"pretention"
Aug. 1st, 2006 09:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zenithblueTonight, in poetry class, a girl said a poem was "pretentious."
Reasons why this is the stupidest fucking thing to say about a piece of writing:
As an adjective, "pretentious" means, more or less, "pretending to something," usually pretending to something out of league of the pretender. In other words, you're calling someone a poser. It does not mean "hyperliterate" or "hyperintellectual" or "inaccessible" or any of the other things people mean when they use the word. A piece of writing can't be accused of pretension, because writing in and of itself is a fucking pretense. The writer can be pretentious. Fine. But the work itself: the work itself doesn't have a will. The work itself does not sit there trying to make you feel stupid.
This may seem like a semantic distinction, or a metaphysical one, but the word has become a hollow accusation hipsters use as a catchall to describe anything that uses intertextuality, or classical references, or references to other literature, or any high philosophical questioning. Fucking have some imagination and some insight if you're going to trash on someone's writing. Not only is "pretentious" used incorrectly in the context, it claims to be a meaningful and valid complaint, when really all it's saying is: this poem does not say things the way I want things to be said. This novel was too long/full of big words/full of obscure references.
That girl is officially out of the club.
Reasons why this is the stupidest fucking thing to say about a piece of writing:
As an adjective, "pretentious" means, more or less, "pretending to something," usually pretending to something out of league of the pretender. In other words, you're calling someone a poser. It does not mean "hyperliterate" or "hyperintellectual" or "inaccessible" or any of the other things people mean when they use the word. A piece of writing can't be accused of pretension, because writing in and of itself is a fucking pretense. The writer can be pretentious. Fine. But the work itself: the work itself doesn't have a will. The work itself does not sit there trying to make you feel stupid.
This may seem like a semantic distinction, or a metaphysical one, but the word has become a hollow accusation hipsters use as a catchall to describe anything that uses intertextuality, or classical references, or references to other literature, or any high philosophical questioning. Fucking have some imagination and some insight if you're going to trash on someone's writing. Not only is "pretentious" used incorrectly in the context, it claims to be a meaningful and valid complaint, when really all it's saying is: this poem does not say things the way I want things to be said. This novel was too long/full of big words/full of obscure references.
That girl is officially out of the club.
