The End of Adjectives and The Last Word
A rather famous literary advice was proposed by Ezra Pound, a semi-great critic and above-average poet, to the regardable yet quintessential genius of Ernest Hemingway, which became greatly influential to Hemingway's writings and the development of post-Hemingway writers, especially in the short story genre. Pound claimed famously that "the true poet is most easily distinguished from the false, when he trusts himself to the simplest expressions, and when he writes without adjectives". Hemingway himself rethought his writings, and was greatly hailed for his sparseness in prose to convey literary effects. A personal favourite story of mine was the aptly though strangely titled "A very short story", which used the sparseness of its prose and adjectives and its detached, perhaps even aloof, narrative style to convey the strength of the message. This does contrasts somewhat with the weightier perennial favourite and critically-acclaimed "Snows of Kilimanjaro", which applied somewhat greater style and premodifying adjectives in its language.
As Pound and his studio was deeply influential in his era, many modernist writers were indebted to his influence in assisting their publication. Though it would be foolish to generalize the thought, was Modernism reshaped, and the loss of the Adjective proliferated as a result of Pound's considerable influence and thoughts? In school, we taught and learnt that "beautifying" quality of the adjectives in textual production. Personally, I teach the disorganized use of adjectives, sparseness combined with proliferation to create a literary effect. However, does the economy of text result in the economy of thoughts? Will this short discourse and my intent or style lose its effect if I eliminated all the adjectives here?
Consider this extract from Samuel Beckett, a Modernist who obviously ignored Pound's advice against superfluous use of adjectives and adjectival phrases. Though Beckett's strength lies in his Minimalist and pessimistic interpretation of the human condition, his trilogy of Molloy, Malone Dies, and the Unnameable, as well as the superb novella "Murphy", demonstrated his indulgence in using adjectives, both superfluous and apt, to describe the human condition. James Joyce, somewhat more influenced by Pound, applied his streams of consciousness in his characters more economically. As an aside, I have experimented on the criticism on interpretation before analysis, which I totally agree with. I will place the extract after my opinions and perspectives on Beckett. Did your opinions on this text change after having read these "prederived notions"? Would it have been different if I omitted the adjectives "Minimalist", "Pessimistic", "Superfluous" and "Apt" and the Adverb "Obviously", as well as the prior information on Pound's economy and Beckett's rebellion?
"It is on my back, that is to say prostrate, no, supine, that I begin to feel best, bony. I lie on my back, but my cheek is on the pillow. I have to only to open my eyes to have them begin again, the sky and smoke of mankind. My sight and hearning are very bad, on the vast main no light but reflected gleams. All my senses are trained full on me, me. Dark and silent and stale, I am no prey for them. I am far from the sounds of blood and breath, immured. I shall not speak of my sufferings. Cowering deep down among them I feel nothing. It is there that I die, unbeknown to my stupid flesh. That which is seen, that which cries and writhes, my witless remains." Malone Dies, Samuel Beckett (1956).
Anyway, to end my confused discourse, just wanted to pose a few questions which carries predisposed notions on literature.
1) Modernist and Post-modernist writers, influenced by Pound, would create texts sparse and symptomatic of the human discourse, in contrast to the "richness" of the Renaissance and Enlightenment period, where hardly a sentence went by without an adjective thrown in for good measure, such as the writings of Shakespeare, Milton, Laurence Sterne (whose Tristram Shandy was famously described by Dr Samuel Johnson as a "period piece" and would not last), Cervantes, etc. Several literary critics lament the declining richness of literature, and blame the media (Film, TV) for creating "quickies" for the attention-deficit audience, resulting in textual construct in literature to follow Pound's advice and ditch adjectivals and adverbials to create fast-moving texts. Has quality in texts actually declined in the post-modern age with the "smoothness" emphasized? Is the avoidance of adjectives to create "Richness" and "Musicality" as purported by Pound actually successful in modern poetry and prose, or is it even possible to construct texts, musical and rich, while consciously avoiding superfluous adjectives?
2) The famous yet controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of Linguistic Determinism causes one to reflect on the dearth of adjectives in text. While the English Lexicon is increasing daily (six words a day, some claim), the avoidance and gradually declining use of adjective may result in the craft of "functional" literature, bare-boned and audience-centered, realigned around a limited set of words. Language reflects reality, and as Sapir and Whorf claim that reality reflects language, the pertinent question is whether reality in the post-modern age is losing its richness. Classicists harp about the "good ol' days". Are they justified? Will we as a society decline further unless we return to 'richness'?
To sum up this long post, it is my opinion that we take a "long, hard look" at modern literature and analyze its content and descriptions. Is Modernity taking its toll on Literature, which is a reflection of society? Has society declined, or has only Literature declined? Are those who carry on the bastion of "richness" in description fools who live in a different age, detached from reality? Before we lose ourselves, perhaps we should ponder if the article's title, borrowed somewhat from Fukuyama, is actually true and happening.
Thanks for the patience to read this, do comment and argue, both reinforcing and rebutting.
As Pound and his studio was deeply influential in his era, many modernist writers were indebted to his influence in assisting their publication. Though it would be foolish to generalize the thought, was Modernism reshaped, and the loss of the Adjective proliferated as a result of Pound's considerable influence and thoughts? In school, we taught and learnt that "beautifying" quality of the adjectives in textual production. Personally, I teach the disorganized use of adjectives, sparseness combined with proliferation to create a literary effect. However, does the economy of text result in the economy of thoughts? Will this short discourse and my intent or style lose its effect if I eliminated all the adjectives here?
Consider this extract from Samuel Beckett, a Modernist who obviously ignored Pound's advice against superfluous use of adjectives and adjectival phrases. Though Beckett's strength lies in his Minimalist and pessimistic interpretation of the human condition, his trilogy of Molloy, Malone Dies, and the Unnameable, as well as the superb novella "Murphy", demonstrated his indulgence in using adjectives, both superfluous and apt, to describe the human condition. James Joyce, somewhat more influenced by Pound, applied his streams of consciousness in his characters more economically. As an aside, I have experimented on the criticism on interpretation before analysis, which I totally agree with. I will place the extract after my opinions and perspectives on Beckett. Did your opinions on this text change after having read these "prederived notions"? Would it have been different if I omitted the adjectives "Minimalist", "Pessimistic", "Superfluous" and "Apt" and the Adverb "Obviously", as well as the prior information on Pound's economy and Beckett's rebellion?
"It is on my back, that is to say prostrate, no, supine, that I begin to feel best, bony. I lie on my back, but my cheek is on the pillow. I have to only to open my eyes to have them begin again, the sky and smoke of mankind. My sight and hearning are very bad, on the vast main no light but reflected gleams. All my senses are trained full on me, me. Dark and silent and stale, I am no prey for them. I am far from the sounds of blood and breath, immured. I shall not speak of my sufferings. Cowering deep down among them I feel nothing. It is there that I die, unbeknown to my stupid flesh. That which is seen, that which cries and writhes, my witless remains." Malone Dies, Samuel Beckett (1956).
Anyway, to end my confused discourse, just wanted to pose a few questions which carries predisposed notions on literature.
1) Modernist and Post-modernist writers, influenced by Pound, would create texts sparse and symptomatic of the human discourse, in contrast to the "richness" of the Renaissance and Enlightenment period, where hardly a sentence went by without an adjective thrown in for good measure, such as the writings of Shakespeare, Milton, Laurence Sterne (whose Tristram Shandy was famously described by Dr Samuel Johnson as a "period piece" and would not last), Cervantes, etc. Several literary critics lament the declining richness of literature, and blame the media (Film, TV) for creating "quickies" for the attention-deficit audience, resulting in textual construct in literature to follow Pound's advice and ditch adjectivals and adverbials to create fast-moving texts. Has quality in texts actually declined in the post-modern age with the "smoothness" emphasized? Is the avoidance of adjectives to create "Richness" and "Musicality" as purported by Pound actually successful in modern poetry and prose, or is it even possible to construct texts, musical and rich, while consciously avoiding superfluous adjectives?
2) The famous yet controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of Linguistic Determinism causes one to reflect on the dearth of adjectives in text. While the English Lexicon is increasing daily (six words a day, some claim), the avoidance and gradually declining use of adjective may result in the craft of "functional" literature, bare-boned and audience-centered, realigned around a limited set of words. Language reflects reality, and as Sapir and Whorf claim that reality reflects language, the pertinent question is whether reality in the post-modern age is losing its richness. Classicists harp about the "good ol' days". Are they justified? Will we as a society decline further unless we return to 'richness'?
To sum up this long post, it is my opinion that we take a "long, hard look" at modern literature and analyze its content and descriptions. Is Modernity taking its toll on Literature, which is a reflection of society? Has society declined, or has only Literature declined? Are those who carry on the bastion of "richness" in description fools who live in a different age, detached from reality? Before we lose ourselves, perhaps we should ponder if the article's title, borrowed somewhat from Fukuyama, is actually true and happening.
Thanks for the patience to read this, do comment and argue, both reinforcing and rebutting.
posted by Tormented genius at 3:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home