Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose?
Print Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose? | |
|
Inderjit Sanghera
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 02, 2004 Location: Wolverhampton, England. Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 21 |
 #1
Do difficult to read authors serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed and do they simply pander to the demands of the intelligentsia? Shouldn't literature be able to be accessible to everyone rather then a select few? Authors such as James Joyce and Thomas Mann are notoriously difficult to read-whereas authors and poets such as Maya Angelou, Graham Greene and Toni Morisson as well as existentialists such as Franz Kafka and Albert Camus are pretty easy to read, even if their messages are a little more hidden. George Orwell is critical of the over-complicated use of language, he views it a casuistic and undesirable-is he right, and are authors such as Mann and Joyce paradigmic of Rousseau’s lament over the arrogance of some intellectualists and their inflated belief in their own intelligence? Or are such works important as they allow the author to articulate his message in a allegorical way-Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus is a critique of the German populations acceptance of Nazism. (Mann's novel seems to be very allegorical, his novel which deals with the Faustian legend ( check out Marlowe's 'Doctor Faustus' and Goethe's Faust p.I&II for the more famous Faustian plays) barely includes the devil or any of the other things which were a part of the general Faustian legend. But novelists such as Bulgakov, Marquez and Twain are able to get their message across in an accessible way and what is the point of writing a book with a hidden moral message if few can understand it and the only ones who can understand it already knew it. Wouldn't people much prefer a simple, accessible Aesopian (who Herodotus claims was a slave) fables? And authors such as Yuko Mishima are able to write complicated, philosophical novels in a pretty accessible way. Or are novels such as Vladmir Nabokov's Pale Fire and James Joyce’s Ulysses good things, allowing a very intelligent writer to articulate his thoughts, and are such esoteric novels great examples of a novelists intelligence, with amazing moral messages or are they just great, great books? 'Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona/ multi;' Horace 'None are more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free' Goethe; Elective Affinities 'To say a man is born a slave is to say that he is not born a man at all Rousseau |
|
ying
I ? Scepticism  Usergroup: Missing Mods Joined: Feb 20, 2004 Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 1482 |
#2
I take it you are talking about works of fiction (I'm going to presuppose that you are.)? Though I don't read that much fiction (there are enough philosophical texts to keep me occupied for the better part of my life, if not all of it), the stuff I read tends to be rather complex, since I love to keep my brain trained. Especially Joyce, different types of writingstyles in one book keep the mind occupied, and lingering for the new ways of thought-in-words. Well, in Ulysses at least. http://web.sfn.org/content/Publica...inBriefings/work.outs.html Environments that offer exposure to complex experiences boost the components that process information in the brain. Brain cell survival increases, the neural appendages that receive communication signals grow and the connections between cells multiply. Some of these changes occur not only during the brain's early growth stage, but also in later years. A severe lack of mental exercise and even stressful experiences, however, limit the brain plan. "I determined nothing." -Sceptical expression |
|
Inderjit Sanghera
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 02, 2004 Location: Wolverhampton, England. Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 21 |
#3
I take it you are talking about works of fiction (I'm going to presuppose that you are.)? Yes, works of non-fiction such as philosophy, politics and economics (as Adam Smith points out) are inherently esoteric-they are about topics which some people are and some people are not interested in-whereas literature is usually seen as being more general. (Most of us have read a book but not many if us have read Plato, Thomas Hobbes or Edmund Burke for example, and those of us who have read them have a special interest in them. You could argue that the same thing applies for books such as Ulysses also are objects of special interest for some people, just like fantasy novels such as The Lord of The Rings and sci-fi novelists such as Issac Asimov may appeal to certain people and not to others due to their genres. As for different styles of writing; Italo Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveller... employs a lot of different writing styles and is pretty easy to read (or not as daunting as Ulysses) and, in my opinion, a much better read. One does not need to make your book daunting or obfuscate the plot with endless weavings of writing styles, juxtapositions and parodies of The Odysseys to make your book intelligent or good; one can, for example follow Alexandre Dumas's typical plotline; You take for example...a young woman who is unhappy and persecuted. You add to her a bloody and brutal tyrant, a sensible and virtuous hero, and a sly and perfidious friend. When you have all these characters in hand mix them in eight, ten or more instalments and serve hot. Each number must end well. Tie it to the next issue by a sort of umbilical cord...that creates the desire and indeed the impatience to read on... Alexandre Dumas A tad clichéd maybe-but his novels are at least as engaging and intelligent as Joyce's. George Orwell does not have to use a lot of different writing styles in order to write an intelligent and complicated books-most writers don't-but is that what sets them apart from Joyce and the like? 'Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona/ multi;' Horace 'None are more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free' Goethe; Elective Affinities 'To say a man is born a slave is to say that he is not born a man at all Rousseau |
|
Commify
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 25, 2004 Location: U.S. Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 87 |
#4
Inderjit Sanghera wrote: ...A tad clichéd maybe-but his novels are at least as engaging and intelligent as Joyce's. George Orwell does not have to use a lot of different writing styles in order to write an intelligent and complicated books-most writers don't-but is that what sets them apart from Joyce and the like? Joyce's Ulysses is, according to a few lists I've seen, the greatest book ever written in the English language--http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html is the first such list I could find. I've only read bits and pieces of it, and don't intend to read any more. The legacy of Ulysses is its contribution to the art of writing and the field of literature. Orwell's work is more pragmatic, and has been remembered for the messages contained within. Orwell's work is more accessible. |
|
Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jun 19, 2004 Total Topics: 46 Total Posts: 1269 |
#5
Well, aside from anything else, there is the question of what on earth makes someone an esoteric author. Personally I find the Joyce of "The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and "Dubliners" as not particularly esoteric, while the Joyce of "Ulysses" is somehwat esoteric, and the Joyce of "Finnegans's Wake" is hopelessly esoteric. On the other hand, I am completely and totally baffled as to why anyone would think Mann is difficult or esoteric. I find his novels page-turning reads as I did Nabokov's "Pale Fire" and Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow", and am baffled why others did not find them so. If we are going to discuss this topic, we need a better idea of what is "difficult" and a serious discussion of why some people find a novel difficult and others do not. NBR |
|
Stencil
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 11, 2004 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 9 |
#6
Some would consider many philosophers esoteric; others would diagree. I agree that much of the "difficulty" of texts is subjective. I rarely encounter someone who describes "Gravity's Rainbow" as a page-turner. I also find that some people have a rough time with Jim's sections in "Huck Finn." I think that literature should be looked at in historical context. For example, much of Pynchon's work examines meaning and complexity as many post-"atomic age" texts do, and the narrative reflects that. "The Crying of Lot 49" is a good example. Many would say that it's a much "easier read" than "V." or "Gravity's Rainbow." However, Pynchon has a knack for playing with meaning in his novels. In "Lot 49," he plays with Greek myth and uses several "esoteric" symbols that often add up to nothing. Or some may argue that at least. And that is his point. It's about meaning in texts. Faulkner plays with complexity in "Absolom, Absolom!" (a book many consider a very difficult read) in a similar way. He deals with point of view in such a way that questions narrative and truth. And that's the point. Readers often have a "difficult" time with Twain because he is using dialect and local color in the way that most Realists did. Faulkner, as a Modernist, is commenting on complexity through the narrative itself--trying to reproduce an essence that language cannot directly describe, like a Piccaso painting. In "Beloved," Morrison, admittedly heavily influenced by Faulkner, uses the overvoice of the slave ship occupants merging with the protagonist to comment on aspects of cultural identity that make a point through their complexity. Nabokov's "Pale Fire" was written after he translated and provided footnotes for Pushkin's work (if I remeber correctly) and was a comment on "the critic" and the fictions he/she creates: thus the frame and layered or "difficult" story. As a Postmodernist, Pynchon challenges many of the "literary" conventions of metaphor and meaning, commenting on surface meanings in his novels. Coover, Barth, Barthleme, and Delillo do much the same. In my opinion, Postmodernists tend to be easier reads because they are challenging the type of "literary" metaphor that Joyce, Faulkner, Proust, Pound, and Eliot, among others, employed. It's not much different from Derrida challenging the great "system builders" of philosophy. Essentially, I think that each writer reflects, reacts to and comments on philosophical, scientific, musical, and cultural ideas in contemporary cummunal air. All good artists do. I think that "difficult" work has almost always been associated with "literary", in the same way that work has earned acclaim artistically, scientifically, philosophically, politically or otherwise. That might mean a simple idea thats "difficult to swallow" culturally or religiously or whatever; or it might mean it's difficult to grasp. |
|
Inderjit Sanghera
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 02, 2004 Location: Wolverhampton, England. Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 21 |
#7
On the other hand, I am completely and totally baffled as to why anyone would think Mann is difficult or esoteric Ever read The Magic Mountain or Doctor Faustus. Well, aside from anything else, there is the question of what on earth makes someone an esoteric author. Somebody who is understood by few people. You could, of course, argue that a lot of things are understood by few people-but that does not make them hard to read. It is a matter of taste. Few people understand Ulysses, for example. I find his novels page-turning reads as I did Nabokov's "Pale Fire" and Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow", and am baffled why others did not find them so. Somebody here commented on the subjectivity of difficulty. Some like and some do not. Pale Fire came under intense criticism when it was first published, from some quarters. Readers often have a "difficult" time with Twain because he is using dialect and local color in the way that most Realists did. Indeed-many novels contain dialect-some are even wholly dialectical, and this increase their difficulty. 'Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona/ multi;' Horace 'None are more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free' Goethe; Elective Affinities 'To say a man is born a slave is to say that he is not born a man at all Rousseau |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.