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.Originally Posted by 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.
They're OK for the chitter chatter that appears on interactive websites but in relation to novels, Hemingway said it best:So Emil... the writer should avoid words such as "pseudo-intellectual" and circumlocution?
“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.”
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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.
Last edited by mal4mac; 08-25-2014 at 05:34 AM.
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.
Last edited by mal4mac; 08-25-2014 at 05:59 AM.
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?
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.
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?
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.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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!
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.
Last edited by mal4mac; 08-25-2014 at 07:27 AM.
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.
Um, you're not at fault. Your ambition is respectable. Keep reading.
“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.
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/
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
