Why We Need Difficult Books(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Why We Need Difficult Books
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/10/anna-burns-milkman-difficult-novel
101 comments
Even worse, it encourages cargo cults. Conspicuous busy-ness. Jargonized writing styles. Watches that are expensive because no one wants a cheap watch.
The writer is observing something, but the causality is wrong. People read hard to read stuff because it's good. It's not good because it's hard.
The writer is observing something, but the causality is wrong. People read hard to read stuff because it's good. It's not good because it's hard.
Do you not see the irony in calling something toxic? Your not saying its merely wrong - but that its on par with poison.
It's OK to distinguish between healthy and diseased specimens of any organic phenomenon, thinking included. e.g. Trump is a toxic narcissist, etc.
I can't really take this article seriously as a comment on literature because it uses ugly language like "attitudinal" and "outright funny". Articles in The Guardian usually reflect a particular part of English society that is highly privileged, politically centrist and conformist, and not as smart as it thinks it is. Those attributes probably also characterize the UK audience for literary fiction. It's annoying and smug, and I guess maybe saying that is ugly itself.
Surely we should sometimes try to diagnose in good faith where thinking goes wrong. Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example. You might claim that toxicity is always relational, that it takes two. But there is such a thing as pathology when it comes to personality and mental health. To call something toxic is to call out a pathology for having a seriously negative impact on other people, whether those other people are themselves healthy or not.
I can't really take this article seriously as a comment on literature because it uses ugly language like "attitudinal" and "outright funny". Articles in The Guardian usually reflect a particular part of English society that is highly privileged, politically centrist and conformist, and not as smart as it thinks it is. Those attributes probably also characterize the UK audience for literary fiction. It's annoying and smug, and I guess maybe saying that is ugly itself.
Surely we should sometimes try to diagnose in good faith where thinking goes wrong. Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example. You might claim that toxicity is always relational, that it takes two. But there is such a thing as pathology when it comes to personality and mental health. To call something toxic is to call out a pathology for having a seriously negative impact on other people, whether those other people are themselves healthy or not.
> Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to exclude from their life, for example.
I don’t think that is very common at all. There are people we get along with better but active exclusion is extremely rare. This modern trend of throwing away people we don’t like is very unhealthy and not what a community is about.
I don’t think that is very common at all. There are people we get along with better but active exclusion is extremely rare. This modern trend of throwing away people we don’t like is very unhealthy and not what a community is about.
You've been lucky, evidently. The idea that everyone is fundamentally OK, and that we just have to get along — well, in some cases, the effort that takes is just unsustainable.
Maybe you're saying that you think there's no such thing as an abusive relationship. Maybe you think that whole concept is a modern invention. How likely do you think that really is?
Maybe you're saying that you think there's no such thing as an abusive relationship. Maybe you think that whole concept is a modern invention. How likely do you think that really is?
The common usage of the term “toxic person” these days is they post things on Facebook I disagree with. Not that they physically assault someone. Going straight to abuse is pure hyperbole.
Consider the origin of this thread - an idea was toxic not an action.
Consider the origin of this thread - an idea was toxic not an action.
The thinking and expression of the thoughts were deemed to be toxic by another commentary. In other words, the behaviour.
Abusive interactions don't necessarily or even usually involve physical violence. The fact that you don't seem to appreciate that reinforces my impression that you've never really had to deal with this stuff. It's hyperbole to assume that when I said "abusive relationship" I meant physical violence.
I'm in my 40s and I wouldn't have understood this stuff at 20. I'm also, as a victim of mental illness, someone who has in some ways been discarded by society. So I'm inclined to trust my perception that there is genuine suffering out there caused by toxic thinking and toxic ideas. "Toxic Psychiatry", for example, is the title of a book. You seem content to justify the way things are and minimize negative social phenomena. All I can say is that for a significant number of people, that kind of talk rings false, because their experience shows how empty it is.
Abusive interactions don't necessarily or even usually involve physical violence. The fact that you don't seem to appreciate that reinforces my impression that you've never really had to deal with this stuff. It's hyperbole to assume that when I said "abusive relationship" I meant physical violence.
I'm in my 40s and I wouldn't have understood this stuff at 20. I'm also, as a victim of mental illness, someone who has in some ways been discarded by society. So I'm inclined to trust my perception that there is genuine suffering out there caused by toxic thinking and toxic ideas. "Toxic Psychiatry", for example, is the title of a book. You seem content to justify the way things are and minimize negative social phenomena. All I can say is that for a significant number of people, that kind of talk rings false, because their experience shows how empty it is.
Which gets to the crux of the matter. Mere thinking and expression is sufficient for a label of toxicity with you. This goes against the fundamental values of liberalism and the enlightenment.
I fear we are regressing to a new dark age.
I fear we are regressing to a new dark age.
I hear you, but I think what's happening, in terms of psychological insight, is that millennials have more insight than earlier generations. They are also more likely to have narcissistic traits. The vigorous conversation about these issues (which involves the notion of toxicity) could be seen as a growing pain.
There are probably some walks of life (e.g. fine art) where unbelievably bad behaviour, narcissism, sociopathy etc. have always been prevalent. Now we're seeing awareness of those traits across the whole of society. "Toxic" may be a bad word to use; it's better to be more precise, within the constraints of what we know about personality. It's good to consider every interaction as the product of its constituent personalities, not the "fault" of one party.
But it's not an emergency if the word toxic is over-applied to mildly dysfunctional behaviour. Have you heard about global warming?
There are probably some walks of life (e.g. fine art) where unbelievably bad behaviour, narcissism, sociopathy etc. have always been prevalent. Now we're seeing awareness of those traits across the whole of society. "Toxic" may be a bad word to use; it's better to be more precise, within the constraints of what we know about personality. It's good to consider every interaction as the product of its constituent personalities, not the "fault" of one party.
But it's not an emergency if the word toxic is over-applied to mildly dysfunctional behaviour. Have you heard about global warming?
I fail to see this as progress or the bright light at the end of the tunnel. Shielding oneself from uncomfortable ideas and writing people off wholesale has repeated time and again throughout history. It always ends in tyranny and oppression.
We found the tools to break this cycle in the enlightenment. This has led to the largest expansion of freedom and prosperity in world history.
Now I fear we are about to throw it all away. By your logic I should label you “toxic” for promoting this. But that fundamentally goes against these values I hold dear.
We found the tools to break this cycle in the enlightenment. This has led to the largest expansion of freedom and prosperity in world history.
Now I fear we are about to throw it all away. By your logic I should label you “toxic” for promoting this. But that fundamentally goes against these values I hold dear.
I don't know exactly where you are coming from, politically (or religiously). But I believe that phenomena like narcissism constitute poorly understood pathologies of personality, and to be able to see them for what they are, clearly, is a kind of progress, whether it's science or not.
The Enlightenment wasn't the last word in intellectual progress. Neoliberal capitalism hasn't decreased inequality in the last 30 years—it has increased it.
I think you might be projecting a bit when you talk about "shielding oneself from uncomfortable ideas". If you think the Enlightenment/classical liberalism is the last word in "thought", maybe that's what you are doing, too.
A lot of PhD students apply Foucault (to take one example) in frivolous, non-constructive, self-absorbed ways. But Foucault wasn't some crazy guy, he was part of the establishment, trying to sharpen our understanding of the dynamics of power and intellectual life. A lot of his contemporary academic followers certainly don't identify with the progress of Western culture. They could be called "wreckers", but it's hard to say that with a straight face while Trump is in the White House.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will always be maladjusted kids, freaks, weirdos, and attention seekers. It might feel to you like they are taking over the show these days, because everyone seems to be frivolously labelling everyone else as toxic, like some retro high school clique drama of teenage girls gossiping on the landline.
But even if widely implemented, their exclusionary attitudes won't stick if they don't work in practice. The mass of "normative", i.e. "healthy" people tends to plough through in the long run, for better or worse.
Millennial culture contains a big dose of self-righteousness, but a lot of fashion and trendiness too. The judgemental side of it will surely blow over, if you want to see things that way. We can only hope that the heightened awareness of psychology will stick.
The Enlightenment wasn't the last word in intellectual progress. Neoliberal capitalism hasn't decreased inequality in the last 30 years—it has increased it.
I think you might be projecting a bit when you talk about "shielding oneself from uncomfortable ideas". If you think the Enlightenment/classical liberalism is the last word in "thought", maybe that's what you are doing, too.
A lot of PhD students apply Foucault (to take one example) in frivolous, non-constructive, self-absorbed ways. But Foucault wasn't some crazy guy, he was part of the establishment, trying to sharpen our understanding of the dynamics of power and intellectual life. A lot of his contemporary academic followers certainly don't identify with the progress of Western culture. They could be called "wreckers", but it's hard to say that with a straight face while Trump is in the White House.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will always be maladjusted kids, freaks, weirdos, and attention seekers. It might feel to you like they are taking over the show these days, because everyone seems to be frivolously labelling everyone else as toxic, like some retro high school clique drama of teenage girls gossiping on the landline.
But even if widely implemented, their exclusionary attitudes won't stick if they don't work in practice. The mass of "normative", i.e. "healthy" people tends to plough through in the long run, for better or worse.
Millennial culture contains a big dose of self-righteousness, but a lot of fashion and trendiness too. The judgemental side of it will surely blow over, if you want to see things that way. We can only hope that the heightened awareness of psychology will stick.
[deleted]
The most interesting quote in the article:
‘Are you trying to reward the book that pushes literature forward the most; or are you wanting to select the book that you most want to push into the hands of people all round the world?’
That's a darn conundrum. An interesting problem. It's almost having to corrupt the purpose of the award in order to maintain its value. If an amazing work of literature requires a university education in languages just to understand, it'd be self-defeating to award it the prize because the prize then becomes of interest only to those with a university education in languages.
For the article overall, I feel like it can relate to any form of art by replacing specific books and authors with their analogies in other artistic fields. But then it occurred to me that literature / books / novels are adjudicated differently to music and film for example.
Literature awards are much less a popularity contest than music and film (movie) awards. Higher-brow by the fact that there's a higher barrier to entry (ie. reading).
Fundamentally, however:
We need difficult music. We need difficult movies. We need difficult personalities. We need difficult engineering.
Because easy is for the birds. Easy isn't progress.
‘Are you trying to reward the book that pushes literature forward the most; or are you wanting to select the book that you most want to push into the hands of people all round the world?’
That's a darn conundrum. An interesting problem. It's almost having to corrupt the purpose of the award in order to maintain its value. If an amazing work of literature requires a university education in languages just to understand, it'd be self-defeating to award it the prize because the prize then becomes of interest only to those with a university education in languages.
For the article overall, I feel like it can relate to any form of art by replacing specific books and authors with their analogies in other artistic fields. But then it occurred to me that literature / books / novels are adjudicated differently to music and film for example.
Literature awards are much less a popularity contest than music and film (movie) awards. Higher-brow by the fact that there's a higher barrier to entry (ie. reading).
Fundamentally, however:
We need difficult music. We need difficult movies. We need difficult personalities. We need difficult engineering.
Because easy is for the birds. Easy isn't progress.
I agree that film is a different beast than literature, but if anyone is looking for mentally and artistically challenging films, I recommend anything by A24 Studios (https://a24films.com/films). I would argue that we're seeing a small/low-budget film renaissance, A24 is evidence of that.
Are those movies good or “good”? A book I can go to the library for and judge for myself, those movies require me to change iTunes Store, set up payment methods, keep an evening clear, before I can judge what might be a pretentious story with painful actors.
Only you can tell if you enjoy a film or not. I've enjoyed most of the films I've seen from them. You're not going to get such a rigid hollywood 3 act structure with all the beats being hit according to the formula. Some people like this, others find the films aimless and meandering. Here's one example of that: https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/american-honey-cannes-re...
> But while American Honey exudes ample energy, this episodic piece doesn’t muster much narrative drive over its daunting running time of two and three quarter hours. There’s probably a stronger, tighter film in here, but fair game at least to Arnold in her commitment to following the winding back roads of filmic experiment rather than the well-mapped highway of storytelling.
Here are three films, but i've watched loads and I like most of them:
A Prayer Before Dawn is a better version of a film we've seen before - westerner goes to a harsh prison in a foreign country. It's not pretentious and the film avoids being too sympathetic to the lead. Metacritic gives it 76. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/a-prayer-before-dawn
Eighth Grade is I think amazing. A really difficult watch of a young person struggling to be a young person. It captures the awkwardness and cliques. The lead actress is brilliant. Metacritic gives it 89, but that has been pulled down by one reviewer who clearly hates the film. All the other scores are over 75. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/eighth-grade
How to Talk to Girls at Parties is a film that I didn't enjoy. But I'm glad they made it and some people do like it. MC gives it 50, but there's a mix of high and low scores. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/how-to-talk-to-girls-at-par...
> But while American Honey exudes ample energy, this episodic piece doesn’t muster much narrative drive over its daunting running time of two and three quarter hours. There’s probably a stronger, tighter film in here, but fair game at least to Arnold in her commitment to following the winding back roads of filmic experiment rather than the well-mapped highway of storytelling.
Here are three films, but i've watched loads and I like most of them:
A Prayer Before Dawn is a better version of a film we've seen before - westerner goes to a harsh prison in a foreign country. It's not pretentious and the film avoids being too sympathetic to the lead. Metacritic gives it 76. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/a-prayer-before-dawn
Eighth Grade is I think amazing. A really difficult watch of a young person struggling to be a young person. It captures the awkwardness and cliques. The lead actress is brilliant. Metacritic gives it 89, but that has been pulled down by one reviewer who clearly hates the film. All the other scores are over 75. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/eighth-grade
How to Talk to Girls at Parties is a film that I didn't enjoy. But I'm glad they made it and some people do like it. MC gives it 50, but there's a mix of high and low scores. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/how-to-talk-to-girls-at-par...
Thanks for the response. I will keep your comment with me for next week for a movie night.
To other comments who might be wondering: I do not live in the USA, so I do not think I can find Eighth Grade at the library. I can find many books. So I prefer asking for clarification over spending an hour or more to set something up.
To other comments who might be wondering: I do not live in the USA, so I do not think I can find Eighth Grade at the library. I can find many books. So I prefer asking for clarification over spending an hour or more to set something up.
It sounds like you're not interested in film as a medium; to each their own. But regardless, "good" is definitely not the word I would use to describe these films.
For example, after watching It Comes At Night I felt strung out and miserable, but it's a very competent, well shot movie with a vision, and I'm glad I watched it, even though I don't want to watch it again. That's an example of what challenging means to me.
For example, after watching It Comes At Night I felt strung out and miserable, but it's a very competent, well shot movie with a vision, and I'm glad I watched it, even though I don't want to watch it again. That's an example of what challenging means to me.
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but keeping an evening clear seems equivalent to what you'd have to do to read a book, perhaps just in a different time of day.
A single book takes way longer to finish than a single movie. You can also go to your library or Redbox to get a movie.
There are no movies with pretentious story and painful actors in the iTunes Store ?
"Literature awards are much less a popularity contest than music and film"
The scale is smaller, but lit awards are as much a trade event indulging in the vainglory of supply-side driven trends, celebrity, fashion cycle...
The scale is smaller, but lit awards are as much a trade event indulging in the vainglory of supply-side driven trends, celebrity, fashion cycle...
As is often the case, the word "Books" is used when they apparently just mean "Novels".
Tristram Shandy difficult?! Strange. Would you call Monty Python 'difficult'? It is, however, hilarious, and still seems very modern, despite the first part dating from 1759. The humour is quite Pythonish, but goes further in every direction. Including mocking 'difficult' scientific and philosophical writers, real and imagined, on (probably) most of its pages. Very highly recommended. As is Sterne's second (and last) novel A Sentimental Journey, much shorter and less crazy than Tristram. The less that happens, the better it gets.
Tristram Shandy difficult?! Strange. Would you call Monty Python 'difficult'? It is, however, hilarious, and still seems very modern, despite the first part dating from 1759. The humour is quite Pythonish, but goes further in every direction. Including mocking 'difficult' scientific and philosophical writers, real and imagined, on (probably) most of its pages. Very highly recommended. As is Sterne's second (and last) novel A Sentimental Journey, much shorter and less crazy than Tristram. The less that happens, the better it gets.
Plowing my way through Tristram Shandy at the moment, and I would definitely agree that it's "difficult".
Not so much the contemporary vernacular (though that doesn't help), but rather the discontinuous hyperactivity with which the author jumps back and forth between time periods and characters. It's also pretty long-winded and Sterne takes his time to labor his point.
It's definitely enjoyable, but it's not an "easy" read.
Not so much the contemporary vernacular (though that doesn't help), but rather the discontinuous hyperactivity with which the author jumps back and forth between time periods and characters. It's also pretty long-winded and Sterne takes his time to labor his point.
It's definitely enjoyable, but it's not an "easy" read.
>It's also pretty long-winded and Sterne takes his time to labor his point.
The point is that there's no "point" to be labored at.
The point is that there's no "point" to be labored at.
Ah ok. Well, if it feels like 'plowing', read something else. If it seems too long, read something else. If you don't think it's super-funny, read something else. Life's too short. I was going to suggest A Sentimental Journey, which is more like a....continuous narrative, but maybe you'd think that long-winded too. But like I said, the less that happens, the funnier it gets. And people who like a movie don't complain about it being too long! I can understand someone not liking/appreciating the humour, which is craziness on a grand scale, but to hear anyone (much less someone who writes for the Guardian) found it difficult is a surprise.
Gee, downvoted for that. Also a surprise. Would downvoters care to explain why?
I think the goodness or badness of hardness hinges on the reason for the difficulty.
Sure, doing hard things is a good thing for satisfaction and character building. That doesn't mean a math book that's harder to understand is better than one that's easy.
I think Finnegan's Wake (mentioned in the article) is a good example. It's difficult and good, but for different reasons. Joyce was being expiremental. He wrote from inside a characters head, a POV style that's very common in modern novels. So, the expirement worked.
So, in a sense, it's hard in the way driving an early, expiremental car is probably hard.
Trying to read Joyce for entertainment is like trying to learn physics from "Principia." Cute, but probably a terrible idea. Reading either to engage with the history of novels or physics... this is why people still read these today.
People might get a sense of satisfaction frim the difficulty, but this does not mean we need people to write like Joyce or Newton.
There needs to be an honest reason for difficulty, and the problem with most difficult writing is bad reasons. Poor technique. Partially formed thoughts. Intentional obscurity. Orwellian use of jargonized dialect...
Finnegan's wake would have been a better work if it was written easier. The difficulty is a flaw.
Sure, doing hard things is a good thing for satisfaction and character building. That doesn't mean a math book that's harder to understand is better than one that's easy.
I think Finnegan's Wake (mentioned in the article) is a good example. It's difficult and good, but for different reasons. Joyce was being expiremental. He wrote from inside a characters head, a POV style that's very common in modern novels. So, the expirement worked.
So, in a sense, it's hard in the way driving an early, expiremental car is probably hard.
Trying to read Joyce for entertainment is like trying to learn physics from "Principia." Cute, but probably a terrible idea. Reading either to engage with the history of novels or physics... this is why people still read these today.
People might get a sense of satisfaction frim the difficulty, but this does not mean we need people to write like Joyce or Newton.
There needs to be an honest reason for difficulty, and the problem with most difficult writing is bad reasons. Poor technique. Partially formed thoughts. Intentional obscurity. Orwellian use of jargonized dialect...
Finnegan's wake would have been a better work if it was written easier. The difficulty is a flaw.
it sounds like a parallel with the paradigm of essential vs accidental complexity in software design. A good book is one that minimises accidental complexity, a good+hard book is one that also has high essential complexity.
Yep. Sounds like another case of the same thing.
A guide to having fun with the wake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpeq91hK1Gk
But, on the other hand, the math books that are hard to understand often are better once you’ve got the skills to read them.
Years ago I talked to the local head librarian about donating some programming books and stuff. She had requested that they can't be difficult or hard...
Part of the reason I patronize my library is because to me it is like a mental gymnasium, where all this great equipment there to test my intellectual flexibility and endurance, too tough? I go for easier, but I appreciate the hard stuff because at some point, I, or someone else will find them useful.
Yes, we all NEED access to difficult books (and old books before they refined the such subjects and made them so difficult), don't make our libraries and book shops into mere mental playgrounds.
Part of the reason I patronize my library is because to me it is like a mental gymnasium, where all this great equipment there to test my intellectual flexibility and endurance, too tough? I go for easier, but I appreciate the hard stuff because at some point, I, or someone else will find them useful.
Yes, we all NEED access to difficult books (and old books before they refined the such subjects and made them so difficult), don't make our libraries and book shops into mere mental playgrounds.
And difficult newspapers! And difficult news!
Our journalist class has somehow got into this ELI5 routine, where they feel obligated to turn every complex subject into something a fifth grader can debate about.
Our journalist class has somehow got into this ELI5 routine, where they feel obligated to turn every complex subject into something a fifth grader can debate about.
I kind of miss the articles that span 10 pages and really dive into a subject matter. Modern long form articles seem unnecessarily padded with personal stories to me. The actual information content is not that much in the end.
For a good example of long form journalism done right, I heartily recommend The Guardian's article about what will happen when the Queen of England dies [1]. I never thought there would be that much protocol to it, but clearly I was wrong.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...
You can probably blame readability tests, SEO and other related stuff for that. There's a lot of advice online saying that simply written, clearly broken up articles divided into small sections/lists and aimed at a fifth grader's reading level are the way to attract more traffic/readers.
Well maybe that and lowest common denominator marketing. Or the need to pander to social media users, most of whom have at best about five minutes to read an article and not much knowledge of its background.
Well maybe that and lowest common denominator marketing. Or the need to pander to social media users, most of whom have at best about five minutes to read an article and not much knowledge of its background.
I would've thought they request they're not older than a year; libraries and secondhand book shops / charities often have a shelf of e.g. Office 2003 for dummies lying around still.
Some books are timeless though; Tanenbaum, Knuth, etc.
Some books are timeless though; Tanenbaum, Knuth, etc.
Yeah not older than a year was another part of that - which also takes off a lot of great books. I have some references from 1990s and early 2000s that are way more thorough than the later stuff produced.
Well easy books are difficult for a substantial minority of users.
This seems silly to me--if an idea or subject _is_ difficult, then so be it. If something difficult to read is worth it to somebody, then that person will read it. I don't understand the fascination with difficulty--whatever that means, as an independent metric. To me, the value of writing is the idea or set of ideas the writing expresses.
I think it is important not to boil fiction down into the 'idea or set of ideas the writing expresses' because if the author could so well articulate their 'idea' then wouldn't they be better off writing an essay rather than a narrative?
Instead, I think the fascination with difficulty is exactly this -- the idea that some ideas are amorphous and difficult to express directly, and that authors have tried (successfully and less so) drastic measures to try and, in their own way, do exactly what you said in your comment.
And there is something, for some, inherently interesting in the different contortions of text that experimental writers have come up with.
Instead, I think the fascination with difficulty is exactly this -- the idea that some ideas are amorphous and difficult to express directly, and that authors have tried (successfully and less so) drastic measures to try and, in their own way, do exactly what you said in your comment.
And there is something, for some, inherently interesting in the different contortions of text that experimental writers have come up with.
> wouldn't they be better off writing an essay rather than a narrative?
There's an interesting quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for writing the fan-fiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
"Nonfiction conveys knowledge and fiction conveys experience. If you want to understand a proof of Bayes’s Rule, I can use diagrams. If I want you to feel what it is to use Bayesian reasoning, I have to write a story in which some character is doing that."
https://intelligence.org/2016/03/02/john-horgan-interviews-e...
It's interesting to note that he wrote HPMoR with a specific purpose in mind, namely to teach the specific skills of "rational" thinking he wrote about on the LessWrong site.
In his case it seems he saw fiction as something complementary to his essays, a means of conveying "experience", a simulation of living through situations in which the concepts could be used.
This is, of course, far from the only use of fiction, but I think it at least provides a specific example of a way in which fiction can be used to convey something in a way that cannot be (easily) done using dry prose (even if you are considering it purely from a practical standpoint without any reference to artistic merit).
There's an interesting quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for writing the fan-fiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
"Nonfiction conveys knowledge and fiction conveys experience. If you want to understand a proof of Bayes’s Rule, I can use diagrams. If I want you to feel what it is to use Bayesian reasoning, I have to write a story in which some character is doing that."
https://intelligence.org/2016/03/02/john-horgan-interviews-e...
It's interesting to note that he wrote HPMoR with a specific purpose in mind, namely to teach the specific skills of "rational" thinking he wrote about on the LessWrong site.
In his case it seems he saw fiction as something complementary to his essays, a means of conveying "experience", a simulation of living through situations in which the concepts could be used.
This is, of course, far from the only use of fiction, but I think it at least provides a specific example of a way in which fiction can be used to convey something in a way that cannot be (easily) done using dry prose (even if you are considering it purely from a practical standpoint without any reference to artistic merit).
> their 'idea' then wouldn't they be better off writing an essay rather than a narrative?
Not necessarily. It's a lot easier to empathize with characters and a novel can capture something more ephemeral. Camus would write a novel first then turn it into an essay.
Not necessarily. It's a lot easier to empathize with characters and a novel can capture something more ephemeral. Camus would write a novel first then turn it into an essay.
> if the author could so well articulate their 'idea' then wouldn't they be better off writing an essay rather than a narrative?
I have pages and pages of what I think are well-articulated ideas that would be relatively easy to turn into essays. My challenge is finding a narrative that ties them all (or at least some of them) together.
I have pages and pages of what I think are well-articulated ideas that would be relatively easy to turn into essays. My challenge is finding a narrative that ties them all (or at least some of them) together.
The issue I think is that difficulty and complexity get conflated: in an effort to simplify, they reduce both depth and difficulty, which reduces the total value of the subject. The problem primarily being that this conflation isn’t widely recognized, so usually efforts towards broader reach produces worse outcomes. Even worse, these efforts (stripping difficulty while maintaining depth) often assume their own success, and remove access to the difficult (and deeper) material.
You see this in software as accessible vs power users
Frameworks to simplify web development
Libraries do it gp’s example
Schools do it by simplifying the literature selection/ topic breadth
Etc
Anytime you have management without a minimum “gate”, the issue occurs, because the conflation exists but no one admits it, and with the goal of widespread accessibility, it gets further embedded each iteration.
In other words the quote “if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it” is misread to “if you can’t explain it in six minutes, you don’t understand it”, and then everything gets “simplified” right out of existence
You see this in software as accessible vs power users
Frameworks to simplify web development
Libraries do it gp’s example
Schools do it by simplifying the literature selection/ topic breadth
Etc
Anytime you have management without a minimum “gate”, the issue occurs, because the conflation exists but no one admits it, and with the goal of widespread accessibility, it gets further embedded each iteration.
In other words the quote “if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it” is misread to “if you can’t explain it in six minutes, you don’t understand it”, and then everything gets “simplified” right out of existence
It seems a bit silly to me from the other angle, in that the author has chosen to write it in a particular way because that's the way they felt it best to convey their story.
I'm about a million miles from being an author, but I'm old enough that I have, what I would think, is a recognisable style that I'm comfortable with, and changing my approach would end up negatively affecting the quality of the writing because it comes less natural to me.
Authors will find their own level as much as readers will.
I'm about a million miles from being an author, but I'm old enough that I have, what I would think, is a recognisable style that I'm comfortable with, and changing my approach would end up negatively affecting the quality of the writing because it comes less natural to me.
Authors will find their own level as much as readers will.
I think you're agreeing with the article if I understand your point correctly?
In a way--my question boils down to why this was written in the first place. Engaging with literary criticism is an invitation to perpetuate literary criticism :P
There was a recent post about a difficult book I'd never heard of, and probably won't read, but the article was fascinating.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18052562
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18052562
Somebody once said, "Bad teachers prepare kids for bad bosses, which they are likely to encounter." While I agree with that to some extent based on actual experience, taken too far it can hamper education. If you flunk math or English because of a bad teacher, it can set your entire education behind schedule. Perhaps make sure the difficult teachers are not in key subjects that have course path dependencies. Similar for books. (You will encounter poorly-written instructions in the work-place, which difficult books prepare you for.)
Random anecdote. I once had a terrible English teacher. I was transferred into the class midstream (for unrelated reasons). After my first class I went to my new teacher and said, "I really love writing. In the previous class the teacher was planning on having a creative writing section. Will we have one in this class?" At which point the English teacher replied, "Writing has nothing to do with English and only one teacher in this school thinks otherwise".
I was a bit disheartened, but as English was my favourite class, I decided to just enjoy the other aspects of the class. We had a midterm exam for which half of the grade was an essay question on a novel we had been reading. I admit that I wanted to impress my teacher, so I read the book over and over again, practically memorising it. When I wrote my essay, I was able to quote passages of it. I was reasonably proud of my effort.
Imagine my shock when my paper was returned and I received a 0 for the essay! The only comment on the paper was "Terrible". In tears, I went to my teacher and asked, "What's wrong with the essay? I studied really hard and even added a lot of quotes". The teacher seemed surprised. "Oh. You actually care about this. Well, your essay was badly written. The quotes were nice, but everything else was terrible. I couldn't give you any marks".
Very frustrated, I went back to my parents and complained. They read my paper and to their credit they said, "Well, I wouldn't have given this a zero, but it could use some improvement". Then they taught me how to write. I spent the next 3-4 months writing essays every day because I was so frustrated.
Fast forward a few decades and I still love writing, thanks to my parents. I have mixed feelings about that teacher. Truly, she was messed up in serious ways. She tended to give high marks to cute boys that she tried to chat up after class. She would also randomly form some kind of hatred for individual students and would do her best to crush them under her heel. However, she was the first teacher who ever told me that my writing sucked. All my other teachers were so focused on my enthusiasm that they forgot to give me criticism. Without my terrible teacher, my parents wouldn't have intervened and I think I never would have learned to write.
It's a weird world.
I was a bit disheartened, but as English was my favourite class, I decided to just enjoy the other aspects of the class. We had a midterm exam for which half of the grade was an essay question on a novel we had been reading. I admit that I wanted to impress my teacher, so I read the book over and over again, practically memorising it. When I wrote my essay, I was able to quote passages of it. I was reasonably proud of my effort.
Imagine my shock when my paper was returned and I received a 0 for the essay! The only comment on the paper was "Terrible". In tears, I went to my teacher and asked, "What's wrong with the essay? I studied really hard and even added a lot of quotes". The teacher seemed surprised. "Oh. You actually care about this. Well, your essay was badly written. The quotes were nice, but everything else was terrible. I couldn't give you any marks".
Very frustrated, I went back to my parents and complained. They read my paper and to their credit they said, "Well, I wouldn't have given this a zero, but it could use some improvement". Then they taught me how to write. I spent the next 3-4 months writing essays every day because I was so frustrated.
Fast forward a few decades and I still love writing, thanks to my parents. I have mixed feelings about that teacher. Truly, she was messed up in serious ways. She tended to give high marks to cute boys that she tried to chat up after class. She would also randomly form some kind of hatred for individual students and would do her best to crush them under her heel. However, she was the first teacher who ever told me that my writing sucked. All my other teachers were so focused on my enthusiasm that they forgot to give me criticism. Without my terrible teacher, my parents wouldn't have intervened and I think I never would have learned to write.
It's a weird world.
There's an interesting anecdote in the chess world. Mikhail Botvinnik [1] was a longtime former world champion and would go on to become the 'patriarch' of Soviet chess, which would dominate the world scene in chess for many decades. In the early 60s a child was invited to Botvinnik's school for an assessment and possible training. Upon evaluating the child and his games and 'feel' for chess, Botvinnik remarked, "This boy has no clue about chess, and there's no future for him in this profession."
The boy he was talking about was Anatoly Karpov [2]. Karpov would go on to become world champion once Bobby Fischer failed to defend his title. But far from winning by default he took the title and held onto it for many years becoming one of the most dominant and active world champions of all time. He ceded his title only once once Garry Kasparov came onto the scene.
And really I think these sort of anecdotes are rife among many who go onto achieve great things. One of the many reasons I think the current trends in school of trying to encourage and reward children, particularly taken to the extreme with things such as participation trophies, are likely deeply misguided and being driven by intuition rather than data in an area where the latter often contradicts the former.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov
The boy he was talking about was Anatoly Karpov [2]. Karpov would go on to become world champion once Bobby Fischer failed to defend his title. But far from winning by default he took the title and held onto it for many years becoming one of the most dominant and active world champions of all time. He ceded his title only once once Garry Kasparov came onto the scene.
And really I think these sort of anecdotes are rife among many who go onto achieve great things. One of the many reasons I think the current trends in school of trying to encourage and reward children, particularly taken to the extreme with things such as participation trophies, are likely deeply misguided and being driven by intuition rather than data in an area where the latter often contradicts the former.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov
Early soviet 60s story is hardly reflection on current trend in schools.
I think that this sort of thing happen because it is hard to impossible to determine future development of child. Misjudging happen to both future winners and future losers. Same kid is often judged differently by different adults and same kid can perform differently one year then the other. Same adult can have bad day and badly judge kid or simply badly judge most of them.
Being told that you are bad by authority sux and you will remember it. And for winners it is good anecdote to tell later on, when they know it turned up false.
I think that this sort of thing happen because it is hard to impossible to determine future development of child. Misjudging happen to both future winners and future losers. Same kid is often judged differently by different adults and same kid can perform differently one year then the other. Same adult can have bad day and badly judge kid or simply badly judge most of them.
Being told that you are bad by authority sux and you will remember it. And for winners it is good anecdote to tell later on, when they know it turned up false.
The question is what effect does coddling vs doubting have on an individual's personal development? Does actively praising individuals, regardless of whether they 'truly' deserve it, encourage them to work harder or does it encourage complacence? Some research I've read has indicated that the praise itself is what ends up being desired, with a diminishing interest on the field from which the praise was derived.
Ultimately the preponderance of these 'driven by adversity' anecdotes is something that I do not think is a coincidence. It certainly also worked as a motivator in my life. Had Karpov been openly praised and supported from the start would he have become the person he did? Had Karjakin not been hailed as imminent world champion from his youngest years, might he now stand above even Carlsen?
And these are genuine questions. I don't know the answer and I don't think anybody does. But it's something that I think is important since, if this turns out to be the case, it could mean that the educational path places such as the US have set upon could be entirely regressive.
Ultimately the preponderance of these 'driven by adversity' anecdotes is something that I do not think is a coincidence. It certainly also worked as a motivator in my life. Had Karpov been openly praised and supported from the start would he have become the person he did? Had Karjakin not been hailed as imminent world champion from his youngest years, might he now stand above even Carlsen?
And these are genuine questions. I don't know the answer and I don't think anybody does. But it's something that I think is important since, if this turns out to be the case, it could mean that the educational path places such as the US have set upon could be entirely regressive.
> The question is what effect does coddling vs doubting have on an individual's personal development?
That is false dichotomy. Not just that you contrast complete extremes, you ignore options like "say what you really think". There is also massive difference between who says it, whether that talk is same as other say or rather outlier.
For example, in here, we are talking about kid meeting high level person in a chess official situation organized by school or camp. Bad chess players would not even go to that meeting to be evaluated. Quite clearly the kid was already in program, already seen value in chess and likely was once in a while praised by others.
> Does actively praising individuals, regardless of whether they 'truly' deserve it, encourage them to work harder or does it encourage complacence? Some research I've read has indicated that the praise itself is what ends up being desired, with a diminishing interest on the field from which the praise was derived.
How old the individual? What stage of learning the individual is? That matters a lot. Never ever believe anything nuanced about child raising and treatment unless age is specified. Are we talking 16, 12, 7, 3 years old? Are we talking about someone new to activity, trying to figure out whether they like it and whether they could be good? Or rather experienced player who already like it and all his socialization and identity centers about that activity? There are massive differences.
> Ultimately the preponderance of these 'driven by adversity' anecdotes is something that I do not think is a coincidence. It certainly also worked as a motivator in my life. Had Karpov been openly praised and supported from the start would he have become the person he did? Had Karjakin not been hailed as imminent world champion from his youngest years, might he now stand above even Carlsen?
Do you know that Karpov was not openly praised as he learned? There is an anecdote of a single criticism. Was the "you dont have what it takes" really the only feedback he got? That is unlikely, because such kids would never ever met Mikhail Botvinnik. Such kids would be removed from chess program and redirected elsewhere.
> And these are genuine questions. I don't know the answer and I don't think anybody does. But it's something that I think is important since, if this turns out to be the case, it could mean that the educational path places such as the US have set upon could be entirely regressive.
It is not that US is flawless, but they do have good results in education in a lot of places. They are country of differences, with both awesome results in some places and pretty bad results in others.
That is false dichotomy. Not just that you contrast complete extremes, you ignore options like "say what you really think". There is also massive difference between who says it, whether that talk is same as other say or rather outlier.
For example, in here, we are talking about kid meeting high level person in a chess official situation organized by school or camp. Bad chess players would not even go to that meeting to be evaluated. Quite clearly the kid was already in program, already seen value in chess and likely was once in a while praised by others.
> Does actively praising individuals, regardless of whether they 'truly' deserve it, encourage them to work harder or does it encourage complacence? Some research I've read has indicated that the praise itself is what ends up being desired, with a diminishing interest on the field from which the praise was derived.
How old the individual? What stage of learning the individual is? That matters a lot. Never ever believe anything nuanced about child raising and treatment unless age is specified. Are we talking 16, 12, 7, 3 years old? Are we talking about someone new to activity, trying to figure out whether they like it and whether they could be good? Or rather experienced player who already like it and all his socialization and identity centers about that activity? There are massive differences.
> Ultimately the preponderance of these 'driven by adversity' anecdotes is something that I do not think is a coincidence. It certainly also worked as a motivator in my life. Had Karpov been openly praised and supported from the start would he have become the person he did? Had Karjakin not been hailed as imminent world champion from his youngest years, might he now stand above even Carlsen?
Do you know that Karpov was not openly praised as he learned? There is an anecdote of a single criticism. Was the "you dont have what it takes" really the only feedback he got? That is unlikely, because such kids would never ever met Mikhail Botvinnik. Such kids would be removed from chess program and redirected elsewhere.
> And these are genuine questions. I don't know the answer and I don't think anybody does. But it's something that I think is important since, if this turns out to be the case, it could mean that the educational path places such as the US have set upon could be entirely regressive.
It is not that US is flawless, but they do have good results in education in a lot of places. They are country of differences, with both awesome results in some places and pretty bad results in others.
I read the whole comment, but got stuck on the fact that the teacher said writing had nothing to do with English, but then gave an exam where half the grade was writing an essay. Weird.
Yeah. It was super weird. Over the years, my guess is that the rest of the department made her do a lot of stuff she didn't want to do. If particular students (like me) worked hard on those things, she punished them as a kind of retribution. I never could figure out what she thought English was about, though. She was super keen on reading literature and it was mandatory to fawn over famous writers. I couldn't figure out where she thought these books came from and how famous writers became famous. As I said, completely messed up. I transferred to a different school at the end of the year (my family was moving around), but I heard she had a nervous breakdown and retired from teaching, which is probably an incredibly good thing.
Yes! Thomas Mann was in the list of difficult books. I remember marveling how he set up a joke in Buddenbrooks 50 pages before springing the punchline. He's an incredibly disciplined and patient storyteller.
Who is your favorite 'difficult' author?
Who is your favorite 'difficult' author?
I've been very gently dipping into Proust for the last year or so: I find it hard to read more than a few pages of À la recherche... at a time (mostly due to the exhaustions of work and children), but when I do, I always enjoy it. Just the other day I realised I'd read a number of pages which did nothing more than describe a man waking up and getting out of bed; when I realised this, I laughed out loud at the preposterousness of it.
This.
That's exactly how some of Mann's jokes work. I've had the same experience with A la recherche. After a while you realize the author is kind of having you on. (Not always of course but there's definitely satirical humor in these accounts.)
That's exactly how some of Mann's jokes work. I've had the same experience with A la recherche. After a while you realize the author is kind of having you on. (Not always of course but there's definitely satirical humor in these accounts.)
I've had Buddenbrooks on my Kindle for ages and I was just starting to think my German had improved enough to give it another attempt, but I struggle with that kind of thing even in my native language.
I think "difficult" is the wrong word. I think "challenging" is a better one.
In many cases, books (and other forms of expression/art) are acclaimed for being difficult -- but they're difficult for the sake of being difficult. There's difficulty but no reward. After having read some of these books (or attempted to), I think they're pointless.
However, we do need challenging books/art. Challenges are how we grow, develop, improve, etc. Something can be challenging without being difficult/impenetrable.
Also, challenges come in various forms: they can be stylistic (difficult prose) as well as moral or intellectual or political. (One common complaint I hear about fiction is: "I don't like the characters." Well, yeah, that's sort of the point: you probably wouldn't like a lot of people if you knew them.)
Some concrete examples:
Novels:
Joyce's Ulysses: I actually really like Ulysses. As a whole, it's a slog. But there are wonderful passages throughout. It's also very funny.
Wallace's Infinite Jest: same as above, often even funnier as the humor is more contemporary.
Films:
Malick's The Tree of Life: a wonderful, slow, all-encompassing film that doesn't rely on the conventional approach to narrative
In many cases, books (and other forms of expression/art) are acclaimed for being difficult -- but they're difficult for the sake of being difficult. There's difficulty but no reward. After having read some of these books (or attempted to), I think they're pointless.
However, we do need challenging books/art. Challenges are how we grow, develop, improve, etc. Something can be challenging without being difficult/impenetrable.
Also, challenges come in various forms: they can be stylistic (difficult prose) as well as moral or intellectual or political. (One common complaint I hear about fiction is: "I don't like the characters." Well, yeah, that's sort of the point: you probably wouldn't like a lot of people if you knew them.)
Some concrete examples:
Novels:
Joyce's Ulysses: I actually really like Ulysses. As a whole, it's a slog. But there are wonderful passages throughout. It's also very funny.
Wallace's Infinite Jest: same as above, often even funnier as the humor is more contemporary.
Films:
Malick's The Tree of Life: a wonderful, slow, all-encompassing film that doesn't rely on the conventional approach to narrative
I had a conversation once with a friend about a book I was reading. She asked what it was about, and I told her.
She said, and I quote, "that sounds like one of those thinking books. I don't like them."
I miss her.
She said, and I quote, "that sounds like one of those thinking books. I don't like them."
I miss her.
The real important question: is it a good story?
Booker winners, in my experience have been often pretentious garbage masquerading as high art.
Examples:
Ian McEwan’s Amsterdam (1998) Ben Okri’s The Famished Road (1991) Kingsley Amis’s The Old Devils (1986)
While the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is American only, the list of winners is far more justifiable as prize-worthy.
Booker winners, in my experience have been often pretentious garbage masquerading as high art.
Examples:
Ian McEwan’s Amsterdam (1998) Ben Okri’s The Famished Road (1991) Kingsley Amis’s The Old Devils (1986)
While the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is American only, the list of winners is far more justifiable as prize-worthy.
While the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is American only, the list of winners is far more justifiable as prize-worthy.
Now that is an interesting thing for someone to say. Are you American, or do you live in America? Where that question is leading is that I wonder if you find American fiction more accessible because it's written by and for Americans, and thus you already have the context to understand and appreciate it.
Now that is an interesting thing for someone to say. Are you American, or do you live in America? Where that question is leading is that I wonder if you find American fiction more accessible because it's written by and for Americans, and thus you already have the context to understand and appreciate it.
This discussion has already been had and will continue to be had forever. See Why experimental fiction threatens to destroy publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and life as we know it[1] on this discussion since 2005, which is no doubt just a continuation of existing conflicts in the discussion of "what is literature vs what should literature be".
1. https://harpers.org/archive/2005/10/why-experimental-fiction...
1. https://harpers.org/archive/2005/10/why-experimental-fiction...
The best way to write to convey meaning is to be as absolutely clear as possible, whether you are writing esoteric scientific papers or mass market non-fiction. This is why Yuval Noah is such a popular author - he takes complex subjects and makes them easy to understand without losing their meaning.
Literature may be different, but I still prefer fiction that tells its story without me having to scratch my head for hours.
Literature may be different, but I still prefer fiction that tells its story without me having to scratch my head for hours.
Conveying meaning as clearly as possible implies direct, simple prose when you assume the reader shares a language game (per Wittgenstein) with you. Thus a theoretical physicist can communicate a fact about field theories to a colleague very directly, but that communication is hardly clear to a layman.
What do you do if what you are working on is meaning that doesn't fit the usual language game, and part of the work is seeing what varying the language game can do to meaning? Then there is no direct prose. There is a fabrication of an artifact that leads the reader experientially to this new language game in all its nuance.
What do you do if what you are working on is meaning that doesn't fit the usual language game, and part of the work is seeing what varying the language game can do to meaning? Then there is no direct prose. There is a fabrication of an artifact that leads the reader experientially to this new language game in all its nuance.
> The best way to write to convey meaning is to be as absolutely clear as possible, whether you are writing esoteric scientific papers or mass market non-fiction.
I agree with this, except that I think that it is important to understand the caveat "as possible". It may be (I assert, though some argue) that the absolute clearest possible way to express something is not very clear.
> This is why Yuval Noah is such a popular author - he takes complex subjects and makes them easy to understand without losing their meaning.
I take issue with the idea that evidence for the best kind of writing is adduced from the popularity of that writing; I think that popular writing can be bad, and (perhaps less commonly) good writing can be unpopular. Nonetheless I think that the end of your sentence expresses the important idea very well: "… without losing their meaning." I think that there is too much of a trend in modern expositions to achieve the appearance of clarity and accessibility by dumbing down subjects enough to give readers only the feeling of understanding—which is not only probably bad on its own, but can also make the same readers resistant to later learning the subtleties, because discussing them sacrifices what they see as the clarity and accessibility of their preferred (incomplete) exposition.
I agree with this, except that I think that it is important to understand the caveat "as possible". It may be (I assert, though some argue) that the absolute clearest possible way to express something is not very clear.
> This is why Yuval Noah is such a popular author - he takes complex subjects and makes them easy to understand without losing their meaning.
I take issue with the idea that evidence for the best kind of writing is adduced from the popularity of that writing; I think that popular writing can be bad, and (perhaps less commonly) good writing can be unpopular. Nonetheless I think that the end of your sentence expresses the important idea very well: "… without losing their meaning." I think that there is too much of a trend in modern expositions to achieve the appearance of clarity and accessibility by dumbing down subjects enough to give readers only the feeling of understanding—which is not only probably bad on its own, but can also make the same readers resistant to later learning the subtleties, because discussing them sacrifices what they see as the clarity and accessibility of their preferred (incomplete) exposition.
> The best way to write to convey meaning is to be as absolutely clear as possible
Agreed. Clear and concise writing hard, and takes time. The writer needs to revise, revise, and revise again.
There is a great anecdote in "On Writing Well" where the author remembers taking students first drafts and telling them to cut them in half.
Agreed. Clear and concise writing hard, and takes time. The writer needs to revise, revise, and revise again.
There is a great anecdote in "On Writing Well" where the author remembers taking students first drafts and telling them to cut them in half.
Writing is an art, even non-fiction writing, and it is the art part that I work-on and worry most about in my own writing (all of which is non-fiction).
Difficult books, yes. That doesn't mean books without stylistic beauty or felicity. It doesn't mean books that have been poorly edited (IMO the largest failing in many books, which could easily be 25% shorter with better editing).
Difficult books, yes. That doesn't mean books without stylistic beauty or felicity. It doesn't mean books that have been poorly edited (IMO the largest failing in many books, which could easily be 25% shorter with better editing).
[deleted]
Really getting sick of using the internet with all these cookie, gdpr, paywall, newsletter, and ad popups. Starting to feel much more drawn to getting most of my knowledge from (pop-up free) books.
Impenetrability creates an illusion of truth. The act of deciphering meaning produces the same endorphins as solving a puzzle. The end result of reading such a text is that you see something new from a different angle but that thing may not be real.
It is the catharsis one feels at the end of the journey of decoding an impenetrable text that may mask the fact that the core message is a lie. The bible is a good example of this.
It is the catharsis one feels at the end of the journey of decoding an impenetrable text that may mask the fact that the core message is a lie. The bible is a good example of this.
I felt this way when reading Karl Popper’s book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”.
I feel as if he went out of his way to be hard to understand.
I feel as if he went out of his way to be hard to understand.
People get down on Knuth for the same reason (the author of, by far, the hardest books I’ve ever read), but in Knuth’s case it’s actually just that he’s being absolutely concise.
[deleted]
Easy to read does not mean easy to write. I submit the best literature is a fairly easy read, but the construction is quite laborious.
All of highbrow literature and art is a million emperor-has-no-clothes scenarios.
Everybody is terrified to say that a book is drivel or a painting is just some random drips of paint, in case it burns bridges or makes them look unsophisticated.
Everybody is terrified to say that a book is drivel or a painting is just some random drips of paint, in case it burns bridges or makes them look unsophisticated.
Everybody says this all the time, to such an extent that an article was written to express the contrary view
I'm also pretty sure that given a famous "highbrow" literature or art work, you could easily find plenty of respected critics who think it's shit, and vice versa for "lowbrow" works.
I'm also pretty sure that given a famous "highbrow" literature or art work, you could easily find plenty of respected critics who think it's shit, and vice versa for "lowbrow" works.
The article itself is an example of the same phenomenon!
"Philistines say these unreadable books are garbage, but sophisticates like me say they have great merit."
"Philistines say these unreadable books are garbage, but sophisticates like me say they have great merit."
At least with writing, you have to have gone through the effort to churn out the words and invested the time and energy to put together a story. But expending effort on it alone doesn't make it good... "Literary" fiction tends to fall into this trap a lot, and leans hard towards overwrought character studies of really awful, boring people and their sordid little lives. Every time I see a pickle dish, I have PTSD flashbacks to junior year English and beating Ethan Frome to death...
Sure, except when it isn't. The opposite generalization contains no information either.
(Speaking of which, please don't post low-information rants to HN.)
(Speaking of which, please don't post low-information rants to HN.)
I think it goes both ways. You have wannabees and genuine craftsmen who really put a lot of effort into their work. Sometimes you have to really look at the artist, their past, their state of mind, etc. Emotion is a powerful brush when wielded by a craftsman. To a novice of a persons work, it might look like shit stains on toilet paper but behind the scene is the process of creation, what inspired them is just as important. Think more blacksmith, less jerk with a guitar trying to pick up chicks. Sometimes the jerk with the guitar makes it big. Such is life.
I wonder if the more pertinent question might be: why are some people so seemingly afraid of random drips of paint?
(And while I'm not claiming to know your own views on the subject) I interestingly find this most commonly expressed by people who also happen to be deep believers in free-market-solves-everything. And one of the biggest complaints so many people have is the money aspect, whether it be how much actors or sports players are paid or, in this case, artists. Ostensibly, that by definition, pay in a free market would flux, that is, that there would be no baseline. But that seems to be the problem. They, often, tend to also complain about things like popular music. Yet, popular music is directly the result of driving to produce more of what the listener wants (as dictated by actual buying patterns, and not people say they want)(we could talk about influencing of fads and the priming of consumers, but why shouldn't that just as easily have its place in the market?). But in returning to remuneration, isn't it possibly that the exact fear expressed here the fear of the very core of free market enterprise, that there is no standard value, and that by definition, my value (which is, obviously, probably what I'm most immediately concerned with, as it determines my very ability to survive in the modern world) can fluctuate from positive to zero to, even, negative. So the desire seems to be to have the free market aspect, and what ever is seemingly being gained from it, which is whole other problem, but import into it some sort of universal standard base value that exists out there as some sort of Platonic ideal, therefore to know the 'value' of anything requires only a conversion from this universal base value to any specific real-world exchange, more or less. But, obviously, this is in direct opposition to the core of free markets. So, then, is it merely an expression of anxiety related to relativism?
Those arguing sometimes try to get around this by investing 'effort', that is, Caravaggio supposedly takes more effort than Pollock, say, to render a given painting, so therefore one is 'worth' more than the other. But, really, isn't this just the idea of a universal base value being snuck in under cover? After all, it does not depend on how much work is involved in anything, it only depends on what amount of value someone (and how many someones) is willing to offer in exchange for it. Indeed, isn't the desire always to spend less in development and deliver than theoretical competitors? Isn't that the core way in which the free market is supposed to deliver unto us everything we never knew we wanted?
The problem is that, fundamentally, art is probably much like the law, is probably fundamentally tautological. That is, what is art, and what is great art, more exactly, is that which which we say is art and that which we say is great art.
(And while I'm not claiming to know your own views on the subject) I interestingly find this most commonly expressed by people who also happen to be deep believers in free-market-solves-everything. And one of the biggest complaints so many people have is the money aspect, whether it be how much actors or sports players are paid or, in this case, artists. Ostensibly, that by definition, pay in a free market would flux, that is, that there would be no baseline. But that seems to be the problem. They, often, tend to also complain about things like popular music. Yet, popular music is directly the result of driving to produce more of what the listener wants (as dictated by actual buying patterns, and not people say they want)(we could talk about influencing of fads and the priming of consumers, but why shouldn't that just as easily have its place in the market?). But in returning to remuneration, isn't it possibly that the exact fear expressed here the fear of the very core of free market enterprise, that there is no standard value, and that by definition, my value (which is, obviously, probably what I'm most immediately concerned with, as it determines my very ability to survive in the modern world) can fluctuate from positive to zero to, even, negative. So the desire seems to be to have the free market aspect, and what ever is seemingly being gained from it, which is whole other problem, but import into it some sort of universal standard base value that exists out there as some sort of Platonic ideal, therefore to know the 'value' of anything requires only a conversion from this universal base value to any specific real-world exchange, more or less. But, obviously, this is in direct opposition to the core of free markets. So, then, is it merely an expression of anxiety related to relativism?
Those arguing sometimes try to get around this by investing 'effort', that is, Caravaggio supposedly takes more effort than Pollock, say, to render a given painting, so therefore one is 'worth' more than the other. But, really, isn't this just the idea of a universal base value being snuck in under cover? After all, it does not depend on how much work is involved in anything, it only depends on what amount of value someone (and how many someones) is willing to offer in exchange for it. Indeed, isn't the desire always to spend less in development and deliver than theoretical competitors? Isn't that the core way in which the free market is supposed to deliver unto us everything we never knew we wanted?
The problem is that, fundamentally, art is probably much like the law, is probably fundamentally tautological. That is, what is art, and what is great art, more exactly, is that which which we say is art and that which we say is great art.
As you say, art is much like the law. Ethics and aesthetics. Is fear, then, at the breakdown of an aesthetic order so strange? The program of modern art seems to be to carry out in the aesthetic realm what in the moral realm is the equivalent of a radical libertinism, the transgression of every boundary, the dispersion of every universal bond. "Everything is permitted": was that not the great fear? The law too is only what we say the law is and those random drips of paint in which the viewer can see nothing connected to their notion of "beauty", can see something perhaps totally alien to their notion of "beauty", might put the flame a bit too close to that thin paper through which you can catch the glimpse of an abyss.
I would almost be tempted, more so, to say that it is the reverse, that they desire transgression. The thing of it is, to use Lacan's reversal of the the slightly-incorrect distillation of Dostoevsky by Sartre [that is: 'Without god, everything is permitted.'] which goes: 'Without god, nothing is permitted', transgression is only possible through a lack of permissiveness.
The username matches.
This type of thinking is toxic, akin the bullshit aphorisms spouted by politicians ("you're either with us or against us") or smug VCs ("if you're not working 14 hours per day, you're not an entrepreneur").
It forces authors and audiences to contort themselves into this black/white view of literature that tosses anything that's not "difficult" into a pile that's not worth creating or reading.