|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Sept 9, 2018 4:47:04 GMT -5
Where specifically do you disagree with each other? As far as I can see, you're having an abstracted argument about what literature should be, in place of what this particular literature is. Terry Craig clearly has a broader definition than bear of what's acceptable in literature (at least as far as the parameters you've discussed are concerned), but as I think one of you pointed out a page or so ago, your disagreement about Vonnegut is actually on whether he lives up to the part of the definition that you do agree on: Whether or not his ideas are 1) worth communicating artistically and 2) not dumbed down for its audience. I don't mean to join the fray, I'm just following the discussion and hoping either of you will correct me if I'm misrepresenting your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Sept 9, 2018 7:54:55 GMT -5
i don't even know anymore tbh, but i should point out the discussion turned to verbose vs simple prose, not just vonnegut specifically (which I'm trying to steer back to for others to continue discussing). other than that you're not misrepresenting my opinions or the main points of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Sept 9, 2018 20:05:03 GMT -5
Vonnegut in his 10? rules for writing says something like don’t use a “$10 word where a 25c word will do” (paraphrasing) which is kind of all I mean by “simple” prose. I guess that also extends to sentence structure, and also kind of goes with his general unsnobbish ethos which I dig. Admittedly I haven’t read the books of his that I love in a while but I don’t think he uses simple ideas, just language. If you had both, it would be unreadable? And he’s very readable? I’m v sleepy rn so this may not have made sense.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Sept 9, 2018 21:02:53 GMT -5
all i was saying is theres a place for expounding original or difficult concepts directly, and art is not usually it. ya, because expounding directly would be ham-fisted, so we use aesthetics and literary devices, perhaps alienating a greater audience, but affecting a smaller audience more profoundly. there's a big difference between "difficult concepts" and "groundbreaking theories" though. i've no idea what "theories" wittgenstein had but i'm absolutely sure they were no more "groundbreaking" than the beliefs of romanticism or existentialism. this is where your snobbishness comes in, you clearly implied that ideas in purely philosophical Texts are more rigorous than ones expressed through literature. the type of literary devices vonnegut uses, like genre-tinged allegory, i find intellectually destimulating and aesthetically revolting. he then uses equally cheapo rock-basic language so readers can better understand(?) his fiction device which is already meant to simplify. on top of both those deficiencies i find the core ideas themselves, which all his wacky plots and sophomoric diction are in service of, to be lacking. (not in "originality" obviously, as i said before that there's no original meaning, but in "difficulty", sure, as far as logically sound points are generally more difficult to express. i'm more concerned with vonnegut's anti-aesthetic approach influencing today's would-be students of literature, as in fact i believe it has. case in point: re: his "rules for writing" they're all absolute BOLLIX
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Sept 10, 2018 14:31:33 GMT -5
i'm more concerned with vonnegut's anti-aesthetic approach influencing today's would-be students of literature, as in fact i believe it has. case in point: re: his "rules for writing" they're all absolute BOLLIX vonnegut was extremely concerned with aesthetics and would not have viewed his own approach as anti-aesthetic. his takes on his own and others' use of language are here, located conveniently after his (extremely useful) rules for writing, particularly 1-4 and 7. in my experience, this has not been influential enough: most people do not write like this. for me, vonnegut is at his worst when he leans on sci-fi tropes, but i also happen to hate sci-fi, so i know i'm biased.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Sept 11, 2018 22:49:36 GMT -5
obviously all good writing is a balance of simple and complex sentences and words. the strength of his shakespeare and joyce examples come from their striking contrast amid otherwise dense language. i don't see how that in any way supports a blanket rule of "keep it simple."
all of those "rules for writing" (except for #7 perhaps, which i would have liked for him to follow himself) are concerned entirely with PLOT, the hobgoblin of fiction which is beyond nugatory in one's ability to WRITE.
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Sept 12, 2018 22:42:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Sept 13, 2018 8:05:55 GMT -5
shush teleram, the adults are talking
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Sept 13, 2018 21:11:11 GMT -5
Nah.
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Sept 15, 2018 14:07:14 GMT -5
lol ray!!!
why do you think 1-4 (for example) are concerned with plot?? yes, he is assuming the plot has one+ characters with motivations and that action occurs... i don't think that's too restrictive.
5, 6, and 8 are more stylistic and not necessary for every story, more specific to vonnegut, so i'm leaving those out.
edit: he's arguing that shakespeare and joyce were both capable of great feats of language in both long and short sentences, and that the latter was (contrary to popular belief, i think he is saying) often more successful. seems to me he is in favor of teaching writing as "keep it simple" -- that is, start simple, work up to successful longer sentences. yes, it is teaching negatively, which i understand being against, but i happen to agree with him that the most unreadable prose tends to have longer sentences. keep it simple and you won't funk up.
|
|
The Seer
Reptile Researcher
Hoping that they were telling the truth.
Posts: 48
Likes: 7
|
Post by The Seer on Sept 21, 2018 19:06:09 GMT -5
My, this has become decisive.
I think Vonnegut's use of prose isn't that simplistic at all, or at least, his structure. His use of time in "Slaughterhouse Five" is very far from simplistic, although I agree that he seems to avoid unnecessary words... but never avoiding complicating time even more. It smacks of Douglas Adams' description of galactic history in... which one was it? I think it was "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Anyway, I was wondering why exactly everyone is against unnecessary prose? this is a tad off-topic but unnecessary language keeps our language interesting, and anyway, eliminating it can lead to NewSpeak-like scenarios.
Sorry for the odd phrasing, i haven't slept in days.
Oh- I found a funny joke in a book by a writer I like- (paraphrased somewhat)
If your baby smiles at itself in the mirror, it will grow up to be an actor. If your baby frowns at itself in the mirror, it will become a writer. If your baby hates itself in the mirror, it will become a writer of short stories.
Good evening.
|
|
|
Post by penne on Sept 28, 2018 12:28:23 GMT -5
yikes
|
|
The Seer
Reptile Researcher
Hoping that they were telling the truth.
Posts: 48
Likes: 7
|
Post by The Seer on Oct 8, 2018 19:50:42 GMT -5
Thanks?
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Oct 15, 2018 10:51:39 GMT -5
My, this has become decisive. I think Vonnegut's use of prose isn't that simplistic at all, or at least, his structure. His use of time in "Slaughterhouse Five" is very far from simplistic, although I agree that he seems to avoid unnecessary words... but never avoiding complicating time even more. It smacks of Douglas Adams' description of galactic history in... which one was it? I think it was "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Anyway, I was wondering why exactly everyone is against unnecessary prose? this is a tad off-topic but unnecessary language keeps our language interesting, and anyway, eliminating it can lead to NewSpeak-like scenarios. Sorry for the odd phrasing, i haven't slept in days. Oh- I found a funny joke in a book by a writer I like- (paraphrased somewhat) If your baby smiles at itself in the mirror, it will grow up to be an actor. If your baby frowns at itself in the mirror, it will become a writer. If your baby hates itself in the mirror, it will become a writer of short stories. Good evening. IMO, novice writers sometimes mistake long, complex sentences for good writing? And he's teaching against that. Unnecessary words are fine (Daniel Handler does this for comic effect quite often) as long as you are aware that that's what you're doing. I see it as Vonnegut prefers to err on the side of less verbose. Which is fine by me. Although I started reading him before the Information Age really got going and now my thoughts may have changed on this slightly.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Oct 15, 2018 12:01:30 GMT -5
*grace voice* the Information Age
|
|