Preying On Ignorance (Updated Again)
Dogberry has, in his own column, answered the piece I mentioned in early May, "The Birds Of Prey And Batjay", written by The Sassy Lawyer. His essay is entitled "Preying On Ignorance". His view is opposite that of The Sassy Lawyer's, as he takes issue with some of the points raised in her post. More things to ponder on, which I think PGS readers will find interesting. A quote:
"What is difficult varies through time and across cultures. Languages change, and so do literary conventions. The world changes, and so do we. We may find the sentences of Henry Fielding or the late Henry James or James Joyce more tedious than elegant. That is not the fault of Fielding, James, or Joyce; it is simply that we have become accustomed to shorter, simpler sentences, and it takes some effort for us to read writers of a previous age. (We haven’t even discussed the blank verse of Shakespeare.) They weren’t trying to be difficult; it’s just that they weren’t writing for us. We need to make allowances for such differences if we hope to succeed in understanding works of a different era."
Update: some other links on the same subject...
Here and here at The Spy In The Sandwich (also here)
Here at Stuart-Santiago
Here and here at The Bibliophile Stalker
Here at Accidents Happen
Here at Dreamlessness
Here at Alimbukad
Here at The Naked Truth
Here at Wandering Star
Here at Filipino Writer
Whew! That's a lot. Not as much as this one from last year, or even this one, but if this keeps up...
In fact, the Stalker is compiling links here, much better than I can.
Updated Again: There are more links here and here.
"What is difficult varies through time and across cultures. Languages change, and so do literary conventions. The world changes, and so do we. We may find the sentences of Henry Fielding or the late Henry James or James Joyce more tedious than elegant. That is not the fault of Fielding, James, or Joyce; it is simply that we have become accustomed to shorter, simpler sentences, and it takes some effort for us to read writers of a previous age. (We haven’t even discussed the blank verse of Shakespeare.) They weren’t trying to be difficult; it’s just that they weren’t writing for us. We need to make allowances for such differences if we hope to succeed in understanding works of a different era."
Update: some other links on the same subject...
Here and here at The Spy In The Sandwich (also here)
Here at Stuart-Santiago
Here and here at The Bibliophile Stalker
Here at Accidents Happen
Here at Dreamlessness
Here at Alimbukad
Here at The Naked Truth
Here at Wandering Star
Here at Filipino Writer
Whew! That's a lot. Not as much as this one from last year, or even this one, but if this keeps up...
In fact, the Stalker is compiling links here, much better than I can.
Updated Again: There are more links here and here.
posted by pgenrestories at 5:59 AM
5 Comments:
It is expected that one may have to use references like dictionaries frequently as one reads Hernandez’s book. The same goes for reading Shakespeare’s plays.
Literature is varied, which explains why Hemingway and Shakespeare are read in Shakespeare’s classes. The same goes for Hernandez’s book. In which case, I suppose if Hernandez’s book is “muddled” then the same should be said about Shakespeare.
If one wants a clear account of history (in this case Japanese atrocities) then one should read history books. If one wants a creative account of the same then read Hernandez.
There is nothing objectionable with using simple language in the same way that there should be nothing objectionable with using language in a complex manner. And the intent of using complex language is not necessarily based on elitism, as seen in Shakespeare’s plays, which use language in a complex manner but were also widely popular.
This also does not mean that literature is elitist, as many works that are now required in school were not written for the elite, and some use language in a simple manner while others use it in a complex manner. This also means that it will be difficult to argue that literature is a type of snobbery. For starters, Hemingway is considered part of literature.
About Villa’s “comma” poems, perhaps they might be seen by some as “crap” today, but they may become popular in the future. In the same way, “crass” writing may be seen as “effective” today but obsolete in the future.
Finally, it is difficult to explain the difference between “classical” literature and popular literature, as some works that were popular in the past are no longer popular but “classical” today (which is why societies have to force people to read them in school), while others did not become popular until years later. Meanwhile, some works that were considered “classical” in the past are hardly read today; the same goes for works that were popular in the past. What these points imply is that the claim that literature and culture “evolves” works for and against one who claims that Hernandez is not worth reading, that works using language in a simple manner are better, that Villa’s poems are “crap,” and that “crass” writing is effective. Who knows? Perhaps in the future, works that use language in a complex manner will be preferred over those that don’t, what was considered “crap” will become “classical,” and what was once “effective” will become obsolete. How does this help the argument that “we” “define” literature? Will “we” and that “definition” change in time as well?
How can one deal with such an issue driven heavily by contradictions and uncertainty and the fact that (a) there are too many works to read and (b) most people will never get to read most of them due to lack of time? The solution is to rely on teachers and critics, who through their vocation will likely have read more than the average student or parent. Some of those teachers and critics, by the way, have been dead for a long time, but they were able to write their recommendations in various essays and books. Given that, teachers (or parents who want to home school their children) will have to go over these lists, select what is worth reading, and ask students to read them.
And one way of selecting works is to see what has been recommended for some time by various critics and look at those that one will not likely read outside school. Three examples are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Hernandez. What about contemporary “raw” writing that is “effective,” comic books, and other currently popular media? Since they are so “effective” that one can read them easily outside school, then one should just read them outside school.
Dogberry missed the point of Sassy's post. She wasn't being elitist and she wasn't trying to put down Filipino writers. All she did was express a wish that writers should strive to communicate well. Because Hernandez lived in a different time and used different literary conventions, there was a communication breakdown between writer and reader. That's why, IMHO, classics continue to be studied: not to perpetuate a style but to help today's readers decode the impressions and expressions of our forerunners. Like learning history.
Mike: if that was her point, then she failed to communicate it.
There are also various statements in her essay which lead to other conclusions other than the one you're claiming.
Mike, I don't think that was her point at all.
Hello anonymous, Mike, Charles, and Ian. How are you guys? Hope all's well.
The Sassy Lawyer's essay has drawn many reactions, and I've tried my best to look for links to put up so that people can click on them and read your opinions. Looking on the bright side of this, I'm glad and grateful for all your thoughts because this is making people think hard about what they're reading, why they're reading, and, highlighted by this topic, how they're reading.
What pleased me recently is that one young PGS reader (mid-teens), who has been following this discussion, told me that all this has made him pick up a copy of Mga Ibong Mandaragit and The Old Man And The Sea just to see what all this was about. His previous reading material before this was mostly comics, scifi, and fantasy. Not bad, at least he's a reader, but...he's expanding his fare! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home