
Wil Self: In Praise of Difficult Novels - samclemens
https://lithub.com/will-self-in-praise-of-difficult-novels/
======
profunctor
I wonder if it was the authors intent to write an article on this subject
where I had to google several words to really understand what he was saying,
to write a difficult article on the subject or difficult novels. Or maybe I
just need to read more. I still don't quite understand mimesis.

~~~
cafard
Hmm. I suppose a "panopathogen" is his coinage for the opposite of a panacea,
and I suppose that "diegesis" is a leading through where "exegesis" derives
from a leading out.

But 'their very existence is predicated on the distinction between cultural
and financial capital that, under existing neoliberal conditions, is being
comprehensively annihilated... Of course, people will object along these
lines: “Joyce’s Ulysses only garnered a smattering of writers during his
lifetime—and considering it’s regarded by many critics to be the most
important novel of the 20th century, it’s hardly attracted that many since his
death…”'

I don't understand how neoliberal conditions--or anything else--would
comprehensively annihilate the distinction between cultural and financial
capital, or how one "predicates" the existence of difficult novels on that
distinction. In fact, "cultural capital" doesn't make much sense to me in this
context. And surely _Ulysses_ only gained a few readers during his lifetime--
I'd have thought a scattering rather than a smattering.

------
AstralStorm
Is the article written in defender of purple prose? Perhaps written in this
way to allude to Victorian or Edwardian stylistics?

Difficulty caused just by the choice of (quite outdated and rare) words is
mostly superficial though.

------
netman21
Surprise ending to this. The entire essay is a put down. Fantastic.

