Perceived Vs. Actual Erudition

[gmw]

I agree that "story" has acquired a certain vagueness - it even has that in my own head , the subject of fiction is really too wide to be easily encompassed under any single/simple statement.

I cannot, even if I wanted to, realistically suggest that every work of fiction must follow the notions I've offered so far. (But I am tempted to suggest that the good ones do. )

And despite what I've said so far, I am not a believer in another of those common writing rules: that fewer words are always better than more. Unnecessary words should be eliminated, but necessary becomes a matter of style, rhythm and intention. Even most well written popular fiction has its own rhythms, for those that care to look, though whether these are always intentional is open to question. But words included as part of style can still be considered part of the story, one doesn't exclude the other, indeed they can (and preferably should) complement each other.

However if the style completely obscures or obviates the story then I am no longer certain we are talking about fiction in a commonly recognisable sense. I hesitate to call it poetry, even poetry may have a story, perhaps it has become something different. But words being what they are, with our respective associations, and even pronunciations, so varied, that without a story to carry the writer's intention to the reader, I think the result is often highly unpredictable.

Of course I may be wanting to isolate writing without a story away from fiction just to make my earlier statements true. But there is another reason. Appreciation of writing, like music and art, can be greatly effected by how the reader approaches the work. It's partly about expectation, but I think it's more complicated than that.

Perhaps naively, when I see something called fiction I look for the story. Even more naively, when I see something called poetry the first thing I look for is the rhythm. When I don't see these things I often find myself at a loss. If some element appeals to me then I may persevere and try looking at it in another way, but without a guide there is no guarantee I will find the right one.

And I think this brings me full circle to my first post on this thread: "In fiction, I prefer my erudition well disguised." I am no longer at school, I don't have a guide to help me try to understand a writer's intention. Where the intention is not usual/clear/expected, then for me to appreciate the work, it is up to the writer to act the part of guide and show me the way. They can't do this by shutting me out with demonstrations of their own cleverness, they must remember me, and include me in the journey.

[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.

[Prestidigitweeze]

This thread is as fertile as the back of a Surinam toad. I think we could go on bifurcating, analyzing and clarifying each other's critical categories until those categories within categories spawned an entire teratologal system of anomalies. That would be fun, if time permitted, but what has been especially fun for me on this thread is this: talking about ideas with someone who has the clarity to inspect definitions empirically, and the wisdom to avoid degrading the discussion by making the other person's supposed character or attitude the subject.

The reason I draw a distinction between the use of manipulation and reflex in morally prescriptive works and those which "exercise erudition" (without being prescriptive) is because morality is often received inductively. I am not, of course, suggesting that an erudite work of fiction is automatically free of manipulation or reflexive thought. I'm only saying that regurgitated information is not as deeply intertwined with the self-image of the author and its reflection in society as is the desire to communicate one's personal standards (cf. the reformer, Dharles Chickens, darling of newspaper critics everywhere and whom I find to be objectionably preachy).

One of the better ways to do the second thing, I think, is by way of the parable without a moral. Dystopian science fiction (when it avoids said preachiness) is an obvious example.

What you seem to be describing in Richard Patterson's books sounds like a subtler use of Nabokov's unreliable narrator -- in which case the author isn't trying to convince you of a point of view but rather expose the limitations of a narrator who is. But perhaps the technique to which you're alluding is different from that.

The idea that the novel needn't be homogenous to cohere still doesn't quite explain the modernist collage novel at its most fragmented and elliptical. One of the more obvious examples might be The Ticket That Exploded, with its early use of Brion Gysin's cut-up technique. Does that novel read like an effectively disjunct narrative or a printout of casually organized software-driven splices?

I'd also be interested to know whether you thought The Lime Twig (and Hawkes' work in general) cohered or didn't structurally, since tone and style seem to carry the book where form does not.

The reason I mentioned distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial fiction is because a writer's choices can be quite different when commerciality isn't the goal.

Here's another reason the distinction needs to be made: Criticizing all writing as if it were intended to be commercial is a form of ad hominem. To do so presumes prior knowledge of the unstated intentions of the writer.

This can lead to misunderstandings when assessing the value of someone's writing, especially when a misunderstanding is predicated entirely on a diagnosis of the writer's supposed character.

Elsewhere on Mobile Read, someone once tried to take me to task for writing a metaphor that "alienated" my "audience." They didn't seem to understand when I explained that I considered myself alone to be my "audience" and felt unconcerned that a metaphor which required some familiarity with classical music could conceivably "alienate" someone else.

The confusion began when, earlier on, a different member quoted the metaphor I'd written and concluded that it showed I knew nothing about classical music.

Initially, I found his statement amusing. At that point, the thread was still fun for me.

When I explained that I'd played classical music all my life, and that music composition happened to be my major in college, his argument then became that the metaphor was snotty in its supposedly incomprehensible specialization. The idea was that a metaphor which risked obscurity had to have been written by an egotist.

The conversation was therefore degraded. It had begun to revolve around projections of my presumed attitude on the metaphor as opposed to the craft of the metaphor itself.

As an experiment, I reposted the metaphor on Facebook and asked everyone who read it to tell me whether they agreed with the two MR members who claimed it was difficult to understand.

Interestingly, no one on Facebook seemed to have a problem with it -- not one solitary person.

Of the twenty or so people who responded -- including a professor of literature, a former critic for the Village Voice, a retired art historian, a widely published popular novelist, a Pulitzer Prizewinning poet, a sound engineer, a rock vocalist and numerous other casual correspondents -- none of them found the metaphor confusing, overly specialized or "alienating." All of them understood it intuitively.

This is why I consider a number of the discussions of writing on forums like this to be fruitless, misleading and, at their worst, venomously discouraging for the writer who might be more talented than confident. It's too easy for us to say that others should "learn to take criticism" without our acknowledging or perhaps even understanding what constructive criticism is; harder, to be sensitive to cases in which pejorative criticism might inhibit a writer at some crucial crossroad. Offering constructive criticism is not belittling someone else or telling them off.

Even professional writers can mislead and destroy other writers when their criticism becomes caustic.

I personally knew a man in his early twenties who had been the lover of a seasoned famous novelist. After they broke up, he asked the famous novelist for her honest assessment of his short story collection. Smiling, and speaking in the friendliest possible way (as she later explained), she told him that his book was worthless; that, even if he destroyed it and started all over again, his next book would likely be worthless, too; that he should therefore turn his attention to more productive endeavors.

The man agreed with her, thanked her for her candor, went home, burned all of his manuscripts, walked to the Hawthorne Bridge and stepped off the edge to his death.

This is not an apocryphal story. That man was my friend.

Never mind that surviving manuscripts suggest he was a gifted writer who at the very least ought to have been encouraged. Even if his work truly had been worthless, the damage to his life caused by one cruel assessment was unwarranted and unimaginable. To say he should have been tougher is to avoid understanding the weight which pejorative criticism can carry. Yes, I wish my friend had been tougher, but how does that wish excuse his ex-partner's actions? That famous novelist was clearly trying to hurt the man and did.

One thing I try to do in life is never to discourage anyone from creating something on their own. Even if I find the thing they've made unsatisfactory, I'm deeply aware that that thing might simply be a transition point toward something better, and that aggressively criticizing the transitional thing might impede their progress. You never know where a person's development and drive will take them.

For those reasons and others, I'm happy to have had such a friendly and open-ended discussion with you about the nature of ideas in/about fiction -- in/about fiction itself and not the people who happen to write it.

[gmw]

My explanations are empirical because I don't have a formal education in this area (as is probably obvious). I read, and for some years now I have obsessed over writing, mostly my own, but also paying more attention to what I read of others. The occasional thread here on MR is about the only place I get to discuss the thoughts that have arisen as a result of that obsession. So I have found our discussion interesting and enjoyable.

I recently read Dickens' American Notes - so I know what you mean by preachy, but don't mind it. I found American Notes to be an interesting way to view America (pre the civil war). I'd have loved to read his wife's account of the same journey, so much of the time in his writing it's as though she isn't even there. (Which perhaps says something in itself.)

I have never tried to read The Ticket That Exploded, and generally avoid most works based on these sorts of techniques. Nor am I a fan of haiku and similarly constrained forms of poetry. I was something of a maths nerd as a kid, learning tricks with numbers and even building various models based on mathematical properties, so I can understand the interest in such games, but to me they are still just games.

There is a lot to learn from playing games: they teach about the nature of the thing you are playing with, they teach you to recognise patterns, sometimes they show forms that offer interesting possibilities, and sometimes they even lead to something new. But individually each game is just an experiment, a trial, a test. They're things you share with your fellow nerds and maybe your Mum and Dad, who will smile and nod, even when they have no idea what you're talking about. But a work of art? That's where I have trouble. I rarely find watching other people's games entertaining (I don't even watch sports). The output may be clever, and sometimes even pretty, just as a Mandelbrot display is a clever and pretty representation of a simple maths formula, but I have trouble seeing it as an art form in itself.

(Okay, so the correlation is not perfect. Creating the game in the first place in arguably a very impressive art form. And some games do take a lot of work and talent, and even self-expression, but I think the above explains why I tend to shy away from such forms of writing, those are not games that interest me very much.)

I've not read any John Hawkes - and while our conversation here makes me curious, the link you provided, and some other research, means I am not sure I'm in a hurry to. One of the things I am curious about is how someone can use violence (in the way they say that Hawkes does) to expose the way violence is used in other fiction. It seems counter-intuitive. And I also wonder about the objective (assuming there is one beyond, "what happens if I do this").

Regarding the distinction of commericial vs non-commercial, I'm not sure that's quite the right one, though it is obviously part of it. Many non-commercial writers are happy to tell reasonably conventional stories. Writers (that wish to share their work) need to be aware of their audience, so I wonder if the distinction, when it comes to more experimental forms of fiction, is the target audience, maybe: public vs word nerds. (I'm hoping that, since I have self-identified as a maths nerd, the description won't come over as a pejorative - substitute "enthusasts" if necessary.)

I read this over and see that it may sound dismissive of such forms of writing, and I don't really mean it that way. Games are important an form of learning, and some games can be very advanced, only to be played by the most skilled. But they are limiting, often (usually?) intentionally so, and one of the things they limit is the audience.


Criticism of your work is one of those things a writer must learn to cope with, but some sources are have more impact that others. I paid for a critique on one of my works and the result wasn't pretty. Essentially I was told to give up on the piece - in almost those words. There were certain alleviating phrases around it, but the upshot was that the piece wasn't worth trying to fix. I expected picky, that's what I was paying for, but the strength of the dismissal was a big surprise to me. They were not only condemning the piece, they were condemning my ability to assess the worth of my own writing. I sent it (and paid the money) because I honestly thought it had potential, and I read widely enough that I had some confidence in my opinion. How could I be that far out? And, if I couldn't trust my own assessment, how was I going to write anything? With the help of my wife I've gotten past that, but at the time it hit very hard.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I had to look up erudite.

I can't be bothered to...

[kennyc]

To take this to another but similar place the difference is even more apparent in poetry. Certain poets seem to intentionally make their work inaccessible.

Originally Posted by gmw

Prestidigitweeze, I suspect we agree on a lot, but I don't mind a discussion rather than an argument. I'm not a fan of simplistic rules with regard to writing, they're only useful if you understand their intention, and if you understand that then you probably don't need the rule. (My knowledge of music is not sufficient to fully follow your example, but I can recognise that it is saying much the same thing.)

One of the misunderstandings that I've seen happen here (on MR) a few times is different distinctions that people place on the word "story". A guess a lot of people will interpret it as equivalent to plot, but I tend to use it in a wider (and admittedly more nebulous) sense - something like: what the book is about. That seems to be the only way to be inclusive of the huge variety of fiction.

Many books are mostly about the plot (the storyline, the sequence of events to be revealed). Some have almost no plot in the traditional sense (I sometimes have trouble with these). And some use a background plot mostly as a structure from which to hang the real story. In this latter group I think John Irving makes a good example; he usually has a plot, but I don't generally think of it as the story, it's not what the novel was about (not that Irving is usually about just one thing).

None of that is to place a value judgment on the different types of story, beyond what I personally find accessible, but it is to try and give some further definition to what I mean when I say that: "If the writer wants to impress me with their learning then that had better be conveyed within the context of the story, rather than the obscurity of their text."

The words that form the story should all be part of the story, whatever the story is. The writer's task, if they have a desire to exercise their erudition, or to pass on some message or moral, is to create a story that allows them to say these things as part of the story, rather than as an essay within a story. It should feel like a cohesive whole (... even if that cohesive whole is a demonstration that the world is not a cohesive whole - as per what I was saying about not liking simplistic rules ).

[kennyc]

Oh and I've tried over and over to read Joyce.....not worth it....never again....life is too short...give me Steinbeck, Faulkner, Dickens or Twain any day....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by gmw

My explanations are empirical because I don't have a formal education in this area (as is probably obvious). I read, and for some years now I have obsessed over writing, mostly my own, but also paying more attention to what I read of others. The occasional thread here on MR is about the only place I get to discuss the thoughts that have arisen as a result of that obsession. So I have found our discussion interesting and enjoyable.
.....
Regarding the distinction of commericial vs non-commercial, I'm not sure that's quite the right one, though it is obviously part of it. Many non-commercial writers are happy to tell reasonably conventional stories. Writers (that wish to share their work) need to be aware of their audience, so I wonder if the distinction, when it comes to more experimental forms of fiction, is the target audience, maybe: public vs word nerds. (I'm hoping that, since I have self-identified as a maths nerd, the description won't come over as a pejorative - substitute "enthusasts" if necessary.)
....

Criticism of your work is one of those things a writer must learn to cope with, but some sources are have more impact that others. I paid for a critique on one of my works and the result wasn't pretty. Essentially I was told to give up on the piece - in almost those words. ......

The best way to learn to write is to study the masters whose work you enjoy.

I too have found reading this interesting. But it definitiely mirrors many such discussions I've been involved in over the past 30 years or so.... I often am left with - There are many types or writing and readers, don't worry about the others, read, write, do what you love to the best of your ability.

The problem with critics is that they too are limited and often have blinders on. Many are failed or struggling writers themselves. It is rare to find a truly good critic/book doctor/reviewer. Much like the literary community or even writers groups or workshops which can be very insular. Add the distinction of literary/popular genre/non-genre to commercial/non-commercial and it all turns to mud.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the paid critique of your work.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The best way to learn to write is to study the masters whose work you enjoy.

I too have found reading this interesting. But it definitiely mirrors many such discussions I've been involved in over the past 30 years or so.... I often am left with - There are many types or writing and readers, don't worry about the others, read, write, do what you love to the best of your ability.

The problem with critics is that they too are limited and often have blinders on. Many are failed or struggling writers themselves. It is rare to find a truly good critic/book doctor/reviewer. Much like the literary community or even writers groups or workshops which can be very insular. Add the distinction of literary/popular genre/non-genre to commercial/non-commercial and it all turns to mud.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the paid critique of your work.

I have gotten past it, though obviously not so far past as to have forgotten, and I guess I don't want to forget. It's all part of the education. And some of the items in the critique were useful - even those that told me things I probably knew but didn't have the confidence to be sure of. But I had to get over the initial shock before I could start to pick out the good from the other.

A lot of conversations get repeated around the Internet - sometimes it's even by the same people (though we can hope they show some evolution), but sometimes the repetitions involve those who haven't see the previous ones. Amiable discussions like this one offer an opportunity to widen your horizons and begin to see things as others see them, but I also find that having to express my own thoughts in these discussions is a useful way to clarify them even for myself - sort of like a journal that talks back when you say something too stupid .