The state of modern literature

[icenine]

I'm fed up with literary magazines. Is it just me or are they publishing nothing but drivel these days? There doesn't seem to me to be any passion or soul in the writing in "literary" magazines. Words piled on words, ultimately meaning nothing. Every time I try reading something in a "literary" magazine I get stuck somewhere in the first or second paragraph because I just don't care. These authors are praised and their mass of inscrutable rubbish awarded. I don't get it. Take a look at genre writers and you'll see that they still believe in the plot and character. Seems to me only genre writers know how to make you care. No wonder most people don't believe in literature anymore and won't read it. There is far too much rubbish out there. As for celebrity books, don't even go there. God almighty.

[James81]

There IS a lot of crap out there, but I also realize that that is just my opinion. What I view as crap, others think is absolutely rivetting. What I think is absolutely rivetting, others may view as crap.

My suggestion? Stop reading magazines and start reading more books. Magazines have a tendency to be of poorer quality than a full fledged book.

[icenine]

There is a brilliant book on the subject by Brian Reynolds Myers: a reader's manifesto.

[James81]

A book on how shitty literature is these days?

:roll:

[icerose]

One of these threads again I see.

I suppose it's all about what you're looking for. Most books I pick up, I enjoy, but then again I'm reading them to be entertained. I'm reading them to see into another world. The writing doesn't have to be amazing, but it can't stop me either. When it interrupts my pace or whatever, the book is dead to me. So I set it aside and pick up a new one.

And if the publishers are publishing mostly drivel, blame the submissions. If they had amazing writing crawling up to their doors, they wouldn't bother with the lesser stuff. And rememeber over 250,000 books are published a year, if you're only reading four or five, you can't hardly call that a sampling.

Good luck and happy reading.

P.S. This arguement has been going on for as long as there have been books being published.

[dpaterso]

I appreciate this is technically a rant :) but a lot of folks who might be interested in responding to this thread don't visit Take It Outside, so I'm moving it to AW Roundtable, hope that's OK.

Of course, depending on how rowdy things get, it might end up right back in TIO. We shall see.

-Derek

[JamieFord]

A lot of literary stuff drifts into the realm of "performance writing." Basically, writing for other writers--which I think bores the general public.

[maestrowork]

Sometimes it's a matter of taste. There are people who love literary fiction not for plot (or even characters) but for the use of language. It's like poetry in prose form.

And there is still good stuff out there, balancing the art of storytelling with scrumptious word-wielding. You can't help but marvel at their mastery even if the plot is not as "exciting and straightforward" as genres. Gourmet food serves a different purpose than a burger. They can both be satisfying, but just don't expect the same thing.

Then of course there is crap in every genre.

Not all literary magazines are created equal.

[Use Her Name]

The only short stories I really like are published in The New Yorker. I could sit down with a stack of New Yorkers and read all day. Often they are quite bizarre and pointless, and play with language in ways that would be unacceptable in a longer work. In fact, I expect that short stories are of a different sort of writing than novel writing. The writer can toy with ideas that would not sustain a full sized novel. Even some longer novellas would run out of story before hitting the proper word length. There are different demands and requirements on a 12 page short story and a 350 page novel. If I read a small "literary" magazine, I would expect "weirdness." Knowing literary works are more character driven, I would also expect a certain type of navel-staring story, thank God not possible in jumbo size. I also would expect quite a range in writer ability if the submissions are from the general population.

It is quite possible that since there really is no percentage to submitting to a lit mag, the people who end up submitting are below par. Many long work writers don't write short pieces. Time is money. There is really no benefit to writing, polishing, and publishing a short story other than it is fun and you like to do it.

Oh well, just another opinion.

[SPMiller]

Not only are short stories financially stupid, they also teach next to nothing about how to write novels. Since novels are the only way a fiction writer can make nontrivial income, any time wasted on short stories is insane.

That said, I'm both poor and crazy.

Regarding litfic, yes, a lot of it is bad and pointless. Every now and then, you'll run into something good. Sounds a lot like genre fiction, doesn't it?

[Ken]

my own complaint about some of the literature that is being put out these days is that it's overflowing with gratuitous sex and violence along with gimmicky thrills to entice readers and retain their attention. When I read these books and stories I feel like I'm being prodded along, as if I'm suffering from ADD and can't sit still and focus on anything unless my hormones are brought into play. It's really insulting and unnecessary. Just give me a well put together story and I will read it. And if it becomes a bit slow moving at times, don't worry. I'll sit through those sections. I'm not taking a rollercoaster ride, after all. I'm reading a book and have the patience to sit and enjoy it and to invest the mental energy needed for that.

[Kate Thornton]

Not only are short stories financially stupid, they also teach next to nothing about how to write novels. Since novels are the only way a fiction writer can make nontrivial income, any time wasted on short stories is insane.


You are correct that short stories do not teach one to write novels. They aren't supposed to.

But you might just as well make the same sweeping - and pig-headedly wrong - assumption about poetry being a similar waste of time.

As a matter of fact, short stories can pay a reasonable amount if you write quickly and well, have a high placement ratio, and realize that financial gain is not the only object. I am still getting $$ from stories I wrote years ago, and still getting editing & teaching jobs based on stories that paid very little upon publication.

The short story form - like the sonnet, the personal essay and the novella - may not be the place to cash in big financially - but to label any writing endeavor as a waste of time explains some lack of success.

All writing endeavors can teach a writer valuable lessons useful to novel writing.

[Kate Thornton]

Okay - literary fiction:

Real literary fiction can be a transcendent experience that leaves you shaken & stirred.

But there's a lot of crap out there - so read where you'll get the best. This goes for genre fiction, too (I write genre fiction - like all fic out there, there are good works and drivel)

If you are just reading drivel - which proliferates at an astonishing rate - go to the sources where there is stringent editorial control and try there. The New Yorker is certainly a good venue, but it's not the only one. Cruise your local bookstore or library for good literary fiction, learn to distinguish authors whose work you enjoy from authors whose work makes you wince, cringe or vomit.

[Bubastes]

One literary magazine that I really enjoy is One Story. They have rigorous standards and they never publish the same author twice. It's worth checking out.

[icenine]

A book on how shitty literature is these days?

:roll:

:ROFL:

[icenine]

I suppose what I really mean when I talk to someone about crappy literature is affected prose. I want to be entertained when I read. Perhaps that's why I enjoy classic (older) books. I find most modern fiction dull. Admittedly, the problem isn't endemic to literature. For example, lately in the horror genre I'm seeing too many stories that are really abuse stories disguised as ghost/horror tales.

[kuwisdelu]

It's been said before me: there is crap in every genre.

There's still good literary fiction out there.

As for the drivel you're running into? Personally, I blame all the MFAs coming out of colleges these days who have been fed a cookie-cutter idea of what makes a good literary story. Most of them write the same sort of go-nowhere wordplay that has neither plot, nor character, nor often even the good prose, simply because they're all trying too hard. That said, there are some great writers out there who came out of those MFA programs, too, like David Foster Wallace.

[Danger Jane]

There always has and always will be crap in every genre. The only difference is that we've largely forgotten yesterday's crap.

Not everyone can tell a truly profound literary story. Those who want to, but will fail, will likely rely on gimmicky devices to label their story "literary". Those who want to, and succeed, make their readers stop and think in a big way. It's kind of the same as it's always been, IMO. Some people enhance the mold, and others are dependent upon it (or suck the life out of it).

[Phaeal]

I blame all the MFAs coming out of colleges these days who have been fed a cookie-cutter idea of what makes a good literary story. Most of them write the same sort of go-nowhere wordplay that has neither plot, nor character, nor often even the good prose, simply because they're all trying too hard.

I agree. Too much pretension, too little content. Which is why the principal readers for the lit zines are the writers hoping to get into them.

[steveg144]

A lot of literary stuff drifts into the realm of "performance writing." Basically, writing for other writers--which I think bores the general public.

A lot like the state of much non-fiction writing (philosophy, general cultural topics, etc) these days: they are written to be published in journals that are only read by others in the same field. There was a time when an insightful cultural or philosophical piece could be found in a general-readership periodical, and could be expected to find readers who would a) be interested in the subject matter and b) be capable of understanding what it wsa about, but those days are long gone.

[tehuti88]

I don't understand most literature. I feel dumb to admit it, but it's true. Whenever I try to read something described as "literary," I always end up confused about how this can possibly be considered good or interesting reading. But I'm a genre person myself, and SOMEBODY out there must like literature, since so much of it is published and praised. I don't hate literature. I just don't connect to it.

I can tolerate this, it's just the kind of snobby view that many literary types take of genre types that bothers me. I understand not all lit types are like this but I make sure to keep out of a lot of online writing forums because genre writers like myself are frowned upon for some reason. I can't count the times I've wandered into forums, saw the people there posting their inscrutable prose and sniffing at how too many people out there write fantasy drek nowadays, and then crept back out never to return.

I wouldn't ever frown upon a literary type, I'd just not understand them! To each his own though. This is why I don't buy literary mags or books.

(I'm glad though that I'm not the only one who wonders about lack of plot and such in a lot of literature nowadays! I thought it was just me.)

[kuwisdelu]

(I'm glad though that I'm not the only one who wonders about lack of plot and such in a lot of literature nowadays! I thought it was just me.)

Well, depends on what literature you're talking about. I like a lot of literary fiction that I know leaves a lot of people scratching their heads, but I also know there's a lot of bad "literary fiction" out there. Like has been said before, there's crap in every genre, and if it's on you're unfamiliar with (like you and literary fiction, perhaps?) it's easy to only see the crap without knowing how to find the good stuff.

But then, the good stuff might not be up your alley, either. As I mentioned, I like a lot of books that some would claim don't have plots... Of course, they do have plots...they're just not always as obvious as in genre fiction.

[icenine]

Ha it's the snobbish critics who want us to believe that literature is not for the "uninitiated". Like art, if we don't get it then we must be stupid. Elitism, in a word. Really though, just plain old snobbery. It's all lies. Most literature doesn't make any sense because the people writing the stuff don't know what they're doing. The academics fob us off with baloney about literature all the time, trying to make us believe we're uneducated if we don't understand it. It's so easy to write something incomprehensible and then sit back aloof and smugly say "it's over your head, my friend, that's why you don't get it, I'm so smart that I can write stuff you don't understand." If the writer was smart he'd write something EVERYBODY could understand. Communicate don't obfuscate is the first rule I was taught.



Quick edit: when I say literature, of course I mean MODERN lit. I am a big fan of classic literature, it's just the modern stuff that gets on my nerves. :)

[maestrowork]

First, there's a difference between literature and literary fiction (modern definition).

Second, literary fiction can have a plot. Many do. Good ones, too.

Much like anything else, there's good and bad and you just need to know where to find them. Like Jane said, we just don't remember yesterday's crap. What has stood the test of time became "literature." The rest were discarded.

[Use Her Name]

If the writer was smart he'd write something EVERYBODY could understand.


Although I don't write at an advanced level (like only Ph.Ds can read it) I don't think a child should or could read my writing. (Child= someone with vocabulary and reading skills less than an eighth grader). I don't write for everyone, I write for AN audience, one of many. To illustrate, although Harry Potter might be easily readable, and "good" I have never knuckled under to read it. I opened one book in the bookstore, and felt the irresistible notion to pitch it across the room. I am sure that there is an audience for literary fiction. I've read a few literary stories and books and don't consider them all unintelligible.

I think there are various reading levels, that is why there are divisions for YA in the library and book store, but to write adult (non YA) books at a YA level is only doing the reader a disservice. I think when a person reaches 17 or 18 they should be reading fully advanced adult level literature (or books). Why? Because there is no incentive to read at an adult level if all an adult (18 is an adult) needs to do is go to YA. Next thing you know college textbooks will need to be written at YA level because these readers have never read at an adult level. This is not all blowing smoke. The ability to read is going down hill and I do think that YA and "dumbing down" is partially to blame.

Some people who write popular books obviously chose to write for an audience that has less than high-school reading skills. Some readers are impatient with what can be considered the "dumbing-down" of the vocabulary used in books in order to lure a larger audience into buying the book.

I also don't think that "experimental" writing is useless and elitist, remembering that the beat writers of the 50s were once experimental, and literary, earlier, writers like Hemingway were more experimental, Sci-fi writers of inner space in the 60's were "experimental" and could be considered "literary" in some cases (Harlen Ellison).

In fact, although reading experimental writing is sometimes not easy, you end up learning new techniques from it. Writing stands still for a while, but then, when it moves, it moves in the direction of the "experimental" literary style.

oh well, Just a few observations from the dark side.

[kuwisdelu]

Ha it's the snobbish critics who want us to believe that literature is not for the "uninitiated". Like art, if we don't get it then we must be stupid. Elitism, in a word. Really though, just plain old snobbery. It's all lies. Most literature doesn't make any sense because the people writing the stuff don't know what they're doing. The academics fob us off with baloney about literature all the time, trying to make us believe we're uneducated if we don't understand it. It's so easy to write something incomprehensible and then sit back aloof and smugly say "it's over your head, my friend, that's why you don't get it, I'm so smart that I can write stuff you don't understand." If the writer was smart he'd write something EVERYBODY could understand. Communicate don't obfuscate is the first rule I was taught.

Wow, and I thought I believed in conspiracy theories.

Yes, there are literary fiction writers out there who have their head between their legs smelling the flatulence. There are writers out there who try to write as esoterically as possible, for no other reason than to try to be "literary." There are writers who are writing only for the other writers from their MFA program to show just how much smarter their fiction is. But like everyone's said before, those are the bad lit fic writers. And I suggest you not judge modern literary fiction by them.

"If a writer was smart he'd write something EVERYBODY could understand"?

That's almost as silly as saying "If a writer were good, he'd write something EVERYBODY would like." I believe Use Her Name has already told you why it's silly that all writers should such that anyone could understand.

But just remember: that classic stuff that you do like? If everyone could understand that, too, I guarantee there would be a lot fewer high school kids complaining about English class.

[James81]

I think the both of you missed the point...

I THINK icenine was saying that if you write things that nobody else gets, even if it's intelligent, it's not really "smart".

Personally, my goal in writing is to reach as many people as possible. I don't want to sit up on my obscure throne and marvel at my witty and intelligent writing. I'd rather write something that everybody can relate to. Bear in mind, that doesn't mean that I dumb my writing down, it just means that I take into account my audience and think about whether or not people will get what I am saying when I write.

[kuwisdelu]

I think the both of you missed the point...

I THINK icenine was saying that if you write things that nobody else gets, even if it's intelligent, it's not really "smart".

I hope that's all he was saying. It just seemed to me he was referring to all modern literary fiction, but I've been wrong before.

[Use Her Name]

If it is intelligent then somebody is bound to get it. See I think I got caught up with the idea that intelligence is elite, and that literary writers only write unintelligible intellectual stuff. I think I tried to differentiate from the latter by using the term "experimental." Everyone with a reasonable grasp of the language should be able to read literary writing. I'm not sure when people began to lump literary with elitism. Such a comment belongs more in the French Revolution when large amounts of people were illiterate, and only the elite could read. Anyone can read, and like any writer.

This might be the cause: High School students are force-fed "literature." Since they are more interested in the opposite sex and partying, they get bored fast, and learn to hate literature and call it elietist because they don't want to give it their time. Its the "only smart girls like Shakespeare in the 10th grade" theory. When they become adults they avoid literary writing because of their bad experiences. The people who end up enjoying literary works are people with college degrees, often advanced, because they got over being high school students, and read the stuff when their hormones had calmed down. Also Adults who have always had it around because of various reasons. To me, writers like Faulkner, Tolstoy, and Flaubert are not literary, but James Joyce is.
Interesting theory.

[kuwisdelu]

If it is intelligent then somebody is bound to get it. See I think I got caught up with the idea that intelligence is elite, and that literary writers only write unintelligible intellectual stuff.

This is what tripped me up, too.

Everyone with a reasonable grasp of the language should be able to read literary writing.

Exactly. Disliking something (or not caring about it) can easily influence one into not understanding what is otherwise completely intelligible. I know I struggled my way through many an uninteresting, YA-level book back in elementary school that I failed to understand not because I couldn't comprehend the simple writing, but because I didn't care for the writing or story in the least.

I also think lots of schools are ignoring some great classic literature to teach the "safer" ones, but that's a whole different argument.

[Aglaia]

Ha it's the snobbish critics who want us to believe that literature is not for the "uninitiated". Like art, if we don't get it then we must be stupid. Elitism, in a word. Really though, just plain old snobbery. It's all lies. Most literature doesn't make any sense because the people writing the stuff don't know what they're doing. The academics fob us off with baloney about literature all the time, trying to make us believe we're uneducated if we don't understand it. It's so easy to write something incomprehensible and then sit back aloof and smugly say "it's over your head, my friend, that's why you don't get it, I'm so smart that I can write stuff you don't understand." If the writer was smart he'd write something EVERYBODY could understand. Communicate don't obfuscate is the first rule I was taught.



Quick edit: when I say literature, of course I mean MODERN lit. I am a big fan of classic literature, it's just the modern stuff that gets on my nerves. :)
So first off, full disclosure: I'm likely one of those you'd call an "academic" and perhaps even "snobbish," although I certainly wouldn't cast myself as smug or elite. I do, however, have an MA in lit, so I've studied it, and I've taught, so I fear I'm one of those. ;) In my defense, though, I do read some genre lit. I'm currently devouring romance novels like they're crack, having recently been introduced.

I wonder, from your, let's face it, slightly angry post, whether you've ever worked through one of those books you find so impenetrable in a class or a book club or even just later in life?

I'll explain my question by way of a story. I was forced to read Fight Club in one of my college lit classes. By all that is good and holy, I HATED it. I mean, I railed against it. I screamed at people (not in class, I was shy then, but oh my poor friends and family...), I threw things, well, you get the picture. Anyway, people seemed to love this damn book. Not just in class, but they went and made a movie - a movie people discussed endlessly. Years later, people are still talking about the damn thing. So recently I figured I'd watch the movie again, and it gave me pause, made me think a lot. I listened to the interviews by the directors and the actors, which gave me a lot of insight into the book and what value they saw in it. Anyway, my long-winded point is that, while I couldn't understand what Palahniuk was doing when I first read it in college (and it's certainly not my favorite book now), time and further study allowed me to see its merits.

I'm just sayin'.

[Use Her Name]

I took an honor's class in Faulkner when I was in College. He can be a bit taxing on the brain. Learning to read Faulkner led to a further understanding of writing in general, as taught by an author who was a master of some unusual techniques. Yes, I'm sure a ten page run-on sentence might send shivers down the spine of most grammarians but it was like watching one of those impossible ice skating leaps, terrifying and yet fascinating, which, done well can truly inspire.

Do not fear literature.

[Danger Jane]

So first off, full disclosure: I'm likely one of those you'd call an "academic" and perhaps even "snobbish," although I certainly wouldn't cast myself as smug or elite. I do, however, have an MA in lit, so I've studied it, and I've taught, so I fear I'm one of those. ;) In my defense, though, I do read some genre lit. I'm currently devouring romance novels like they're crack, having recently been introduced.

I wonder, from your, let's face it, slightly angry post, whether you've ever worked through one of those books you find so impenetrable in a class or a book club or even just later in life?

I'll explain my question by way of a story. I was forced to read Fight Club in one of my college lit classes. By all that is good and holy, I HATED it. I mean, I railed against it. I screamed at people (not in class, I was shy then, but oh my poor friends and family...), I threw things, well, you get the picture. Anyway, people seemed to love this damn book. Not just in class, but they went and made a movie - a movie people discussed endlessly. Years later, people are still talking about the damn thing. So recently I figured I'd watch the movie again, and it gave me pause, made me think a lot. I listened to the interviews by the directors and the actors, which gave me a lot of insight into the book and what value they saw in it. Anyway, my long-winded point is that, while I couldn't understand what Palahniuk was doing when I first read it in college (and it's certainly not my favorite book now), time and further study allowed me to see its merits.

I'm just sayin'.

Definitely. One of my favorite things about To the Lighthouse when I read it at fifteen was that I knew I wouldn't understand 90% of it for many years. The 10% I did understand really got me going. I'm starting it again this summer...we'll see how much I've matured since my freshman year.

[wrinkles]

There is also the possibility that those snobby and elitist writers are actually so much smarter than you that you cannot understand their ideas. And no matter how plainly they may try to express them, you never will. Not saying that's so, just that it it's possible. There are a few individuals in every field of endeavor that are so much smarter than others that few can understand them. We accept it in science, math, philosophy. Well most of us do, anyway. Why would any other field, say literary fiction (which is not the same as literature), be any different. No reason to be angry about it.

[maestrowork]

I THINK icenine was saying that if you write things that nobody else gets, even if it's intelligent, it's not really "smart".


But that's not how she phrased it. ;)


Personally, my goal in writing is to reach as many people as possible.


Same here. I write mainstream. But the thing is, not everyone reads mainstream. Also, that may not be the goal of some writers. They're not trying to entertain a large group of people at all levels.

Einstein was pretty smart. Not everyone understands his theories and physics. ;)

There are many great writers whom I wouldn't have been able to read just 10 years ago. But now that I can, I find their work exhilarating. All the layers and complexity and intelligence! And there's no way I would have wanted them to lower their levels so someone like me, 10 years ago, could have understood or appreciated. They wrote for certain audiences, and that's a good thing.

I really do think it's a silly assertion that a literary work should be understood by everybody. But if it delights, enthralls, and enlightens its target audiences, then I think it's done its job. Whether you personally like it is immaterial. Granted, I think there are writers who write in certain style simply to appear intelligent and sophisticated. I think they're the ones who are missing the point.

[Paichka]

I really don't think that you need to write incredibly dense, difficult to understand stuff in order to be "literary".

Shakespeare and Chaucer both wrote for the unwashed masses, yes? I mean, take out the difficult to parse language, and what do you have? Canterbury Tales is just a frame story with a whole load of sex jokes. Hamlet's about a guy whose pissed about his widowed mom's remarriage. If they weren't written in slightly archaic forms of English, they'd be a lot more accessible. (And for what it's worth, I was one of those smart girls in 10th grade who luuuuuurved Shakespeare and Canterbury Tales. And Dante's Inferno.)

To use a more modern example, Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" is incredibly literary (IMHO), but it's also very easy to understand. It takes a minute to get used to his stylistic conventions, but the language is relatively simple.

I think it all comes down to what you want to write -- I like books that have layers of meaning. I don't want to have to reread a sentence several times to understand WTF the author is trying to say, but neither to I want to feel as though I'm being bludgeoned over the head. I like stories like The Invisible Man, where you can read it and understand the first layer of meaning without too much effort, but if you DO expend the time to dig through the book, you come up with all of these NEW layers that broaden your understanding so much more.

I'm sure there's a place for all of it, but that's my preference.

[kuwisdelu]

I really don't think that you need to write incredibly dense, difficult to understand stuff in order to be "literary".

I don't think anyone's saying that. I think we're just responding to the assertion that a literary work is somehow made less good if it isn't written for everyone to understand.

I certainly respect anyone so talented to be able to write someone that both the most simple and complex minds can understand and love together, but not everyone writes like that. If a writer naturally writes at a higher level, then I think it hurts the work to artificially dumb it down just to better appeal to the common man. Similarly, if a writer naturally writes at a more accessible level, I think it equally hurts the work to artificially try to elevate the language to esotericism and self-induced complexity merely to be more "literary."

This idea that the merit of a book should have anything to do with the complexity of its language is silly. The nature of the story will call for appropriate language, and that's how that language should be judged. Imagine if something by Jane Austen were written in the style of Palahniuk, or try to imagine Fight Club written in the language of Pride and Prejudice and I think you'll see what I mean.

In fact, Shakespeare is a great example of this. Shakespeare's language changes completely to fit the characters and the story he is telling. He meant to please both the wealthy and the common folk alike, and letting anything but the story decide what kind of language he used would have been a mistake. He lets the characters speak with their own tongues. The royalty, the nobility, the educated speak in poetry. The laymen speak in prose. When prose leaves the lips of an educated Shakespearean character, he or she's in a seriously disturbed mental state; it means madness.

Don't elevate writing to impress a certain audience. To write down to another audience in hope of wider appeal. Write what's right. Write what the story needs. Write what's natural.

[Dommo]

I'm an engineer, and we tend to look at things as tools, as opposed to art.

Math can be considered an art, but to me it will always be a tool, judged by the usefulness of it. Writing is similar. I judge writing by the ability of the writer to convey what he's trying to say effectively. For me, a writer who uses language for the sake of making something extraordinarily cryptic in the attempt to be an artist, is just plain irritating.

When you have writers that are in a circle jerk of trying to out obfuscate one another, that's where the problem is. The writing to me always comes off as pretentious, condescending, and uninspired since it feels like someone is trying to force something. It's like when you hear a person try to use "big" words for the sake of sounding more intelligent. It doesn't work, and just makes the speaker sound like a fool.

I think Orwell put it best, and I honestly suck compared to most of you guys here on the board, but I'll post the note that I have on the side of my monitor. Here are the rules of writing as Orwell saw them.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never us a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I don't know about the last one, but I try to live up to the first five.

[icenine]

Wow this kicked off some argument. I want to answer Aglaia though. I have a Masters in English lit, so don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a stab at "educated" writers. I'm having a go at those pseudo-intellectuals who write obscure rubbish and try to pass it off (usually quite successfully with the aid of the establishment) as legitimate literary fiction. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you know how to write well. As I said, IMO, you should be trying to communicate your ideas to as many people as you can. Otherwise, why bother? I'd say this to a fake literary writer: "If you want to write cryptically because you think it makes you clever, go ahead, but dont complain when nobody bothers to read your work except the brainwashed critics."

[icenine]

Shakespeare and Chaucer both wrote for the unwashed masses, yes? I mean, take out the difficult to parse language, and what do you have? Canterbury Tales is just a frame story with a whole load of sex jokes. Hamlet's about a guy whose pissed about his widowed mom's remarriage. If they weren't written in slightly archaic forms of English, they'd be a lot more accessible. (And for what it's worth, I was one of those smart girls in 10th grade who luuuuuurved Shakespeare and Canterbury Tales. And Dante's Inferno.)

I disagree. Hamlet works on so many levels. Same for Chaucer's tales. The tales are not all about sex jokes. Look at the Knight's tale and the Miller's tale together and you'll see that Chaucer was making a valid comment on romantic ideals etc. Anyway, I don't want to get into a big discussion about that.

To use a more modern example, Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" is incredibly literary (IMHO), but it's also very easy to understand. It takes a minute to get used to his stylistic conventions, but the language is relatively simple

McCarthy is writing just the sort of fake literary rubbish I'm complaining about. Stylistically, he is trying to imitate Hemingway, trying to sound as enigmatic as Ballard, and doing a bad job of it.

[maestrowork]

Shakespeare and Chaucer both wrote for the unwashed masses, yes? I mean, take out the difficult to parse language, and what do you have? Canterbury Tales is just a frame story with a whole load of sex jokes. Hamlet's about a guy whose pissed about his widowed mom's remarriage. If they weren't written in slightly archaic forms of English, they'd be a lot more accessible.

I beg to differ. If you reduce everything to a one-line synopsis, then everything sounds the same. But what makes something literature and something just popcorn entertainment? Hamlet's more than just a tale about Oedipus Complex. And it's not just language, but the whole shebang of layers and subtexts and structures and complexities and etc. etc. that separate literature from your run-of-the-mill trashy novel.

[Exir]

McCarthy is writing just the sort of fake literary rubbish I'm complaining about. Stylistically, he is trying to imitate Hemingway, trying to sound as enigmatic as Ballard, and doing a bad job of it.

I beg to differ, again. I think McCarthy is great, EXCEPT his no quotation marks thing. That has made his text kind of unreadable, but other than puctuation, the way he writes is straightforwards and easily understandable. Heck, if I can get enough money to buy instead of burrow his book, I might write in all the quotation marks for the sake of my reading. That's how much I like him.

To each his own, I guess.

[wrinkles]

[quote=Dommo;2426049]I'm an engineer, and we tend to look at things as tools, as opposed to art.

Math can be considered an art, but to me it will always be a tool, judged by the usefulness of it. Writing is similar. I judge writing by the ability of the writer to convey what he's trying to say effectively. For me, a writer who uses language for the sake of making something extraordinarily cryptic in the attempt to be an artist, is just plain irritating.

When you have writers that are in a circle jerk of trying to out obfuscate one another, that's where the problem is. The writing to me always comes off as pretentious, condescending, and uninspired since it feels like someone is trying to force something. It's like when you hear a person try to use "big" words for the sake of sounding more intelligent. It doesn't work, and just makes the speaker sound like a fool.


At the highest level, mathematics ceases to be a tool for others to use and becomes an end in itself, its own source of discovery. Very few mathematicians can follow their colleagues to this place. The insights achieved may only prove useful decades, or centuries, in the future; or maybe never. The lack of immediate utility, though, doesn’t minimize the importance of the work.

In this plane, science and art are reunited. So in the hands of the very best practitioers, the writing of literary fiction can exist here, too. Those who measure the value of writing in its ability to be immediately understood will dismiss it, but that doesn’t lessen its importance. Just as the inability of an engineer to use higher mathematics to build a bridge doesn’t take away from its importance in potentially revealing the way the universe works.

[Paichka]

Ah. Teach me to get involved in a lit discussion.

Clearly I didn't express myself well.

I think that Chaucer and Shakespeare have loads of meaning -- what I was trying to get across, and obviously poorly, was a parallel between their work and the work of say, a Harlan Ellison. If we spoke Middle English as easily as we speak Modern English, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales wouldn't be nearly so difficult to understand on its surface level. Obviously, there are layers of meaning there, which is why the work is a classic. Same with Hamlet -- it's a richly textured work, which is again part of its lasting appeal.

I quite like McCarthy though -- don't see him as rubbish at all. A bit grim, but not rubbish.

[Use Her Name]

McCarthy is writing just the sort of fake literary rubbish I'm complaining about. Stylistically, he is trying to imitate Hemingway, trying to sound as enigmatic as Ballard, and doing a bad job of it.

Hemingway wrote in an incredibly accessible and straight forward manner. I sometimes get impatient with him because he writes so simply. He certainly did not obfuscate. He wrote like a very good newspaper man, not like a navel gazing aesthetic. His "ice-burg" principle is used regularly by many writers. I have not read much Cormac McCarthy, so I can't comment. But if he is trying to imitate Hemingway, it must be quite plain.

I think the main users of the "fake literary" style are high school or college students trying to show off. I know one now. It is not that he is a bad writer, it is just that he, like a lot of us, needs to have a desk dropped on his head before he realizes that you need to write accessibly to get read.

I actually debate whether much "fake literary" stuff is actually published. Maybe "self published," but anyone with any money is allowed to self publish whether the work will sell, has merit or so on. Although I'd say "Naked Lunch" qualifies, I see Ginsburg as a poet first, so when he wrote a novel, it was bound to be a humongous poem rather than prose. I think that publishers want to make money, and so they really do not publish much of this fake lit stuff. I also do not classify all exceptional writing as "literary" per-se.

[Aglaia]

Wow this kicked off some argument. I want to answer Aglaia though. I have a Masters in English lit, so don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a stab at "educated" writers. I'm having a go at those pseudo-intellectuals who write obscure rubbish and try to pass it off (usually quite successfully with the aid of the establishment) as legitimate literary fiction. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you know how to write well. As I said, IMO, you should be trying to communicate your ideas to as many people as you can. Otherwise, why bother? I'd say this to a fake literary writer: "If you want to write cryptically because you think it makes you clever, go ahead, but dont complain when nobody bothers to read your work except the brainwashed critics."
Ah, gotcha. I wasn't too clear on what you were saying - you seemed to bunch all of modern lit together (and pardon me, y'all, but I have no idea what the distinction is between literary fiction and modern literature). I think I get it now. :) And I certainly agree that there's a fair amount of trash out there. I can't agree, though, that every writer should try to communicate to every reader. I think kuwisdelu put it best, so I will not try to rewrite an already perfectly formed argument. :D

Count me in on the not-on-the-Cormac-McCarthy-bandwagon. I read The Road with a big old question mark hanging over my head. I got that it was experimental and interesting in a, well, experimental sort of way. What I missed was the damn story. Which is, you know, why I read. :Shrug:

[kuwisdelu]

Wow this kicked off some argument. I want to answer Aglaia though. I have a Masters in English lit, so don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a stab at "educated" writers. I'm having a go at those pseudo-intellectuals who write obscure rubbish and try to pass it off (usually quite successfully with the aid of the establishment) as legitimate literary fiction. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you know how to write well. As I said, IMO, you should be trying to communicate your ideas to as many people as you can. Otherwise, why bother? I'd say this to a fake literary writer: "If you want to write cryptically because you think it makes you clever, go ahead, but dont complain when nobody bothers to read your work except the brainwashed critics."

Ah, I see. In that case, I agree with you about the "fakes." Certainly they're not the only literary writers out there, but I know what you're talking about. However, I still disagree that "you should be trying to communicate your ideas to as many people as you can." I think any writer should write in the style that comes naturally, neither artificially elevating nor lowering the language.

I actually debate whether much "fake literary" stuff is actually published. Maybe "self published," but anyone with any money is allowed to self publish whether the work will sell, has merit or so on. Although I'd say "Naked Lunch" qualifies, I see Ginsburg as a poet first, so when he wrote a novel, it was bound to be a humongous poem rather than prose. I think that publishers want to make money, and so they really do not publish much of this fake lit stuff. I also do not classify all exceptional writing as "literary" per-se.

Naked Lunch was written by Burroughs, not Ginsberg. It's okay; everyone seem to make this mistake.

Also, there is plenty of this "fake literary" stuff published, just like there's plenty of crap in every genre, like has been said before. Although, personally I wouldn't say Naked Lunch is among it.

Just as it's possible for a fantasy writer to pick up a novel in the fantasy section, look through it, and shove away saying, "How was this cliche piece of garbage ever published?" it's perfectly possibly for a literary writer in the literature section to do just the same.

[maestrowork]

Anything "fake" is pretentious, whether it's literary or fantasy or chick lit. Some people like that stuff, though.

[icenine]

Anything "fake" is pretentious, whether it's literary or fantasy or chick lit. Some people like that stuff, though.

Which reminds me of somebody: Katie Price. God help us. The ugly "glamour" model can't string two words together and yet I've been coming across good reviews of "her" trashy books. I write her in quotes because, as most people know by now, she didn't write any of her books at all. Rebecca Farnsworth ghostwrote them all. As is the case with almost every celebrity novel/autobiography - from David Beckham to his other half Posh Spice (all ghostwritten).One of "her" books was entered for the Booker Prize. A big slap in the face of every genuine writer everywhere. Disgraceful.