In his book Writing with Power (1998) Peter Elbow describes bad writing as a potential site for honest and real voice in narrative. He remarks "fear of badness is probably what holds people back most from developing power in writing. Some of that fear is natural in the struggle to develop an acceptable self. But some of it results from teachers who care more about getting rid of badness than about looking for potential excellence. If you care too much about avoiding bad writing, you will be too cautious, too afraid to relinquish control." (p.302).
Just what does Elbow mean by 'badness', and what could possibly be 'good' about the bad? I have sometimes witnessed movies that were so 'bad' in terms of their acting and premises that they turned out to be 'good' after all. Troll II is one notorious example of a very 'bad' horror movie that ended up gaining a cult status long after its production in the 1980s. People like 'bad' movies even when they are earnestly panned by every critic. Obviously, the statements 'good' and 'bad' are qualified statements, and it takes a bit of unpacking to know what's being described in these statements.
I think the easiest way to look at it would be to examine 'Zen' (Japanese for Ch'an) in the context of this nuanced 'badness'. Zen, as it was introduced to Western cultures, was presented as something non-discursive and spontaneous. One of the biggest killers of Zen, according to the early teachers in America, is too much intellectualizing. We don't really want to be indulging that aspect of experience that judges, or splits into 'this' and 'that'.. or objectifies other things and people in some ways. I think that, from this perspective, there is a funny paradox that emerges in Zen circles. That is, the harder one tries to be 'good'' and to get rid of what one deems as bad, the further away one is from the path of Zen. Why? It's because too much trying ends up staining the event with a sense of control, of striving, and overlaying things with neat and simple categories. "Too much of a good thing" turns out to have the potential to kill what is really alive inside, by imposing a strict framework over things as they are.
So, if too much insisting on good is a kind of desire related to the self, what does this have to do with 'badness'? I think that the 'badness' that Elbow is describing is more than just an absence of over-dominating goodness. Badness, in this case, has a very specific coloration and context. I think of it as being an accidental glimpse of things-as-such (or things-as-they-are) without makeup, or at least with some of the makeup peeled off. If anyone has ever seen the photographs of Diane Arbus, they will also know the term 'beauty of ugliness'. This badness first challenges the layers of wanting to control that define many aesthetic experiences.
If I want to decorate the apartment a certain way, I go to great pains to choose the right paint, décor, furniture, etc. and make sure they had better match each other. If I am too into that design, I forget who inhabits the spaces where I decorate. But, to inquire into badness is to inquire into that special, unmediated 'who' that inhabits the neat immaculate spaces in which we make our homes. It is to understand what always slips through the cracks: hence, 'bad' horror movies often depict monsters living under sewage plants, or in swamps. And it is to inquire into the person who does not always look a part, who might not even have a face or a mouth through which to communicate.
Could what we call 'bad' be an invitation to explore what is formless, soundless and wordless--an abyss that lies below appearances?
Elbow, Peter (1998),Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering The Writing Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment