Re: What counts as literary.

John W Kennedy <jwkenne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

- writers who wish to express a particular - often dystopian - idea, and
who will write what's closer to a parabel than a story - to them, it
doesn't matter that the characters are made of cardboard and their
motivation stinks, because they're not characters, they're allegories.

Characters are not allegories, and neither are parables.

Your use of 'allegory' might not be my use of 'allegory.' I was using it
in the sense of 'symbol.' Admittedly, that was not the best way of
expressing it, but I wasn't actually _wrong_. (The OED gives 'allegory'
as a synonym for parable. I don't agree with that usage; but I stand by
making the story/parable distinction.)


The difference between an allegory and a parable is that an allegory is
long and systematic, whereas a parable is short and normally makes one
and only one point.

That's my feeling, too, but I feel that a lot of 'literary' works I've
read *can* be reduced to 'all politicians are corrupt' life is
pointless' and similar very direct, very simplified points. Allegory (as
story form) I see as something that lets the reader draw its own
conclusions. In that respect, a lot of speculative fiction is
allegorical, because we might talk about alien worlds, beings, and
powers, but there are always resonations with *our* world. Brecht did
the same with Mother Courage, setting it in China instead of at home
because in examining that which is strange with new eyes, you will
examine your preconceptions about your own world.

Which is why I *hate* theatre adaptations that turn historical settings
into modern ones: I can draw the connections myself, thankyouverymuch,
and in reducing something to be relevant only to one situation (the
current one) you're robbing it of its versatility to be relevant to many
more.


- writers who place extremely high emphasis on craft, so that the words
sing, and the text is layered with lots of hidden meanings - these are
books that are meant to be read several times over and savored, not
beach reads.

And lastly,

Not "lastly". You have forgotten writers who simply love words, words,
words.

'so that the words sing'. No, I haven't forgotten them at all.

You have also forgotten what, compared to SF, is almost always regarded
as "literary": complex characterization. Most decent SF writers will
eventually come up with a few, usually conflicted demi-villains (Lord
Gro, Boromir, Elric, the Mule). But the transparently coruscating
creations of, say, Shakespeare or Jane Austen are rare indeed.

We might be reading different subsets of the genre. I think complex
characterisation is one of the joys of the genre, one of its strong
points. Again, for me that falls under 'craft,' I don't have seperate
mental categories for complex characterisation and complex worldbuilding
and complex plotlines and complex-everything-else, and I find it hard to
imagine anyone who would write something heartbreakingly beautiful in
one aspect that is crude and boring in another. I've recently read a
book with very complex worldbuilding, but as the language was utterly
pedestrian, it was not 'literary' in any way, shape, or form, just
complex details jumbled together.


there are writers who feel they are talented - and who might
be - who do not wish to take the time to learn their craft; and who
accuse anyone complaining about 'not getting it' as if opaque prose and
convoluted sentences are a sign of genius. These are the books readers
and writers most often rail against, because if you want to break rules,
you need to understand them first. I can dislike a book and still
appreciate that it is well-written; but being impossible to understand
is not a mark of quality.

There is the problem (as Lewis discusses in his discussion of Charles
William's Arthuriad) of privatism, and its gradual shading off into
unshared background. For example, one cannot fully appreciate the tale
of Bel Riose without knowing the career of Belisarius. On the other
hand, one cannot even clearly comprehend some of Van Vogt without
knowing something of Korzybski's theories. But here's the question:
clearly a living writer is justified in assuming that his readers know
that "The Simpsons" is an animated TV series. But how far justified is
he to refer to "a Patty Bouvier voice"? To use the word "cromulent"? To
mention JubJub the iguana and expect his readers to know what it symbolizes?

If your book depends on reader knowledge, you ought to be honest about
it and lob a few of them right at the beginning of the book, so that
readers who enjoy that sort of thing can enjoy it and the rest of us are
warned. See category one. Not a problem when done well rather than as a
vehicle to show of brilliant the author is.

Otherwise, it's a question of skill. You can read Jasper Fforde's Eyre
Affair without ever having read Jane Eyre: it makes pefect sense, as do
Terry Pratchett's books which are *full* of cultural references, many of
which are hidden very deeply indeed. Multi-layered books are not the
ones that will appear pretentious; books that show up the reader's lack
of knowledge will.

As for using popular culture, one needs to consider just how widespread
the thing you're referring to is, whether it cuts across countries,
cultures, and social classes.

My gut role is that a) references should be able to stand alone wherever
possible. 'A seaside vacation in Skegness' might not mean anything to
you, but it ought to take only a few nuances to make it clear what it's
referring to. Those people who know Skeggy - even by reputation - will
get more out of it, but you need only one general cultural reference -
British seaside - and the rest will practically write itself. A Patty
Bouvier voice, on the other hand, is something that will date very
quickly - I've never heard the name, I have absolutely no mental image
of what that voice would be like - high and squeaky? low and husky?
clipped? and I'd probably use a more accessible comparison if I could.
'sounded like a rubber duck,' 'as if she had a head cold' 'a voice in
its finest sunday best.'

People forget, and people from other cultures might never have known.
*Some* references are pretty much universally known, but most *aren't,*
and unless you want to share your in-jokes with readers 'who get it'
think who'll be reading your book fifty years from now - do you *really*
want a footnoted edition?


Catja

--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What counts as literary.
    ... Writers who want to set their readers intellectual puzzles, ... motivation stinks, because they're not characters, they're allegories. ... The difference between an allegory and a parable is that an allegory is long and systematic, whereas a parable is short and normally makes one and only one point. ... Most decent SF writers will eventually come up with a few, usually conflicted demi-villains. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Writing the breakout novel
    ... three favourite books. ... an even earlier novel, both able to use magic in different ways, but the ... popular with the readers. ... Obviously I find all my main characters fascinating, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Way OT. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.
    ... Not really fair to compare Lewis' ... My only point was of comparison was that both books were ... it tends to be "allegory" only in the broad loose sense. ... sending Dan-Brown-style coded secret messages to his readers via ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: This is sad in the year 2007
    ... But marketing tends to keep the books ... I would guess that as black readers ... too gritty for me to buy for the teens but WILDLY popular. ... non-white characters. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Dramatis personnae--Biggest waste of space
    ... earlier volumes of the same series that don't make an appearence in ... spread out over months), that's a lot of characters to keep straight, ... I would claim a DP is useful for some readers in many other cases, ... Going by previous DPs in Erikson's books, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)