/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1646540]

The question is, relatively speaking, where does pedantry cross the line in focussing on one artist? You can imagine that having read Joyce at a young age, I often am troubled to discuss the simpler details of Joyce among others because I fear being labelled as a Joycean. Joyce himself focussed on many authors, though those who know his biography with more detail know that he focussed specifically on Henrik Ibsen and I've heard rumours that he learned Ibsen's mothertongue for the sake of fully understanding the original texts. However, I find that Joyce, too, knew the intimate biographies of many artists, and not specifically one field of art and literature, but many: Shakespeare, Byron, Aquinas. So if one wishes to indulge moderately in one specific author while themselves aspiring to be pragmatic about it all, how do you go about it? Personally, I keep my Joycean related comments to myself unless they diverge from the Wikipedia information or synopses of reprints, or, especially, if they contribute to new theories of the author's texts or of himself. For instance, there is a woman who wishes 'to expose' an incestuous, abusive Joyce in regards to his disabled daughter (from whom he parted during the war-era) by deconstructing portmanteaux and neologisms of his more modernist works, namely Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. At night, Wake keeps me at peace, however, I don't want to become labelled as a Joycean, but someday, rather, as an author. I could begin by removing my adjectives and adverbs, you say; I could diversify my literary tastes you say; I assure you that I was aware of these issues in myself and have taken proactive effort to overcome what problems arise from them. Are there any closet-Joyceans out there, and if there be, what are your thoughts on this matter? For the rest of the public, what is it that you have to add to my observation?

[Anonymous No.1646557]

You seem pretty concerned about immitation. This is something a lot of artists are self conscious about. Classicism is often described its lineage as a tradition, where as Modernism is often described its lineage as a series of revolution. Neither is wholly accurate, and you might argue that this self image belies the opposite fact (that Modernism is based on lots of imitating of previous masters and Classicism at times has lots of quick divergence).

Should imitation be avoided, avoided in a conscious manner (I'm going to write this paragraph in a manner that is nothing like Joyce)? That can be just as forced and bland as imitation sometimes. A way I get around this is by identifying work that I like, that is itself contradictory or that I like for reasons that contradict. Take a look at the discrepancies in your taste, and try to work those areas. Not to flatten out the contradictions but to find ways of keeping them and joining them.

Of course, Trial and Error, as always.

[Anonymous No.1646581]

Thank you for that calming, authorless response. Calming because there is secondarily such a tone to the text, and firstly because of the reason exhibted. After reading modernist and postmodernist texts, learning how to write creatively from trial and error or experience is essential, agreed.