purpose amongst a group of authors, but to make it HIDDEN at the same time says much about the scholarship it represents.

Well, to callit hidden is maybe a little over the top, but that's maybe not Carey's words. That would mean that those authors deliberately put a 'hidden mmessage' in their works, which would mean that they knew each other, met up and then decided to do that. That is indeed a little far-fetched.

But that beng said, there is something like 'modernist literature' and thus there should also be something that defines it as such, outside style, types of story, ideas and such. It wouldn't surprise me that they thought their art was being 'un-arted' because of the great masses that 'knew about it'. So in their own frustration they put all the same message in their works, on different scales of course, but still similar, without knowing it from each other.
I would be greatly in favour of this theory actually.

Of course, it is not because great masses read your book, that the great masses understand what it is about, that's another question that most readers don't ask themselves... On the other hand, if it just looks too difficult you're rid of the great masses that 'polute' your book with stupid theories of their own that aren't worth anyting...
It's each person his own idea, but this one wouldn't be very odd...

[LitNetIsGreat]

I remember reading once, though I can’t think where, that Eliot said he only writes for the top 1% of society or something to that effect. With statements like that it is hardly surprising that he attracts an “elitist” label. I don’t know if he was referring to the top 1% of the reading population, or just the top (however you would define “top”) 1% of society.

I think the statement was made around the intelligence of the readership. Only 1% of readers would be educated and intelligent enough to fully access his work. Of course I am remembering a statement I read about ten years ago and I may be wrong in the matter, but such a thought left a slightly bitter taste to my palette when thinking about Eliot. If I am wrong in this matter please correct me.

[jgweed]

Throughout history, some writers have felt compelled to write what they had to write, even if it meant that the reading audience was very limited.
I seriously doubt that Joyce decided one day to write a novel so complicated and obscure that no one would read it, and smirked after writing certain passages and said to himself, "take THAT you common people." Didn't his art and his genius dictate what he wrote? And if this uncompromising attitude meant a small readership and little royalties, doesn't it suggest that he placed his vision first?

Carey seems to want to politicise literature, and to find criticisms outside of artistic creation by the attribution of "bad" or unpopular motives to some authors. "Don't bother with Joyce, he only wrote to show off his superiority." "Don't bother reading a book that requires some effort." Perhaps that is the "secret motive" of Carey's thesis.

[Alex.A]

To those who object to the adjective "hidden": it was my choice of word. Perhaps the word inexplicit might have been better than "hidden"; and it's offered as an interpretation of what appears to be the case. It isn't meant to refer to a cultural conspiracy.

Yes, I do think there is something in Carey's thesis. A persistent intellectual tradition, according to Carey, is that the masses are unfitted for the appreciation of art and their tenacious literalism has banished them from the higher aesthetic reaches. For instance, in Mrs Dalloway, doesn't Virginia Woolf draw upon her unexamined "artistic" assumptions when describing the character of Septimus Warren Smith? "To look at, he might have been a clerk, but of the better sort, for he wore brown boots; his hands were uneducated" Aren't we meant to understand that such a person would be too insensitive to enjoy a novel written by Virginia Woolf?

Has literature of superior or lasting merit ever been accessible to the untutored multitude? Some would cite, for example, the works of Charles Dickens as evidence that it has. But how many people in the1850/60s who were literate, also had the income to buy and the leisure to read very long and intricate novels?

Now that, in theory, almost everyone has been to school and become literate, a novelist like Dickens might be too popular to be taken seriously by the intelligentsia. Thus an iconoclast like Carey attributes the obscurity and difficulty of (some) modern writers to intellectual snobbery.

(@ atiguhya padma:The Intellectuals and the Masses has the subtitle Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia)

[jgweed]

"But how many people in the1850/60s who were literate, also had the income to buy and the leisure to read very long and intricate novels?"

One forgets, for example, that Dickens published many of his novels in weeklies that sold very cheaply. "Workingmen's Libraries" were becoming very popular during the Victorian age, and that there was a large number of self-educated members of the middling and lower classes. Asa Briggs, Victorian Cities (1970) and E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963) are useful in understanding "the masses" of the period.

It is all-too-easy to make sweeping and general statements about certain groups, whether they be some selected group of elitist authors or the great unwashed masses; but one must, I think, be careful to understand that even within the classes are individual people representing a whole gradation of interests, abilities, and motives.

[blazeofglory]

The one and only book I choose to complete and that perfects me or proves that I am perfect is Ulysses, the one I find marvelous both from stylistic standpoint from a philosophic point of view.

Joyce has reached a height, a pinnacle and we are at the bottom, and indeed anyone mastering art must be motivated or must at least strive to mount the peak the way Joyce did.

Joyce is the most difficult artist for me. First I can not undersealed the words and after that the structures of sentences or what we call syntax are too complex for us to comprehend.

After all he has dedicated his life to literature honing and perfecting his style. He is very incisive.

I like his frankness and candor. He may sound blunt on us. But all I see in him is a degree of sincerity and honesty.

He was the man who saw nothing valuable in life other than sharpening or pruning his style.

[Alex.A]

It is all-too-easy to make sweeping and general statements about certain groups, whether they be some selected group of elitist authors or the great unwashed masses; but one must, I think, be careful to understand that even within the classes are individual people representing a whole gradation of interests, abilities, and motives.
Yes, it is tempting to make sweeping generalisations about whole classes of people etc. - but to qualify adequately would require a long essay. I have oversimplified in the interest of discussing Carey's opinion that mass literacy is a cause of the literary intelligentsia's recourse to obscure and difficult works in order to maintain the exclusivity of art and literature.

I am aware that such a belief or conjecture should be supported by reasoning based on complex information, but Carey's polemic should not be confused with an academic dissertation.

Your point about Dickens publishing his novels in weeklies is a fair one. But I'm not sure that impoverished Victorian families read them.

(For many examples of what kind of magazines are or used to be bought by low-income families, see The Uses of Literacy by Richard Hoggart.)

[LitNetIsGreat]

[QUOTE=jgweed;614978]Throughout history, some writers have felt compelled to write what they had to write, even if it meant that the reading audience was very limited.
I seriously doubt that Joyce decided one day to write a novel so complicated and obscure that no one would read it, and smirked after writing certain passages and said to himself, "take THAT you common people." Didn't his art and his genius dictate what he wrote? And if this uncompromising attitude meant a small readership and little royalties, doesn't it suggest that he placed his vision first?

QUOTE]

Sure, the true artist writes what they wish to without regard for the audience who may read it, this should be so in order to preserve integrity in the work. I respect the artist who places his vision before public demand, for therein leads to mass fiction, but can we discount Carey's paper out of hand despite of this, I don't think so.

[Etienne]

Well there is no muses, figuratively speaking, who inspire artists in such and such a way. Artists are in some ways a product of their time and environment. So it is not just a matter of saying "Joyce decided one day to write a novel so complicated and obscure that no one would read it, and smirked after writing certain passages and said to himself, "take THAT you common people."" But it is a matter that the intellectual and artistic atmosphere and "requirements" (note the "") of the time were such and such. Why? Of course there is this search for originality which always push the need to find innovations, but why those innovations took the face of a somewhat elitist movement. This is what the man tries to explain. It is not the reasoning of each artist as they made their work of art. It is a case of something like a mas phenomenon, where the phenomenon is not necessarily explainable by taking each individual separately.

So I don't think Carey wants to that artists just wanted to show that they're better than the mass. In fact that's probably not at all what he wanted to say, and it's probably nothing more than an over-simplistic interpretation.