Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose?

[Inderjit S]

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, Ernest Hemingway 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?

Are some author’s ephemeral or do some authors have a ephemeral appeal? Will anybody care about the trials and tribulations in of the people in Thomas Hardy's world of Wessex or of the trials and tribulations of Dwarves, Hobbits and Ents in Tolkien's Middle-Earth? What about beat generation authors such as Jack Kerouac or African-American authors such as Alice Walker as well as new, and somewhat inchoate genres such as post-modernism (i.e Italo Calvino, magic realism i.e Gunter Grass, Mikhail Bulgakov, Angela Carter etc and other new genres: will they last? Which novels will be as long lasting as Gilgamesh, The Iliad and Beowulf? Will we really care about who marries Mr. Darcy, about the vices and virtues of Hester Prynne, the fall of the Buddenbrook family, as well as the fall of the House of Usher in 200 years time?

[novella]

Originally Posted by Inderjit S

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?

Okay, I'll bite.

Do Japanese maple trees serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed?

Point is, a decent author writes first and foremost for an audience of one--himself/herself. The author just IS, the work just IS the author's work.

Whether you choose to read it or not is another point entirely. What exactly are you driving at here? That authors who don't write to suit your simple taste should somehow be eliminated?? Bizarre idea based on a bizarre premise.

I wouldn't touch a Don Delillo book with a bargepole, but I respect his right to write them and if other folks enjoy them, that's cool with me.

I certainly DON'T think the world would be a better place without James Joyce's writing in it. Do you? Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

Novella

[Stewart]

All books are accessible to every reader - it's the concept of libraries.

[novella]

Good one, Abu. That's what a shared language is all about, isn't it?

[Ashlea]

As many of us still care about who Mr. Darcy married, and it's been almost 200 years now, I think we'll still care in another 200.

As for accessible, the language is as much a part of the novel as the plot. Who is to decide what is appropriate and what isn't if not the author?

[booksblog.co.uk]

Originally Posted by Inderjit S

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?

You're implying (in your devil's advocate role) that any literature should be written within specific confines so that it is easily digestible by the majority of people. Why I personally have no time right now for over-complicated authors (I'm sorry Gene Wolfe, I tried), I'm not bemoaning their right to write whatever the hell they like

[Litany]

If a book is enjoyed by even a minority of readers, then it's served a purpose. I don't go in for obtusely written books myself. I can't abide flowerly prose or overly complicated sentences or books that need you to sit with a dictionary. But some people like them, so shouldn't they be allowed to read them?

Literature is accessible to all, it's just that we don't all like the same things. If everything had to be written simplistically so we could all follow along we'd have nothing to read but Dr Seuss and Dan Brown novels.

[Shade]

Toni Morrison and Márquez are accessible? Not in my experience...

[Stewart]

Just thought I'd post a link to this.

[Martin]

He must really like this discussion.

Cheers

[Litany]

Maybe he has to write a paper on it and he wants to suck our brains dry. Well, ha! He's too late.

[Inderjit S]

Do Japanese maple trees serve a purpose or are they superfluous and not needed?

A strange analogy, but analogies are naturally strange. Heck, Socrates was able to defeat his opponents in debates using every-day analogies and paradigms. Using such an analogy though, would render everything superfluous-are tigers superfluous, are sharks superfluous? I am talking about literature-not nature. Literature has more narrow margins then nature-literature is ordained and controlled by man, and nature is partly ordained and controlled by man. (Unless, that is, a Japanese maple tree is some kind of artificial tree-I don't know, botany is not one of my strong points.)

Point is, a decent author writes first and foremost for an audience of one--himself/herself. The author just IS, the work just IS the author's work.

Yes-but would it not be better to make your message accessible, rather then obfuscated, casuistic and plain complicated in the name of erudition? If I wrote a book then I would much rather think that my book was accessible rather then inaccessible. Montaigne put it best when he said;

I am not prepared to bash my brains for anything, not even for learning's sake, however precious it may be, From books all I seek is to give myself pleasure by an honourable pastime...If I come across difficult passages in my reading I never bite my nails over them: after making a charge or two I let them be...If one book wearies me I take up another.

The portrait of the conversations of Socrates which his friends have bequeathed us to receives our approbation only because we are overawed by the general approval of them. It is not form our own knowledge; since we do now follow our practices: if something like them were to be produced nowadays there are few who would rate them highly. We can appreciate not graces which are not pointed, inflated and magnified by artifice. Such graces as flow on under the name of naïveté and simplicity readily go unseen by so course and insight as ours…Socrates makes his soul move with the natural motion of the common people: thus speaks a peasant woman…his indications and comparisons are drawn from the most ordinary and best known of men’s activities: anyone and understand him. Under so common a form we today would never have discerned the nobility and splendour of his astonishing concepts; we who judge any which are not swollen up by erudition to be base and commonplace, and who are never aware of riches except when pompously paraded.

Of course, I do not wholly agree with Montaigne, but I never wholly agree with anybody.

Whether you choose to read it or not is another point entirely. What exactly are you driving at here? That authors who don't write to suit your simple taste should somehow be eliminated?? Bizarre idea based on a bizarre premise

Where did you get those conclusions from exactly? I never said that the aforementioned views matched or represented my own, well not wholly so, I was putting forward ideas in order to spark a debate. Somebody can know about, put forward and elucidate upon points and ideas with which he disagrees, and naturally, with which he agrees. I am asking commonplace, (and I hope interesting) question, which may raise several interesting questions.

I wouldn't touch a Don Delillo book with a bargepole, but I respect his right to write them and if other folks enjoy them, that's cool with me.

I am not a despot. I never claimed we should ban books from being published-I never said you could and could not publish this or that-I am questioning the worth of some books-there is nothing despotic about questioning things, questioning things is the essence of democracy. Anything can be questioned, Plato teaches us to question status quo's which we do not agree with.

I respect the right for people to publish, write about and read whatever they like, but that does not mean I like it. I, of course, can recognise how great authors such as Joyce are, and how great their syntax, ideas and axioms are-but that does not mean I like them.

I certainly DON'T think the world would be a better place without James Joyce's writing in it. Do you? Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

Wrong end of several sticks, in my opinion.

You're implying (in your devil's advocate role) that any literature should be written within specific confines so that it is easily digestible by the majority of people.

Not really. I'm implying that literature should be accessible rather then over-complicated. Of course, I recognise that over-complication is a fact of literature-but why write books in the hope of pleasing a few people so that they can praise your erudition? Again, I do not wholly agree with such an assertion-"all books are accessible to every reader" and so every reader has his or her own whims, likes and dislikes, and some authors cater for a certain audience. Some people enjoy reading over-complicated books-and Joyce etc cater to such a audience. I am not bemoaning much; I am attempting to raise a decent discussion. Just because I make a point in a post does not mean I agree with that point.

As many of us still care about who Mr. Darcy married, and it's been almost 200 years now, I think we'll still care in another 200.

Yes, but who knows about the whims and likes of people in a couple of hundred years time? People may, or may not like Austen then. Homer and Hesiod, for example, went through a great period of stagnation, though that was more because of religious zeal then anything else.

I can't abide flowerly prose or overly complicated sentences or books that need you to sit with a dictionary. But some people like them, so shouldn't they be allowed to read them?

Again, it is _not_about_allowing_or_dissallowing_anything_. I am not a master to command people what or what not do do.

What is with the rush of people asking me why I, or anybody else, should have the nerve to stop people from writing whatever they like? I am asking whether a certain thing is a good or a bad thing-not whether or a certain thing should be allowed. I of course, recognise that hard to read authors are good as they cater for a certain audience-but why the over-complication? Of course this caters for a certain audience and so on.....but that does not mean I cannot question it.

Toni Morrison and Márquez are accessible? Not in my experience...

As far as I know, Morrison does not use a plethora of different, hard to understand words. Therefore she is more accesible then say D.H Lawrenece. Anybody can _understand_ what Toni is writing about-but not everybody _likes_ Toni's work, and this Toni is not "accessible" in your expereience since you dislike her for whatever reason.

I notice there are quite a few contradicitions and ambigutiies in my post-it is nice to be a casuist sometimes.

[Inderjit S]

He must really like this discussion.

I just like posting the same topic at different forums-you get a lot of opinions.

[novella]

To reiterate, James Joyce writes the way James Joyce writes. To ask whether that "serves a purpose" is a spurious question, and you imply that he has a choice to write differently, like Dan Brown for instance. I disagree.

I don't think Faulkner could possibly write like JK Rowling or anyone else for that matter. Do you? The basic premise of your question is deeply flawed.

To again reiterate, the question of whether you choose to read a writer's work is another point entirely. James Joyce is read a lot (whether YOU deem him inaccessible or not), which is why he is still available. Again, the basic premise of your question (that some writers are "difficult" and therefore of questionable value) is deeply flawed--they continue to be in print because the ARE read. Publishers just can't afford to work it any other way. Market demand is the golden rule.

So what, exactly, are you asking? I sense a little sloppy thinking here?

Novella

[Shade]

Re Morrison's accessibility: I truly found that I couldn't understand what she was writing about from the short way into Beloved that I managed before giving up. It was a bad sign that I didn't realise until page 20 that Sethe was female; and still I found myself painstakingly following the story, or scene, for one page, starting to feel confident, enter into a flow, when suddenly another character not mentioned before starts talking or being involved and one of the others disappears and the scene changes or partly changes and I thought - is this stream of consciousness? Was it a dream? Is it a story being told by one of them? I would say that I knew who is saying and doing what about one third of the time at best.

And my feelings on Marquez's impenetrability are well marked on his own thread...

So yes to Orwell, Greene etc as accessible authors, but to me (as a reader whose main diet is what's termed 'literary fiction'), she is not 'accessible.' I would venture to suggest, Inderjit, that you are charactering Morrison and Marquez as accessible because you like them and you want broadly to defend 'accessible' literature. But if they are not widely considered accessible (and a lot of customer reviews on Amazon would back me up on this), then does that change your view?

I also agree with Novella in that you can't compare authors on the sort of qualitative level that "accessible/esoteric" suggests. With Ulysses, for example, the aim was to try to recreate the overwhelming mixture of senses and thoughts that impinge upon an ordinary man during the course of one day, and could not have been written without the variations in style, streams of consciousness and pastiches that the book comprises. Similarly Nabokov's Pale Fire (to choose another of your examples of esoterica) could not have been written any other way - although I don't think, for the record, that the prose in that book on a sentence-by-sentence level is particularly difficult. With Pale Fire the structure and form informs the whole book - a 999-line poem with two hundred pages of notes from the poet's insane literary executor. So it could not have been written with any of its subtlety or wit - its essential components - in Orwellian "clear glass" prose.