Storytelling v. Writing

Oops, did I do it again. I confused Theme for Storytelling. I agree,

 

Did I mention that Balzac is really great? I mean you could write your thesis on his works. And that stuff is important too. I want to expose myself to greatness when I read. That's story, that's language, that's when everything works. Balzac is a great example of all that.

 

It's one of those things that boils down to preference, I suppose. I love reading a story that makes me think, not only during the reading, but afterwards. I want to think about whatever issue the story raises. I want to be immersed in the story and moved—in some way—as I read it. And I want to remember it afterwards.

I have a mental image of an author standing beside a closed door. As I approach, the author sweeps the door open so I can look at what is on the other side of it. I don't want to spend time looking at the author OR the door itself. I want to see what's on the other side of that door. Any author who can do that, and who can show me a landscape I find interesting or moving, will quickly become 'a favourite.'

I read lots of literary authors who do this for me. I'm just reading one now: Bernard McLaverty. However, I've also read many literary authors who keep me standing there looking at them, or the door. (Hilary Mantel comes to mind.) They may be interesting people, and the door might be exceedingly well crafted. But if the door doesn't open for me, I don't relate to them, or to the purpose of the story.

 

I'm glad to see there is another Balzacian here. Yes, I know I've thrown this out there a few times, but the loudest argument being made is by a poster who admits to not reading. Good writing requires reading. I think life requires reading. And if this poster wants to go on about stuff they clearly don't understand, I think maybe they should check out Balzac. I say fall in love with literature then write.

 

@deadrats and @Homer Potvin - Okay, you've intrigued me. I just bought a Kindle collection of short stories by Balzac. I don't think I've ever read him before. Looking forward to gaining another favourite author.

 

I was 63 when I first tried to write any fiction. I will probably never be very good at it, but it's fun. I allways loved reading. I have literally read several thousands books. And to me it's the story that stays. Beautiful, smart, witty and poetic language stays as sparkeling scattered fragments but they can't hold a story.

I still remember and sometimes think about stories I read fifty years ago. I don't remember the author. I don't remember if it was in English or Swedish. I don't remember any names. But I remember key parts of the story.

I regret that I, during those 50+ years, didn't pay more attention to the language. It would have made me a better writer. But as a reader it doesn't matter as long as you open @jannert ’s door and jump on the rollercoaster.

 

I used to believe in the primacy of Story too, until I read Lord of the Flies. The story was okay but it was the writing - the use of language - that propelled the book into one of my favourite reads. A gem on every page.

Story & writing are entwined I guess. You might deconstruct a watch to find out what each of the components does but you can't reverse-engineer a commercially successful book because there are too many interrelated variables to account for. Not to say this discussion is pointless; it has thrown up some interesting thoughts and Balzac appears to have done rather well from it. I wonder if his ears are burning somewhere out beyond the stars.

 

I'd say the lesson learned here is to pick a pen name that sounds like a p***s.

 

I think you're right that story and writing are entwined. And there is at least one author I can think of whose style is maybe as important than the story she tells ...E Annie Proulx. But even with her, while the style is captivating, it's the story that sticks.

Another author whose style almost trumps story is Terry Pratchett. So there are exceptions. But these exceptions are exceptional (!) and I do think truly reflect the author's personality. I can't imagine them writing any other way. But so many others seem to be trying too hard, in my opinion anyway.

It's kind of like praising a singer because they have such a wonderful voice. Voice is the mechanism to transmit story, isn't it? Same as writing is the mechanism to transmit story. I become jaded when the mechanism seems more important than anything else.

 

I think you could argue that story is the mechanism to transmit voice. I mean, most stories are sort of "big deal. I've seen this before."

A perfect example of this is Nabokov's Pale Fire. I don't even know what to really call it, (it's definitely not a story) other than a literary transcendence.

 

Well, yes, as I said, it's a matter of preference. I've tried reading Nabokov, and I just can't get into his writing. It doesn't draw me in. Yes, it's clever and unique, but it doesn't draw me in.

I think you're right about some folks using story to transmit voice. I think it shows. And not in a good way. Of course a wonderful voice AND the ability to transmit 'story' is fantastic. I won't argue against having a wonderful voice as a singer. But for me, there has got to be more.

As a writer, I would be very discouraged if somebody's reaction to my novel went along the lines of: "Oh, I just love your sentence structure and your word choices. And your metaphors are just fantastic. They take me a while to figure out, but when I finally do, they make me sit back and clap my hands in glee. What a talent! What a wordsmith you are! Can I have your autograph?"

 

But if you look at the original post, you’ll see I’m talking about market success. Sales. That’s where storytelling tends to take precedence. The fact that a lot of us here, myself included, like literary fiction isn’t really relevant.

 

I wonder if this is universally true. I mean, a lot of the big break-out bestsellers (50 Shades, Twilight, etc.) have been story-based... well, no, actually, I'd say they haven't been. I'd say they were character-based. I haven't read either of those two, so just going by what people talk about? They talk about the characters more than the plot.

And then there are certainly the thrillers that I'd say are plot-based, and many of them sell well (although, of course, many don't).

Romance sells well (except for those that don't) and it's generally character-based.

Literary? Some of it sells very well. But also, I think there's a different funding model for literary. Literary authors are often trying to get grants, or teaching jobs, or other sources of income that are dependent on their publishing. (Well, I don't know about grants being publishing-dependent). So if you're a literary author, sales may not be as important to your income?

 

It’s not universally true. There are literary works that do well, and break out in terms of sales. But I feel like those are more exceptions when you look at the market as a whole. It would be interesting to see hard data on this.

 

There is a saying that the first million words you write are practice. In my experience, that's an underestimate.

I would argue that "all that work" wasn't for nothing. It was probably a learning experience. There's an awful lot that goes into a commercially publishable novel, and the knowledge isn't acquired overnight. One must crawl before one can walk.

 

Sure, but with so many factors influencing commercial performance it's like trying to decide whether thunderstorms are caused more by moisture or warm air.

 

I don’t agree, because my statement, on its face, is limited to two factors. While many factors may be important, as between the two factors of storytelling and technical writing ability I believe the former is far more important. If you want to sell, that is.

 

Okay, but before you completely give up on Nabokov you've got to check out his short stories. There is one in particular I quite like. It's called "Sounds." I like his short stories more than his longer works. If you find the story "Sounds," report back after you read it. Would love to know what you think.

 

@jannert -- I'm sure we would all like to know what you think of Balzac as well.

I think story and language are seamlessly fused together. Personally, I really don't see the point of putting one over the other. I think that takes away the seamless quality which is what makes something really good.

 

He is rated so highly by so many people whose opinion I respect, including yours. Okay. I'll give the short stories a go.

 

I kinda agree with this. Modern literary tries to take itself so seriously that it forgets that it once created genre forms -- Jane Eyre, 1984, Poe, Dracula. If it would get back to realizing story coupled with poetic insight (a happy marriage between literary and genre) is more unbeatable than tricks (like Will Self's one paragraph novel) we might see a rebirth of form.

 

Literary fiction is doing just fine. And the stuff I read doesn't take itself too seriously, in my opinion. People like to bash literary fiction and say it's for the snobs, but there are so many things going on in literary fiction that contradict all those arguments. There's good stuff being put out all the time that is literary fiction. There's funny stuff, there's sad stuff. Yes, some literary works are known to have more poetic prose, but that's really such a small part of it that's not even there in most literary works. Literary fiction just tells a different kind of story. It's really the only thing I like to read. I think literary writers do a good job writing crisp and clean prose. Sure, there are still some writers who create stunning prose to the point where the story is second, but most marry the two quite nicely. And if you actually read contemporary literary fiction, you'll see that these stories can take you on just as wild of a ride as any genre story. I guess it comes down to a matter of preference for the reader, but I highly doubt there is any reader out there that couldn't find a literary novel they fall in love with. It's okay to be different than genre. It's okay that some works spill into more than one category. But I see literary fiction more in terms of the type of stories it tells than the way they are written. And super old examples don't say much if anything about the contemporary literary scene.

@John Calligan -- You had an excellent sort of breakdown on the kind of stories literary stories tell. Ex. Mysteries that don't get solved... I can't remember all of what you said, but it might help if you could repeat some of that on this thread.

 

@deadrats I think I just mentioned that literary stories can include stories that break genre conventions.

Crimes that don’t get solved
Romance that doesn’t work out

I guess you could include realistic modern day stories with unexplained magic?