The experimental novel.

[Phyrebrat]

Hello all,

I found this article on 'the experimental novel' and opinions on training quite interesting and thought I would share it here. The writer doesn't define exactly what constitutes an experimental novel but I think we all have our own ideas or examples of one.

When did creative writing eat itself? | Culture professionals network | Guardian Professional

In 2012 I decided to publish this as a book. I wondered if I should update it to include experimental novels written after around 1980, but there weren't any – well, hardly any. Experimentalism in the novel virtually died in the 1980s, but was it killed by the rise of the creative writing course, the conservatism of the publishing industry, or are they both linked?

I'm not the most widely read person, but (within my favourite genre, at least) I would say that Danielewski's House of Leaves has a rather experimental edge to it. Possibly even The Raw Shark Texts, but it's hard to define 'experimental', I think, because it references our own 'experimental compass', and we can have different criteria on which to base this. I was recently disagreeing with someone who said The Passage was experimental; he was saying it was a literary work and I was saying just because it approached a genre and subject from a different angle didn't make it experimental. Was His Dark Materials experimental because of its anti-Organised Religion stance? Or how about E M Forster's Maurice?

I was thinking about my own writing, and those of you here whose work I've read. I was trying to contextualise our work in terms of experimentability (for want of a better made-up word) and came to the conclusion that we write in a way that the story requires; if we wrote an experimental story, is that more of a technique, or practice issue, than pertinent to our actual story? If I was to attempt an experimental story, it would have been born from me sitting down and thinking what can I do to make a story experimental, as opposed to the story demanding an experimental approach (if that makes sense).

Agents have close ties to creative writing courses and their tutors; they also are reluctant to accept manuscripts from writers who have not been recommended.

This is depressing. It may be an over-generalised assertion he's made here but even if some are operating in this way, it is a little worrying. The thought of going on a creative writing course is abhorrent to me (okay, a bit over-dramatic).

Both of these are forms of writing by committee. There is usually a moderator – him or herself a published writer – and a peer group who regularly review the attendees' efforts in detail. Peer pressure, and the assumed wisdom of the (published) course leader will naturally tend to smooth down any rough edges as groupthink takes over; regression to the mean kicks in and all the work begins to conform to the same norms.

I agree 100% here. I often disagree very strongly with advice I hear given to others as it sounds so prescriptive and the usual fall-back justification for the homogenised advice is 'well, that's what the publishers/agents want so if you go against it, don't expect to get published' or some flavour thereof. I think there's a difference between following good practice and being a sheep.

So, what do you think? Do you write what comes or do you sit down and try to contrive an experimental novel? Is it even important for you? I suspect (putting profit aside for a moment) that the majority of people will say they write because they have to, or for the passion of it rather than a desire to be the next groundbreaking maverick, but I'dd be interested to hear what others think.

pH

 

[jastius]

i think that people repress in others what they don't understand. i think people don't understand ideas or behaviour patterns that are outside their comfort zone. i think people's comfort zones are arbitrarily imposed restrictions regulated by the outside pressure of peer groups and social conformity value limits.

and i think if you truly do not believe in what someone or even several someones have to say about your own ideas creations or habits, and you truly believe in what you are doing or have done yourself, then don't listen. most people don't have the vision to see to the end of their street. for all we have the internet and global village multicultural influences, we actually are getting more institutionalized and less creative as a culture.
who could have predicted at the time of rembrandt that andy warhol's paintings of soup cans, jackson pollacks paint explosions or picasso's blue period paintings would be considered art?
innovation in the creative field serves the same purpose as evolution in nature.

 

[Ursa major]

Agents have close ties to creative writing courses and their tutors; they also are reluctant to accept manuscripts from writers who have not been recommended.

This is depressing. It may be an over-generalised assertion he's made here but even if some are operating in this way, it is a little worrying. The thought of going on a creative writing course is abhorrent to me (okay, a bit over-dramatic).

I suspect that this, even if true, relates specifically to the literary genre rather than SFF (or crime, or romance, or many other genres).

 

[HareBrain]

I was recently disagreeing with someone who said The Passage was experimental; he was saying it was a literary work and I was saying just because it approached a genre and subject from a different angle didn't make it experimental. Was His Dark Materials experimental because of its anti-Organised Religion stance? Or how about E M Forster's Maurice?

He was saying it was experimental mainly because it was a literary work in the SFF genre? Balderdash. And I'd agree that neither of your examples are experimental. "Experimental" surely has more to do with form (including structure, POV etc) than content? (Except in the sense that every novel is the writer's experiment.)

if we wrote an experimental story, is that more of a technique, or practice issue, than pertinent to our actual story? If I was to attempt an experimental story, it would have been born from me sitting down and thinking what can I do to make a story experimental, as opposed to the story demanding an experimental approach (if that makes sense).

Setting out to write an experimental novel would mostly result, in my opinion, in utter w**k. If the story demands an experimental approach, that's a different matter.

This is depressing. It may be an over-generalised assertion he's made here but even if some are operating in this way, it is a little worrying. The thought of going on a creative writing course is abhorrent to me (okay, a bit over-dramatic).

I've never heard any evidence that agents operate this way. (I've done an MA in creative writing and have never heard that it would gain me any advantage with agents. In fact I've read more than once than you shouldn't mention it when submitting. The course itself, however, was great.)

The only "experimentalism" in my novel is a long-ish section in second person where the narrator is addressing the character. I wrote it that way just because it seemed to be the way it needed to be written, and none of my >10 readers has taken issue with it -- some didn't even notice it was second person. When I tried the same thing when rewriting another, earlier section, largely because I was pleased with how the other section had gone down, I got called out on it pretty quick. It didn't work there.

So, my advice: be as experimental as the story demands, and only that much, unless you're playing with form for the sake of it and for your own amusement.

 

[Ursa major]

Sorry for this thread hijacking (particularly as the post may be better served by being eventually placed elsewhere), but one of the replies below the line to that Grauniad article was from someone, "JulietAgent", claiming to be an agent:

I'm an agent, and I've created an account because I feel strongly that the writer of this piece has a very skewed and - in many instances - wrong perspective on the publishing industry. I'm not sure what his own experience is but speaking from mine I'd like to put a few things right here.

"Agents... are reluctant to accept manuscripts from writers who have not been recommended."

This is complete rubbish; why do you think we invite submissions on our agency websites? I comb the submissions pile daily in the hope of finding something new; recommendations come in very rarely (maybe once/twice a year).

"As agents are entirely dependent on the success of publishers, they also need to find, on the publishers' behalf (they are agents for publishers as much as agents for writers) what they think will sell."

Again, this is nonsense. We're not entirely dependent on the success of publishers (and we are NOT their agents!), we're dependent on the success of our authors. And traditional publishing is not the only route for authors to go down; we, as agents, are here to help authors explore every option open to them (foreign markets, film & tv rights, e-publishing etc.).

"...they keep looking backwards: what sold last year is what will sell this year; don't mess with the formula, even if it isn't working."

We are very infrequently able to predict trends and it would be nearly useless if we could. Books take a long time to be edited, marketed and published (the traditional way) and by the time all this is done reading tastes have moved on. E-publishing offers an exciting opportunity to be more spontaneous and reactive, and we're starting to respond (yes, the publishing industry has been slow to adopt e-publishing and it's been equally frustrating from this side, but publishers have got a firm foothold now). But, for example, attempting to publish another Fifty Shades a year after the original was published, wouldn't be viable.

"Self-published writers don't want to be self-published; they want an agent and a publisher."

Agree with Dan Holloway on this: nonsense again. Plenty of self-published authors are happy to be so.

"...groupthink takes over; regression to the mean kicks in and all the work begins to conform to the same norms."

Writing courses do, of course, dole out similar advice to all their writing students, but this is with the aim of encouraging creativity not stifling it. Sometimes it happens that one tutor may give fifteen students a piece of advice that wouldn't necessarily be recommended elsewhere, but this is rarely disastrous and the student has to use their common sense.

I think writers like the one who wrote this article forget this: there are scores of agents hunting in every possible place for incredible books and authors; there are scores of editors waiting to publish those books, just as there are thousands of readers waiting for something new and original to read. We're all on the same side: stop pitting authors against the publishing industry, because we're here to work WITH you. There are no rules as to what to write about or how - if there were, more adventurous publishers like Jonathan Cape, Granta, Salt and Freight Books (plus many others) wouldn't exist. I've no expectations when I read the first three chapters of a submission (and it's three chapters, mrfrankenstein, because we receive up to 50 submissions a week, per agent, to be read outside of office hours; if those are even remotely promising we'll ask for the full manuscript), all I want to find is something fresh, exciting and GOOD.

In summary, this article hugely misrepresents publishing and we are far more open-minded than writers are led to believe.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The Guardian article reads as yet another "I've written a book but no one will publish it because the publishing industry is so evil. I'm such a down-trodden creative genuis".

None of the comments on the industry are correct - but they are the same whining complaints you get from someone who has written a first draft and thinks it's a masterly piece of polished fiction.

 

[Kissmequick]

Agents have close ties to creative writing courses and their tutors; they also are reluctant to accept manuscripts from writers who have not been recommended.

That seems..unlikely (as said upthread, perhaps in litfic, with some agents). Plenty of writers have no witing course credits to their name. And as for reccs...no, not for the most part. They look for a bloody good story.

Juleitagent sounds very much like an actual agent to me, and that sounds a million miles closer to the actuality (esp in SFF) because the original article sounds like a bunch of old tosh (again, perhaps it's like that in some lit-fic circles, but it's certainly not widespread)

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I suspect Brian has hit the nail on the head.

 

[HareBrain]

I'm not sure. The article was written by a writer of non-fiction, not fiction, as far as I can see, and there's nothing to say he's been frustrated himself by his attempts to get published. He seems to be writing more from the POV of a reader (or a writer about writing) than a novelist.

Not that that makes his comments on the industry any more accurate, but attributing them to sour grapes might not be accurate either.

 

[chrispenycate]

I find the word 'experimental' when associated with artistic endeavours, a considerable point in their disfavour. It transmits an aura of "well, of course you can't understand it; that proves it's Art (with a capital "A"). Music, dance, visual arts, poetry, movies, theatre – I approve of originality (although I don't insist on it), and experimentation is a part of the process, just as it is in the scientific method – but at least scientists dispose of their failed experiments (most of the time) and write them up as examples for future generations to avoid, rather than putting them proudly on display.

My definition of art includes the concept of communication, usually of something which could not be transmitted by more conventional means. (I do not insist on your definition of art being equivalent, nor even similar. But if a piece of music, or a sculpture, doesn't transfer some emotion, even if that tends, by the end of the gallery or concert, to be terminal boredom, what function does it fulfil in life? If the answer to this is "the ceator's auto-gratification, I class it somewhere else than art.) I have recorded enough 'music' (If it is not communicating anything more than "very clever" to me, shouldn't there be another word?) that was a demonstration of the originality and technical prowess of the composer/interpreter rather than offering anything to the listener, assumed too thick to understand, to avoid any literature written so difficult to appreciate the nuances that only the author, his mother (who loves it) and the literary critics of two small university published art magazines (on subscription) can truly comprehend its magnificence.

Sure, be original, do your experimentation, but come to us with a synthesis, the successes of the experiments, not the intermediate stages. Perhaps your notebooks will be edited after your death, like Tolkien's, but only if something you create appeals to the masses. Otherwise you'll become a footnote in a literary course, a reading chore for others who hope to achieve incomprehensibility in their turn.

And please don't ask for government subsidy when you can't make people appreciate your oeuvre, or I'll set the Heinlein definition tracking you.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm not sure. The article was written by a writer of non-fiction, not fiction, as far as I can see, and there's nothing to say he's been frustrated himself by his attempts to get published. He seems to be writing more from the POV of a reader (or a writer about writing) than a novelist.

Not that that makes his comments on the industry any more accurate, but attributing them to sour grapes might not be accurate either.

There's a belief amongst some of the BTL (below the line) commenters on the Grauniad's Comment is Free, that to get an article published in the Grauniad requires knowing someone who works there. If true (and I don't know if it is), that might explain his views of how to gain access to agents and editors in the publishing business (whether fiction or non-fiction).

But in any case, the solution to his problem is clear: he should get a Creative Writing qualification (or whatever the non-fiction equivalent may be).

 

[HareBrain]

But in any case, the solution to his problem is clear: he should get a Creative Writing qualification (or whatever the non-fiction equivalent may be).

But his "problem" is the recent death of the British experimental novel, isn't it? Nothing to do with his own writing. The cause he has suggested is the way the industry operates. His identification of the cause does seem very shaky, but, Chrispy's aside, I haven't seen many comments on whether the problem he claims to have identified actually exists (how much experimentalism do we really want?), or what other cause it might have.

 

[Ursa major]

First of all, note that the headlines and subheadings of Grauniad articles are not written by the article's writer (even when the writer is a full-time employee of the paper). What Francis Booth wrote begins with "Mark McGurl's recent book...."

To be fair to myself, Booth says virtually nothing about experimental novels; the article is a series of "explanations" for why he believes there aren't more experimental novels published (particularly since the 1980s), most of which he seems to have dreamt up (because they have little or no basis in fact**). Given this, the answer to his problem is that he ought to go and find out what the reasons are, rather than simply speculating from ignorance based on his own world view. (Has he, for instance ever attended even a single session of a Creative Writing Course? Are they all the same? How would he know?)

In fact, the article is very thin and really poor. What have the number of bookshops got to do with the publishing of experimental novels? Nothing***, and yet there's a whole paragraph bulking out the article with statistics, which (if I were to be unkind) I'd suggest were there to give the misleading impression that the rest of the article is well researched. And he says:

More novels are published today than ever – around 150,000 books in total were published in the UK in 2011 – but the industry is dominated by a small number of large publishers and access to them is increasingly through agents.

Were those 150,000 books all novels? He doesn't say. Were they all published by the large publishers. He implies they are, but he doesn't say so (and I'm not sure they are).

And then he writes:

You might think that the rise in self-published novelists getting to the public via print on demand and e-readers would have increased creativity – according to Digital Book World, half of the top 10 bestsellers in April 2013 were self- published – but it apparently hasn't.

If anything, it has increased the adherence to popular genres: teen vampire; dark fantasy; choc-lit and so on. Self-published writers don't want to be self-published; they want an agent and a publisher. So they stick to the advice given in books and online, and, of course, they go on creative writing courses and join writers' groups.

Nothing in these two paragraphs explains why people aren't writing experimental novels. Unless the mere fact that a lot of other people are self-publishing teen vampires novels is stopping them (in the same way that I simply can't write a word of SF because someone else has self-published some choc-lit).

I can only hope his thesis was better researched than this article.




** - He provides no citations for most of his reasons; perhaps they don't exist in many cases.

*** - How many of these bookshops would have experimental books on their shelves? As Booth includes no statistics on that, who knows? And what about a company like Amazon (through which his own books can be bought)? Hasn't the existence of a vast catalogue of published works made finding an experimental work easier? One would have thought so. So perhaps the retail side of publishing has nothing to do with why people aren't writing experimental novels.

 

[HareBrain]

That seems a fair analysis of the article, Ursa. I wish he'd actually done the research you suggested.

I don't know whether people are or aren't writing experimental novels any more, but even if they are, there's no general contract with society to say the publishing industry must present them to the public. Probably the ones that did used to get published just didn't sell very well.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

In terms of the agents tied to literary courses. I met with someone who'd done the MA I was considering, and one of the things that she said was that the course did open doors to publishers in Ireland. Now, given that over here is a throw back to eighteenth century anywhere, I don't expect this to be true elsewhere, but I would never consider my chances of being selected by an Irish publisher good. I've found only closed doors, even to books set in Ireland. (Okay, a slightly trashed Ireland, with some slimy aliens, but local is local.... )

So, perhaps in some circles, there is a grain of truth in this? I don't think it's much different from agents wanting to see some evidence of partaking in the wider SFF community, be it through conventions, or websites like this. It's a getting to know I can work with you thing. (Again, only speaking for Ireland.)

 

[Kissmequick]

I know some lit-fic agents are more likely to request material (or bump up your sub packet through the slush) if your credits state some sort of writing course credentials. I'm not so certain about SFF agents (none that I've seen that have said so)

But that's all -- it might increase your chances of getting a read quicker. If the book's crap or just not what they're looking for, I doubt an agent would take you on on the basis of it. Same goes for having met an editor or agent at a con, or whatever. They might remember you, might like you, might well decide to read your sub ahead of the anonymous ones. They won't sign you on the basis of that if the book isn't what they want

 

[Phyrebrat]

Hi, okay here we go again...*

Interesting replies,all. I'm glad - well, relieved- that most folk here have disagreed with the article. I did consider it was probably not aimed at genrefiction such as SFF and horror, but I did wonder. Whether agents get theirclients from creative writing courses or not was not as troubling as thethought of having to subscribe to some kind of hegemony of ‘what makes a goodstory’. The lack of citations also troubled me as there were quite a number of ‘factsand figures’ there. But anyway, I digress; I completely understand what Springssays about Ireland and how that could actually help both artist, and publisher.

HB – I agree; regarding House of Leaves and Raw Shark I meant that was all Icould come up with in terms of playing with format. Chrispenycate has prettymuch expressed my thoughts about forced or contrived ‘experiments’. Not as succinctly,perhaps, as whoever called it w*** (I think it was Ursa). My initial thoughtwhen reading the article on making something experimental was that it was anacademically masturbatory conceit. Oh, and I am so glad you called it; ‘balderdash’…because, yes, that is exactly what my mate was saying about The Passage. (BTW I found that book a real struggle, and rather drab until the end. A whole middle section could have been dashed IMO; I'm someone who adores a bit of Lovecraft so it is not as if I have ADHD.


pH

*Am at work (spit, spit, spit) trying to reply to this, on a Windows laptop- this is the 3rd attempt- reminds me why I changed to a Mac in 2010.

 

[sknox]

I agree with the criticisms of the article but would add one more point. The author says "...was it [experimentalism] killed by the rise of the creative writing course..."

This is demonstrably false because there have been creative writing courses for much longer. I took mine in the 1960s. Yes, somehow, despite the pernicious influence of people actually practicing creating writing, experimentalism (however defined) managed to exist in the 1970s. So his putative cause cannot be linked to the effect.

The rest of the article was puffery also. Ursa Major's take was dead on.

 

[Kissmequick]

Here's a slightly different take on the whole MFA thing. Also in the Guardian -- a writer describes how, contrary to what people thought, he signed with his agent before he took the course. He also discusses the pros and cons of the course