On Pretentiousness

There is this idea that a writer shouldn’t be arrogant or generally unlikeable. And there is confusion as to how someone who writes masterpieces could be arrogant, because surely great artists love people. But no, you can hate people and write beautiful life affirming works.

“Pretentiousness” is a loaded term in our society. It’s a buzzword used to dismantle writers who dare defy the average IQ of the average reader. Even those who love difficult novels will usually add some disclaimer to preemptively acknowledge that someone will call a book they love pretentious. “This is a great novel. Yes, a tad pretentious, but…” This is more a concern for living authors publishing in the new climate. Books already deemed classics are safe.

No one takes responsibility for their perception of pretentiousness. No one realizes that calling someone the term just means you are approximating your level of Reader IQ. Let’s say someone uses the word “superfluous” in a sentence. One person barely notes the diction. To them it’s a common word and they are familiar with it’s meaning. Another lashes out “Wow, don’t be pretentious. I shouldn’t need a dictionary to understand you.” And a third knows the word is common, knows its meaning, but still says, “You are very smart, but a tad pretentiousness.” Each one has said more about themselves than the person speaking. We know how each one reads diction, and where they stand in society (either outside, inside, or on the edge looking in).

A pretentious artist trumps a pretentious reader. Sorry readers, but your constant claims of pretentiousness harms literature despite any merit the statement may have. Art does not have to come from good people. Why? Because art is portrayal. Art does not have to judge. Art can paint all that is “good,” and all that is “bad.” Great artists may seek to create detailed mosaics of greed, lust, self-righteousness, and narcissism, not just weave moral fables denouncing them. And a self-aware (not self-conscious) narcissist may be the best artist to express all his layers in a fictional alter ego. Anything that expands the possibilities of art is good, and a pretentious/arrogant/self-indulgent artist expands on the possibilities of art, because A) their rich inner world informs their writing and B) they don’t care enough about what other thinks to conform. Normal people often do not have the complexities of personality, and hence beliefs and ideas, to create characters that are beyond generic. Craft can only compensate so much. With craft, when can intellectualize ways to add layers and paradoxes to characters, but the result will at best be serviceable, of-the-moment fiction. We can prosper, find an audience, with hard work, but we’ll have to leave the timeless complex profound masterpieces to the disgruntled, cranky, socially awkward and condescending geniuses. Although, there are some wonderfully likeable authors who write great works. But the question remains: is it authentic or an adopted social persona? What’s really going on under the surface?

Society does not like diversity. I’m talking about diversity of personalities. We as a society are anti-introverts. We don’t like grumpy people either. We want everyone regardless of race, gender, or mohawk to be appreciative and “likeable,” the buzzword that embodies all the salesman-like traits someone should be. If you are older you can be world weary, but only in a comical way.

A pretentious artist may hate people but love humanity. He may philosophize about love while hating the insipid scene of actual people in love. He delves intellectually and spirtually into ideas and philosophies of psyche and spirit, humanity, not pop psychological Oprahisms. Also, arrogance is a defense mechanism for artists. By thinking people stupid, a writer gains the distance from people necessary to observe them while still ennacting their own unique vision. It’s a buffer against conformity.

Art is expression. Even if you are a corporate cog trying to cater to the latest dystopian trend, the art you create is an expression of your conformity. You can’t not express yourself. If art is expression, then most people, especially during the drafting phase, won’t understand what you are writing. And people revert very quickly to social norms when they don’t understand something. So what keeps a writer on the course? The belief that people don’t know what they are talking about. So why write at all? No good writer takes the logic that far. Compartmentalize. You write because you feel compelled. You publish just because that’s what you do. Although it’s more acceptable than ever to admit you write for money. Once you would be shunned for admitting that. But now it’s all the rage.

Pretentiousness keeps a writer on course. It keeps them from compromising, and compromising is good in business but not art. Art that is not founded on  definitive principles but on a compromising of principles often has no real audience. It’s too A for B, and too B for A. Pretentious writers continue to stretch the boundaries outside the comfort zone of the mainstream. Art wins.

There are two kinds of pretentious readers. Pretentious populists and pretentious elitists. They are both extremes;  they both limit what art can be, and hence exist to the detriment of art. Pretentious populists are quick to project their arrogance on writers.

Learning how to read does not stop after graduation, yet everyone think they are a good reader just because they graduated. But no. There are not just grade school reading levels but also adult reading levels. There is being able to read J.K. Rowling, then Stephen King, then Charles Dickens, then Virginia Woolf, then James Joyce. Grade school reading is all about being able to comprehend increasingly difficult texts. Adult reading levels is about being able to understand the subtext of increasingly different texts as well as comprehending texts that get deemed “experimental.” It pushes beyond academia. It’s the journey any good reader goes on for the rest of their lives.

Pretentious populists judge what they can’t understand. Literature must be understood by everyone. Illiterates are not considered (elitism). Whenever a text goes beyond their diction, their grasp of grammar/syntax, their ability to read narrative, the writer is pretentious. Some readers love the “difficult” read but are so aware of public perceptions that they have trouble being vocal in their love for the text. She doesn’t want to appear elitist. And elitist is the worse thing to be. Don’t have standards; don’t have taste. Don’t call something simple, just say it’s not for you. However, pretentious populists are self serving in their beliefs. If an elitest attacks them, they argue they shouldn’t be judged and people just like what they like. But yet see them complain about the generic quality of their fiction pools. When writers try to appeal to these readers, they resort to simple executions of craft that even many populists admit are crap.

With pretentious populists, if literature reaches for a certain level of complexity in diction or style, something is wrong with the writer…not them. The writer has to work within a certain norm. But does the truth of existence reside in this stylistic range. Probably not. Art may never find Truth, but it’s attempt to do so (and maybe even asymptote) is part of the beauty. And only an arrogant woman thinks she can capture the essence of humanity in prose.

Most pretentious populists are unconsciously created from/responding to pretentious elitists. Populists fear judgment so they judge first. Pretentious elitests are the ones always thinking people stupid for not reading the high brow stuff. Society is so against them, that there’s no need to say more. Everyone gets it. They find a whole stylistic range of art beneath them. That’s exclusionary.  Art should be democratic in a democratic society, somehow finding the balance between quality and aesthetics via relativity–being relative, but not too relative. There are great mysteries, great romances, and so on.