I know fiction is formulaic, and this is both comforting and frustrating. the question is whether I am ultimately interested in fiction, or something else. I have decided that I am not usually a storyteller. stories don't occur to me. characters, positions, ideas, random thoughts - those seem to me much more immediate and pressing than some kind of this-happened-then-that-happened sequence. I'm really not usually interested in setting a scene, although that has been known to happen. but if I could somehow boil fiction down to some kind of written-out thought process, I would. I'm trying.
lydia davis does this. she doesn't have stories, she just has these things - essays, testimonials, lists, or whatever - that give you information without bothering with story. the reader can construe a story if she wants. for example she has a thing where she just lists the various maids, over 100 of them, who worked for this woman named Mrs. D., and if you want, you can superimpose a narrative which includes the decline of the maids, although they don't necessarily get progressively worse. they just come and go. this is both closer to reality than most fiction and also less "interesting" because it doesn't spend every sentence trying to entertain you. I got bored while reading it, but I read the whole thing, then wasn't sure how I felt about it.
then there are books which are both nonlinear and nontraditional and entertaining. I read frances johnson for a class. this book is fucking hilarious in a way that is impossible to explain. there are beginnings of storylines - stupid, bizarre ones - but they kind of fizzle out. the only thing unifying the whole mess is the consistency of the characters. otherwise, it's just a collection of funny sentences.
this is the main fake plot, the quest to get this totally bizarre item that makes no sense and is hilarious:
The man scooted forward. "Frances, what if I were to ask you to help me with an errand?"
"Errand? What errand?"
"I'm no competer," Palmer began with controlled excitement. "But like most professionals, I've long been drawing up elaborate plans in my bedroom at night. I may have mentioned my experiments before...you see. I've been tinkering with a wax-and-oil compound for quite a while. The project excites me terribly, Frances. To be exact, I'm trying to invent a special balm."
She listened with absorption, watching the man's chin and its movements.
"I hope that one day, this balm will stand up to criticism, and maybe even help people far away. Does that sound silly?" The man stared ahead, pushing his glasses up his nose, resting his forearms on lean knees. "Well, you see, there's a particular ingredient I need to finish the project, but lack. The stuff isn't available in Munson - "
"You're not like anyone," she observed.
"...and which is not exotic, by any means. It is, however, an unusual, semihardened oil with some far-reaching, healthful properties I've long admired. I want my balm to have pizzazz! Searching for far-flung ingredients is not my forte, however, and I can't take time to travel, not with my responsibilities in town. Frances - can you help? If you find the oil for me, I think it would help us both. Besides, travel makes me queasy. I need the darned oil - "
"What sort of oil?"
"Chicken-beak oil," he replied, "and lots of it. Can the stuff be found in this state? Christ, no! You have to look elsehere," he added softly, and his light eyes bored into hers. "This errand could help you leave town, Frances, as a push, a starting point, a way out of your own hesitation. If you go, I'll be standing right behind you."
I know I am not the only person who gets bored with realistic fiction, and I'm wondering what is at the root of that boredom. it seems connected to this problem of whether or not to accept archetypes, or narratives, which is also bothering me. when I first read joseph campbell I thought that this was essential knowledge that was being forgotten, that every strong story has some kind of mythic basis; but now I'm not sure we should really be reinforcing the same old stories that have been told for years and years. I think many of the people who read a lot are totally bored by them, and tired of being forced to read shakespeare or melville or whatever.
on the other hand, I think there is a lot of stuff getting written now that is not serious in any way, which is good, but I also like serious stuff. even frances johnson has some serious stuff going on which is thematic and can be explored in a conceptual approach. I think it might be an extremely strong example of merging a new style with an old one, although I wish it had been a little more conclusive instead of just meandering until it was done. still, for an audience that gets bored pretty easily, it's more than satisfactory.
narrative is addictive and I don't know that the new crop of writing can do without it; at the same time, the usual causal chain of events that normally drive a narrative might not be enough. certainly, a story based in reality where a character learns from the external world and has a growth experience is easily recognizable to most readers. I think writing a story based in reality is the first mistake a writer can make, I think realism is a myth and my brain won't accept it. whether or not the rest of the world is heading this direction I can't definitively say, but I think there has been a huge upsurge of fiction which deliberately avoids reality in order to interest the reader and be more accurate. I am a fan of this kind of fiction. I think I see realism as a lost cause, as striving toward some perfection of artifice where the reader forgets it is artifice. this is totally impossible.
it's not even "magical realism" I'm talking about, although that definitely fits; it's the kind of fiction where the universe is represented in a manner that is skewed somehow. sometimes the irregularity is in the actual events of the story, which might be impossible in the real world - magical realism - and sometimes it's in the way the thing is told. in either case, we are being confronted with the fact that everything we see is a metaphor, as nietzsche said.
4 comments:
but if I could somehow boil fiction down to some kind of written-out thought process, I would.
I think you can. And it would still be interesting if the reader can strongly identify with it, because I think people are really self-centered when they're reading.
Like, this was really interesting for me to read even though I have no interest in the topic or know the players, but you had a point that I felt rang true: writing is not completely reality and never can be, so it's more pretentious then writing that doesn't try to be anything but writing. I feel like things ring true when they are grounded in clearheaded sincerity, and everything else is just details.
Perhaps if journalism could aim to present reality we would all be better off.
right then, journalism is the new realism. I like that.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, I am still at like the most basic level when it comes to literary criticism. like this is all incredibly basic stuff that I'm confronting here but still, you gotta start somewhere. and most fiction workshops operate completely out of the realm of literary criticism, it's almost like the 20th century didn't happen and we're still all stuck in realist mode.
"most fiction workshops operate completely out of the realm of literary criticism, it's almost like the 20th century didn't happen and we're still all stuck in realist mode"
LOL
It's like nobody told them history died, or they're just pretending. Art like that, well, that's a billabong.
i had to look up 'billabong' to understand that comment.
Post a Comment