Noah criticized it here. Over at The Comics Journal I posted this:
I read the Don Phelps essay and had a lot of trouble with the writing. Sentence by sentence, I just couldn’t understand what he was saying. Can anybody here try a plain-English summary?
The governing, underlying charm of “quaintness,” I suspect, lies in the stable universe the word suggests a manifest willingness to abide, albeit in some obscure nook or oddly shaped frame — to which another widely disdained word, “cozy,” may be applicable. “Quaintness” suggests a residence that is stable, even static; it suggests, too, a heritage of peacefully disposed experience.
“Quaintness” is charming because it suggests a stable universe — even though that universe may be odd or obscure. “Quaintness” is also attractive because it refers to a peaceful heritage or tradition.
How often does one encounter the word today? Much less, with (even gently) approving overtones. “Outdated,” “folksy,” slightly moldy? Disdain for, impatience with, a sort of strangeness that is noncompetitive and nonaggressive. Even in the field of children’s art and literature. Take two leading names in this country: Dr. Seuss (aka Theodore Giesel) and Maurice Sendak.
Noah’s translation of second paragraph:
Today the word “quaintness” is usually taken as a negative. This is because people disdain strangeness which is noncompetitive or nonagressive. Quaintness is even disparaged in the work of Dr. Seuss and Maurice Sendak. [That last bit is my best guess; the prose actually seems to be saying that Seuss and Sendak dislike the use of the word “quaintness” — but I can’t believe that’s what he means. I think instead he’s trying to say that quaintness is denigrated, and that as a result it makes people dislike even the work of Seuss and Sendak.]
Does anyone have any more? Note: an explanation of “strangeness that is noncompetitive and nonaggressive” would go a long way toward helping me get this.
Maybe you guys can take the poetry out of Manny Farber next.
I like the Phelps version better, too.
Also, this sentence?: “Take two leading names in this country: Dr. Seuss (aka Theodore Giesel) and Maurice Sendak.” That’s pretty clearly just a set-up for the following paragraphs.
I wasn’t trying to compete; just provide a service. Like Cliff Notes.
I think “strangeness that is noncompetitive and nonaggressive” is in contrast to strangeness that is “edgy,” which is more aggressive and in your face, and which is viewed (at least today) as positive. “Quaint,” on the other hand, has a much more passive sense, like now-outdated and clearly negative synonyms for “strange” like “precious” and “twee.” At least, that’s what I got from the article.
layla
I hope no one ever does lipo on my prose.
I like Phelps as a stylist– he gets a lot done with few words. So it’s dense, but compared to contemporaries like Bill Blackbeard, it’s like Swiss design.
I’d point to his essay on Megan Kelso as one of his most precise. I think I’ve stolen from it more than once. (Though I can’t seem to find it now, which might exonerate me.)
But what is he getting done with his words? If he’s saying something, it seems like a reasonable summary of his points must be possible. That’s all I’m asking for! People read that Seuss article and liked it. But nobody wants to tell me what it means.
Now, if Noah’s paraphrases are accurate, I’d say the prospects aren’t good. People wouldn’t miss the original’s wording so much if the actual points being made in the paraphrases weren’t so unexceptional.
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
It depends on which meddlesome priest you’re referring to, I guess….
Sorry for the ambiguity, Noah. That was meant to be an interpretation of Mr. Crippen’s last comment.
I’m not against the guy, I just want to know what’s going on.
I will say I’m against the way Mr. Phelps writes. I don’t think prose should be full of stumpers. But other people seem to like his style, so he’s doing something right. It’s just that I can’t understand him.
Governing and underlying are a bit redundant – a governing principle is usually underlying.
why “manifest willingness” and not just “willingness”? who is willing . . .
Does the abiding happen in an obscure nook – or does the nook refer back to the universe? Who is doing the abiding?
“May be applicable” – oddly qualified and a little confusing.
He says stable twice – once was fine.
why does the word suggest a residence – it’s often applied to ideas . . .
peacefully disposed experience . . .
Here’s another way:
The underlying charm of “quaintness,” I suspect, lies in the stable universe the word suggests, something that is peaceful, even static.
k
I wasn’t sure if the “abiding” was dwelling in or putting up with.
“This is because people disdain strangeness which is noncompetitive or nonagressive.”
I doubt he thinks that people embrace a strangeness that’s competitive. “People” tend to not like strangness — so I think he’s got some wasted words here . . .
He often makes abstract claims without providing a concrete example – which makes his ideas sound good, but I’m not quite sure what he means.
“I think instead he’s trying to say that quaintness is denigrated, and that as a result it makes people dislike even the work of Seuss and Sendak.]”
These authors are very popular, though . . .