![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Laura Miller of Salon.com posted an article yesterday titled "A reader's advice to writers," in which she frames some complaints about flaws that she evidently encounters in a lot of fiction that could be avoided if the novelist paid more attention to elements of story telling that would make their work more interesting and accessible to wide audiences. While I don't necessarily disagree with much of what she says (and it's refreshing to see, for once, an "advice" article that's not just writers talking to other writers), it seems to be aimed at writers of "literary" fiction. It seems to me that there is plenty enough fiction around that eschews things like "beautiful prose style," and is not occupied with "atmosphere" and "character." She's advocating for story-driven fiction where such literary folderol is put in the backseat or omitted entirely. But isn't there plenty of that already? Isn't Dan Brown the biggest (and therefore best!?) fiction writer around nowadays, despite how unmemorable anything about his actual writing style may be? I don't know specifically which writers she considers to be crafting dull, atmospheric, plotless novels, and I (admittedly) don't read tons of non-genre "literary" fiction myself, so I can't readily point to any. But I wonder if the solution to the problem would be simply to read instead some of the many entertaining, if stylistically thin, plot-driven novels when that mood strikes rather than tell the literary stylists to quit being stylists. That is to say, some people (even a mostly-genre reader like me) do, in fact, get pleasure from fine writing, from a sentence well crafted, from a scene lushly set.
I'll quote in full the paragraph with which I found myself in the most disagreement:
3. The components of a novel that readers care about most are, in order: story, characters, theme, atmosphere/setting. Of course all these elements are interlinked, and in the best fiction they all contribute to and enhance each other. But if you were to eliminate these elements, starting at the end of the list and moving toward the beginning, you could still end up with a novel that lots of people wanted to read; the average mass-market thriller is nothing but story. If you sacrifice these elements starting from the beginning of the list, you will instead wind up with a sliver of arty experimentation that, if you're very, very good, a handful of other people might someday read and admire. There's honor in that, but it's daft to write something with the deliberate intention of denying readers what they love and want and then to be heartbroken when they aren't interested. If you want to engage with more than a tiny coterie, take storytelling seriously; if you think that's incompatible with art, you are in the wrong line of work.
I actually mostly agree with the general sense of this, particularly the second sentence. But I am wondering from where the inspiration for this advice comes. If a writer pares away this list of those components from end to beginning until it's just a naked story with little to offer as far as characters, theme, atmosphere and setting, then it seems like one ends up with mass market novel, of which there are plenty. So who exactly is it who is sacrificing these elements from the beginning of the list and ending up with slivers of arty experimentation? I'm honestly asking because I really don't know, and I haven't read any such published novels lately (though I do encounter story-starved experimentation in the M-Brane slush-pile from time to time, generally from inexperienced college-age writers, who've momentarily wowed themselves with their edginess--and I sympathize because I was one of those back in the day, and still am sometimes). While I am not on a steady diet of what critics would consider contemporary "literature," I have read recently a few books by well-regarded lit writers who cross over into the genres sometimes, such as Michael Chabon and Cormac McCarthy as well as genre writers who are out-and-out literary stylists such as Alice Sheldon (James Tiptree), Ursula LeGuin and Samuel Delany. I find the work of all these writers to be very stylish and atmospheric, but also fully engaged in telling a story. This is what I am usually looking for as a reader, and I think a reader can, in fact, have it all. And, of course, sometimes I really do want an easy read, and I'll pick up a mass market novel and enjoy it perfectly well. But I don't want only that.
I'll quote in full the paragraph with which I found myself in the most disagreement:
3. The components of a novel that readers care about most are, in order: story, characters, theme, atmosphere/setting. Of course all these elements are interlinked, and in the best fiction they all contribute to and enhance each other. But if you were to eliminate these elements, starting at the end of the list and moving toward the beginning, you could still end up with a novel that lots of people wanted to read; the average mass-market thriller is nothing but story. If you sacrifice these elements starting from the beginning of the list, you will instead wind up with a sliver of arty experimentation that, if you're very, very good, a handful of other people might someday read and admire. There's honor in that, but it's daft to write something with the deliberate intention of denying readers what they love and want and then to be heartbroken when they aren't interested. If you want to engage with more than a tiny coterie, take storytelling seriously; if you think that's incompatible with art, you are in the wrong line of work.
I actually mostly agree with the general sense of this, particularly the second sentence. But I am wondering from where the inspiration for this advice comes. If a writer pares away this list of those components from end to beginning until it's just a naked story with little to offer as far as characters, theme, atmosphere and setting, then it seems like one ends up with mass market novel, of which there are plenty. So who exactly is it who is sacrificing these elements from the beginning of the list and ending up with slivers of arty experimentation? I'm honestly asking because I really don't know, and I haven't read any such published novels lately (though I do encounter story-starved experimentation in the M-Brane slush-pile from time to time, generally from inexperienced college-age writers, who've momentarily wowed themselves with their edginess--and I sympathize because I was one of those back in the day, and still am sometimes). While I am not on a steady diet of what critics would consider contemporary "literature," I have read recently a few books by well-regarded lit writers who cross over into the genres sometimes, such as Michael Chabon and Cormac McCarthy as well as genre writers who are out-and-out literary stylists such as Alice Sheldon (James Tiptree), Ursula LeGuin and Samuel Delany. I find the work of all these writers to be very stylish and atmospheric, but also fully engaged in telling a story. This is what I am usually looking for as a reader, and I think a reader can, in fact, have it all. And, of course, sometimes I really do want an easy read, and I'll pick up a mass market novel and enjoy it perfectly well. But I don't want only that.
Tags:
