Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Writing, a discourse. 2017-07-02 09:49:30 Post No. 9708298
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Writing, a discourse. 2017-07-02 09:49:30 Post No. 9708298
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 93b36747397377.5878f045eb2e7.jpg (131KB, 1000x497px) Image search:
[Google]
131KB, 1000x497px
Acclaimed writer Zadie Smith writer:
Personally, I have no objection to books that entertain and please, that are clear and interesting and intelligent, that are in good taste and are not willfully obscure - but neither do these qualities seem to me in any way essential to the central experience of fiction, and if they should be missing, this in no way rules out the possibility that the novel I am reading will yet fulfil the only literary duty I care about. For writers have only one duty, as I see it: the duty to express accurately their way of being in the world. If that sounds woolly and imprecise, I apologise. Writing is not a science, and I am speaking to you in the only terms I have to describe what it is I persistently aim for (yet fail to achieve) when I sit in front of my computer.
When I write I am trying to express my way of being in the world. This is primarily a process of elimination: once you have removed all the dead language, the second-hand dogma, the truths that are not your own but other people's, the mottos, the slogans, the out-and-out lies of your nation, the myths of your historical moment - once you have removed all that warps experience into a shape you do not recognise and do not believe in - what you are left with is something approximating the truth of your own conception. That is what I am looking for when I read a novel; one person's truth as far as it can be rendered through language. This single duty, properly pursued, produces complicated, various results. It's certainly not a call to arms for the autobiographer, although some writers will always mistake the readerly desire for personal truth as their cue to write a treatise or a speech or a thinly disguised memoir in which they themselves are the hero. Fictional truth is a question of perspective, not autobiography. It is what you can't help tell if you write well; it is the watermark of self that runs through everything you do. It is language as the revelation of a consciousness.
..
Why does /lit/, through preferences, critiques, and samples of writing, contradict this?
And, thoughts on her opinion?
>>
>>9708298
*Zadie Smith writes
>>
>Why does /lit/, through preferences, critiques, and samples of writing, contradict this?
Could you explain why you believe this in the first place?
>>
I totally agree with her, I don't know what you mean.
>>
>>9708338
Years of browsing.
>>
>>9708350
I browsed this board for a few years as well and I still don't see why.
>>
>>9708365
Clearly, you're no Harold Bloom.
>>
>>9708380
Clearly, I am not a Harold Bloom.
>>
>>9708298
to /lit/, books are about "having fun!!!" and "pretty prose," and there is little to no meaning to it, because these people are too stupid to get anything else from literature. style is important to create good art, but to act like the music of the words is the only thing that matters (which the idiots on this website often do) is to miss out on so much
>>
>>9708401
This.
>>
>>9708401
What do you think is the most important component?
>>
>>9708298
making excuses for her books being boring as shit with bad prose?
>>
>>9708494
AND humblebragging
>>
>>9708298
>Why does /lit/, through preferences, critiques, and samples of writing, contradict this?
Because it shuts down all the venues for interesting discussion. If a novel is merely a vehicle for self-expression, then all anyone can glean from a novel is another person's perspective. Is there value in that? Sure. But it vastly understates what literature can achieve. Plot, character, insight, wit, and incisiveness are also parts of the picture, and they aren't always subservient to the author's ego. Many great writers are great specifically because they can write characters that are wildly different from themselves, or because they can write plots that are too winding and intricate for a single person to experience even indirectly. Reducing literature to self-expression downplays (or outright eliminates) the contributions of such authors. And none of this even touches on the technical aspects, like prose and syntax, or the utter arrogance of this view. Even auteur theorists have enough humility to acknowledge the importance of society and audience in the creative process.
>And, thoughts on her opinion?
It's shit. More than that, it's the worst parts of other peoples' thoughts amalgamated into a big fucking ball of shit. Anyone who thinks that literature can be assigned a single purpose, or writes solely to satiate his or her ego, is worse than illiterate. This is why elitism is healthy. It keeps egos in check and keeps people from spitting out drivel like "approximating the truth of your own conception."
I know this post probably reads like concentrated autism, but this quote is far and away the stupidest thing I've seen on /lit/, and I frequent the Goodreads cringe threads.
>>
>If that sounds woolly and imprecise, I apologise. Writing is not a science, and I am speaking to you in the only terms I have to describe what it is I persistently aim for (yet fail to achieve) when I sit in front of my computer.
why do hacks always adjust the frame of what they're saying to include themselves and their pantywaisted apologetics for everything they so meekishly say
god she sucks
>>
she meant shes cute
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1