« juggling | Main | shovels, locks, and midnight rambles in the dark. and rain. »
entertainment vs. storytelling
At crimefictionblog there's a post about what constitutes a good read. The conclusion:
Bottom line, when you're talking about genre fiction, the book has to be entertaining. These are stories we read to be entertained. Genre fiction can educate, illuminate, enlighten, and all the rest, but above all it must entertain. Otherwise, it fails.A couple of quick observations (it's not like I haven't gone over this subject before, and at length):
1. It seems to me that 'entertaining' is another way of saying that story comes first, and will always be most important. A good story is what the average reader wants. A really good story can make the reader overlook all kinds of writerly infelicities.
2. The distinction made in the crimfictionblog post between literary fiction and genre fiction is (in my view of things) an artificial one. Literary fiction is just another genre, with its own set of expectations and history and intended audience. Some people would argue that the literary genre is inherently more worthwhile or better than the other genres, but in the end, that's subjective.
Question: Is story less important in the scheme of things within the literary genre?
Answer: The literati like to say that Character is All, and All Things Derive from Character. But you know what? This is a fashion, and like all fashions it will eventually change. My own position is that even if you put characterization as the top priority (for the literary genre), the ability to really build and expand on character is in turn dependent on the story in which the character exists.
So, my conclusion: story comes first, regardless of the genre.
November 23, 2005 12:54 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/620
Comments
I'm not a huge Sir Arthur Conan Doyle fan, but through popular culture (BBC, PBS and Star Trek) I've heard words to this effect: once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must the truth (however unlikely).
So while it may seem to be impossible that literary writing has something in common with romance fiction or scifi writing, could it be the only truth left us? How naive am I?
Posted by: Pam at November 23, 2005 07:40 PM
So then how do you define story? Is it the plot? The characters in the plot? The whole of everything? I'm curious because everything I write is always about characters first and all, but it's still straight genre.
Posted by: Alison at November 26, 2005 09:45 AM
Alison -- I make a distinction between story and plot (story is what happens, plot is the artful rearrangement of what happens into an order that makes sense for the whole). But generally, really what I mean is this: if there isn't real conflict on multiple levels, that gets worked out as power (or the upper hand, or fate, or whatever you want to call it) gets passed back and forth, then the story won't work. And the story is what the characters are there for.
In my opinion, of course.
I've done long posts before about story v plot and conflict in story, which I can find and link to -- but you know, you've internalized all this stuff or you wouldn't be publishing novels. I try to articulate most of this for (1) myself and (2) people who are interested in the process behind the novel and (3) those who are getting started writing and are working on craft.
Posted by: Sara Donati at November 26, 2005 12:28 PM
I often wonder how I've managed to publish novels when I have so much trouble analyzing what I do!! Thanks! I'll do reading in your archives!
Posted by: Alison at November 26, 2005 01:04 PM