What are the important, unresolved problems in contemporary fiction?
We writers like to believe that any story can be great. Every twenty-year-old has the life experience to write a dozen novels; or at the least, has poigniant stories to tell, if only he possessed the talent and nurtured the skill.
Quite possibly, but is that enought to be great?
Truly great fiction, lasting, amazing fiction (I now believe!) attacks some new problem, enters a new terriroty, or concpetualizes an existing problem in a new way. Am I off base here? Or am I correct in thinking that Joyce, Hemingway, Morrison, McCarthy all treat different, new ideas in their best work?
What I'm trying to say is that: 1) it's worthwhile to regularly contemplate fiction at this abstract, theoretical level 2) it's important to devote one's efforts to the important problems, which means writing stories with a high degree of ambition.
The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems to me.
If you want to write really great stuff, you have to understand what importnat work remains in your field. Which universal stories can still be improved? Which of the best, most moving stories remain untold?
I credit the following awesome speech on scientific research for my epiphany:
http://paulgraham.com/hamming.html
Quite possibly, but is that enought to be great?
Truly great fiction, lasting, amazing fiction (I now believe!) attacks some new problem, enters a new terriroty, or concpetualizes an existing problem in a new way. Am I off base here? Or am I correct in thinking that Joyce, Hemingway, Morrison, McCarthy all treat different, new ideas in their best work?
What I'm trying to say is that: 1) it's worthwhile to regularly contemplate fiction at this abstract, theoretical level 2) it's important to devote one's efforts to the important problems, which means writing stories with a high degree of ambition.
The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems to me.
If you want to write really great stuff, you have to understand what importnat work remains in your field. Which universal stories can still be improved? Which of the best, most moving stories remain untold?
I credit the following awesome speech on scientific research for my epiphany:
http://paulgraham.com/hamming.html
posted by Ari at 5:57 PM
4 Comments:
I think I get your gist, after reading the speech, but this post's a little vague. I don't know what you mean by the new and different ideas of Joyce, et. al., or what you mean by important problems, or writing with a high degree of ambition.
I think writing makes a tough comparison to science, or fiction does, at least. Art and science have different aims, so it's hard to quantify a "problem" within fiction itself -- although it's far easier to see problems in the contemporary study of fiction, the publishing of fiction, and even the reading (or not reading) of fiction. But within fiction itself, what problem is not subjective?
The comparison certainly doesn't work 1-1, but the concept was productive for me. Lets see if i can give an example to make this less vague.
Say you want to write a love story. In that case, i think you should really aim to attack the topic, taking into account the great love stories that have been written and doing something new in terms of theme or craft. (This sounds really fucking obvious, but it certainly doesn't describe my approach to stories, which is usually vague. Like start with an image, line, voice, idea, memory see where I end up.)
The idea of taking into account what's been written, and aiming to really stake out your own territory is where I see a parallel... and because fiction is so amorphous, there are lots of ways to do that.
"What We Talk About when we talk about love" by Carver is an example of a love story that really is very rigorous, almost scientific, in examing/dramatizing different aspects of love. Certain Wolff stories seem to also really be innovating at the level of idea/theme.
But you can also stake out territory by playing with form, mixing genre, inventing pyschological realsim, etc. It's the ambition to write stories that innovate and to write with a deep awareness of other writings on similar subjects/themes that I think is essential when you talk about the writing the very best stuff.
Oh, okay, I think I get it a little better now. The love story example helps. I agree that we should be taking into account what's been done much more than most of us (me included) do -- that's one of the reasons I'm constantly railing against the Carver-aping being promoted in this program.
At the same time, innovation is so much harder. First, you've got to have a really broad, almost comprehensive knowledge of literature, which takes a long time and a lot of diligence to amass. And then you've still got the talent to pull it off -- to camouflage your innovation within a compelling narrative -- because nothing pisses a reader off more than an obvious attempt at being "different" (see mine and Rick's hourlong debate on the road-narrator idea).
But like that dude said (and I agree), there's no point in setting out to do small things. I totally agree with that. Even if it will never equate to success -- Danielle Steel ain't exactly Faulkner -- if we're going to call ourselves artists, it's our obligation to try big things.
I've got a big thing you can try.
Oh, sorry. I was thinking I was on another site I often visit.
There are no new themes to be explored in literature. This has been true for thousands of years.
Justin makes a good point. To explore new ground, you need to have a strong grasp of what has been done before you. That is a lot of stuff.
There's also a big canon of works about literary aesthetics and on fiction in particular. I guess the charge that we must fill in the empty gaps is a little more than I'm willing to take on. Just writing a good story is hard enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home