Aren't you fed up with difficult reading materials?

[failexam]

I've been churning this question around in my mind for quite some time now.

The question is: Why bother with difficult reading texts?

I mean, the sole purpose of writing is to convey information to other people, to send a message - be it emotion, information, or whatever - to other people, to influence them in line with the author's goals.

If this is so, then why shouldn't an author use simple and plain language to convey his thoughts?

Why are Herman Melville and James Joyce so crazy and in such a disagreement with this particular approach?

[Lykren]

To communicate complicated information and emotions you cannot always use the simplest language. Much of the beauty of language lies in its capacity for breadth and variety.

[failexam]

I see!

So, if you could communicate complicated information and emotions in simple terms, I guess there would be no need for abstruse language then?

[Lykren]

I wouldn't say so. The purpose of art is not really to communicate, anyways. It's more to create, as Oscar Wilde noted, beautiful things. So there are forms of linguistic beauty which don't exist as simple language, and it's up to the author's taste to decide what kinds of beauty he or she wants to pursue. Of course that doesn't mean you have to try to force yourself to enjoy works you find unpleasantly complicated.

On the other hand, there's also no need to dismiss texts as unsuccessful merely because you find them too difficult for your taste.

[ZacheirII]

No, Poster. Will definitely lose "the" value when literature becomes mere words. It is a work of art; makes it born out of heightened intuition and deep inspiration. what would complement "Inspire" if there is no spontaneity? There, I think you have your answer.
(Z)

[Hwo Thumb]

I really want to think of something clever to add, but I think Lykren and Zacheir hit it right on the head.

I will say that using difficult or pedantic language isn't a straight good or bad thing. It depends on the audience, the tone of the book, the age of the characters in it, the authors personal style, etc. When catering to a more mature or educated audience, or giving voice to a more mature or educated character, you can afford to be a bit wordier. But writing Green Eggs and Ham like a college thesis paper would be... a bad idea.

One other thing is that the writing skill and vocabulary usage of a book have to match up. If I'm an awful writer in other categories, I could use all the flower words at my disposal, but it wouldn't make my material good. If I'm a fantastic writer, save for my boring, bland vocabulary, reading my work would be equally boring and bland.

[Emil Miller]

I've been churning this question around in my mind for quite some time now.

The question is: Why bother with difficult reading texts?

I mean, the sole purpose of writing is to convey information to other people, to send a message - be it emotion, information, or whatever - to other people, to influence them in line with the author's goals.

If this is so, then why shouldn't an author use simple and plain language to convey his thoughts?

Why are Herman Melville and James Joyce so crazy and in such a disagreement with this particular approach?


Language is a magical thing and some writers get carried away with a form of mental masturbation, but a 300pp novel can say as much as a 1000pp work if the writer is skillful enough.
So, yes, avoid pseudo intellectual circumlocution and read readily intelligible works. It's possible to be a great writer without being a smartarse.

[stlukesguild]

So Emil... the writer should avoid words such as "pseudo-intellectual" and circumlocution?:devil:

[Lykren]

a 300pp novel can say as much as a 1000pp work if the writer is skillful enough

Again, I have a problem with the idea that literature is meant to 'say' anything. The point to me seems that it 'is' beautiful, moving, what have you. There are many approaches to beauty, and to reject all approaches which resulted in a challenge for the reader would be to subtract from the source of art's power: its flexibility and dynamism, its variety and unpredictability.

Just because something is hard does not mean it is not worth doing.

[stlukesguild]

The question is: Why bother with difficult reading texts?

I mean, the sole purpose of writing is to convey information to other people, to send a message - be it emotion, information, or whatever - to other people, to influence them in line with the author's goals.

In answer to your first question, who deems what is or is not "difficult"? Shakespeare, John Donne, Edmund Spenser, Keats and Coleridge... most poetry... will likely strike the reader not accustomed to reading poetry and not familiar with the structures, spelling, and vocabulary as "difficult". Certainly I would have felt such works were difficult while in grade school. Not so much so now.

In answer to your second question I will suggest that your assumption as to the sole purpose of writing is wholly wrong. Literary works may deal with themes such as poverty, social class, love, friendship, etc... It has been said that the "message" of many of Shakespeare's sonnets (and of many poems by other writers as well) might be reduced to "When I think of you, I feel blue." But a work of literature... an work of Art... cannot be reduced to a mere "meaning". You don't read a novel or a poem in order to simply "get it"... to "get" the message the author/artist intended. Much... I would say the majority of the value... the pleasure... to be found in a work of art exists in our experience of said work. In this sense it is like life itself. The value of life doesn't lie in coming to an understanding of its "meaning" at the end, but rather in the journey.

[JCamilo]

Plus, If I, who learnt english after 20 years old, read guys like Melville without the help of a dictionary, why people who are native english speakers are complaining ? Just do not be a bit lazy.

[failexam]

I wouldn't say so. The purpose of art is not really to communicate, anyways. It's more to create, as Oscar Wilde noted, beautiful things. So there are forms of linguistic beauty which don't exist as simple language, and it's up to the author's taste to decide what kinds of beauty he or she wants to pursue. Of course that doesn't mean you have to try to force yourself to enjoy works you find unpleasantly complicated.

On the other hand, there's also no need to dismiss texts as unsuccessful merely because you find them too difficult for your taste.

Thanks for all the responses!

Are there any set criteria that determine the extent of linguistic beauty of a piece of literature?

[failexam]

Plus, If I, who learnt english after 20 years old, read guys like Melville without the help of a dictionary, why people who are native english speakers are complaining ? Just do not be a bit lazy.

Actually, I am myself not a native speaker. I first learnt the English alphabet when I was perhaps three years old. Regardless, I have always been fluent in colloquial English. Literary English and dense, prosaic, complex pieces of literature challenge my capacity for comprehension.

[failexam]

The question is: Why bother with difficult reading texts?

I mean, the sole purpose of writing is to convey information to other people, to send a message - be it emotion, information, or whatever - to other people, to influence them in line with the author's goals.

In answer to your first question, who deems what is or is not "difficult"? Shakespeare, John Donne, Edmund Spenser, Keats and Coleridge... most poetry... will likely strike the reader not accustomed to reading poetry and not familiar with the structures, spelling, and vocabulary as "difficult". Certainly I would have felt such works were difficult while in grade school. Not so much so now.

In answer to your second question I will suggest that your assumption as to the sole purpose of writing is wholly wrong. Literary works may deal with themes such as poverty, social class, love, friendship, etc... It has been said that the "message" of many of Shakespeare's sonnets (and of many poems by other writers as well) might be reduced to "When I think of you, I feel blue." But a work of literature... an work of Art... cannot be reduced to a mere "meaning". You don't read a novel or a poem in order to simply "get it"... to "get" the message the author/artist intended. Much... I would say the majority of the value... the pleasure... to be found in a work of art exists in our experience of said work. In this sense it is like life itself. The value of life doesn't lie in coming to an understanding of its "meaning" at the end, but rather in the journey.

I see! So, you're essentially saying that the greater the variety, the nuances and the play of sensual pleasure that a piece of literature invokes, the greater is its value. Should every creative writer then produce fiction with this one goal?

[prendrelemick]

I see! So, you're essentially saying that the greater the variety, the nuances and the play of sensual pleasure that a piece of literature invokes, the greater is its value. Should every creative writer then produce fiction with this one goal?

I think you are getting to the heart of things here.

It is what a piece Literature invokes in the reader that is important. The writer must accept that he can't control this precisely however intricate his vocabulary. The nuance of the word combinations are more important than their dictionary definitions and will be different for each individual.

[JCamilo]

Actually, I am myself not a native speaker. I first learnt the English alphabet when I was perhaps three years old. Regardless, I have always been fluent in colloquial English. Literary English and dense, prosaic, complex pieces of literature challenge my capacity for comprehension.

Then the problem is obviously you, not Melville and Joyce. Dan Brown and Anne Rice are certainly up to your challenge. Be content with the kind of challenge you offer to the texts you choose to read.

[Emil Miller]

So Emil... the writer should avoid words such as "pseudo-intellectual" and circumlocution?:devil:

They're OK for the chitter chatter that appears on interactive websites but in relation to novels, Hemingway said it best:

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”

[mal4mac]

Are there any set criteria that determine the extent of linguistic beauty of a piece of literature?

No, in the end, we only have our own experience to go on. If you find it beautiful, then you find it beautiful. If you don't find it beautiful, then either (i) you don't and will never find it beautiful (ii) you have some learning to do, then you might find it beautiful.

Note, I find it slightly strange to associate Melville with beauty. There *are* beautiful passages in his work, but I think the pleasures in Melville come more from novelty, strangeness, imagination and playing with big ideas. But he's not a dull philosophy writer, aesthetic pleasure must be there for it to be a work of literature!

Personally I found Melville very interesting, a great pleasure, and not at all difficult to read. But I'm a native speaker, and came to him late after reading most of Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, and many other English writers. At school we struggled through some English classics as if they were physics textbooks, it might be worth you taking that approach with Melville, and other writers you find difficult. Of course, you may be thinking the "pain through struggle" isn't worth the "return in aesthetic pleasure", and give up. I have found that with Joyce! But I think, with Melville, and works of similar difficulty (e.g., Shakespeare, Conrad, Dickens,...) you would be giving up too easily, and missing out on too much.

[mal4mac]

They're OK for the chitter chatter that appears on interactive websites but in relation to novels, Hemingway said it best:

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”

So instead of:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,...

Macbeth Act 2, scene 2, 54–60

Would you have:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
The many seas turn red,...

?

I think don't think there's any reason why Faulkner, or Melville, shouldn't use "ten-dollar words" for aesthetic impact.

[failexam]

I think you are getting to the heart of things here.

It is what a piece Literature invokes in the reader that is important. The writer must accept that he can't control this precisely however intricate his vocabulary. The nuance of the word combinations are more important than their dictionary definitions and will be different for each individual.

I think you're bringing up the issue of context, right?

If the writer is not in full control of his art, then how can he pursue his goals of aesthetic creation? Does he always go for what he himself deems to be aesthetically pleasing?

[failexam]

Then the problem is obviously you, not Melville and Joyce. Dan Brown and Anne Rice are certainly up to your challenge. Be content with the kind of challenge you offer to the texts you choose to read.

Regardless of it being very hard for me to grasp difficult texts, I try with all my effort to plough through these, with the hope that someday I will become a far better reader with an improved appreciation of the great works of literature. I have friends who are content with reading Dan Brown and J K Rowling. But, I would like to read the classics, because popular literature can only offer so much.

[failexam]

No, in the end, we only have our own experience to go on. If you find it beautiful, then you find it beautiful. If you don't find it beautiful, then either (i) you don't and will never find it beautiful (ii) you have some learning to do, then you might find it beautiful.

Note, I find it slightly strange to associate Melville with beauty. There *are* beautiful passages in his work, but I think the pleasures in Melville come more from novelty, strangeness, imagination and playing with big ideas. But he's not a dull philosophy writer, aesthetic pleasure must be there for it to be a work of literature!

Personally I found Melville very interesting, a great pleasure, and not at all difficult to read. But I'm a native speaker, and came to him late after reading most of Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, and many other English writers. At school we struggled through some English classics as if they were physics textbooks, it might be worth you taking that approach with Melville, and other writers you find difficult. Of course, you may be thinking the "pain through struggle" isn't worth the "return in aesthetic pleasure", and give up. I have found that with Joyce! But I think, with Melville, and works of similar difficulty (e.g., Shakespeare, Conrad, Dickens,...) you would be giving up too easily, and missing out on too much.

You talk about Melville offering novelty, strangeness, imagination and a play with big ideas. Aren't these very vague notions? I mean, I know that great literature is also defined by the content of what it's dealing with. What exactly do you think is that content?

[Emil Miller]

So instead of:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,...

Macbeth Act 2, scene 2, 54–60

Would you have:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
The many seas turn red,...

?

I think don't think there's any reason why Faulkner, or Melville, shouldn't use "ten-dollar words" for aesthetic impact.

The dramatic requirements of a play or film are different to those of a novel, which is why scriptwriters are employed when novels are transcribed from the book to the stage or screen, but I doubt that even Faulkner would have used 'The multitudinous seas incarnadine'.
It's a cinch that had Shakespeare been writing in the 20th century, the writing would have been very different to that of the 16th.
There's no reason why Faulkner, Melville or anyone else shouldn't use 'ten-dollar-words' to produce acclaimed writing but, as Hemingway has shown, they don't have to.

[mal4mac]

You talk about Melville offering novelty, strangeness, imagination and a play with big ideas. Aren't these very vague notions? I mean, I know that great literature is also defined by the content of what it's dealing with. What exactly do you think is that content?

I don't think these notions are vague. If you read the first three words of Moby Dick, you are likely to think, "that's strange, novel, and rather clever," and feel some pleasure. These notions don't help you specify what will *produce* novelty etc., or how much pleasure you will get from a new piece of novelty. But that doesn't make them vague.

One of the main features of the greatest literature is *originality*. So to say what the content, style, and form of the greatest literature is one would have to go through them book by book, and at great length. It takes a shelf full of books to get to grips with any great novel - which is partly why libraries have many shelves full of books!

[mal4mac]

If the writer is not in full control of his art, then how can he pursue his goals of aesthetic creation? Does he always go for what he himself deems to be aesthetically pleasing?

I don't think the greatest writers are in "full control"; their best work emerges unbidden & uncontrolled from the depths of the unconscious. I think this is especially obvious with writers like Melville, his work seems as if it emerges from the unconscious and is spewed directly onto the page. (Hence the difficulty, but also hence the glory!) Some great writers seem more controlled, but none are writing to a formula, they all require (and find) inspiration.

Should a writer only publish what is aesthetically pleasing to himself? If you don't like Melville, then does that mean Melville should not have been published? What if Melville had not liked his own work? I like Melville! So, yes, Melville should have been published.

It is the *you* who determines your own aesthetic pleasure, in the experiencing of that pleasure. The writers views on the matter aren't, ultimately, important.

[JCamilo]

Regardless of it being very hard for me to grasp difficult texts, I try with all my effort to plough through these, with the hope that someday I will become a far better reader with an improved appreciation of the great works of literature. I have friends who are content with reading Dan Brown and J K Rowling. But, I would like to read the classics, because popular literature can only offer so much.

Frankly, who are you tricking? What kind of "limited" reader, aiming for the most simple texts, will ever "plough" through any book? What comedy...

[failexam]

Frankly, who are you tricking? What kind of "limited" reader, aiming for the most simple texts, will ever "plough" through any book? What comedy...

I understand I am at fault. Sorry for making such a comedy. I should have understood my limitations in the first place.

[Lykren]

Um, you're not at fault. Your ambition is respectable. Keep reading.

[stlukesguild]

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”

I prefer Faulkner, myself... although both were very fine writers. As has been pointed out, Shakespeare and Milton... and poets in general employ a far more sensuous language... but this is not limited to poets. Joyce, Melville, Proust, Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy... and any number of other novelists write in a beautiful, poetic manner.

[mal4mac]

Regardless of it being very hard for me to grasp difficult texts, I try with all my effort to plough through these, with the hope that someday I will become a far better reader with an improved appreciation of the great works of literature. I have friends who are content with reading Dan Brown and J K Rowling. But, I would like to read the classics, because popular literature can only offer so much.

I think "ploughing" is a bad metaphor for the attitude of mind needed for difficult texts. Maybe "walking in hill country" is better. Just slow down, use a guidebook, and don't expect, or demand, that it should be a walk in the park. Then you might find, what everyone knowledgeable is saying, that walking in hill country is often better than walking in the park.

[Cleanthes]

Poor little Mozart. Does he really think big emotions come from complex orchestration? He thinks I don’t know the expensive musical instruments. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better ones and those are the ones I use: hand clapping, the tambourine and the ocarina. :)

[stlukesguild]

Ravel, Richard Strauss, Rimsky-Korsakov, or Wagner might have been the better choice for complex orchestration. :)

[prendrelemick]

I think you're bringing up the issue of context, right?

If the writer is not in full control of his art, then how can he pursue his goals of aesthetic creation? Does he always go for what he himself deems to be aesthetically pleasing?


This thread is splitting into many strands.

I think he must trust his reader and accept that his work is no longer exclusively his once it is published.

[Emil Miller]

In accordance with the title of this thread, an advertiser has put up three novels. Two are by Dan Brown and the third is by Robert Galbraith who turns out to be the pseudonym of JK Rowling. Here's an extract from the the blurb on Rowling's book:

'The case plunges Strike into the world of multimillionaire beauties, rock-star boyfriends, and desperate designers, and it introduces him to every variety of pleasure, enticement, seduction, and delusion known to man'

Ho hum.

[Emil Miller]

This thread is splitting into many strands.

I think he must trust his reader and accept that his work is no longer exclusively his once it is published.

This is an acute observation with which I agree. Here is an extract from my novel 'A Tangled Web', that underlines the
fact that a writer's output becomes public property on publication.

“I've just been speaking to Clarize Lopez the actress and she tells me that Jake Melrose is trying to get the same man who directed Leader of the Pack to direct Voluntary Confessions,” said Jerome exasperatedly. “How can anyone associated with such rubbish be given my story to direct?”
“Jerome, it’s no longer your story. You sold it for two million dollars if I remember rightly.”
“Yes I know, but why can't they produce something worthwhile? These people just go around vandalising other peoples’ work.”
“I just reminded you Jerome that it is no longer your work. If you want to retain the intellectual property rights to your books, you cannot sell them to others.”