I think for Modernist writing especially, though the same is true to a lesser extent for most periods, you've got to take the first couple on faith that once you have enough of it under your belt, you'll see what the authors were doing, why they were doing it, how they fit into the history of western literature, and thus why they're so famous.
I think this is part of my aversion to the whole thing, to be honest. It's the same way I feel about certain films - specifically the small art house films with a small cast, all shot in digital, always depressing to the extreme. (The epitome of this would be anything that is actually or aspires to the Dogma 95 genre, which I find to be kind of the antithesis of what film should be doing.) For me, at the end of the day, as much as I might appreciate the artistry or the technique or what-have-you, I want to be entertained. I sort of feel that there's this attitude in certain circles, and it's there in film, too, that if something is enjoyable then it's just for the dumb plebians; let the "average person" watch their comic book movies and their comedies - real cineastes watch this. And I know that's conflating the academic and critical stuff with the work itself, which isn't always - or perhaps is never - fair, but it can be hard to separate that stuff out.
Not that I don't appreciate you explaining it all to me! It was an interesting excerpt to read. I think I am a-okay with enjoying brief passages like that, where I can really just concentrate on the language and the devices employed - I don't know if I could work through an entire book like that, though. Not while trying to follow a plot. (Or, as it sometimes seems, wishing there were more of a plot.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Part 2
Date: 2011-01-23 08:18 pm (UTC)I think this is part of my aversion to the whole thing, to be honest. It's the same way I feel about certain films - specifically the small art house films with a small cast, all shot in digital, always depressing to the extreme. (The epitome of this would be anything that is actually or aspires to the Dogma 95 genre, which I find to be kind of the antithesis of what film should be doing.) For me, at the end of the day, as much as I might appreciate the artistry or the technique or what-have-you, I want to be entertained. I sort of feel that there's this attitude in certain circles, and it's there in film, too, that if something is enjoyable then it's just for the dumb plebians; let the "average person" watch their comic book movies and their comedies - real cineastes watch this. And I know that's conflating the academic and critical stuff with the work itself, which isn't always - or perhaps is never - fair, but it can be hard to separate that stuff out.
I see what you're saying about this style of writing being an important link in the chain of literature in general, and I don't discount that. Again, to compare to film (because that's all I know, lol), I feel that way about the French New Wave. Hugely important in the history of cinema, and Cahiers du Cinéma later influencing more populist filmmakers like Coppola and Lucas and Spielberg, and you can't study film without studying New Wave. But God almighty if I don't find the movies pretentious and annoying. Let me never watch Godard again as long as I live, please. (And I'm secretly pissed that everyone still subscribes to the auteur theory, but that's neither here nor there.) I'm sure I would have my film major card revoked if it came out that I didn't like Breathless, but there it is, and the same is kind of true for literary novels.
Not that I don't appreciate you explaining it all to me! It was an interesting excerpt to read. I think I am a-okay with enjoying brief passages like that, where I can really just concentrate on the language and the devices employed - I don't know if I could work through an entire book like that, though. Not while trying to follow a plot. (Or, as it sometimes seems, wishing there were more of a plot.)