Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Are people always so quick to assign pretentiousness to practices that don't align with their own personal preferences? I guess since I've always considered writing an art form, I don't quite understand the resentment directed toward someone who chooses to display an "artistic" penchant in a work no one has to read if they don't want to. Is there a fear that your favorite author(s) might "catch" this affliction or something?
I understand not liking something. That's perfectly normal. I just don't get the immediate leap to pretentiousness (by some). *shrugs*
And even if there is pretentiousness involved, I don't think I can use that to take points away from something I enjoyed reading -- that was well written. I guess didn't know humbleness was such a sought-after character trait in writers/writing.
|
As the most recent user of the term I feel that perhaps I should explain further.
Personally, I didn't say it is pretentious, but that when done badly it often looks pretentious. It's the failure mode of clever. In my experience, apparent pretension is a very common side-effect when someone tries to use any
avant-garde, post-modern, or experimental technique and doesn't pull it off. The other option (again, speaking only when it's done poorly) is that it makes the writer look either lazy or incompetent; but that's more common in self-published than commercially published books.
When it works, it works and I have no problem with it. I generally avoid it because quite often people's reach exceeds their grasp. My general rule is the earlier I notice a writer is using a non-standard technique, the less likely I am to finish the book. It's not a knock on any specific technique, but the simple fact that once I'm paying more attention to how they're doing it than what they're doing, the author has lost me.
It doesn't look pretentious when it works.