[jasode]

>It's not about "copying what you like" it's about "finding yourself first"

That's not what I got from the essay. PG is actually saying that a lot of works out there are blessed by the authoritative elites as good and worthwhile but what you actually like and enjoy is also authoritative as well. Rather than get sidetracked on what others think is important, what you truly like can be a better guide to avoid wasting time.

Therefore, the things you like may not necessarily change over the years (e.g. always liked Harry Potter) but your self-confidence in holding that opinion is now solidified (e.g. I now know that liking JKR "Harry Potter" more than Joyce's "Ulysses" doesn't mean there's something wrong with my brain. If I choose to write my own novel, I won't feel inadequate just because my writing style is closer to JK Rowling rather than James Joyce.)

[rdiddly]

It amounts to the same thing. "What you like" is part of "who you are" (a.k.a. "yourself"); and "learning to treat as authoritative" those opinions is roughly what's meant by "finding." That is, nobody has to literally find himself; finding yourself is learning to pay attention to what's within, what you actually care about/think/like, in preference to all the concerns/ideas/opinions coming at you from without.

[Jimmy]

>I now know that liking Harry Potter more than Joyce's "Ulysses" doesn't mean there's something wrong with my brain.

Oh, I do wish people wouldn't bash on Ulysses as much... there's some nonsense in the book to sift through, yes, but there's also some truly wonderful stuff as well. One of my favorite passages:

>"and those handsome Moors all in white and turbans like kings asking you to sit down in their little bit of a shop and Ronda with the old windows of the posadas 2 glancing eyes a lattice hid for her lover to kiss the iron and the wineshops half open at night and the castanets and the night we missed the boat at Algeciras the watchman going about serene with his lamp and O that awful deepdown torrent O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and the pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

The novel's moments of beauty are worth working for, I think.

But you're still entitled to your opinion. :)

[Retric]

I on the other hand find that passage horrid, so YMMV.

PS: I actually don't mind stream of consciousness, but people don't actually think like that passage.

[logfromblammo]

An author, as the spigot through which art flows into the world, is allowed to attempt such a thing, but their editor is supposed to coax them back 'round to something readable--or at least to something that won't wake the typesetter in the middle of the night, screaming.

[Jimmy]

I mean, I know this conversation is all about railing against the snobbish "you just don't understand fine art" attitude, but I find the stubborn "he really needs to reign it in and not be so crazy" attitude to be unfortunate too. It's good for artists to experiment. A lot of those experiments can be very fun and enjoyable for the readers, if you're willing to give them a chance.

[logfromblammo]

No, the artist is supposed to experiment. Someone on the business side is supposed to rein it in when the experiment turns to rubbish. Sometimes this quashes something great, but mostly it ensures that artistic professionals can be supported by their own work.

But it is particularly unfortunate when such an experiment escapes into the wild, and a clique seizes upon it as a test for tribal identification.

It's okay to dislike "great literature" and enjoy "pablum for the lowest common denominator" or "escapism for immature minds". I don't really find a whole lot of value in critiquing other people's preferences. If you don't like a specific artwork, you should just keep sampling until you find something you do enjoy, no matter who else likes it. You're not going to make yourself happy by forcing yourself to like something just to fit in to a social group; you're far better off being honest with yourself. After all, you never really know if it's an Emperor's New Clothes situation until someone speaks up and says "I hated every word of this book, and I have no idea why anyone would think it's a masterpiece."

It may well be that will be followed up by "I only said I liked it so that you guys would think I was intelligent and cultured", "I read it in bed because it was such a reliable way to make me fall asleep", "I only read like a third of Gravity's Rainbow, and faked the rest of the way through for book club".

[euyyn]

Is this for real? The guy didn't grace the world with punctuation?

[Jimmy]

The final chapter is a lengthy stream-of-consciousness with almost no punctuation. Other parts of the novel are structured more traditionally.

[theoh]

Like with strategies for composing atonal music, almost any conceivable creative trick in writing was memorably tried in the 20th century. Texts that are one long sentence (Krasznahorkai), no punctuation, only punctuation (Koslowski), crazy "eye dialect" (Zazie dans le metro)...

It would be old hat if someone wrote like Joyce today.