21st Century Literature discussion
Question of the Week
>
Do We Mistake Inaccessibility For Brilliance? (7/11/21)
date
newest »
newest »
Marc wrote: "...wondering if it is harder to recognize so-called brilliance in the simple or straight forward...."Like Jane Austen?
One other thing I think about a lot re: 'accessibility" is that we're creatures of our age and books that used to be "highly accessible," the veritable page-turners of their day, become less so over time. Has anyone here tried reading Sir Walter Scott recently? Here's a little taste of Ivanhoe:
This state of things I have thought it necessary to premise for the information of the general reader, who might be apt to forget, that, although no great historical events, such as war or insurrection, mark the existence of the Anglo-Saxons as a separate people subsequent to the reign of William the Second; yet the great national distinctions betwixt them and their conquerors, the recollection of what they had formerly been, and to what they were now reduced, continued down to the reign of Edward the Third, to keep open the wounds which the Conquest had inflicted, and to maintain a line of separation betwixt the descendants of the victor Normans and the vanquished Saxons.
On the other hand some kinds of writing become more accessible as time passes, because other writers start to adapt the same writing tactics that were once innovative (stream of consciousness, for instance) and we readers get trained to understand how it works.
I'm going to hop off to the side of this topic for a second - this may be something for a separate question Marc.I've spent the last twelve months writing about art, and there are always critics or spectators (mainly of modern art) who say ' I could do that' or 'my five-year-old could do that.'
But I'm not aware of anyone ever saying, I could have written that about a novel, in that same condescending tone.
Mod
Good Lord, now I have a migraine. Was this a representative sample of Scott's writing, or did you dig up something particularly convoluted?
Such a fascinating thread!Appreciate the plugs for our August read, Mr Loverman, which is turning out to be an interesting read and should be a good discussion.
Whitney wrote: "Good Lord, now I have a migraine. Was this a representative sample of Scott's writing, or did you dig up something particularly convoluted?"It's all that way! Here is the gutenberg link:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/82/82...
Mod
Marcus wrote: "But I'm not aware of anyone ever saying, I could have written that about a novel, in that same condescending tone...."Not exactly the same, Marcus, but read the two star reviews of a bunch of novels, and you may get some of the same -- condescending and/or insight on the difficulties/ease of reaching a reader/viewer. (Often they force me to see a work with different eyes -- naive or sophisticated as those eyes may be. Or to see where naivety and sophistication do and don't overlap.)
Hugh wrote: "...My impression is that many authors have been forced to dumb down a little in the last 20 to 30 years..."I would perhaps suggest "chosen" rather than "forced," often as much by marketplace opportunities as by artistic integrity? It feels impossible to me to conceptually compare the readership Sir Walter Scott wrote to reach with the target(s) available to a writer today.
This is the first time I have followed a “Question of the Week” but it won’t be the last. I found this thread/question very appropriate for a group dedicated to 21st century literature and literary fiction. Thank you!Some of your comments reminded me of the controversial (some academics would claim “debunked” or “dated”) theory of “the Implied Reader.” Does an author have a specific audience in mind when s/he writes, or are authors writing a work with themselves as the most critical audience? Does the accessibility of the text vary widely, or can one predict which texts will be accessible to certain readers?
Authors who are commercially successful in their lifetime probably write in a more targeted way, and deliberately choose a level of vocabulary for their targeted audience. That doesn’t make their books inferior or even destined to become dated and hence, inaccessible
Susan wrote: "Authors who are commercially successful in their lifetime probably write in a more targeted way, and deliberately choose a level of vocabulary for their targeted audience...."Or "intuitively", whatever that can be twisted to "mean"? (This morning, a I write this, it is sort of "to be able to reach other souls like the writer." Or perhaps others of some other clan/tribe that the writer hopes to communicate to/with.... To the extent that words and grammar are still as much bearers of the boundaries of community as are color and status and ...)
lark wrote: "One other thing I think about a lot re: 'accessibility" is that we're creatures of our age and books that used to be "highly accessible," the veritable page-turners of their day, become less so ove..."Thought of your post, Lark, when I came across the following this afternoon. A totally unfamiliar name to me: Stephen Leacock "Though not as reknowned in modern times, during the early 1900s, Leacock was the most famous humorist writing in the English language. At one point, it was said that more people had heard of Stephen Leacock than Canada. At least one source estimates that between 1910 and 1925, Leacock was the most widely read author in the English speaking world." (Hardly 2021 humor!)
https://americanliterature.com/author...
Lily wrote: "At least one source estimates that between 1910 and 1925, Leacock was the most widely read author in the English speaking world...."Lily, I followed your link and there I read "How to Avoid Getting Married," and yes, it's remarkably not-funny!
I recently read and loved Beloved and was surprised by the number of negative reviews on Goodreads and people calling the book inaccesible.I think a lot of readers find ambiguity difficult to deal with and will give up on books that require a bit of patience for the murkiness to become clearer. Personally, I don't mind a bit of a settling in period.
Mod
I think a lot of readers find ambiguity diff..."
Yes, it drives me crazy. Requiring careful reading and rereading doesn't make a book inaccessible. What people really mean is that a book requires a level of effort they don't want to put in. Which is fine, but don't blame the book. it's like declaring running a marathon is inaccessible because your average person can't throw on a pair of shorts and do it without much effort.
Mod
If a book requires substantial effort to read, do you assume it has more potential to be great/brilliant?
Marc wrote: "If a book requires substantial effort to read, do you assume it has more potential to be great/brilliant? My assumptions about "difficult" and "accessible" have been shredded by this conversation, where it seems like every interaction between a given book and a given reader is going to have its own level of effort, one that's more or less decided by the reader and not anyone else.
I have a friend in her 70's who is reading The Odyssey in the original, line by line, and she's never studied Greek of any kind. She's learned the alphabet, she has a dictionary, and she has a bunch of translations on the table with her as well as the original. The level of joy she's experiencing with this project almost vaults the whole endeavor into the definition of "effortless" because she has so little resistance to what would seem like drudge work to me.
I'm listening to two audiobooks now, The Magic Mountain and Slaughterhouse Five.
My last experience with Slaughterhouse Five was that it was effortless and yet, important--this time I really have to make myself pay attention and I'm finding my mind wandering at the simplistic 'so it goes' sentences--it's become less accessible to me.
Whereas the first time I read The Magic Mountain it was hard for me--I took it with me to Korea and it was my only English book which finally got me to read it--and now it's so easy and so delightful, a book I re-read regularly.
I don't have any big concluding thought about all this.
That’s why I said it’s a matter of timing 🙂
Marc wrote: "This question of the week would have been much better re-stated as:If a book requires substantial effort to read, do you assume it has more potential to be great/brilliant?"
I really liked the way you phrased the question that led to this discussion, where we had to define the question for ourselves and then answer it. The answering led to an expansive discussion on the definition, whether it is subjective or based on individual attributes, and also prompted personal revealings from the contributors. I would have liked to see the discussion delve a little more into why we thought we answered the way we did, and if we could have elaborated more on why an accessible work or less accessible work was either good or bad and if there is any measurable relationship between accessibility and quality at all.
Mod
A couple more...
- Codex Seraphinianus. Ein Orbis Pictus des Universums der Phantasie. (made up writing system and difficult to decipher drawing; it's basically an illustrated encyclopedia of an imaginary world)
Brilliant and inaccessible. Its sheer imagination and the wonder it evokes are great. I assumed it was brilliant before "reading" it and still felt so after completing it.
- Ulysses
Assumed this would be both inaccessible and brilliant going in (I loved A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man). Found it challenging. Unsure of its brilliance. Can you find something brilliant and not like it? It seemed very smart and I don't have doubts that Joyce was brilliant, I just found it slow and boring in many parts despite liking the experimental nature, the celebration of the every day, etc. I guess since I assumed it would be brilliant that was a combination of the author's rep and assuming more complexity would equal more brilliance for me personally as a reader.
I'm really not sure what I personally consider "inaccessible"... Maybe:
- Languages I can't read (which is everything but English), but I don't mistake that for brilliance
- Texts I've given up on because it feels like my brain is not making any sense of what I'm reading (had this experience with the first couple pages of Finnegans Wake, but paused because I wasn't ready to give it the attention I thought it would require or deserved)
I guess it probably boils down to effort that I don't enjoy or find much in return---that equals inaccessible. I do often assume that complexity/inaccessibility (i.e., that which will require effort from me as a reader) may lead to brilliance, but I know that it's no guarantee and that it's not the only road to brilliance.
@64lark wrote: "and yes, it's remarkably not-funny!{grin} :-( !
As we were selecting a future month's read for my f2f zoom book group this past week, I mentioned that the Western Canon board was currently discussing
Beowulf:
. I wasn't suggesting it for our group, but even its mention provoked strong responses of (unfortunate?) memories of university English class days.Listening to Bagby's recitation of the first 1,000+ lines, I didn't understand a single word of the Old English, but I was rather mesmerized by the performance and the sound. Where on the spectrum of "accessibility" do such experiences lie, I wonder? (Some of the readers in the current discussion speak of enjoying reading lines/passages on a dark nights with thunder and lightening playing outside.)
Ref: https://www.bagbybeowulf.com/index.html
Mod
Only tangentially related, I highly recommend Beowulf: A New Translation. Headley's translation is fantastic, with a lengthy introduction discussing the challenges and choices involved in translating a 1000 year old text for a modern audience.
While we're on that tangent, I really enjoyed the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf. I have no idea how faithful (or faithless) it is to the original, but it was a blast.
Bill wrote: "While we're on that tangent, I really enjoyed the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf. I have no idea how faithful (or faithless) it is to the original, but it was a blast."I am finally enjoying the Heaney's rendering, in the delightful illustrated edition that I have had for years w/o perusing thoroughly. In modern English and the hands of a good poet, the plot and characters really are very accessible -- and give one glimpse of the transition of human thought and values across the millennia.
Mod
No shit, though, Unferth, if you were
the bitter-brawling brave you claim to be,
your king wouldn’t have suffered a single night
of Grendel’s rampage, no bitten bones,
no hall-horror, no chaos in his kingdom.
Grendel was aware he had nothing to fear here.
Your sword’s soft, son.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
Beowulf (other topics)Beowulf (other topics)
Beowulf (other topics)
Beowulf: An Illustrated Edition (other topics)
Beowulf: An Illustrated Edition (other topics)
More...
Meg coming to the inaccessible reader's defense! Your compassion is admirable.
Joking aside, this discussion has me wondering if it is harder to recognize so-called brilliance in the simple or straight forward...