What the beginning writer ordinarily wants is a set of rules on what to do and what not to do in writing fiction. As we'll see, some general principles can be set down (Things to Think About When Writing Fiction) and some very general warnings can be offered (Things to Watch Out For); but on the whole the search for aesthetic absolutes is a misapplication of the writer's energy. When one begins to be persuaded that certain things must never be done in fiction and certain other things must always be done, one has entered the first stage of aesthetic arthritis, the disease that ends up in pedantic rigidity and the atrophy of intuition. . . .
Trust worthy aesthetic universals do exist, but they exist at such a high level of abstraction as to offer almost no guidance to the writer. . . . They're laws, but they slip.
Thus saith John Gardner on the first page of The Art of Fiction. Funny way to begin a book on how to write fiction, huh?
Truth be told: for a capstoner, i feel like something of a beginning writer, especially in the way of fiction but also in the creative writing world overall. i get grammar. It makes sense: this is the way we normally talk (in this one standardized dialect of English), and so it will help everyone if we talk this same standardized way when we are talking in this formal dialect. So dot your i's, cross your t's, and put commas between independent clauses when they are joined by a conjunction. Not so for fiction?
Well, not exactly. Gardner opens with this paragraph, and he adds a few more paragraphs too. His thoughts here reminded me of a conversation i had—recently, i think—with someone i esteemed to be a writer and mentor worth listening to (i think it was Professor Hougen, but maybe someone else said it first?). This person—who will go unnamed due to my suspect memory—told me that it was good for beginning writers to learn the rules of writing well in their beginning years; later, they must learn how they may break, how their art demands to expand beyond these rules.
i liken it to learning a language. It's probably best not to learn how to speak Arabic from street talk or a slang dialect. Learn the idioms, certainly, but also learn the morphological regularities. Learn how words are regularly arranged; then move on how to smear the syntax a little for effect. Learn the rules, and then learn when it's fun/helpful/necessary/socially cool to break them.
One other thought here—Gardner uses a headier diction here. This might be in part his choice for his audience, but it might also be his plain ol' voice. Now i tend toward the denser part of the lexical forest, but as i read this, i just didn't like a few phrases: "pedantic rigidity and the atrophy of intuition." What does this mean? Maybe another good reason to read people, and even people not like us, is to learn by contrast who we aren't, to taste an aesthetic that isn't quite us.
i'd love to hear your thoughts. Do share. Oh, i guess you have to. . .
I think the whole idea of aesthetic absolutes is a slippery one. It's so hard to tell the differences between rules, suggestions, and artistic preferences, and when to keep the rules and when to break them. I believe that is why it is best to start out keeping the rules. In my experience, I have found experimentation with the rules to be beneficial and insightful--not in that what I experiment with is brilliant, but often in that it helps me learn where the rules are and why they're there. So I do think that experimentation and breaking rules is all right for beginner writers, but be careful if it's something that you really care about (like a capstone project) and be ready to switch it back if it doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteI've found that I want to rebel when I'm given too many writing rules. They make me squirm. I want to somehow escape their rigidity. I want to prove that I can break those rules and break them well. But however much I want to break them well, I probably can't. Which is why it makes sense to start beginning writers off on a slightly narrower path riddled with rules and regulations.
ReplyDeleteMuch though I hate them, I know I've got a thing or two to learn about writing before I'll be able to do a good job of it. On the other hand, writing is a very experimental art, at least for me. There is no rule stating that your subject matter must be depressing, but through the years, I've found I have trouble writing happy things well. Perhaps if we were given more leeway with the rules, we would discover on our own how to play with them and make them work for our own particular writing style. Sure, we'd churn out a handful of awful stories first, but maybe what comes out of it will be greater for our trying.
I heard a little saying once somewhere that says, "If you want to understand something, try to change it." I think the same goes for the "rules" of writing. Sometimes trying to break them will teach you exactly why they were put into place to begin with. But sometimes you are able to break them and do it well (always fun for us rebellious young whippersnappers)...of course, this almost never happens. Either way, I think you've come away learning something beneficial and healthy for the writing mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It is important to learn the rules of language/grammar before we can begin breaking them. I feel I have the grammar part down pretty well, now I love using parataxis. It's less formal than both a period and a semi-colon. I love using it for effect because my sentences can run together when I want to communicate two very similar ideas right next to each other. "I love the rain, it makes me glad." But like you said, have to break it on purpose, otherwise what are we doing?
ReplyDeleteAnd I like what you said about learning who we aren't. I don't agree with everyone's choice of style. But we all have our own unique voices, and we have to know what we like and don't like. It's good to read it all anyway, at least once in a while.
As I've learned the rules, I've seen them falling into two categories: One, the rules that I am grateful to have learned, because I never would have noticed I was breaking them, and two, the rules that I don't always agree with and will be likely to break. What do you think that might mean for the necessity of rules? The ones I want to break I don't think ought to have been taught to me, but the ones that helped me, I'm glad WERE taught. At the same time, though, other people are glad for different rules and eager to break ones that I have learned from... so how do we know which ones to teach? It's a tricky thought.
ReplyDeleteThose are big words.
ReplyDeleteI like the sound of "lexical forest." It makes me want to write a poem because those words sound so nice together. I would agree with what you said about it being good to experience an aesthetic that is different from you would normally be drawn to. It's so easy for me to shy away from more literal, basic text, but I know that it is SO helpful and good for me to read. Thank you for reminding me of that in this post!
I looked up atrophy and it said "of body tissue or organ that wastes away." So in the phrase you used...an intuition that is wasting away. I very much see this happening to myself and others who are too boxed in to one style. It's interesting reading this while taking Survey of American Literature because I see this statement coinciding with the American ideal. I wonder if all of this is taken differently in other countries?
I always enjoy when I can tell who wrote what post. :) It sounds like Gardner is talking a little bit about having a voice when you write. I think that's something we've all been developing more of this year. It's not something you can force or develop because of a certain number of capstone hours. It takes intentional reconstruction of our words to come across strongly.
ReplyDeleteThe breakdown of grammer reminds me of dancing. Ballet is severely technical. Once I hit the professional world, my director stopped me in class and said, "Elsie, why aren't you getting your leg higher?" I looked at him with an expression that said, "Sorry, dude. This is as high as it goes." He said, "You need to turn in your bottom foot." I said, "Sorry, sir, but you've told me never to do that for the last 12 years." He said, "Now I'm telling you. It will get your leg higher." Once you've mastered technique to a certain point, you can master illusion, breaking the rules to make things look better.
"Trust worthy aesthetic universals do exist, but they exist at such a high level of abstraction as to offer almost no guidance to the writer. . . . They're laws, but they slip." That gave me something to think about.
ReplyDeleteIt sort of freaks me out, the rules to the game of writing. They are subject to change. Hougen and I also talked about needing to understand how to play the game before you can break the rules. That makes a lot of sense. If I were playing basketball I would not start right off the bat perfecting three point shots and slam dunks. I would have no idea how to be defensive, any ball handing skills, or the rest of the shell that comes along with being a team player. Same so for writing. My inclination is to immediately delve into my character's mind without setting a firm place for them to stand. I have to surround myself with writings that veer from abstract so that I can get the detail that the story requires. Good quote! The rules may be subject to change... when and only when you have perfected them.