Being artsy vs Being pretentious

[InvictusCobra]

So after reading Sekien no Inganock and currently reading Shikkoku no Sharnoth, and experiencing Sakurai Hikaru's writing style and abundant use of stylistic devices (she sure loves her repetitions), a question came to mind. How can something be defined as being "artsy", "out of the box" or "original" or being just downright pretentious?

I tried to ask some friends and some of my university teachers, using the titles above as examples and the answers were mixed, as I expected. Some consider all the repetitions and other elements pseudo-intellectual, pretentious silliness and others merely consider it an interesting element. In the beginning of Inganock, I thought Hikaru was full of herself and that it was a bother having to read the same thing in each chapter, but after a particular set piece, I started enjoying them and that style got me more invested.

So without further rambling, artsy or pretentious, where is the line drawn? 

[Funyarinpa]

Whether something is "sincere, original, poignant" or "pretentious" depends solely on whether it meets the emotions/moments/insights it promises to deliver, and it changes for each reader.

[Soulless Watcher]

That is the problem with art, there isn't really an objective viewpoint. Sure at the time there is a common consensus amongst the learned classes on what is "good art", but that will certainly change and there are always detractors who have their own views.

[Clephas]

I don't particularly like Liar-soft, but I never really found it pretentious.  I just found the Japanese version of the writing style annoying, lol.  If you want a real argument about pretentious media, the Fate series, Tsukihime, and Kara no Kyoukai have a lot of people arguing back and forth over it.  Personally, my opinion on people who call something pretentious is that they are too arrogant to just sit back and enjoy the ride.  I might have 'thought' something was pretentious in the past, but I never say it, because it is a loaded term that implies a lot of things I don't want associated with the stuff I read. 

Edit: Also, 'artsy' is another loaded term... filled with the mixed contempt and superstitious awe of the old blue collar worker.  I honestly was a bit exasperated when I saw that word pop up on the recent threads, lol.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Clephas

[Darklord Rooke]

3 hours ago, InvictusCobra said:

So after reading Sekien no Inganock and currently reading Shikkoku no Sharnoth, and experiencing Sakurai Hikaru's writing style and abundant use of stylistic devices (she sure loves her repetitions), a question came to mind. How can something be defined as being "artsy", "out of the box" or "original" or being just downright pretentious?

I tried to ask some friends and some of my university teachers, using the titles above as examples and the answers were mixed, as I expected. Some consider all the repetitions and other elements pseudo-intellectual, pretentious silliness and others merely consider it an interesting element. In the beginning of Inganock, I thought Hikaru was full of herself and that it was a bother having to read the same thing in each chapter, but after a particular set piece, I started enjoying them and that style got me more invested.

So without further rambling, artsy or pretentious, where is the line drawn? 

This is my opinion.

Stories produced for entertainment are different to stories produced as art. The writing is different for starters. In novels meant to entertain the writing often does not get in the way of the story, it blends into the background. In literature, the writer may deliberately set out to break rules. To call attention to the writing. To call attention to the method of 'delivery.' Literature is about the writing as much as it is about the subject matter.

Being artsy involves calling A LOT of attention to the mechanics (the writing, the art direction in a VN,) calling A LOT of attention to you breaking the rules. Being pretentious means being artsy before you’re good enough to be artsy. It means calling attention to the mechanics, breaking rules, puffing your writing up when they’re actually pretty awful.

I haven’t read many of the Liar-soft works, but the problem with translating those novels is (I gather) it DOES call attention to the writing. Whether it does this well in Japanese is one thing, but is the translator a good enough writer to call attention to the writing in English and make it work? Maybe the mechanics used in Japanese to produce an effect just doesn’t work in English? All of this will contribute to whether it sounds ‘pretentious’.

From what I gather, Sharnoth wasn’t well translated into English. That could be the problem. I see a lot of Japanese speakers laud Sakurai Hikaru's writing style, but to be honest the English version of Sharnoth at best is nothing special.

[Darklord Rooke]

Therefore:

4 hours ago, InvictusCobra said:

Some consider all the repetitions and other elements pseudo-intellectual, pretentious silliness and others merely consider it an interesting element.

I see fans go around claiming that the use of repetition is an example of great writing which showcases wonderful use of technique to produce heavy emotions or some such. Recall that 'pretentious' means *grabs random definition*:

Quote

attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.

And you have your answer. None of the people you asked were actually impressed by the use of repetition or other stylistic elements (considering it 'interesting' is hardly the great reaction,) and so at the very least some people could say that the fans are attempting to impress others by affecting greater merit than actually possessed. So the fans could be said to be pretentious here. For the work to be called pretentious, it has to call attention to those techniques as though they are of great importance, or worthy of great examination, I suppose. There's other ways, maybe the subject matter is pretentious and etc etc.

[sanahtlig]

12 hours ago, InvictusCobra said:

So after reading Sekien no Inganock and currently reading Shikkoku no Sharnoth, and experiencing Sakurai Hikaru's writing style and abundant use of stylistic devices (she sure loves her repetitions), a question came to mind. How can something be defined as being "artsy", "out of the box" or "original" or being just downright pretentious?

I tried to ask some friends and some of my university teachers, using the titles above as examples and the answers were mixed, as I expected. Some consider all the repetitions and other elements pseudo-intellectual, pretentious silliness and others merely consider it an interesting element. In the beginning of Inganock, I thought Hikaru was full of herself and that it was a bother having to read the same thing in each chapter, but after a particular set piece, I started enjoying them and that style got me more invested.

So without further rambling, artsy or pretentious, where is the line drawn? 

I assume you showed these third parties the original Japanese to solicit this commentary?  If not, it's not a commentary on Sakurai's writing style.  It's a commentary on Ixrec's translation and editing.  That is, your method of critique does not address the question you wanted to answer.