CCBC-Net Archives
experiments in form
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Nancy Werlin <nwerlin>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
Marc Aronson asks: >>So I'd ask folks whether they think it worked, whether structure or form can be part of the content of a book, or whether it becomes intrusive. You don't want a novel to be an exercise. But sometimes, as in Bach, an exercise can be eloquent. I'd also be interested in people's thoughts on other novels in which form was that important. Can we generalize about what is necessary to experiments in form such that they also succeed as novels?<<
I have strong feelings on this topic, some of which I tried to work out in the "YA Talk" essay in the Oct 1 issue of Booklist. But primarily, I think that if a novelist begins a novel with the idea that it is to be an experiment in form, the novel is doomed to failure. (:> I exaggerate for dramatic effect.)
I think there are three important factors here:
One. The story itself -- and/or who the characters are -- must actually FORCE the choice of a nonstandard form. The successful novel (by which I suppose I mean one that enters the heart and mind so that it exists there independently of its physical form, if you follow me) begins with a situation or character (or set of characters) that simply cannot be described using a traditional linear narrative structure, because that would not describe them WELL.
Secondly, whatever else you, as an author, do, when you choose to go non-standard, you must keep in mind that the more you deviate from standard, the more likely you'll lose at least part of your audience. So you need to find a way that LOOKS non-standard enough to be true to your unsual story or character, but that stays close enough to convention to hold onto your audience. The author walks a tightrope. WHIRLIGIG isn't very hard for the reader to figure out, after the first transition. If it were difficult to figure out, the book most likely wouldn't work.
Finally, standard narrative structure is itself extremely flexible, and is the default choice for that very reason. Authors should abandon it -- and I am aware this is a provocative statement! -- only when they cannot help themselves, only when trying something else is the only honest way to tell the story that must be told. Experiment for experiment's sake is a lousy idea. It has to be done for the sake of something more important.
Let's look at an adult novel, J.R. by Wiliam Gaddis. It's told entirely in conversation, without any attributes to tell you who's talking, without any scene setting, without any action. It's enormous in length. It's utterly brilliant, wildly funny, and pretty near impossible to read. It's a tour de force, no doubt about it.
But you know what? Gaddis did this for the sake of doing it, NOT because the story couldn't have been told using standard structure. And brilliant as J.R. is, it will never have more than the tiniest of audiences, and (to my mind), that's a shame... because it could have been as accessible as Tom Jones, and Gaddis's strong points about American capitalism and the ludicrousness of small town life, and his hilarious and poignant characterizations would have been made MORE STRONGLY. So, I find Gaddis's choice of an experimental form rather, well, mean and selfish. He's writing for himself and a few buddies. It's so elitist it turns my stomach, even as I recognize his artistry.
By contrast, look at William Faulkner's SOUND AND THE FURY. The first quarter, narrated by Benjy "the idiot," is as difficult as anything in J.R. But I would argue that Faulker, unlike Gaddis, had no choice but to write this time-jumping, stream of consciousness babble, because it was the only way to present a plausible voice for Benjy. See the difference?
Now, many literary folks would disagree with me, would say that experiment for experiment's sake is just fine, and nobody can tell ME what to write, etc etc etc. But I say that making a book deliberately inaccessible for NO OTHER REASON than the desire to experiment is, well, a bad idea. And I do hope that as childrens and YA books move into the arena of structural experimentation, their authors and editors keep that in mind.
-Nancy, who wasn't ever going to post to this list, but just lurk, but who never was able to shut up.
nwerlin at world.std.com Nancy Werlin
Received on Tue 13 Oct 1998 01:22:43 PM CDT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
Marc Aronson asks: >>So I'd ask folks whether they think it worked, whether structure or form can be part of the content of a book, or whether it becomes intrusive. You don't want a novel to be an exercise. But sometimes, as in Bach, an exercise can be eloquent. I'd also be interested in people's thoughts on other novels in which form was that important. Can we generalize about what is necessary to experiments in form such that they also succeed as novels?<<
I have strong feelings on this topic, some of which I tried to work out in the "YA Talk" essay in the Oct 1 issue of Booklist. But primarily, I think that if a novelist begins a novel with the idea that it is to be an experiment in form, the novel is doomed to failure. (:> I exaggerate for dramatic effect.)
I think there are three important factors here:
One. The story itself -- and/or who the characters are -- must actually FORCE the choice of a nonstandard form. The successful novel (by which I suppose I mean one that enters the heart and mind so that it exists there independently of its physical form, if you follow me) begins with a situation or character (or set of characters) that simply cannot be described using a traditional linear narrative structure, because that would not describe them WELL.
Secondly, whatever else you, as an author, do, when you choose to go non-standard, you must keep in mind that the more you deviate from standard, the more likely you'll lose at least part of your audience. So you need to find a way that LOOKS non-standard enough to be true to your unsual story or character, but that stays close enough to convention to hold onto your audience. The author walks a tightrope. WHIRLIGIG isn't very hard for the reader to figure out, after the first transition. If it were difficult to figure out, the book most likely wouldn't work.
Finally, standard narrative structure is itself extremely flexible, and is the default choice for that very reason. Authors should abandon it -- and I am aware this is a provocative statement! -- only when they cannot help themselves, only when trying something else is the only honest way to tell the story that must be told. Experiment for experiment's sake is a lousy idea. It has to be done for the sake of something more important.
Let's look at an adult novel, J.R. by Wiliam Gaddis. It's told entirely in conversation, without any attributes to tell you who's talking, without any scene setting, without any action. It's enormous in length. It's utterly brilliant, wildly funny, and pretty near impossible to read. It's a tour de force, no doubt about it.
But you know what? Gaddis did this for the sake of doing it, NOT because the story couldn't have been told using standard structure. And brilliant as J.R. is, it will never have more than the tiniest of audiences, and (to my mind), that's a shame... because it could have been as accessible as Tom Jones, and Gaddis's strong points about American capitalism and the ludicrousness of small town life, and his hilarious and poignant characterizations would have been made MORE STRONGLY. So, I find Gaddis's choice of an experimental form rather, well, mean and selfish. He's writing for himself and a few buddies. It's so elitist it turns my stomach, even as I recognize his artistry.
By contrast, look at William Faulkner's SOUND AND THE FURY. The first quarter, narrated by Benjy "the idiot," is as difficult as anything in J.R. But I would argue that Faulker, unlike Gaddis, had no choice but to write this time-jumping, stream of consciousness babble, because it was the only way to present a plausible voice for Benjy. See the difference?
Now, many literary folks would disagree with me, would say that experiment for experiment's sake is just fine, and nobody can tell ME what to write, etc etc etc. But I say that making a book deliberately inaccessible for NO OTHER REASON than the desire to experiment is, well, a bad idea. And I do hope that as childrens and YA books move into the arena of structural experimentation, their authors and editors keep that in mind.
-Nancy, who wasn't ever going to post to this list, but just lurk, but who never was able to shut up.
nwerlin at world.std.com Nancy Werlin
Received on Tue 13 Oct 1998 01:22:43 PM CDT
