(no subject)
My prof for my creative writing class said that she assumed all the CW majors had this particular book (Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft by Janet Burroway) and was familiar with it, and if any of us didn't have it (it may ONLY be me in that class; i don't know) we needed to buy it and read certain chapters. So mine arrived this week, and last night I sat down to read the first chapter she recommended, on "Story Form, Plot, and Structure". Here are the first three paragraphs:
What makes you want to write?
It seems likely that the earliest storytellers--in the tent or the harem, around the campfire or on the Viking ship--told stories out of an impulse to tell stories. They made themselves popular by distracting their listeners from a dull or dangerous evening with heroic exploits and a skill at creating suspense: What happened next? And after that? And then what happened?
Natural storytellers are still around, and a few of them are very rich. Some are on the best-seller list; more are in television and film. But it's probable that your impulse to write has little to do with the desire or the skill to work out a plot. On the contrary, you want to write because you are a sensitive observer. You have something to say that does not answer the question, What happened next? You share with most--and the best--contemporary fiction writers a sense of the injustice, the absurdity, and the beauty of the world; and you want to register your protest, your laughter, and your affirmation.
Ashley: ...No, actually, I just want to tell a story.
I mean, I do want to create interesting and realistic characters; I do want to convey my sense of the beauty, the tragedy, and the humor of the world, and it'd be great if my writing influenced someone's thinking or taught them something. But those goals, though important, are secondary. Really, I just want to come up with a fun story, have fun telling that story, and enjoy watching other people enjoy the story. That's it.
Because of this, plot is not a problem for me. If I have only an interesting character, I store it away somewhere: I only write the story if I have a plot for it, or at least a beginning situation to start from. However, I have discovered that some of my classmates (and the audience this book was written to) write stories without knowing precisely what the plot is. I find this gobsmacking.
I believe this comes back to the difference between "popular literature" and "literary literature", and the supposed hierarchy between them. "Popular literature" writers might get rich and famous, but the best writers are those who are "literary"--and are appreciated only by a few, who have had their taste educated.
I think part of the reason for this supposed hierarchy is because the academy still studies works of what they believe to be "literary literature"--those works that have stood the test of time because they could be applied more generally than merely to their own culture and time. And yes, that's a great thing when that can happen, and obviously those books speak to something deep in human nature or lasting in human culture. I think it relates to the Enlightenment beliefs we were discussing--and making fun of--in the class I'm TAing: that all art should educate morally and that what is best in art is that which reflects "Nature": the things that are true about all humans in all places at all times. We laugh and say that art need not be morally didactic--but then we prize art that teaches lessons, particularly if those lessons be political and liberal (nothing necessarily wrong with those lessons; I'm only pointing out that we still prize them though the lessons are no longer religious as they used to be). We laugh and say that art cannot POSSIBLY reflect an unchanging human nature because all people are different, affected by their own cultures--but then we prize the art that stands the test of time--at least in OUR culture--because it continues to speak to people in our culture.
BUT what is wrong with writing that only speaks to the concerns and tastes of its own time? Just because the interest in it is ephemeral doesn't mean that the literature is "bad"--and what do we mean by "bad" anyway? These are questions that the academy ignores because, I think, they firstly have no answer to them, and secondly, these questions make them uncomfortable because they call into question everything they have said about literature by calling into question their underlying assumptions.
Anyway, as I'm sure you can tell by this long and perhaps overly-impassioned post, my uneasy relationship with academia continues. :)
PS: The chapter on plot, though I had to swallow my spleen in those first three paragraphs, was quite good and very interesting. It gave me some new ways to think about plot--though I don't think it actually TAUGHT me much, since everything it recommended doing I think I'm already doing instinctively. Because I like to tell stories.
PPS: Just found this passage on TORN and it seems so appropriate: The Guardian writes that recently released documents reveal in 1961 Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” - nominated by friend and fellow fantasy writer CS Lewis - was rejected by the Nobel Prize jury “on the grounds of his second-rate prose.” The news organization reports that though LOTR was “crowned the UK’s best-loved book and sold millions of copies around the world,” the 1961 jury believed the book “has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality.”
What makes you want to write?
It seems likely that the earliest storytellers--in the tent or the harem, around the campfire or on the Viking ship--told stories out of an impulse to tell stories. They made themselves popular by distracting their listeners from a dull or dangerous evening with heroic exploits and a skill at creating suspense: What happened next? And after that? And then what happened?
Natural storytellers are still around, and a few of them are very rich. Some are on the best-seller list; more are in television and film. But it's probable that your impulse to write has little to do with the desire or the skill to work out a plot. On the contrary, you want to write because you are a sensitive observer. You have something to say that does not answer the question, What happened next? You share with most--and the best--contemporary fiction writers a sense of the injustice, the absurdity, and the beauty of the world; and you want to register your protest, your laughter, and your affirmation.
Ashley: ...No, actually, I just want to tell a story.
I mean, I do want to create interesting and realistic characters; I do want to convey my sense of the beauty, the tragedy, and the humor of the world, and it'd be great if my writing influenced someone's thinking or taught them something. But those goals, though important, are secondary. Really, I just want to come up with a fun story, have fun telling that story, and enjoy watching other people enjoy the story. That's it.
Because of this, plot is not a problem for me. If I have only an interesting character, I store it away somewhere: I only write the story if I have a plot for it, or at least a beginning situation to start from. However, I have discovered that some of my classmates (and the audience this book was written to) write stories without knowing precisely what the plot is. I find this gobsmacking.
I believe this comes back to the difference between "popular literature" and "literary literature", and the supposed hierarchy between them. "Popular literature" writers might get rich and famous, but the best writers are those who are "literary"--and are appreciated only by a few, who have had their taste educated.
I think part of the reason for this supposed hierarchy is because the academy still studies works of what they believe to be "literary literature"--those works that have stood the test of time because they could be applied more generally than merely to their own culture and time. And yes, that's a great thing when that can happen, and obviously those books speak to something deep in human nature or lasting in human culture. I think it relates to the Enlightenment beliefs we were discussing--and making fun of--in the class I'm TAing: that all art should educate morally and that what is best in art is that which reflects "Nature": the things that are true about all humans in all places at all times. We laugh and say that art need not be morally didactic--but then we prize art that teaches lessons, particularly if those lessons be political and liberal (nothing necessarily wrong with those lessons; I'm only pointing out that we still prize them though the lessons are no longer religious as they used to be). We laugh and say that art cannot POSSIBLY reflect an unchanging human nature because all people are different, affected by their own cultures--but then we prize the art that stands the test of time--at least in OUR culture--because it continues to speak to people in our culture.
BUT what is wrong with writing that only speaks to the concerns and tastes of its own time? Just because the interest in it is ephemeral doesn't mean that the literature is "bad"--and what do we mean by "bad" anyway? These are questions that the academy ignores because, I think, they firstly have no answer to them, and secondly, these questions make them uncomfortable because they call into question everything they have said about literature by calling into question their underlying assumptions.
Anyway, as I'm sure you can tell by this long and perhaps overly-impassioned post, my uneasy relationship with academia continues. :)
PS: The chapter on plot, though I had to swallow my spleen in those first three paragraphs, was quite good and very interesting. It gave me some new ways to think about plot--though I don't think it actually TAUGHT me much, since everything it recommended doing I think I'm already doing instinctively. Because I like to tell stories.
PPS: Just found this passage on TORN and it seems so appropriate: The Guardian writes that recently released documents reveal in 1961 Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” - nominated by friend and fellow fantasy writer CS Lewis - was rejected by the Nobel Prize jury “on the grounds of his second-rate prose.” The news organization reports that though LOTR was “crowned the UK’s best-loved book and sold millions of copies around the world,” the 1961 jury believed the book “has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality.”