Interesting Salon article about elitism in the literary world

[Glisterspeck]

The part that captured my attention concerned how consumer society seems to be affecting how people engage with a book. Less active reading, more expectation of flattery and generally making the readers feel good about themselves.

Is the literary world elitist? - Salon.com

 

[psikeyhackr]

I would have looked up "crepuscular" and been mildly annoyed that it didn't mean anything significant and forgotten it in a few days. I don't mind a new word for a new idea but a new word for a shallow idea is unimpressive.

I tend to regard it as "pseudo-intellectual". LOL

psik

 

[AMB]

Nothing wrong with crepuscular. If I was in the right mood I might even use it. I think it's been mentioned in GWD a few times in the past (along with dimpsey/dumpsey).

Nothing pseudo-intellectual about it. If it's the word a writer feels best describes what they are saying at the time, they use it. Dismissing it and using a different, more common, word just because someone might get funny about it is silly.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't mind a new word for a new idea but a new word for a shallow idea is unimpressive.

I didn't know "crepuscular" was a new word. I thought I came across it decades ago, but that must have been something else.

 

[JoanDrake]

If I saw "crepuscular" in a review of "Twilight" I'd think the writer was being insufferably arch.


And the crepuscular critic has obviously never read Jack Vance. It takes real guts to use "nuncupatory" in dialogue right in front of god and everybody.

 

[Ursa major]

I've used the word, crepescular, as part of a name on one of my maps, so its use must be perfectly okay.


As to the article itself, it's more proof that the plural of anecdote (even ones not actually told**, but to whose significance we must all bow) is not data.


** - I'm thinking of

When I get the chance to quiz someone who seems disproportionately passionate about the snobbishness of literary critics or the rabble’s appetite for trash, there’s usually some highly charged personal history behind their indignation.

And these personal histories all seem to blame someone else (who isn't there to shout, "Nonsense!" or something just as valid as the complaint). And they all seem to lead to:

A teacher, a parent, a romantic partner, a friend, a roommate, even a co-worker has made them feel ashamed over a book or genre of books they enjoy or admire.

*shakes head*

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I can't help but read that word as "crap-suck-u-lar." Basically the polar opposite of spectacular.

 

[Glisterspeck]

I can't help but read that word as "crap-suck-u-lar." Basically the polar opposite of spectacular.

I've always seen it as crap-sack-u-lar, which doesn't even make sense when you sound it out. Hm.

The bit that was most interesting to me was the idea that the original poster didn't like the use of the word because he didn't know what it meant and that, according to the blogger, made him feel ignorant. The blogger feels this is pretty rampant in the Amazon review systems.

 

[tinkerdan]

I've seen this before and the reader doesn't even have to mention that they felt ignorant because I've seen the author and fans descend upon them like flies on sh-honey.

My problem with these types of words is that I have to stop and interrupt my reading and ask do people still say that or do they even use that word or worse yet when I see the same word used several times by different authors I wonder if there was a word of the day contest at the writers forum.

In this case I think it would be appropriate to make a nuncupatory agreement to only use crepuscular in a sentence where its meaning will be obvious. I hate it when the sentence hides the meaning under an obfuscated palimpsest of double entendre's.

But more seriously it's particularly annoying when an obscure word shows up and the author and subsequently the editor have spelled it incorrectly and then when called out for doing so they attack the reviewer as being some sort of non-educated buffoon.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I didn't know "crepuscular" was a new word. I thought I came across it decades ago, but that must have been something else.

If I ever came across it I probably looked it up and promptly forgot it.

I consider memorizing useless knowledge to be useless.

psik

 

[Ursa major]

After watching the weather forecast for the week ahead, which is a segment within BBC1's programme, Countryfile, I saw a report on the (unplanned) appearance of beavers in Perth. "You won't see a beaver during daylight," said the expert to the presenter. "They're crepuscular: they come out at dawn and dusk."

 

[vanye]

Is the literary world elitist?

Does the pope wear a funny hat? The way I see it, there's writers, there's readers - and then there are literary people.

 

[Ogma]

I didn't know "crepuscular" was a new word. I thought I came across it decades ago, but that must have been something else.

According to Google, it's mid 17th century. I don't see any problem with the word.

I have no problem with writers using obscure words. My only gripe is when such words are not used as per the dictionary definition. Taking poetic license with already obscure technical terms is annoying.

 

[Wendigo]

I for one actually like it when I come across words I don't know and have to look them up. Just another way to learn things, in my book.

Just in terms of what the article says, though, I don't think I'd agree that simply voicing one's opinion about a book, even if it's a negative one, automatically betrays some deep-seated intellectual insecurity. Sure, someone who thinks an author is elitist for using big words like “crepuscular” is having themselves on.

Someone who objects to a book for it being confusing or boring, though- something else the article takes them to task for, may well have a legitimate point. It's entirely possible for a book to have a confusing or boring plot and it's quite possibly a failure on the writer's part if it does.