Comments on: Good Writers–Or, Why I Am Not A Relativist http://blog.janehaddam.com/2009/07/28/good-writers-or-why-i-am-not-a-relativist/ Jane Haddam’s WordPress weblog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:27:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: robert_piepenbrink http://blog.janehaddam.com/2009/07/28/good-writers-or-why-i-am-not-a-relativist/comment-page-1/#comment-1108 robert_piepenbrink Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:22:58 +0000 http://blog.janehaddam.com/?p=694#comment-1108 I'm fairly sure I've charged through this particular minefield before. I do not object to references. I object to the thinking which concludes more references are always better, and the allied belief that there is only one pile of references, so the better-educated person will always know more of them. Yes, it sounds faintly preposterous set forth in print like that, but a belief in objective excellence in art requires something like that. Once you concede that references not understood are not helpful, and the person who catches the reference to the "Space Invaders" game is usually not the person who catches the reference to "Das Almanach des Gotha" you either have to give one environment and set of references priority, or give up and concede that a good book for Johann is not the same as a good book for Suzy, and that it's not just a matter of bringing everyone to the highest reading level. There is an inherent subjectivity in art. [Quickly before Jane explodes] which is not to say that everything is a matter of taste. Inconsistencies of fact, unclarity in narrative, sub-plots which do not support the main theme, or a muddled unconvincing theme are just bad. And I could go, and have gone, on from there. But the writer whose sentences average 25 words is not a better or worse writer than one whose sentences average 17. So too with vocabulary, and so too with references. If a writer has a point--and many of them do--the right sentence, the right word and the right reference--as opposed to "somewhere in the ballpark"--is just as Twain said: the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. But when you're trading off audience for them, it would behoove the artist to be sure that the longer sentence, and harder word and the more obscure reference are in fact the right ones, and not just a pointless display of erudition. I would not discourage anyone from being the best artist possible. I am unconvinced that difficulty of access is the definition of great art. The best often require work, true. But it isn't the work requirement which makes them the best. I’m fairly sure I’ve charged through this particular minefield before. I do not object to references. I object to the thinking which concludes more references are always better, and the allied belief that there is only one pile of references, so the better-educated person will always know more of them.

Yes, it sounds faintly preposterous set forth in print like that, but a belief in objective excellence in art requires something like that. Once you concede that references not understood are not helpful, and the person who catches the reference to the “Space Invaders” game is usually not the person who catches the reference to “Das Almanach des Gotha” you either have to give one environment and set of references priority, or give up and concede that a good book for Johann is not the same as a good book for Suzy, and that it’s not just a matter of bringing everyone to the highest reading level. There is an inherent subjectivity in art.

[Quickly before Jane explodes] which is not to say that everything is a matter of taste. Inconsistencies of fact, unclarity in narrative, sub-plots which do not support the main theme, or a muddled unconvincing theme are just bad. And I could go, and have gone, on from there.

But the writer whose sentences average 25 words is not a better or worse writer than one whose sentences average 17. So too with vocabulary, and so too with references. If a writer has a point–and many of them do–the right sentence, the right word and the right reference–as opposed to “somewhere in the ballpark”–is just as Twain said: the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. But when you’re trading off audience for them, it would behoove the artist to be sure that the longer sentence, and harder word and the more obscure reference are in fact the right ones, and not just a pointless display of erudition.

I would not discourage anyone from being the best artist possible. I am unconvinced that difficulty of access is the definition of great art. The best often require work, true. But it isn’t the work requirement which makes them the best.

]]>