Is writing fiction 'an art', 'a science', or 'puzzle building'?

[J5V]

I wrote an article, The Art of Writing, which might offer some insights or ways of thinking about writing. It might also spark discussion.

First few words:

Writing as a technical art

I think writing is an art in most respects. In saying that, I’m not saying it cannot be distilled into a science. Art and science are two outlooks on the same creative process: art attempts to mystify it, and science attempts to demystify it. I’m saying that the distinction depends on how well-defined the creative process is intended to be.​

We can turn this distinction back on itself, to dissect how art works, to help demystify it, and then use our findings to help make our art better.

What is art?

When we think of art, we might assume paintings by respected artists. Everyone has different tastes in art. Here, I’m taking a wider view, to regard art as the presented product of any creative process, where we’re not necessarily interested in exposing how it was done. Art is supposed to be magic, where the artist has a talent that allows them to create works that present new or enjoyable experiences for others.

[more...]

 

[K.S. Crooks]

For me it's one quarter science- this is the technical aspect of spelling, grammar, punctuation, structure. One quarter art- this is the imagination and inspiration needed to come up with ideas. to see in your mind the overall arc of a story. One half puzzle building- trying to figure out the particulars of a story. The what, who, when where why of all aspects of the story; most of which coming on the fly. The twists and turn you never had in mind at the beginning, but seem to manifest themselves during the process.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The problem here is science fiction. The "artistic" types want to throw science out the window and write stuff like Hyperion and claim it is science fiction. At the same time a lot of so called science fiction fans can't recognize when the science in the stupi-fi books is complete nonsense, but they know good writing.

psik

 

[tinkerdan]

That's an interesting article you've written; but it seems to focus more on abstraction and neglects the history of art.
In Euro-centric art alone you have the Renaissance to Neoclassicism to Romanticism that all seem more targeted toward expression of some commonality and striving for realism. It's not until you get to modern art and contemporary art that you see the abstraction that challenges the audience and the critic to exercise their intellect.

Both with art and writing there is a common thread of communication and the less abstract the better ; although the abstract can get some to think, it tends to narrow the field communication. In writing there has to be a balance or at least a recognition that if you are too obtuse you will go over or around your audience.

Ah but what do I know?

 

[J5V]

striving for realism

I've chosen a narrower focus than an all-inclusive balanced argument, to focus on 'puzzle'. I argue that there needs to be some degree of puzzling to make art interesting. Realism is great, and for me, I examine it with an inquisitive "how was that done?" and look closer while I appreciate the art. That in itself is a puzzle, where I'm attempting to decompose the work into abstract pieces (layering, brush strokes, impressionistic hints), or optical observations (reflections, caustics, filtering/refraction, scattering, radiosity, and so on) to see where the realism emerges: to understand the magic of the art.

the less abstract the better

Yes, it's good to be able to describe something concisely, to create a set of symbols, but then the 'art' is puzzle-solving of a higher order, to imagine the possibilities from those loose ends.

Ah but what do I know

Certainly enough to make valid comments

 

[zmunkz]

I think @KSCrooks pretty much summed it up. There is a technical part of writing... avoiding filters, passive voice, tense, controlling your pacing and voice, etc. These need to be understood, and while you will come to manipulate those variable intuitively rather than academically, it is still a model/framework of clean writing that needs to be understood (and broken only with deliberation).

I would also add that outliners are more on the science side of the spectrum. Maybe another way to put it is that your characters and setting and the voice you use to portray both are the art, and the structure behind the scenes that holds these elements into a story, is the science.

 

[tinkerdan]

That begins to sound like the science is the canvas::

I would also add that outliners are more on the science side of the spectrum. Maybe another way to put it is that your characters and setting and the voice you use to portray both are the art, and the structure behind the scenes that holds these elements into a story, is the science.

The characters and setting and voice (narrative) are the brush strokes.

A canvas devoid of science will have to rely heavily on the brushstrokes.