I can appreciate a good poem, good song lyrics, and a good story, but one thing that has bothered me for a while is the pretense that these things can only be good if they contain some sort of hidden meaning or depth. Society seems accept that anything with any semblance of symbolism or ambiguity is to be embraced and praised, especially if it is too ambiguous to understand.
It seems like the sure-fire way to write well-received work is to make it "open for interpretation". If it sounds like it might be deep, people will assume that it is and therefore assume that it is good. Very often, technical skill is considered of equal importance, or even secondary, to the wonders of obfuscation. If someone were to insult the lack of depth in, say, Halo's plot, simply point to "John 117 [http://biblebrowser.com/john/1-17.htm]" to send him packing. If someone thought Braid's storytelling was poor, they were clearly too close-minded to understand its impressive allegories and references to Jungian psychology and Judeo-Christian scriptures and modern feminism and the plight of homosexuals and the Garden of Eden and...
What makes me uncomfortable is that society seems to be fostering the idea that this is what all art should be. In school, we are taught to analyze poetry, and we are taught that everything has a deeper meaning, and that every choice of word serves a significant purpose. I sincerely believe that we give some poets and authors far more credit than they deserve.
Hey, that sounds kinda deep, right? Who cares if it's nothing but gibberish with a rhyme scheme? It's up for interpretation; it isn't supposed to make sense to anybody but the author. Does this make Ms. Holstein up there an amazing writer? Of course it does.
Now, don't get me wrong; I don't just hate poetry and ambiguity. Robert Frost is one of my favourite poets, and his poems can be pretty damn obscure. But then, he wrote his poems with the intent of them being solved, like riddles. He did not write them for no other purpose than for people to read whatever they want into them.
My main gripe here is that an engaging story with engaging characters is not enough. Everything has to mean something more, if not to be smart, then to sound smart. Symbolism is a great literary tool and can be used very effectively, but it does not have to be used all the time, and its use does not make something good. The up-for-interpretation brand of literature is fine in doses, but, in my opinion, it's becoming a catch-all term to qualify something as artistic, and it's appearing far too often. Obfuscation is a major determining factor in deciding whether or not something is good, and I really don't agree with that.
I'm sorry. I know that complaining about this sort of thing is nothing new, but I figured it'd be interesting to see what other people's opinions are.
EDIT: Further reading [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible], and where I got the great word "obfuscation".
It seems like the sure-fire way to write well-received work is to make it "open for interpretation". If it sounds like it might be deep, people will assume that it is and therefore assume that it is good. Very often, technical skill is considered of equal importance, or even secondary, to the wonders of obfuscation. If someone were to insult the lack of depth in, say, Halo's plot, simply point to "John 117 [http://biblebrowser.com/john/1-17.htm]" to send him packing. If someone thought Braid's storytelling was poor, they were clearly too close-minded to understand its impressive allegories and references to Jungian psychology and Judeo-Christian scriptures and modern feminism and the plight of homosexuals and the Garden of Eden and...
What makes me uncomfortable is that society seems to be fostering the idea that this is what all art should be. In school, we are taught to analyze poetry, and we are taught that everything has a deeper meaning, and that every choice of word serves a significant purpose. I sincerely believe that we give some poets and authors far more credit than they deserve.
The dust drove back the sea,
and in time we found its eyes
were not what we could be,
but what we should despise.
For all intents of worth,
had stained our skies impure;
to moil in our gardens
that we, of they, were sure.
and in time we found its eyes
were not what we could be,
but what we should despise.
For all intents of worth,
had stained our skies impure;
to moil in our gardens
that we, of they, were sure.
Hey, that sounds kinda deep, right? Who cares if it's nothing but gibberish with a rhyme scheme? It's up for interpretation; it isn't supposed to make sense to anybody but the author. Does this make Ms. Holstein up there an amazing writer? Of course it does.
Now, don't get me wrong; I don't just hate poetry and ambiguity. Robert Frost is one of my favourite poets, and his poems can be pretty damn obscure. But then, he wrote his poems with the intent of them being solved, like riddles. He did not write them for no other purpose than for people to read whatever they want into them.
My main gripe here is that an engaging story with engaging characters is not enough. Everything has to mean something more, if not to be smart, then to sound smart. Symbolism is a great literary tool and can be used very effectively, but it does not have to be used all the time, and its use does not make something good. The up-for-interpretation brand of literature is fine in doses, but, in my opinion, it's becoming a catch-all term to qualify something as artistic, and it's appearing far too often. Obfuscation is a major determining factor in deciding whether or not something is good, and I really don't agree with that.
I'm sorry. I know that complaining about this sort of thing is nothing new, but I figured it'd be interesting to see what other people's opinions are.
EDIT: Further reading [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible], and where I got the great word "obfuscation".
