I find myself unable nowadays to abandon a certain style of writing. Features of this style include long sentences, a profusion of punctuation, and overall semantical heaviness. There is also the vocabulary, which tends to be inclusive and attempts to achieve specificity at the expense of comprehensibility. I am aware that the adoption of such a style leads to the (undesirable) effect of alienating the average reader -- people are chary of verbosity, and usually ascribe to its purveyor an inventory of undesirable characteristics, including weak-mindedness, conceit, and (worst of all) untruthfulness. Their contention is that 'no one' thinks 'like that', that inaccessible forms of expression are to be viewed with suspicion. On the whole I agree with them -- timidity of thought and expression possesses no surer indicator than the gratuitous display of verbal might. Having said that,however, I plead innocence to all charges of such timidity. It is not because I have little to say that I use so many words to say it.
But such literal pleas are not evidentiary, and so I have decided for the time being to cease my flow of opinion. Posts on my blog following this one will be written in the style of 'someone else'; this third person will have a 'voice' that does not resemble mine in any aspect. Such posts will force me to inhabit -- if for a short period of time -- this third person, and therefore force me to channel his means of expression. This should at the very least enable me to divest myself of all stylistic responsibility and redirect it to the 'voice'. I also expect it to bring to the fore my latent flair for mimicry.
I cannot think of an appropriate way to end this post; it is after all supposed to represent a new beginning. I can, however, insert a literary reference that is completely out of context --
You madam, are the eternal humorist,
The eternal enemy of the absolute.
Giving our vagrant moods the slightest twist!
With your air indifferent and imperious
At a stroke our mad poetics to confute --
And -- "Are we then so serious?"
Perhaps not completely out of context.
1 comment:
Well there's nothing exceedingly incomprehensible about the style. I would think that contrary to alienating the average reader, the style ensures involvement not only with regard to story but also with the medium through which the ideas are being communicated. In that sense at least, apart from words being structured to reflect the stated message, you also achieve specificity through the above pointed two-folded involvement of the reader.
The style may not be apt for soap opera books or TV books (books which are written only for story and have no literature in them; books which can be read in a breeze). I call them TV books because they allow the reader to have short attention span, there is not much gained apart from the similar thrill to watching TV. But as conventionally known; books are deeper because they can grant subjectivity in interpretation. They are not tyrants to the mind but a window to freedom.
So if you think that the average reader has to be pleased or his opinion of ‘no one’ thinks ‘like that’ is to be considered, then you are limiting the openness of subjectivity by catering to a set idea of the reader. TV books are plentiful enough, and they are in surplus production to the demand these days. What is being forgotten with the fast paced lifestyles and even faster changes are maintaining those conventional principles which were the roots of such growth. It is the art of literature that needs saving, not the people from their need to be entertained. If this style of writing flows from the mysterious depths of creativity, then you are ‘someone’ who thinks ‘like that’. Maybe you should let spontaneity carry you down the stream a little further before you strangulate it with your perception which is as subjective as any other reader’s perception would be.
Post a Comment