On Fond and Deserved Accusations of Pretension

[rinue]

There comes a point at which humility is the supreme egotism. If I don't think that I am in some way extraordinary - that what I have to say is interesting and well expressed - then what the hell am I doing? How selfish it would be to say to a large audience: "I am no better than you at this, and have nothing to say that you don't already know and feel, but I think you should give me your complete attention for hours at a time to fulfill my desire for attention."

Comments

[liquidmorpheme.livejournal.com]

I agree that humility can come across as supreme egotism — if it is false. But there's a difference between the humility you're describing and that you should bring when addressing a crowd. The model you've set up implies that I should only listen to people who are better than me, or at least think they are, otherwise what do I gain? Except that describes an extremely limited set of human interactions, most of them probably found only on military bases. You know by now I give short shrift to people who believe firmly in their own superiority, or act in a way that seems deliberately designed to highlight it. Witness my difficulty in dealing with your father when he's stressed. Whether their "self-confidence" is justified is completely irrelevant — I just don't have time for egotism. I put down books by Orson Scott Card for that reason.

What an audience, or indeed anyone involved in discussion, is asking for is less humility and more respect. If you think you've got something better to say, you need to convince me before you act like it, or I don't have time for you. I can learn plenty from people who have the decency to act as though I have equal value. I've been an audience member to experts in several fields, and most of them had no trouble disseminating information without coming across as arrogant. It can't possibly be that hard. The ones who failed at it lost my attention, which is their loss, because that is most likely what they wanted, unless they showed up out of some altruistic desire to bestow their greatness upon the little folk.

Of course, I doubt that, considering they could just as easily have been pleased with themselves.

[rinue.livejournal.com]

I do agree with you; I don't like being looked on or talked down to as an audience, and I don't like it when people say I should listen to them simply by virtue of who they are and not what they know or what they have done or whether I personally find it interesting. I don't like entitlement, or the attitude that "I'm allowed to be a jerk to you because you're lucky just to talk to me."

I'm not undervaluing personal interactions, and that sometimes, yes, you do want to hear that other people are like you, or just to have a conversation about absolutely nothing. That's part of the fabric of society - one of my favorite bits. And I do think an audience at all times deserves respect - engagement and participation, even if that participation is primarily inside their heads.

What I'm confused by is the way that it's acceptable, even laudable, to say "oh, I'm terrible at this," but if you say "this is something I'm good at," it's like you've grown two heads - even if you're saying it in response to someone else saying "this is something you're good at." I don't understand it at all. I would if I was in Japan, but I don't understand it in the Western world. The whole "that's a beautiful dress" "oh, this old thing?" phenomenon.

I am irritated by people who act morally superior, or more important in the scale of humanity - the "all you little people" people you allude to. I don't like smugness; I don't like people who assume they succeeded solely because they're amazing and beloved by God, and not because along the way a lot of people helped them. I prefer collaborative art, and I think the best work comes from people who listen to and are interested in other people - that's always going to be a bigger and richer pool of experience than the solely personal.

But I don't understand why the same opprobium is levelled at "better at" - why even something like "I'm pretty good at sewing" makes one a braggart even if everyone knows it's true and one would have to be blind not to notice. I don't understand why if someone compliments you, you're supposed to say "oh, not really, I'm actually bad at it" - which, again, I find arrogant rather than humble.

It's particularly confusing to me among creative people, who must believe that what they're saying or expressing in some way matters, and that they will in some way express it more effectively than it already has been.

[liquidmorpheme.livejournal.com]

You know, it's not that I find people who talk themselves up in the way you described as arrogant, it's just that I don't believe them. The understood rule is that if I have only your word for one of your virtues, I have no idea if you're simply stating a fact or trying to make yourself look good, and depending on the claim, you can take a guess at which one will seem more likely to a total stranger. I am especially confused by the high percentage of people who think it's perfectly acceptable to talk about themselves who are no good at what they claim to be. Poets seem to follow this rule. It makes me mistrust the claim, and so far the skepticism has served me well. If someone else makes the claim, however, I can count at least on less ambiguous motivations and a little more objectivity.

Of course, if those are common assumptions about people who talk themselves up, instead of simply my own, I can understand why it would eventually seem like arrogance. Or pretension. You don't care if I believe something, you're going to tell me anyway? Okay. But you can do that in front of a mirror, too.

In terms of creative people, however, art is not merely a craft, it is the act of expressing yourself, so if you say you are a good artist to me, it is you telling me how great you are, not what talents you possess, and excuse me, but I can decide that for myself, thanks.

s'amuser

[rinue.livejournal.com]

I feel like you're reacting to something different than what I'm trying to say. I'm not suggesting that people go around all the time talking about how great they are. I'm not going to wake up one day and decide to be Hitler or Ayn Rand or Jesus.

All I meant to say is that, well, it takes a lot of nerve to create a highly subjective piece of work and then present it to a group of critics. To do that, you have to have some assumption of your own expertise, whether it's your knowledge of an abstruse area of physics or your ability to put paint on a canvas attractively. You can be amazed and greatful for that expertise, and you can acknowledge that it owes a lot to luck and/or other people, but you have to believe it exists - that there is something special you have or know or can do that will not waste the time of your audience. That's part of respecting them.

I have no ability to predict whether something I'm working on is going to succeed or fail; when something works, it's kind of a mystery, and when something doesn't, it's also a mystery. However, if I didn't work from the assumption that it would or could work, and that I had the ability to do it, I would not be able to finish the project. If I get the idea that everyone is going to hate or laugh at what I'm writing or that it's going to make me look stupid, I stop writing, if I managed to start to begin with.

This entry came out of a discussion I had with Somer here (http://azzy23.livejournal.com/532683.html#cutid1), about the difference between exclusive and inclusive pretensiousness. It's also a response to an article I was reading on the White Stripes about how constructed - and pretensious - the images of rockstars are, but how that's a lot of what makes them fun as entertainers and what gives them the bravery to do what they do.

My earlier comment draws on exchanges like the following, which confuse me:

[another student]: I can't get this light meter to work. Romie?
R: This is what you do.
AS: Thank goodness we have you around. I must seem pretty dumb.
R: Heck no - you guys just got screwed over on camera classes last term when Cedric had to take that leave of absence. An hour from now, you'll be a pro.
AS: So you admit you think you're better than us.
R: ...

I'm not horribly ungracious and usually manage difficult social interactions ably, but stuff like that...there has to be something important I'm missing. I'm terrified of the end of term screenings, because my film is very much about me and I don't know whether that was a terrible idea. It would be so easy for people to be incredibly cruel in a way I would have trouble brushing off.

I'm furious with myself for typing "arrogant" when I meant "pretensious" and for using the word "better," which was unspecific and connotatively loaded. The former error was a result of typing something I'd handwritten while I was listening to something else, so that I wound up substituting a word I heard for the word I was reading. The second was clumsiness; I was thinking in terms of slight comparative advantage and used a word which could also mean vast moral gulfs.

I debated with myself whether to post the entry publicly or make it eyes only in case people took it more strongly than I meant it; that's why I titled it the way I did (to show there was context) and put the mood as "oscar wildian" to show that it was arch and mischievous. It was meant to be somewhat outrageous in a way that was funny and "is she or isn't she serious?" I decided to unlock it because I thought it would make you laugh. I made the wrong call. I apologize.

Re: s'amuser

[liquidmorpheme.livejournal.com]

That conversation you posted is someone asking you to take responsibility for their own insecurities. I doubt even a Japanese level of obsequiousness could have saved you. As for the artist presenting an extremely personal work, I've known quite a few who were terrified that they had produced something of no value (and who can say if it did, really? that's what makes it scary), but revealed it anyway. This was an expression of courage more than confidence, and unless the work was clearly sub par presented among other clearly much stronger works (e.g. Brett Ratner submitting to the Cannes), it would have been hard to call it arrogance.

If you think I was talking specifically about you, I am sorry. Just going with what was written.
--

Ciro

Brett Ratner Submitting to Cannes

[rinue.livejournal.com]

...only even crazier than that:

Oh, that Uwe Boll! (http://kotaku.com/gaming/uwe-boll-says/postal-is-one-of-the-best-films-ever-273841.php)

[rinue.livejournal.com]

By the way, I was tired and distracted when I posted this and used the wrong word - I was actually trying to talk about pretension, not arrogance. I've corrected it.

I said the same thing.

[bluezybunny.livejournal.com]

You know, I said something similar to someone else. I was making a superhero character whose superpower is that he's a fast thinker. She told me that he came off as arrogant because he recognized that he thinks quickly. I had to tell her that it wasn't my intention to make him seem arrogant, it was inevitable. I had to point out that the Flash always declares himself to be the "fastest man alive" and no one questions him about it. You can measure speed. If the Hulk said he was the strongest man in the world, no one would question him about that. You can measure strength. But when it comes to something as intangible as intellect, people become defensive because it then implies that other people aren't intellectual. It's a threat to alphaness.

Sorry, this was kinda rushed. I think you'll get the jist, though.

-Bluezy Bunny