Re: Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry

Saakel Jesse Bangs:
{To All Who Care About Conlanging:}
<snip>

{...However, the obstacles from conlangers themselves are
greater, and can be addressed immediately.  Of these problems, the one
that I wish to address here is the lack of a critical perspective within
the conlang community.}

That may increase public interest in individual conlangs. It probably
won't greatly increase interest in conlanging. People will find a critic
that has the same linguistic tastes as they and choose conlangs that suit
them.

{It should not need to be proved that some art is better than others.  If
we as conlangers wish to gain acceptance for our art, then we need to
acknowledge this and allow for the judgement that some conlangs are
better than others.  We need a serious body of *conlang criticism*.
Currently, this is almost entirely lacking on the Conlang list.  When
someone posts texts or grammatical sketches, the responses are generally
entirely congratulatory, or they are concerned only with correcting
technical errors or confusions within the grammar.  Often there are no
responses at all.  While technical accuracy and consistency are
important, it's outrageous that this is where our critique stops.  We
need to move beyond the foundation of technical accuracy and allow for
the artistic analysis of our conlangs.}

Now you're saying that we have to call some art better than other art.

{Of course the objection is "by what criteria?"  It's clear that we can't
all agree on one style of phonetic beauty, much less on which syntax,
morphology, or vocabulary is best.  But this is, in fact, exactly what we
expect.  The study of the history of art, music, or literature is a long
series of redefinitions of what is proper, what is better, and a constant
critical re-evaluation of everything that's gone before.  This
chronological tension is an essential part of the formation of
literatures and arts, and if conlanging is to be an art instead of a
hobby, then it must also expect this.  The important thing is that
conlanging start to have a critical apparatus within which the artistic
merits of conlangs can be evaluated and where different schools of
thought can define and defend themselves.}

All this is determined by individuals' tastes.

{The thing to do, then, seems to be to start such a school, and simply
get
down to the business of evaluating conlangs as works of art.  I therefore
announce the founding of the Naturalist school of conlanging, which
regards the following three things as values:}

Several schools, not one. Several bodies of linguistic critique with
varying tastes.

<snip critique bases>

I don't agree with your categories. Creativity should be a bit
differently defined, I think. The language should receive lower marks if
it is meant to be original and is greatly influenced by a natlang.
However, natural-sounding languages are generally nicer, IMHO, and
naturalism is defined by three things: mixture of grammatical types,
irregularities within this, and phonology.

{Of course this won't be popular with everyone, especially not when I
start telling people why their conlangs suck.  Why should it?  If you
disagree with me, form your own school.  But by all means, we have to
start allowing for the critical analysis of conlangs to make them into an
actual art form.  As a side effect of this, we also have to start taking
each others conlangs seriously--putting in the time to understand and
evaluate them.  Like everyone else on this list, my time is limited and I
can hardly take the time to look at every conlang that comes my way.  But
I intend to start taking time to look closely at the conlangs of others
and myself and seeing how well they hold up to the Naturalist values.  I
also intend to post my critiques to the list.  Hopefully, we're mature
enough (as individuals and as a community) to take and give criticism
without resorting to whining and hurt feelings.  And once again, if you
don't like it form your own school.}

Just get five people who disagree in your school. It shouldn't be too
difficult.

{Responses, comments, counter-flames?}

You're reading it.

Chris Wright