Culture - a Selfish [double sic] view

[french frank]

A wide-ranging and and thought-provoking piece on language, and culture generally, by Will Self. I particularly liked:

"Both general readers and specialist critics often complain about my own use of English - not only in my books, but also in my newspaper articles and even in radio talks such as these. "I have to look them up in a dictionary", they complain - as if this were some kind of torture. "

"The problem is that at the same time these [i.e. moral] victories were being won another province was being abandoned without a fight, and this is the realm where films, paintings, novels and even newspaper articles, radio and television programmes are intellectually [my italics] challenging.

"I don't for a moment mean to suggest that no-one produces anymore cultural artefacts that are "difficult" in this sense - of course they do - it's just that these works are no longer regarded as the desiderata that any well-cultivated person aspires to an appreciation of. Rather, "difficult" works are parcelled off, and the great plurality and ubiquity of our media means that their specialist audience can be readily catered to - whether they are foot fetishists, or Fourierists or anything else."

"In the literary world, books intended for child readers are repackaged and sold to kidult ones, while even notionally highbrow arbiters - such as Booker judges - are obsessed by that nauseous confection "a jolly good read"."

"Take the American cultural critic Dwight MacDonald, who coined the expression "midcult" to refer to those works which "pretend to respect the standards of high culture, while in fact (they) water them down and vulgarize them". "

"But the most disturbing result of this retreat from the difficult is to be found in arts and humanities education, where the traditional set texts are now chopped up into boneless nuggets of McKnowledge, and students are encouraged to do their research - such as it is - on the web."

And finally:

"The contrast with sport is instructive: in both realms of human endeavour, the consumers are largely passive, but at least sports fans - unlike cultural ones - don't protest against elite athletes, or bar them from competing on the grounds that they are too fast, too strong, or too limber.

"On the contrary, we are repeatedly told by the likes of Sebastian Coe that athletes capable of the most difficult feats offer vital inspiration to couch-potato kids.

Let the same be the case for mental athletics, because without the bar to jump over set high, we'll all end up simply playing in the sandpit. "

[Serial_Apologist]

I heard this - always a good slot to catch after enduring Sunday Platitudes - and, as so often, Will Self was spot-on.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yes but can any one tell me what this book under review is actually about and why it might have been written [i am very demented this weekend?] because my suspicion is that the fog of difficulty once cleared we will be left looking at a small toy ....

[amateur51]

An interesting piece about an important subject. However, Self misunderstands what 'sesquipedalian' really means; is unhelpfully fingerwagging about the idea of "a jolly good read"; and the article offers links to the OED so that we can look up the difficult words that are identified, but unfortunately the link doesn't work.

[DracoM]

The trouble is that Will Self has been just a teeny tad complicit in casting himself as the white-faced-clown intellectual eccentric, maybe because that is sadly the on;y way he can keep getting exposure, such that what he says becomes less important than how he says it. Which is dismayng. As FF's quotes admirably reveal.

[cloughie]

A [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17777556"]
"The problem is that at the same time these [i.e. moral] victories were being won another province was being abandoned without a fight, and this is the realm where films, paintings, novels and even newspaper articles, radio and television programmes are intellectually [my italics] challenging.

Notice he omits music from this, maybe a genuine onmission or is Mr Self not into music?

[aeolium]

I think Self is in danger of treating difficulty as a virtue in itself, which I don't think is the case. In non-fiction, for instance, I look for the greatest possible clarity and lucidity that is consistent with the complexity of the subject under discussion - especially in historical studies, but I think it's probably desirable as a general rule. In a work of art I don't think there are really any guidelines. Would Shakespeare's plays have been considered difficult in his own time, given that he was writing them for a varied audience? Isn't much of the difficulty simply due to the passage of time and the present unfamiliarity with the Bible story and classical myths? His work was looked down on by contemporary intellectuals. Also there is a difference between the difficulty of a work in terms of its comprehension and its creation - something that appears very simple, like some Schubert songs or a Blake poem, may be very difficult to write. Some of the cult of difficulty seems to have originated with that late C19/early C20 distrust of the popularisation of culture, with intellectuals like Ortega y Gasset (and earlier Nietzsche), a movement which coincided with the growth of the eugenics movement. Nowadays the wheel has turned and there is pressure to popularise works of 'high' culture.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ok so assume an intellectual ability or cognitive complexity of a level shared by 10% of the people [slightly less than two standard deviations above the mean IQ eg] [i use this since vocabulary is a very good measure of IQ and the ability to handle difficulty]

in 1900 this meant that there were circa 100m souls on the planet with such a level of ability and 900m not possessed of it
however in 2015 there are 700m such souls with the cognitive capability and 6.3bn without it .....

the relative size of the markets for cultural products does it eh?

[amateur51]

Anthony Burgess was a great one for using unusual words but I always felt there was a joy in his use of language that added to the reader's pleasure - almost a sense of his glee that he was sending many of us off to the dictionary. I feel that with Joyce too - and both were very fond of making words up too.

It doesn't make his ridiculous comb-forward forgivable tho'

[french frank]

Well, it's 'thought-provoking', literally, rather than just in a vague 'isn't this interesting?' use of the term.

You can object to individual points but if Self feels that there is a mot juste - it conveys 100% what he wants to say - then he is right to use it: it is enriching; and people reveal something about themselves if they object. (I confess to reading Lowry's Under the Volcano and feeling he was sitting with a dictionary alongside him, or a thesaurus of interesting words.)

Underlying it, though, surely is a protest that anything regarded in some influential circles as ' too intellectual' has to be shoved into a backwater or processed to make it more accessible. And with that, a collusion with the generality of 'consumers' who want popularisation and an infantilised culture.

[aeolium]

Underlying it, though, surely is a protest that anything regarded in some influential circles as ' too intellectual' has to be shoved into a backwater or processed to make it more accessible. And with that, a collusion with the generality of 'consumers' who want popularisation and an infantilised culture.

I certainly agree that some works are being processed to make them more accessible (I think this goes right through cultural provision, not just on the BBC but to some extent in the theatre and the opera house). But I'm not sure how many 'consumers' really want 'popularisation and an infantilised culture' or whether it is what those who ought to know better think they want. I prefer the popularisation of culture that was pursued in the 1950s through to about the mid-1980s, where classic and contemporary works of literature and music were made available on radio, TV and in the concert hall (and in some cases got large audiences).

[french frank]

But I'm not sure how many 'consumers' really want 'popularisation and an infantilised culture' or whether it is what those who ought to know better think they want. I prefer the popularisation of culture that was pursued in the 1950s through to about the mid-1980s, where classic and contemporary works of literature and music were made available on radio, TV and in the concert hall (and in some cases got large audiences).

Well, I do agree with that. We are all ignorant in most areas of knowledge, and we need help. I suppose what I'm querying (as in, I don't know) is whether the intelligent audience, which understands that at least some intellectual effort on their part is needed, is dying out; whether the wish to expand one's knowledge isn't being replaced by a lazy wish for non-demanding entertainment (do I need to give an example close to home?).

[aeolium]

I suppose what I'm querying (as in, I don't know) is whether the intelligent audience, which understands that at least some intellectual effort on their part is needed, is dying out;

I don't think so. I've no idea how extensive it is, but if good programmes are put on radio or TV then they will get reasonable audiences. I think the cinecast initiatives of various opera houses and the National Theatre tend to get good audience numbers - and all round the world. I was amazed to see the cinema at Cheltenham where I went to see the NT Phèdre was 2/3 full. The next advance will be in the netcast, such as is being used by Arte Live, the BPO etc which again has the chance to make live music widely available to those who would normally struggle to get to a live concert. I see this - no longer, I'm afraid, the BBC - as the future route for serious popularisation of art, perhaps on a par with the Everyman Library and the gramophone record in the early C20.

[french frank]

I don't think so. I've no idea how extensive it is, but if good programmes are put on radio or TV then they will get reasonable audiences

[...] no longer, I'm afraid, the BBC

It's certainly the case that two independent polls in recent years have suggested that the public believes the BBC is 'dumbing down' or 'going downmarket'. As in over 50% of those questioned.

[Lateralthinking1]

Interesting stuff. I like Will Self. I wouldn't place a hyphen in "no one" or end a sentence with "of". That is, one in which the "of" is without quotation marks. But I still like him.

As ff indicates, his article is wide-ranging. We get the old nutshell about teachers only being interested in examination passes; a return to his worries about everyone becoming a "kidult"; and some justified criticism of Damien Hirst. There is a fascinating suggestion that "difficult" words were used by artists in the past to prevent "difficult" subjects from being censored. Now, it seems, the words themselves are what have become taboo.

I am not sure, though, whether unfamiliar words have ever been widely acceptable. The Plain English Campaign started its work in 1979. Six years later, I was in a Civil Service that was obsessed with reducing everything to Janet and John. And only this morning, Anne of Green Gables reached her late teens on 4 Extra. A symptom of her development has been a decision to drop all the clever words that were designed to impress. Like Billy Bragg, she is getting back to basics.

I regret it. Call me weird but I get excited when Self says something like "dactylian" or "acaulescent". That others find it all infadous simply shows that they have no interest in noegenesis. I suppose they must feel that they have been placed in a zugzwang. There is also the smell of rat. Condemning the use of “flowery” language” is the penultimate refuge of a scoundrel. The perfect get out clause for the ambitious who are adamant that there is a chimley behind the factory gate.

As for kidults, they are everywhere. Culture is just the tip of the iceberg. The system thrives on it. It isn’t about immaturity, nor is it anything at all to do with childhood. The association may be with a particular kind of child who looks to see what he or she can get away with sneakily. Mostly it is acquired by adults when at work or enjoying the arrangements in their domestic relationships.