On Purists

A half-hour Rift queue and work task avoidance/procrastination gives me sufficient time to muse a little on this concept in writing.

From Wikipedia:

A purist is one who desires that an item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences. The term may be used in almost any field, and can be applied either to the self or to others. Use of the term may be either pejorative or complimentary, depending on context. Because the appellation depends on subjective notions of what is "pure" as opposed to "adulterating" as applied to any particular item, conflict can arise both as to whether a person so labeled is actually a purist and as to whether that is desirable.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the term dates from 1706 and is defined as "a person who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition", especially "one preoccupied with the purity of a language and its protection from the use of foreign or altered forms."

One of the driving thoughts that struck me the other day was that "Purists are limiting themselves by hewing to such a close, tight set of boundaries."

Then came the opposing thought that hewing to a close, tight set of boundaries is what gives beauty to poetry and other such works which play with the freedom of expression within an established framework. There is a core essence, quintessence almost, of purity and Truth within a set of structures.

So is being a purist a good thing or a bad thing? (Now philosophically and semantically it can be both at different times, of course, but let's explore both possibilities for the sake of discussion. And to put a nail on why the concept makes me uneasy.)

In some things, I confess I am a purist. I would not watch a VCD quality movie unless I was desperate, a DVD gives far better quality of resolution and I would Youtube it if quality did not matter. I think origami isn't origami unless it's folded from one square sheet of paper with no cutting or gluing (it's fun creative papercraft otherwise, but origami it ain't). I think Lego constructions ought to be from the pure manufactured pieces, and not built from cut up bits or third-party bricks. Anime in particular should be watched in the subtitled format as the nuances in the Japanese voices and inflections convey the intended story far more faithfully than the crappy English dubs by voice actors who evidently think that they are voicing throwaway Saturday Morning Cartooon leftovers and put less effort into their work than porn stars making their movies.

I am more mid-line on intellectual properties like Tolkien, the X-Men, what-have-you. Yes, converting the IPs to movie format means a good many nuances lost, especially when simplified for the mainstream consumer. But as long as it attempts being faithful to the source, the essence, the themes, what harm is there in creating more consciousness in general pop culture about the particular work? Sometimes experimenting can yield a  masterpiece when they switch formats and medias. And someone might always be introduced via an offshoot and be encouraged to seek out and learn more from the source as well. It is limiting to forbid all experimentation outside of a certain boundary in the name of purity.

In video games especially, the purist viewpoint is something I find hard to swallow. One true way of doing things. One true optimum path or solution. For heaven's sake, it is a game, if one cannot experiment and explore in a game, then something is desperately wrong. For others of a more purist bent, the game is a mathematical puzzle with one true solution and beauty lies in hewing as close to that essence as possible. Well, yes, I can see the argument from that standpoint, especially when your mathematical solution does prove more effective than non-optimal flailing about, but there is a danger in being too focused on scaling the mountain peak. One may miss the fact that there are other higher mountains on the horizon.

And who's to say that those milling about on the plains are not having any fun?

Plenty of people watch dubbed anime and like it. I can cringe at their lack of taste and refinement, I can attempt to steer them towards what I subjectively deem to be better quality and hewing closer to the "truth" or pure essence of the subject matter, but in a sense, it is I holding myself back via this self-chosen limitation not to like a badly done dub, whereas others can still have themselves a good time watching it.

Without purists however, everything would eventually become diluted over time. Nothing would have any meaning or significance or quality without guardians of the truth. 

The next question that then arises is, is truth really that critical? Is it really important that we be able to discern good quality from bad? Or is it just a leftover part of our evolutionary synapses that finds it critical that we have to differentiate between nasty things which will kill us and yummy things that will keep us alive and making babies?

Without discernment, all things would be equal and there would be no way to set priorities or order one's choices or to make decisions. A measure of discernment is required in order to ensure that humans don't just randomly do the first thing that occurs to them (at least without making a subconscious choice to veg out.)

I guess we have randomly meandered back to the heart of the matter. Like most things, duality is the key. Moderation between the two extremes. A little bit is good, but when taken to fanatical extremes, then one runs the risk of wearing blinders to perfectly good alternate possibilities by slavishly following limitations.

Worth remembering during the times I turn into an obsessive perfection-seeker, which has been happening more often than not lately (and giving me stress-related illnesses to boot.)