Literary frou-frou

[icarus]

The essay that I'm reading.

"...focusing on the singularity of the language allows us to notice that the literariness of literature makes the language itself part of the content."

Can one shoot the author for that phrase alone? I've no doubt that somewhere there's a database with addresses and whatnot. I'm sure we can track her down.

Crap. I spend all my life trying to make what's been overly complicated, simple. Cleaning up the unnecessary confusion and obfuscation. I get the impression that these people like to bury their meaning. They're not attempting to communicate and connect.

I understand it. She's saying that the language is more important to the story than the plot, tells us more, gives us more meaning -- and I agree. The reason I think Beg Me For It is a good story is because of the POV character, how he filters the story, and what it tells the reader that it's the "ordinary guy" Ron, and what his filtering says about the gap between a horrific experience and how we handle that experience. Bottom line is that Beg Me For It is very hopeful, even while it doesn't ignore how we get effected in ways that we don't notice by the circumstances of our lives. It does say that we have power even when we're powerless. The story isn't in the plot. The story is in Ron's reactions and asides, his irreverent attitude.

Draco's a contrast, but he's doing the same thing. His bluntness shows his stark refusal to be controlled by his circumstances. But his way has its downside: he's clearer, cleaner than Ron, but all hell is unleashed against him. Ron's way is safer, but little compromises sneak in till he's changed in ways he doesn't intend. Draco's changed, too, but mostly on the outside (with all the bruises and abuse). It turns out that Draco's the one who takes lasting damage - he breaks - but his sharp words act as a wake-up call to Ron. Ultimately, the fact that Ron was starting to tell "Death Eater"-type jokes reveals something more sinister: that over time his compromises would have changed him too much. So that's the dark side weighed against the hope.

See? That was clear, wasn't it? No "literariness of literature" to be found. But yes, Spivak, how a story is told reveals a great deal.

*grumbles at overly stylistic frou-frou writing*


ETA (much later): Okay, cesperanza's right, my dissection here isn't formalist enough. I still swung back to dissecting character. But! I can do it. Really.

On the other hand -- I feel vindicated. Learned from the prof. this morning that Spivak has won the New York Times' mean spirited Worst Academic Writer award (so has Judith Butler). More than once. Even proponents call her style "tortured English."

Yes, I feel tortured all right.

Comments

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

This is a terrible writing style. There is so much conceptual masturbation going on the reader has to hit the brakes and re-read it four times. Then we take out our secret lit-crit decoder ring we're issued in English class -- at which point we can giggle amongst ourselves and feel just how clever we are.

But the fact is, if the reader has to take it apart to arrive at the meaning, you haven't been profound, you've been unclear.

The concept is not a problem. The wisest people can take complicated ideas and express them simply. Call it the Zen of writing.

You know what the irony is? Jamaica Kincaid's Lucy is a brilliant example of clear simplicity expressing complex ideas. And Spivak's morass here is about that book.

Icarus

[painted-blind.livejournal.com]

But the fact is, if the reader has to take it apart to arrive at the meaning, you haven't been profound, you've been unclear.

I'm curious- would you apply this to poetry, too? I mean, to use a specific poet as an example, Gerard Manley Hopkins is incredibly unclear in most of his poems, and there are some of them that I still don't get properly. He buried meanings everywhere, and wanted people to have to work to get it, and on the one hand I kept wanting to scream at him when I was studying his work, but on the other hand I found it really gorgeous, and loved the way it was so unclear.

Here via daily_snitch, btw.

[tamerterra.livejournal.com]

It works well for re-reading - everytime you look at it you find something that wasn't apparent last time. Which is kind of cool.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Spivak is not poetry.

Icarus