I have a friend who pronounces my name “keeorrr” (she knows who she is). I recently got back in touch with her, and was not surprised to hear that she was in the midst of completing her own magnum opus. I have a few very distinct memories of discussions with her; one of which leads to the subject of this…whatever it is.
We had probably begun the discussion with an argument about spirituality. Most of our discussions either began with this or ended with it; and one time we somehow managed to slip into a debate on literature – that being; ‘what was good literature’.
At the time, I had been reading a lot of Ian McEwan and I think it was his name, although I could be wrong, who sparked off her distaste. I think I said something like, “every single sentence is perfect, it’s like he has chosen every word with precise accuracy and careful thought”. I think she responded with something like, “oh, I hate that pretentious shit.”
What makes literature “pretentious”?
Amazon.com have a list of books to read if “you wish to properly converse with other elitist snobs”. The list includes:
A new book, A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose, by B.R. Myers, says today's critically acclaimed American writers use complicated language to trick readers into thinking they have something important to say. Examples include:
Myers is annoyed with these writers for taking themselves so seriously -- but his real gripe is with the critics who mock "genre" novels such as Westerns, romances and crime dramas while lavishing praise on "literary" authors. I have read neither of the above, so can not comment (although in the depths of my bones I can’t believe that Cormac McArthy is a simple trickster). I do however see Myer’s point about critics favoring only what has been classed (often prior to release) as “literature”. I love a good piece of ‘horror trash’.
Surely Proulx’s use of “Evocative Prose” is kind of the point. Should writers not heighten the feelings/emotions/effect of their story/characters with carefully structured style? But the pretentiousness of literature, and a reader’s definition of pretentiousness, remains the point of this discussion. Forgetting bad writers for a moment, what about those above who have been classed ‘pretentious’. Camus, because he has won the Nobel Prize? Salinger, because he became the voice of a generation? Is it the reader themselves which has turned this literature into something pretentious?
When my father was at University in the sixties, he told me that students used to carry around the teachings of Chairman Mau, although not many had actually read it. It was more of a statement than good bedtime reading. Do we assume that the readers themselves aren’t pretentious? How many of you have claimed you have read something; but you haven’t really? I have; although to be fair it’s normally because I am arguing something is good/bad without having read it simply because I have a genetic disposition to argumentativeness.
According to a survey, 65 percent of people in the UK have pretended to have read books, and of those, 42 percent singled out "1984," "War and Peace" and "Ulysses". Apparently, most people lied because they wanted to impress those they were talking to.
I suppose writers and readers are both the same really: both subject to the same self-deprecation which makes them reach for the thesaurus or fake reading list in the first place. Sometimes we must remember that being ‘average’ can at times actually be ‘the best’. If you will allow me to be elitist for a moment, I believe it was Richard Bach who said: “the simplest things are often the truest”. I won’t be snobbish or pretentious enough to say that I called that up from memory; I got it by searching for [quote + simplicity] on Google.
We had probably begun the discussion with an argument about spirituality. Most of our discussions either began with this or ended with it; and one time we somehow managed to slip into a debate on literature – that being; ‘what was good literature’.
At the time, I had been reading a lot of Ian McEwan and I think it was his name, although I could be wrong, who sparked off her distaste. I think I said something like, “every single sentence is perfect, it’s like he has chosen every word with precise accuracy and careful thought”. I think she responded with something like, “oh, I hate that pretentious shit.”
What makes literature “pretentious”?
Amazon.com have a list of books to read if “you wish to properly converse with other elitist snobs”. The list includes:
- A Season in Hell and the Drunken Boat (Rimbaud)
- Utopia (More)
- The Stranger (Camus)
- The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger)
A new book, A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose, by B.R. Myers, says today's critically acclaimed American writers use complicated language to trick readers into thinking they have something important to say. Examples include:
- The Shipping News author Annie Proulx uses overblown "Evocative Prose" with little punctuation to achieve dramatic effect.
- All the Pretty Horses author Cormac McCarthy uses "Muscular Prose" to inflate the depth of the Wild West.
Myers is annoyed with these writers for taking themselves so seriously -- but his real gripe is with the critics who mock "genre" novels such as Westerns, romances and crime dramas while lavishing praise on "literary" authors. I have read neither of the above, so can not comment (although in the depths of my bones I can’t believe that Cormac McArthy is a simple trickster). I do however see Myer’s point about critics favoring only what has been classed (often prior to release) as “literature”. I love a good piece of ‘horror trash’.
Surely Proulx’s use of “Evocative Prose” is kind of the point. Should writers not heighten the feelings/emotions/effect of their story/characters with carefully structured style? But the pretentiousness of literature, and a reader’s definition of pretentiousness, remains the point of this discussion. Forgetting bad writers for a moment, what about those above who have been classed ‘pretentious’. Camus, because he has won the Nobel Prize? Salinger, because he became the voice of a generation? Is it the reader themselves which has turned this literature into something pretentious?
When my father was at University in the sixties, he told me that students used to carry around the teachings of Chairman Mau, although not many had actually read it. It was more of a statement than good bedtime reading. Do we assume that the readers themselves aren’t pretentious? How many of you have claimed you have read something; but you haven’t really? I have; although to be fair it’s normally because I am arguing something is good/bad without having read it simply because I have a genetic disposition to argumentativeness.
According to a survey, 65 percent of people in the UK have pretended to have read books, and of those, 42 percent singled out "1984," "War and Peace" and "Ulysses". Apparently, most people lied because they wanted to impress those they were talking to.
I suppose writers and readers are both the same really: both subject to the same self-deprecation which makes them reach for the thesaurus or fake reading list in the first place. Sometimes we must remember that being ‘average’ can at times actually be ‘the best’. If you will allow me to be elitist for a moment, I believe it was Richard Bach who said: “the simplest things are often the truest”. I won’t be snobbish or pretentious enough to say that I called that up from memory; I got it by searching for [quote + simplicity] on Google.
No comments:
Post a Comment