Two Obscure, to look up

[tectak]

Vis-à-vis Camera Obscura

A huge thank you to my boyfriend for filming and writing the music. A huge pat on the back to me for doing everything else myself.

Poor nameless guy.

I have no idea what that was about, ray, and so I say nothing.
On the original issue I can appear justifiably smug...because I am.
The two kinds of obscurity tend to get treated as fungible. I contend that they are different.

Obscure words...Divorce in Obscurityville

I rarely get accused of using "words" which are obscure but when I do I get all defensive. Not an attitude I am proud to assume. We each have a unique vocabulary. I took pains recently to explain to a valid crit that  "big words" only offended those whose vocabulary did  not include the word(s) in question...this circumstance did  not imply that my protagonist had a "smaller"  vocabulary, just a "different" one. The accusation of being obscure-for-merit appals me. You see, I cannot know what the reader knows any more than I know what he doesn't. So should I footnote "fungible" and "protagonist"? Or how about "contend"...anyone feeling patronised yet? OK. So no, to footnoting "words". Look them up. You could use one of those "book"* things if google is  not your scrabble bag. Incidentally, neither of my "online" dictionaries included the word "pendulate". (See Salad Blues, Winter Leaves). Google did...and it was correct. So was I. See, smug.
* Dictionary made of pulled cellulose reformed in to "pages" upon which lots of words and their meaings are recorded. Most homes had them at one time, now, seemingly, rare.

Camera Obscura
Obscurity of expression is a peculiarity of inward thinking being presented to the reader as though through an osmotic membrane. The writer assumes that the mind of the reader butts up against his own in a very intimate and close fashion, such that thoughts diffuse between them . It never does and so the reader cries "obscure!".
The words used to create this kind of obscurity can be "small" and familiar...in fact, they are often so because the writer thinks in small words. In attempting to write profoundly with simple  building blocks the only option is to muddle things up in the subconscious hope that the readership will think that random complexity is actually deep thought. It is very, very easy to write this kind of stuff. Anyone can churn it out in seconds...but it is valueless, and it offends the writer to be told so. To cover up the inadequacy certain ploys are apparent. Recently, a posting on the rennaissance chutney-tunnel rogering of vaginaless virgins incomprehensibly employed a little cameo with a mobile phone. The relevancy was then, and continues to be, lost on me, involving as it did some "endless list without a pattern" (sic) binary digits. Some well-meaning crit pointed out that the digits were character code for the "apostrophe". This was odd as there were nine digits...not a known coding for anything. The writer leapt joyously at this revelation as if intent had been his greatest reward, proclaiming with confirmed (but oh so obviously recent) belief that the coded apostrophe had been his greatest profundity. " I'm glad someone catched that!"(sic) was his cry, now on a roll, as apostrophes "often mean possessive"(sic) and THAT was what he meant all along. Sadly, if the eight-bit binary code was translated to the character set, it was, in fact, the "£" sign!
So there we have it. Obscurity through serendipity. Can you imagine how much joy would have been mine if he had footnoted  the binary intention.

Please note that I am aware that no one suggested footnoting the obscure expression...because it cannot be done. By its very  nature this kind of obscurity is, frankly, nonsense.

Concluding, there are some esoteric works that rely wholly on a sound and in-depth knowledge of the chosen subject. I cannot say that I enjoy such adventures in to thickets of the unknown. Footnotes to such tomes ensure that I feel inadequate..but I accept the necessity if only to avoid the obscurity that lack of specific knowledge would lead me to...and who wants to be obscure.

Best,
tectak