Most of the fiction around is very much the same - it is anodyne, bland and has very little to say. The honed crisp writing style which is fostered by creative writing courses is celebrated. Stylistically and thematically, this writing is published because of its formulaic nature. An idiosyncratic style is perceived as being counter to the cause. As a result, the literary market place is cluttered with tepid works with no recognizable authorial voice and no interesting commentary.
I think that one's idiosyncrasies should be celebrated as a virtue. I would say that it's better to have an idiosyncratic take on literature, philosophy, history etc. than a standardised educated take. An 'educated' person amasses facts, but doesn't reproduce these facts in a new and unheralded way. He accepts common truisms and dogmas, but doesn't use his own individuality to synthesise them and reproduce a new alternative take on the state of events.
An idiosyncratic approach takes on its material and looks at it afresh from a new perspective. What once appeared idiosyncratic is often mimicked by legions of admirers and a new 'school' of writing emerges. As a result, these styles are prescribed by creative writing courses and preached as gospel.
A society should foster idiosyncrasies. It should let them come out into the open. We often suppress off-the-cuff remarks in the event that we may appear eccentric or awkward. British society is especially rigid and bound to social codes. People take on roles. They play-act. It is often difficult to loosen up and allow one's own idiosyncrasies to come out into the open. Culture is especially bereft without them.
No comments:
Post a Comment