I highly respect C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, and their incredible ability to create masterful works of myth and fiction (they are also responsible for my early interest in Christianity). And I find it interesting that they had a general dislike for overly complicated writing styles.Lewis and Tolkien were finding too little of what they liked in stories because they preferred the traditional stories of their childhood and youth—myth, legend, epic, fantasy, and fairy tales. But they lived at the height of literary Modernism, an era when “difficult”? writing was prized over accessible writing, when it was thought that literature should reflect the angst of contemporary times and be full of stylistic novelties. Ironically, these two literary outsiders continue to exert a tremendous influence on our culture while the “mainstream”? novelists they disliked are not widely read outside of academic circles.
This also coincides with my review of Joseph Campbell's critics (mostly academics), who claim that he doesn't fully understand the myths and that he is simply picking out the parts that suit his preconceived theories (although I'll admit Campbell may be doing this in some areas). But Campbell even admitted that he is a generalist rather than a specialist, and he was well aware that the word "generalist" is a dirty word among academics.
In addition I tried to read The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley, but could barely get through ten pages of it...his writing style felt unnecessarily complicated, which made it very unpleasant to read.
So the question is, why do these academics and authors feel the need to jump on their high horse and show off? Is it purely an ego thing, or is it that they feel it makes their "art" or area of study better? Or am I just too dumb? (I admit that I'm more of a numbers guy)
This also applies to other fields such as investing, economics, politics, nutrition/diet, etc.
.
)
