3 ms·

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but the statement "Proust (sometimes) writes long sentences" is a fact, not a value judgement. Whether the prose can be un

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but the statement "Proust (sometimes) writes long sentences" is a fact, not a value judgement. Whether the prose can be understood or not is how we separate good writing from bad, and in Proust's case it's not hard to follow what he's saying. There are, by the way, a large number of people who would strenuously disagree with you and consider Proust one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. Among them are people like Edmund White, John Updike, André Aciman, and Vladimir Nabokov, formidable prose stylists themselves; in fact, here's Nabokov explaining precisely why it is that Proust is so unique, using an illustrative passage to come to an understanding of how Proust's prose works as it does: http://www.catskill-merino.com/blog/nabokov-on-proust-in-bloom http://www.catskill-merino.com/blog/nabokov-on-proust-in-blo... ...Nabokov being a good example of a person who never shied away from making sweeping value judgements about authors, but was usually willing to back up what he said with examples.

lokedhs 10y ago
It is indeed my opinion, but when reading your response I felt it was an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy, and as such difficult to constructively argue. I would much rather hear what your personal opinion is on Proust. I read your linked article by Nabokov, and suffice it to say that I don't agree. And, yes, I do recall the very passages quoted in the article since I have read it before. A good writer would have been capable of conveying the same message with the same emotion, but with sentences that does not require the reader to concentrate to the point of it being work to actually read the thing. When reading it, I used to feel a sense of accomplishment after every few pages. That's a pretty good feeling, and if it was hard to really understand what the author wanted to say, it must be better than that simple writing by lesser authors such as Tolstoy, right? (yes, the last part was irony) Well, arguing about literature never really leads anywhere. I'd rather argue about why Emacs is better than every other editor than talk about authors that I don't even enjoy reading.
- mazelife 10y ago
  Not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious. In this case I think that those authors are recognized, themselves, as excellent prose stylists. Therefore it's reasonable to accord their opinions more weight than the average person's. If I'd said something along the lines of "Dan Brown says Proust is a master prose stylist and he's a writer..." then you'd have a point. Also, they are pretty representative of the critical consensus on Proust's particular strengths. Finally, they all happen to have written on Proust and what they like about him, some of them quite extensively. (Sadly, not all of it is available online. John Updike penned a very nice piece years ago on the ways Proust shaped him as a writer and the difference he found reading him first in the Moncrieff translation and then later in French; doesn't seem to be available anywhere.) >> Well, arguing about literature never really leads anywhere. A problem with the inherent subjectivity of art in general, I suppose. But nonetheless, it can be an enjoyable past-time if kept civil and respectful. Anyway, I appreciate you explaining what it is that you don't like about Proust, even if we don't see eye-to-eye.
  - lokedhs 10y ago
    I have not read the Updike article, but I might seek it out and read it if I find myself with some extra spare time. Based on what you have said so far, I get the impression that you admire handiwork of actually constructing a 4000+ page novel of this kind. In that respect I can actually agree with you. It is indeed a remarkable work in many ways. But, it is my opinion that in terms of a vessel for conveying a compelling story, it completely fails. Can you say that you actually enjoyed reading the book? Or did you appreciation stem from a feeling of accomplisment that you managed to plow through something that few people succeed in reading? I can happily admit that I was not able to complete it. Once I realised that it wasn't going to improve, I just stopped.

lokedhs 10y ago

It is indeed my opinion, but when reading your response I felt it was an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy, and as such difficult to constructively argue. I would much rather hear what your personal opinion is on Proust. I read your linked article by Nabokov, and suffice it to say that I don't agree. And, yes, I do recall the very passages quoted in the article since I have read it before. A good writer would have been capable of conveying the same message with the same emotion, but with sentences that does not require the reader to concentrate to the point of it being work to actually read the thing. When reading it, I used to feel a sense of accomplishment after every few pages. That's a pretty good feeling, and if it was hard to really understand what the author wanted to say, it must be better than that simple writing by lesser authors such as Tolstoy, right? (yes, the last part was irony) Well, arguing about literature never really leads anywhere. I'd rather argue about why Emacs is better than every other editor than talk about authors that I don't even enjoy reading.

mazelife 10y ago
Not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious. In this case I think that those authors are recognized, themselves, as excellent prose stylists. Therefore it's reasonable to accord their opinions more weight than the average person's. If I'd said something along the lines of "Dan Brown says Proust is a master prose stylist and he's a writer..." then you'd have a point. Also, they are pretty representative of the critical consensus on Proust's particular strengths. Finally, they all happen to have written on Proust and what they like about him, some of them quite extensively. (Sadly, not all of it is available online. John Updike penned a very nice piece years ago on the ways Proust shaped him as a writer and the difference he found reading him first in the Moncrieff translation and then later in French; doesn't seem to be available anywhere.) >> Well, arguing about literature never really leads anywhere. A problem with the inherent subjectivity of art in general, I suppose. But nonetheless, it can be an enjoyable past-time if kept civil and respectful. Anyway, I appreciate you explaining what it is that you don't like about Proust, even if we don't see eye-to-eye.
- lokedhs 10y ago
  I have not read the Updike article, but I might seek it out and read it if I find myself with some extra spare time. Based on what you have said so far, I get the impression that you admire handiwork of actually constructing a 4000+ page novel of this kind. In that respect I can actually agree with you. It is indeed a remarkable work in many ways. But, it is my opinion that in terms of a vessel for conveying a compelling story, it completely fails. Can you say that you actually enjoyed reading the book? Or did you appreciation stem from a feeling of accomplisment that you managed to plow through something that few people succeed in reading? I can happily admit that I was not able to complete it. Once I realised that it wasn't going to improve, I just stopped.