Pedantry will not Save you

Those successful creatives in the world will know this (and by 'successful' I do not mean 'famous' nor 'wealthy'). Infecting like a cancer upon all creative pursuits, be it art or writing or anything else, the pedant works to elicit her unique from of mundanity. A particularity to exactitude is not pedantry; an eagerness to get things right is no bad thing. Pedantry is the drudgery of pseudo-creativity, the compulsion to the arbitrary, the adherence to grammar that sees a person forsake true self expression for the bland security of correctness. Those who are cursed with creative ineptitude, who cannot create with originality, must substitute their wanting talents with the tedium of pedantry.

All creative realms have their pedants; whether painters who insist on 'correct' ways to apply liquid colour to a surface, or writers who question syntax and accurate word usage. The pedant will not save you. You will never create great art looking through the eyes of the pedant.

Great art might not come easy, sure, but to venture on its journey is simple. To look for the correct and accurate is to move parallel to greatness; to walk with it but never touch it. One must never ask: 'am I doing it right?'; but ask: 'is this how I want to do it?' Only through the self can one create what is meaningful; only through perseverance of one's own realisations can one achieve (truly achieve). Before one asks: 'Is this grammatically correct?' one must ask: 'Is this sentence good? Does it say what I want it to say? Is it doing what I want it to do?' If not, change it; not because of grammar but because it's a lousy sentence. Take issue with your work because it is hackneyed and banal, not because is fails to meet a set of arbitrary rules. Change it, and move on.

Move on.

Over and out for now, guys!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Day of the Triffids

Image
 Review of the novel by John Wyndham. This is a novel with timing issues. I have, on a number of occasions, been afflicted with ailments of varying natures – although admittedly I have never been struck with blindness – yet these illnesses on their own have never inspired me to take my own life. In fact, even when recovery was uncertain, I still held hope that in a few days, with or without medication, the problem would clear up. Blindness too can be temporary; so it surprises me a little how so many of the earth's inhabitants in The Day of the Triffids so swiftly and so keenly take to killing themselves. Sure, I would expect suicides to occur after a few days, once people have decided their blindness was permanent and starvation has stimulated their mind's desperation, but I feel this book's characters spring to self-annihilation much too quickly. This is not a major flaw however, the suicides would come eventually, so Wyndham's over-eagerness has little affec
Read more

mother!

Image
There are many ways to tell a story, and stories can be allegorical, sure; but with the allegorical you can end up with a story that lacks internal logic. Characters might not follow any meaningful rules, instead being guided by a narrative outside of the story being told. Often they act completely out of character, and the only explanation we are given is that it is 'allegory'. This is the case with Aronofsky's mother! Allegory isn't necessarily a problem in storytelling, but if the viewer/reader is not aware of what being referenced the story can be perceived as confusing or unrealistic. If you were to watch mother! and not understand the (frankly glaringly obvious) references to Judaeo-Christian lore, the film would not make sense. You would end up with a story that is more surreal than anything else, something nonsensical in which the characters don't react to the events that have come before, who don't learn, who don't develop. Jennifer Lawrence plays
Read more

The House that Jack Built

Image
There might be some spoilers. Towards the end of this film I was shouting at the TV for it to hurry up and END, partially because I was bored, partially because the ending was predictable, and partially because I did not feel the character deserved such a long send-off. I'm getting kind of tired of watching films whose only purpose is to be shocking, either through extreme violence or extreme emotional turmoil, but otherwise have nothing to say, and which leave you with that lingering, nagging question: what was the point of that? If this film's intention is to show how a psychopath thinks then it was pretty much same-old same-old. There was nothing new here and I can get so much more insight reading a book about a serial killer instead. I'd be interested more in how he got into the serial killing game, how he deceived his victims, and this is something the film fails at. It shows him deceiving one woman, but other women appear without any preamble. If there is anything
Read more