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?

[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.