 |
 |
| |
At this summers International Writers Reunion in Lahti,
the Irish writer Michael Collins spoke eloquently about how the computer
age is robbing language of its complexity: the internet, after all,
aims at quick, unambiguous information delivered in language which
is as simple as possible.
He recalled teaching an American university
course on modern literature. After trying to work through The Outsider,
one of his students came to the conclusion that Albert Camus had an
attitude problem. He doesnt like who he is. He needs major psychological
counseling. One of Collins students of literature
went even further: I wouldnt like to party with this guy.
Hes a real asshole!
Instead of being straightforwardly didactic,
in other words useful, Camus was unpleasantly complicated; in other
words, useless. Moreover a cardinal sin in the world of psychobabble
he was clearly unwilling to improve himself. This irritated
the students: they were neither capable of nor interested in enjoying
the ambiguities that fiction presents. The language of fiction differs
from the quick-fix, bullet-point presentations they were used to by
using too many words and by describing the world as it is,
not as it might be.
When we asked the poet Jouni Inkala
to write an introduction to some short prose by Markku Paasonen, he
was so inspired by the texts that he wrote in his introduction (see
page 169): The narrative pulse of language blows through both
emptiness and satiety, wandering through a previously unknown wonderland
and the mathematically mysterious creatures that populate it, living
on the brink of the precipices of their own existence. Or we
think he did. The language is prolix, its meaning opaque; Collinss
students would no doubt consign Inkala to a lengthy course of counselling.
Translating Inkalas ecstatic written journey through Paasonens
fiction required interpreting the inspiration, trying to find
words to convey this literary enthusiasm in English. Patience, staying
with the text, has its rewards.
Clarity and brevity are virtues that
clearly have their place. But does the trend toward short messages
and the plain use of words make even those of us who still take on
demanding tasks such as reading difficult fiction just
a little impatient when encountering complicated, highly original
language, with surprising or even mysterious features? Do we occasionally
find ourselves wishing that the writer would get to the point?
If so, we too may be on the road that
leads to not wanting to party with Camus; to a world in which the
only function of words is improvement of the self. And that will
rapidly remove our capacity for using language as an instrument for
describing and understanding the world and each other. Assholes
or not.
Soila Lehtonen & Hildi Hawkins
Editors-in-chief, 2001
Top of page
|
|
|
|