Elegance Schmelegance

In one of my online writing groups, we were discussing whether a particular tense or person is being favored among editors or agents these days. This is my own opinion and what I posted.


No editor should judge by tense or person, but my experience has been (and as you know I am 87 years old) that most editors do have prejudices, some of which are their own peccadilloes and others which reflect the zeitgeist. For example, it seems to me that minimalist prose is most in favor. How many times have I read reviews of new writers in the last few years that used the literary buzz words "clean," "elegant," or "understated." Milan Kundera noted in an interview not too long ago that very few, if any, of the writers accorded historical greatness (Shakespeare, Dante, Proust, Joyce, Faulkner, Woolf, etc.) wrote clean, elegant, or understated prose. I have to admit it pisses me off when I read that some writer's prose is elegant. What does that even mean? I don't think anyone knows--it's just one of those words that rings like a bell but doesn't have a gong. Call me a silly savage, but I like gongs. I mean, I know what the dictionary definition of elegant is, and when I think of elegance I think of either movement or behavior; Fred Astaire or Rudolph Nureyev, Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn, Tony Bennett or Ella Fitzgerald--artists who use their bodies and voices in visual art forms where the social parameters were or are much more defined (and therefore, conservative, natch)and connected to the expression. For example, I believe in popular dance James Cagney or Sammy Davis, jr. were just as accomplished as Astaire or Nureyev, or in song Ray Charles and Billie Holiday easily match up with Bennett and Fitzgerald, yet the latter mentioned fantastic artists would never have elegance applied to their creations. The reason being, of course, because they use not just the mythic or romantic, but also the not elegant modes high mimetic, low mimetic, and ironic. You feel me?

I don't know, I may be full of horse sh*t (well, I probably am, regardless, but it's made from good meadow grass) but I know I don't ever want my prose to be called "elegant." I'd much rather be dirty, bluesy, profane, hilarious, obscene, raw, soulful, raging, fearsome, raucous, absurd, deviantichristical, frolicsome, effervescent (but not like champagne bubbles), inspiring (but not wimpy), cathartic for sure, and...well, I'm tired of making this list, but we can't leave out heartbreaking. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I don't think many editors these days are looking for those qualities. Keep in mind it was only a couple of years ago that a guy submitted manuscripts of Faulkner's writing to several differnt book editors and agents, only with a phony name on it, and if memory serves me (and it better serve me, my derangement refuses to be discriminated against!), only one or two recognized Faulkner's writing. All of the others rejected the manuscripts! Amazing and dispiriting, to say the least.

Network this, %#*&^!!!

I'm a flop at Facebook, spaced out at MySpace, and burned out on every workshop and writer's site I've joined in the ten years since I've been online. I've asked myself why I'm such a failure at networking and its obnoxious offspring, self promotion, and what I've decided is cyberspace confabulation affects me akin to a primitive tribesman having his picture taken. Sometimes it feels like my years online have robbed bytes of my soul. Of course, the only way you would get my computer away from me is by prying my cold, dead fingers from my keyboard. All I'm saying is that as a means of communication it is sometimes like having a phone conversation where instead of words the two parties exchange sequences of zeros and ones--and of course a dozen lols. Communication is a tricky business anyway; else why is there a list of self-help books a mile long on how to get head...I mean, get ahead on just a smile and a shoeshine. Oh, wait, that's Willy Loman (which reminds me, I dassent buy that set of snake knives). For me, eye contact and body language are essential for the nuances required for meaningful human communication. Anyone who has posted or perused a discussion board knows how quickly a wrongly interpreted post can ignite a flame that soon escalates to a five alarm blaze. On the internet, any pipsqueak with verbal dexterity is capable of being a bully, any keyboard-tied bully is potentially yo bee-atch, yo. Of course, there is a sense of satisfaction in seeing the tables turned, but unfortunately, write doesn't always make right.

More musing on this later. A roast beef sandwich awaits.