[gmw]

A couple of things I missed while responding late last night. (Too busy saying what I wanted to say without reading what you said ).

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

First, exercising his erudition is exactly what Joyce did. It worked for him because he was incredibly talented, and because he could do so in terms of the craft, even if it meant creating his own kind of craft. "Passing on a message or moral" is an entirely different process and carries its own set of problems -- specifically the degree to which it becomes reflexive (and therefore unexamined) and/or manipulative (and therefore ineffective -- making the reader feel they're being manipulated is the fiction writer's parallel fifth).

I think the reflexive vs manipulative distinctions apply equally to exercising erudition. It is possible for a writer to use and demonstrate their learning in ways that are subtle, that are part of the story, and so are not (necessarily) examined by the reader. (Which, as I said, is what I prefer.)

Manipulative messages are not necessarily ineffective. If the intention is to make the reader aware of, and perhaps uncomfortable in, their manipulation, it can have the effect of making the reader more involved in what they are reading.

Curiously that last paragraph made me think of, not a famous literary author, but Richard North Patterson, a writer of legal thrillers. In his book "Eyes of a Child", I am aware that I am being manipulated into a particular view of the characters in a way that makes me examine that view, and if anything the examination makes the picture clearer still. (Was this intentional on the part of the author? I suspect so, it is an aspect that I have seen repeated in some of his subsequent books, that he really wants you to take a more active role in the situations he is presenting.)

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Second, like music, a novel exists in time and may do so satisfyingly whether it is cohesive or not. Some of the most effective fiction writers are more interested in contrast than cohesion, but they tend to plummet or career toward those points of contrast. The problem in a lot of television writing is that it droops toward its points of disjunction: The longer the series, the more likely the climax -- a snowball of circumstances and boardroom compromises -- will disappoint.

When I say "cohesive whole", I am not attempting to give the idea that a story must be homogeneous. I am suggesting only that all the parts should be stuck (cohering) together - whatever their unifying principle. Contrasts only work when the pieces being contrasted act together to support that.

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

However, it still leaves out a lot of fiction which doesn't emphasize or follow the idea of story as you understand it -- not because you've been intolerant or anything less than open, but simply because it can't be described technically or artistically in those terms.

It's a big world, there's a lot I haven't read. In my post above I said: "for me to appreciate the work" - and this is an important proviso. Sometimes it is appropriate for a reader to admit that the book simply wasn't written for them - we can't all be interested in everything.

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The other distinction we should make is one between commercial and non-commercial fiction. Dr. Johnson couldn't fathom why anyone would write if not for money, and that's a worthy consideration -- but not for me. I personally can't fathom why anyone who feels compelled to write would care about money at all except to buy more time to write.

These days I can understand both views. I write for myself, for my own gratification, and I sometimes wonder if I would be happier if I left it at that. The amount of work (that really feels like work) and effort that goes into getting a book into a publishable state - why do that, if not for the money? (Always assuming there is money to had, which is not a very reliable assumption.) Yes, I'd like it to buy more time to write. There are other reasons beyond that, some probably relate to vanity, and some are recognition that the writing isn't really complete until that work is done.