Is accessibility — or clarity, lucidity, whatever — an objectively

>>9125617
I don't write raps anon.

>>9125617
Let's stipulate for this question that Chomsky's main linguistic assertion is at least generally valid.

"There is a hard wired, a priori, archetypal grammar present in the human brain."

If that were true, then it must also be true that there is a prior archetypal narrative form. Abundant evidence could be collected. Across cultures and epochs, the surviving narratives share structural features, like characters, settings, action, agency for action, and motive.

If "accessibility" is at least partially defined as conforming to this global set of structural features, then avoiding or violating them seem to be motivated by restrictive, rather than expansive intentions.

>>9125617
No, thus my veneration for Gene Wolfe, Joyce, Faulkner, whose obfuscation is art by making the reader work for meaning while still "holding all the cards" in a way that postmodern tricksters like burroughs (imma cut and paste two random pages together and pick words out of a grinder) do not - Burroughs is random bullshit (and some modern authors might be) but the guys I mention are not. Lucidity when intending to be lucid and contrapuntal and baroque excess when intending to be baroque highlights the skill of the writer. Poetry and art must maintain their self-evident stylistic identities, but essays and non-fiction such as journalism MUST be lucid and clear or they fail in their job.

>>9125617
I write literary criticism and at times it risks being misapprehended. when that happens I have failed at my job. When someone fails to understand my short stories (limited publication) or novels (those unpublished) then I know I have succeeded at my job.

>>9125617
>do you write to be understood by as wide an audience as possible?

No, I write for civilized people, so I put bits up front so the animals will get frustrated and offended and stop reading.
Then, later on, I talk about these people and they don't attack me.