Dear Nils
At the start of your post of 27th August you cite the following paragraph:
"I think I've because less obscure over the years, though I'm still often accused of obscurity. I've written the odd article justifying putative obscurity to mainstream readers, trying to distinguish various types. Obscurity's easy to do, and I think some writers do too little to help mainstream readers. I tend nowadays to assume that
much of the audience will feel more at home with 'straight' writing. Once they trust me (once they think I'm fulfilling my side of the conventional author-reader pact) they'll follow me into places they wouldn't normally go."
To this you then offer the following rejoinder:
“I think you are incorrect, that obscurity is easy to do. In fact, it is much harder, it takes a lot more academic research... “
I am no doubt being dimmer than usual, but I am not clear what the source of your citation is and to whom, therefore, your rejoinder is offered.
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.
Of course, obscurity and significance are not antonyms and can coexist fruitfully in a text.
Regards
Clive Watkins
|
Threaded Mode
