What is This I Don't Even

[Mindfire]

I had no trouble figuring out what they meant.

Only if you use the most literal and pedantic definition of meaning. Yes, the words themselves have definitions, of which I am knowledgable. And yes, they are arranged in a technically grammatically correct manner. And yes, it might be argued, though it approaches the vanishing point of reason to do so, that they convey what might be called (if one is inclined to great charity) some kind of complete thought. But what do they MEAN? The words have no significance, no substance, no life. They say absolutely nothing of worth. They have neither beauty nor utility. They are pointless, meaningless, insufferable fluff. This is not poetry. It's a try-hard's attempt at poetry. If I were a pessimistic and sneering sort, I might think that these passages were designed not to capture the imagination of the reader, but to flaunt the author's vocabulary. And what's worse, this line:

The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living.

This is the opening line of the book.

[video=youtube_share;kiq9g-1fSSg]http://youtu.be/kiq9g-1fSSg[/video]

 

[Mindfire]

This.

I haven't read any of the Paolini books myself, so maybe I'm missing some context, but the quoted passages ring hollow. They feel vague, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a poetic description.

That last one, as I've said, was the book's opening line, so no context (should be) needed. I'm not exactly a poetic authority, but I know fluff when I see it.

 

[tlbodine]

"The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living."

This is probably the most egregious of the batch. Unless there are some sort of musical zombies in here, somehow I doubt that the dead have songs. Unless this means that "the songs of the dead" means "songs sung FOR the dead" which is basically the definition of "lamentations", so that just makes the line tautological.

If it had been "The songs of the dead are lamentations FOR the living," that at least would kind of have some sort of meaning. But that's not what it says.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Only if you use the most literal and pedantic definition of meaning. Yes, the words themselves have definitions, of which I am knowledgable. And yes, they are arranged in a technically grammatically correct manner. And yes, it might be argued, though it approaches the vanishing point of reason to do so, that they convey what might be called (if one is inclined to great charity) some kind of complete thought. But what do they MEAN? The words have no significance, no substance, no life. They say absolutely nothing of worth.

They are also taken completely out of context. Any wierdly worded sentence can become nonsensical out of context. Here, let me grab a book at random:

His spine-clamp exploded in light, flashing alternately red and blue.

During Apert, things became complicated as the wall ceased to exist for ten days.

"Wait a minute," I said, "you're saying I can't predict the Geometers' inability to see the freckle without erecting a replica of the whole universe within my imagination?"

WHAT DOES IT MEEEAAAN!?

That last one, as I've said, was the book's opening line, so no context (should be) needed. I'm not exactly a poetic authority, but I know fluff when I see it.

In that case, it probably just means that thinking about dead people makes you sad.

Now, I'm not saying this kind of writing can't be pretentious and annoying, but it's an exaggeration to say it doesn't mean anything. Words always mean something - that's why they are words.

 

[Mindfire]

And yet! Here's the kicker- these phrases are just as meaningless IN context. Can the same be said of your quotations?

 

[Graylorne]

Perhaps interesting for the Eragon haters. Just found this wiki site where someone murders the Inheritance books chapter by chapter. www.eragon-sporkings.wikispaces.com

Pray no-one is going to do this to your books

 

[Mindfire]

Perhaps interesting for the Eragon haters. Just found this wiki site where someone murders the Inheritance books chapter by chapter. www.eragon-sporkings.wikispaces.com

Pray no-one is going to do this to your books

I don't hate Eragon exactly. But yeah I plan to do all in my power to prevent that from happening to me.

 

[Shockley]

You know, my condition makes reading meaning and double-meaning into words very difficult, but I had no trouble with any of those lines. Maybe it comes from reading Lovecraft and Joyce all day, but I actually get what he's saying. No trouble at all.

I actually kind of like the lamentations of the living line.

 

[saellys]

I actually kind of like the lamentations of the living line.

Ditto. I find it really evocative, and interpret as the only thing the dead get to hear is the living mourning for them, which sounds completely awful for all parties involved. I don't know or care if that's what Paolini was going for--sentences like that are meant to be interpreted widely depending on the reader.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I actually quite like them, the first two anyway. They're quite nice poetic visualisations of things that could probably said more easily. But you don't always want to say things more easily. I mean for the first one the author could have just said 'war is destined and coming soon', but would you want to? Or for the second he could have said 'something fluttered', but why?

The third one I really like, but it is open to a number of different interpretations. My favourite would be that its a poetic idea that what you regret in life will become the song of your death, an allegory to an unpleasent afterlife. So in that way it could be a warning. But it could also, and without the context it's hard to be sure though it seems most likely, simply be painting a word picture of that mournful afterlife.

Writing is an art, and with art there's often many ways to get a message across. And of course some people will like one artistic style, some another. Maybe you like Picasso's blue period but not his cubism. So the question becomes, is this bad writing? Or is it simply writing that's not to people's personal taste?

In my view the only way for writing to truly fail is if it cannot get it's message across to the readers, and these seem clear enough.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mindfire]

*is horrified*

Well, there's no accounting for taste as they say. Personally, I wouldn't call writing pure art, as pure art really has (and needs) no purpose. Not so with writing. Writing is applied imagination, art combined with utility. I have little patience for the pretentious, in my own writing or anyone else's.

 

[Shockley]

Ditto. I find it really evocative, and interpret as the only thing the dead get to hear is the living mourning for them, which sounds completely awful for all parties involved. I don't know or care if that's what Paolini was going for--sentences like that are meant to be interpreted widely depending on the reader.

My interpretation was a little different - that the songs of the dead (ie, songs revolving around the dead, for the dead, etc.) are the lamentations. Which is very Howard-esque, in my opinion.

Well, there's no accounting for taste as they say. Personally, I wouldn't call writing pure art, as pure art really has (and needs) no purpose.

Generally agreed, and I think the artistic aspect of writing is exclusively in the style - and like most people on this forum, I don't like Paolini's style of writing or his narratives.

That said, had Homer been the writer of these lines no one would be criticizing them.

 

[saellys]

*is horrified*

Well, there's no accounting for taste as they say. Personally, I wouldn't call writing pure art, as pure art really has (and needs) no purpose. Not so with writing. Writing is applied imagination, art combined with utility. I have little patience for the pretentious, in my own writing or anyone else's.

Ask a painter if their art has and needs no purpose sometime.

As for pretention, the phrase "there's no accounting for taste" fits the bill as I see it.

My interpretation was a little different - that the songs of the dead (ie, songs revolving around the dead, for the dead, etc.) are the lamentations. Which is very Howard-esque, in my opinion.

Oh, I like the circular logic of that, too.

That said, had Homer been the writer of these lines no one would be criticizing them.

Real talk.

 

[Shockley]

If you guys want the truly bizarre or nonsensical when it comes to writing, Paolini's not even in the running:

Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.

 

[Mindfire]

Generally agreed, and I think the artistic aspect of writing is exclusively in the style - and like most people on this forum, I don't like Paolini's style of writing or his narratives. That said, had Homer been the writer of these lines no one would be criticizing them.

I wouldn't say that. Shakespeare grates on my nerves and some of the Greek playwrights made me want to slam my head into a wall. I am not above criticizing classics.

Ask a painter if their art has and needs no purpose sometime.

As for pretention, the phrase "there's no accounting for taste" fits the bill as I see it.

My point is that art is not utilitarian. It does not require a purpose or application to justify its existence. It is what it is and that's all there is to it. Writing is different, because of it's very nature, it is (*snicker*) burdened with glorious porpoise purpose. Also, the use of an idiom is not pretentious. It is a shorthand that allows me to say "I think I am in the right, but since this is a largely subjective matter, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that" but in far fewer words, which is useful as I sent that particular message from my phone.

Oh, I like the circular logic of that, too.

But circular logic is BAD. -_-

 

[Shockley]

But circular logic is BAD. -_-

Pourquoi? The argument against circular logic involves circular logic - 'circular logic is bad because circular logic is bad because circular logis is bad because circular logic' and so on and so forth.

 

[Mindfire]

If you guys want the truly bizarre or nonsensical when it comes to writing, Paolini's not even in the running:

Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.

If that was written any later than the 19th century, it is nothing less than utter fail. If it was written during the 18th or 9th century, it probably would have been regarded as quaintly archaic. If it was written before the 18th century, then it might be justified, but I still don't care for it.

 

[Steerpike]

If that was written any later than the 19th century, it is nothing less than utter fail. If it was written during the 18th or 9th century, it probably would have been regarded as quaintly archaic. If it was written before the 18th century, then it might be justified, but I still don't care for it.

It is James Joyce, if I'm not mistaken. 20th Century. It's not from Ulysses, so I'm guessing Finnegan's Wake.

 

[Mindfire]

Pourquoi? The argument against circular logic involves circular logic - 'circular logic is bad because circular logic is bad because circular logis is bad because circular logic' and so on and so forth.

I never gave an argument, only a statement.

It is James Joyce, if I'm not mistaken. 20th Century. It's not from Ulysses, so I'm guessing Finnegan's Wake.

Good lord. I am so happy not to be an English major. And doubly happy I never had to read that in high school. Is it meant to be humorous? Perhaps a parody of archaic language? Otherwise, just... no.

 

[Steerpike]

Good lord. I am so happy not to be an English major.

Actually, Joyce's book of short stories call Dubliners is excellent. It is written in a normal style of writing, and I enjoyed the stories a lot. Ulysses is interesting, though it take a bit more to read. I've only thumbed through Finnegan's Wake and read excerpts here and there, and it seems on the surface to be relatively incomprehensible. It's not, I realize, for those who understand exactly what they're looking at, but I doubt I'll make that level of commitment to the work.