Stylistic Choice, Boundaries, and When to Push them.

[JCFarnham]

So in another thread here on Mythic Scribes I found myself touching upon a discussion about the pros and cons on experimenting with the 'taken-for-granted' rules of creative writing. Not wanting to derail another poor, innocent thread any further, I'm starting this one.

I suppose my interest in Experimention of this sort came from early exposure to modernist, post-modernist and beat generation writing. Until that point I had never even thought of what different forms, styles and so on could accomplish in a piece of writing. As what correctly pointed out by Shadoe in the aforementioned 'other' thread, blind experimentation, with out proper consideration for the why and what purpose, this loose style falls flat. which I suppose is why so many people have trouble getting to grips with some of the more out-there beat poets.

The first example I wish to bring up is the Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It cannot be denied that the man told a masterful story at the era in his life, but one passage in particular stood out to me. Early on in the book the reader comes across a passage which tackles the industrial areas of 1920's inner city America [or close to it]. "Fitzgerald calls it a "valley of ashes" (16), where only the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg look over it from a billboard nearby." [Frederick C. Millett] I must say when I first read this passage back in sixth form my world was opened to truly awesome metaphor and allusion. While it becomes clear, quickly, that the "eyes" are of a man on a billboard smiling down on those bellow, they are personified to the point that they become a symbol of the slowly emerging 'big brother'-state of the time even. My point is that a lesser writer may have glossed over the chance for intense symbolic imagary [other symbols of the failing American dream and other issues come up time and time again throughout the book] Fitzgerald and his peers were unafraid to push the boundaries of what literature meant at the time, from stock accounts of plot to far more visceral accounts that seem to transcend plot and deal in the psychological.

This, though perhaps not neatly, leads me to a favourite technique of mine: Stream of Consciousness, which started life of course as a psychoanalytical technique almost intend as a way to delve deep in to the mind of a patient [aka character, pehaps?]. The Beats loved it [because they couldn't do much else? who knows ], Virginia Woolfe and peers mastered it. It often comes across a rambling, divergant, and usually puts the reader in mind of a mad man when done wrong, but don't correctly and one can really grapple with the crux of the matter which is human consciousness, and accurately portraying thought in even the most mundane of situations [read Ms. Dalloway for some wonderful examples of this as the eponymous character is serving friends and acquaintances at a dinner party.]

Another wonderful example is the fragmentary thought patterns of the lost [possibly risen from the dead] slave child Beloved, in toni Morrison's award winning novel of the same name. It is hard to follow at times but is so fragmentary and disturbing in nature that we believe whole heartedly that we are privy to the thoughts of a murdered child returned to haunt her mother. Again symbolism plays a huge part in this novel. The number of the house, 124, being a prime example of experimentation with symbols and meaning. Some say it is clear as day that the digits in the house number signifies each of her living children, the missing number three signifying the one she managed to murder rather than watch her grow up in slavery.

At this point I once again recall Shadoe's words from the other thread, paraphrased carefully I hope; leaving out commas, and "experimenting" with grammar is risky and is unlikely to get you published. Of course without their loose regard to the rules, steam of consciousness in the writen form, I believe it wouldn't be quite so immersive and intense.

My current goal in progressing in my creative writing is to write a character who speaks primarily in a steam of consciousness style. Now you may well say that such a character will likely come off as insane, and you may be right haha but the challenge I have given myself is, despite his style of speech, to make this character seem the sanest person in the scene. [I'm also considering making him an alien to sort of justify the odd characterisation, but thats another thing altogether]. I don't intend to half-arse this. If it take me decades to perfect the technique I would like to be able to say I wasn't afraid to try it and see where it took my characterisation... of course if I fail miserably then I'm more than happy to leave it be haha!

My question is this [and well done if you stuck with my rambling and read all of this! I thank you greatly ^^.] have any of you out there ever considered breaking various language rules for the sake of characterisation, or whatever other reasons you can think of? Do you see any merit in pushing the boundary like the early 20th century writers above did? Or would you rather keep things simple, tell a succinct story and get on with it? Do you think experimental writing more often that not [when not mastered?] tends to distract from the telling of a story?

I personally love the use of metaphor, symbolism, surrealist imagery, stream of consciousness and the like in creative writing and believe it can add a lot to a novel when you let it wash over you, and give it the chance to be digested.

So. Any thoughts, my friends?

[sashamerideth]

For me I think some rules can be broken if we are trying to write genre Literary Fiction. For those writing lit fic, most of them need to put the thesaurus down before they hurt themselves.

Otherwise the rules should be adhered to for prose, and dialogue should be realistic.

[Phil the Drill]

I used to really love stream of consciousness (SOC). I used to write lots of experimental, absurd, or surreal fiction in the past (still do now and again) and these genres are easy to use SOC. There are lots of experimental journals and publishing houses, but they are kind of a hard nut to crack. You sort of just have to get the right editor who likes the same kind of style as you. Some editors may like SOC, but for some reason your story-telling doesn't click with them. That is why a lot of people like staying in the boundaries of "safer" genres like fantasy, sci-fi, horror, and romance because they are defined clearly. Not to say they are easier to write because of that, they are just easier to publish. People rail about reading the same type of crap over and over, yet someone is causing publishing companies to keep publishing it.

I would love to personally read more experimental styles of fantasy. The average fantasy fan probably would gloss over it though. However, the average experimental fan may love it.

[JCFarnham]

I was expecting a certain amount of minimalism ...

So, people would rather stick to what's come before, as opposed to being progressive? You have to admit that fiction was a rather different before some of the mentioned authors were published, right?

The fact that Beloved was published in 1987 must mean there's still some kind of market for pushing the envelope [not that I'm really talking about what sells... clearly]. I mean, I think I'd even go as far to say that if more people were willing to experiment with things there would be more children interested in reading. Creative writing should progress as time passes or else we'll lose out to the film industry. Like, who wants to read words on a page when you can wait a couple of months and see it in 3d. Totally.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned haha.

I think you've cracked it though Phil. "People rail about reading the same type of crap over and over, yet someone is causing publishing companies to keep publishing it." The fact that no one, relatively speaking, is interested in producing something thats just a little bit different worries me greatly.

I'm not talking about unreadable prose here guys, I'm talking about ... well, I think I've covered my opinion well enough ^^

[Phil the Drill]

I think most people like "safe" fiction. Beloved is a great story (I've seen the movie, but not read the book) yet most average people probably have never heard of it. The point I was making is that if you write fantasy in an experimental way, it is more than likely to get interest from the experimental crowd than the fantasy crowd. Most publishers probably wouldn't take a chance on something that strays from the common conventions of fantasy story-telling.

Even if the content is mind-blowing, most fantasy writers use a lot of similar stylistic choices. Loads of description, similar magic systems, similar settings, worlds based off history/mythology, similar monsters, even similar plots. Like I said in the other post, I would LOVE to see a progression of the fantasy genre into more interesting stylistic avenues. I just think the major houses are mostly happy with the way stories are being told already. As they say, "if it's not broke, don't fix it." Maybe it is broke and the publishers don't care to fix it. The sales just haven't slumped enough yet (in their minds). With the industry reeling from all the different ways to publish now, I think less publishers are willing to place their money on something that isn't a sure thing.

That said, China Mieville is the closest I've seen to a guy who sort of dumps the fantasy genre on its head and doesn't care. He just does his own thing. If more writers wrote like him, the world would be a happy place for me.

I'm not trying to be a storm cloud, just looking at the way the industry is structured, I see clearer skies in the experimental camp and not the fantasy one.

[JCFarnham]

China Mieville certainly came to mind when I was writing the original post!

He may not do it in the same way that Toni Morrison did in Beloved for what I guess probably falls in the magical realism camp [in the sense of weird stuff happening the real world], but he's definitely a good example of what I'm talking about when I say I wish authors took a chance.

If you're into surrealism and such Phil you definitely need to read the book version of Beloved, its a tough read emotionally [I read it over about half a year in sixth form/college so it was rather diluted for me] but its VERY out there in places. Symbolism abound! And all you minimalistic traditionalists out there will be pleased to hear that it tells a coherent story.

The way I see it publishers do want authors who do things differently... they just don't know it yet If China and Toni can get published with head scarabs, impossible creatures, risen from the dead slave girls, vaguely russain frog things, SOC and a chimera [list off the top of my head, like it? haha] then I don't see why some truly progressive novels can't!

[Shadoe]

Your initial post covered a number of different issues, so I'll tackle them one by one.

First, I want to point out that most of the things you covered I would not object to. The point I was making in the other topic was that grammar rules are not, in general, something that everyone gets to make up for themselves. There are standards, which should be adhered to - unless, of course, you have a good reason not to and you know what you're doing. Deciding that you shall, in all your writing, use apostrophes instead of quote marks (because you're not entirely sure which should be used when), is not a "writing style" choice, it's just bad grammar. (And Grammar Nazi says you don't get to pick out your own grammar unless your name is archy.)

You mention the use of metaphor, symbolism, and imagery - these are things writers use all the time, and utilize them while still being grammatically correct.

Stream of consciousness can be used to good effect. I would not want to read an entire book full of that, but perhaps there are people who would. And, as you've mentioned, it has to be done very well in order for it to be done at all - otherwise it's just gibberish. It's not an easy thing to master.

I did check out Toni Morrison's Beloved. I expected chaos from your description. But I found it to be very... grammatically correct. Morrison did not make up grammar rules as she went along; there was punctuation and capitalization in all the accepted locations.

Fiction writers, I think, break grammar rules all the time. If they didn't, novels would be too boring to read.

Experimental fiction may be fun to write and sometimes be fun to read. But I don't know if it accomplishes anything if it gets in the way of the story. Take Beloved, for example. The bulk of the book was written using standard grammar - nothing experimental about that.

See, the thing is, if you write a fantasy world and you make it rich and inviting with lots of interesting people and places, but then decide your style is going to resemble, say, the above-mentioned archy, how many people are going to come to know the world you've created? Darn few. And that would be a shame.

[JCFarnham]

Then again there were number of points in Beloved where standard grammar isn't used, not in the strictest sense at least. I can appreciate what you're saying about grammar, and in a lot of cases sticking to it properly is definitely the right thing to do, but I think you may have missed the scope of this discussion, which is certainly my fault, so I appologise ^^

What I'm getting at with this thread isn't grammar one its lonesome; it involves everything else as well. Experimenting in the way I've been trying to talk about isn't about breaking rules "for the sake of it"; which is something I would never condone as I'm sure your aware. Additionally, experimentation isn't only the playground of the obscure, there are published writers out there I'm sure--I don't know them, but perhaps thats the industries fault for not marketing them as they would a mainstream author?--who have made a living on what I'm really getting at. In fact. China Mieville, case in point.

My inclusion of the Beat generation in this discussion may have been an error on my part it seems to be inviting a certain focus. Not to worry. What I want to make clear is that I'm talking about exploring all corners of the art of writing and pushing the envelope. Since we are all story tellers at heart the nack is telling that story, passing on our message, while looking forward and progressing. I'm talking about a mind set more than anything, about writers who are, rather than take their cues solely from those who have come before [and doom themselves to repeat more of the same], trying their hardest to do something new in much the same way that those early modernists did for the form.

I believe I was justified in mentioning metaphor, symbology and their kin because frankly I don't see people using them to quite the same standard as they were in Fitzgerald's day--that is to say, they don't "experiment" with them --and I think this is definitely a detriment to the art. I am much the same way about music and art as I am in the field of writing. I've never seen the point in becoming complacent. In music, I think people are once again beginning to realise they can do something different and still make catchy music [Everything Everything for example]. In Writing then? Well there are certainly some authors who try to tell their story AND do something unique.

To talk about publishing again... with out a single iota of experimentation [in the way I'm using the term] I believe it become staggeringly harder to get a publisher interested in your work, and I am NOT talking about being different for the sake of money I want to make that very clear. If as a writer one does the very same things as everyone else ever has [in terms of content, in terms of form, in terms of whatever] then what is their USP [Unique Selling Point]?

So yes, its more than grammar [which should be fixed. We agree], its about not being afraid to be unique. If the majority are doing one thing, and you decided to do the other in a controlled, perfected manner then you have taken a risk, you have been experimenting.. you have in fact gained my respect.

In fantasy, we could stand to have a few more authors who take chances... and don't re-write LotR.

[Shadoe]

I'm not entirely against the use of modified grammar if it's for a purpose. My point is, it has to be for a purpose. Otherwise it's just poor grammar. In Beloved, for instance, the grammar throughout the book was fine. In places where standard grammar isn't used, it's done so for effect, and it's done well.

I'm certainly not against experimenting with style. I do that, and I think (I hope!) every writer does.

The use of metaphor and symbolism... I think it's still in use, but it's not in general use in popular fiction as much as it used to be. It takes too long. People want what they want and they want it now. They want a good tale, and they don't necessarily want beautiful prose. It's a sign of the times, I think. This probably has a lot to do with why there isn't a lot of experimental fiction out there.

Music is an interesting comparison, and a valid one. In music, people have ALWAYS pushed the envelope. Most people just don't usually see it because it goes through a process. When someone invents a "new" kind of music, it usually happens in some smoke-filled back room. A few people will witness it, like it, and tell their friends. Then other people, and other musicians, will hear it, and they'll like it. And they'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on and so on. That's how swing caught on, and rock and roll, and grunge, rap, and-- whatever else the kids are listening to these days. But, while music has changed and trends have come and gone, the basic tools of music have gone through relatively few changes since the dawn of time. Percussion, strings, horns - the specifics evolve, but the basics stay the same.

And writing is much like that. If you read, for instance, Aristotle, Geoffrey Chaucer, Herman Melville, and J.K. Rowling, you'll note that while writing has evolved drastically, the tools used - words - have really changed very little over the centuries. Very often, it has evolved in much the same way as music.

It has always been difficult to get published, but yes, it has become very difficult in the last few decades. I used to hang out with a number of SF/Fantasy authors and publishers, and I know a little bit about the business (this is why I'm not aiming for publication). Publishers are always looking for the next best thing. At the same time, they have to make sure the next best thing is something they can SELL. Now, more than ever, sales is the name of the game. Art is for the small presses - and they're also trying to find something that will SELL. During the time I was hanging out with the pros, I noticed that there wasn't a single "new" author getting published that DIDN'T hang out there.

With writing, it's often a case of: Writing is like sex. First you do it for your own pleasure, then you do it for love, then you do it for your friends, then you do it for money.

You know, people have always said that all fantasy was like LotR. But that hasn't been my experience. Maybe I've just automatically glossed over that kind of thing because I was never terribly impressed with LotR. But then I haven't been keeping up with the fantasy market these days either. Is LotR having a resurgence due to the movies?

[JCFarnham]

On the LotR thing, very much so! Half of it is the legendary status of Tolkien himself and peoples renewed love and new authors wanting to recreate the greatness they percieved, but then the other half of this "all fantasy is like Tolkien's" comparison is probably people projecting their own cynicism onto fantasy.

You're sex metaphor is just too funny though!

My issue with fiction [if you could call an issue that is] is I think "new readers" want it to be exactly the same as watching a film so publishing houses and authors try to emulate that [more often than not without entirely meaning to. Not all of course, but enough that it changes expectations]. To me its this kind of lowering of expectations that's the problem. Hence why I was wondering in the first post whether people have any interest in doing things a bit differently.

Perhaps experimental fiction is also defined differently by people with different backgrounds? Level of cynicism probably has something to do with it right?