Dear Clive, you wonderfully intervened in a dialogue moved by the moderators suggestion fromm the fiction section. But as to this, I again, cannot agreee.
By the way, obscurity of the kind which your reference to “academic research” implies is easy to do. I have only to string together a text whose sense depends on a reader’s knowing in advance the following three pieces of information, none of which is to be declared in the text itself: the name of my local greengrocer, the occupation of my maternal great-great-grandfather and my favourite phrase from the works of David Jones. I guarantee that most readers will find the piece sufficiently obscure. Add some deformations of customary grammar and usage and the riddle would be complete. Pace your remark, none of this is very hard to do.
One may string out all kind of acamdemic research, and plaguerizing it, call it unusual, but this is legalistic, pharisiacal to assume that is what true research involved in diligent contemplation, to make something one's own, to have subsumed the great thoughts, spun them around on their heads, and then put them back out into one's own words is what I am referring to here, in a way, which cannot be plagarizm, but which is the fusion of thoughts in an original form, not copycatting obscuring, which makes its, then not, truly obscure. It is lightening here, and I msut go again.
|