"Good fiction does not create phenomena; it describes them."

[Alan Aspie]

I'd like to have a talk about the relation between writing and reality.

I agree with the title. Good fiction does not create phenomena. It describes them. Often this happens in very abstract levels. Story structure and theme are often the main tools of that describing.

Asimov's Foundation series describes different variations of political and social structures - and how people reacts to them. Harry Potter series describes the social dynamics in schools, neighbourhoods, society and how to grow to be decent when the pressure makes it hard. Dilbert series describes lunacy in corporate culture...

Good fiction is multi layered. It often describes phenomena in high levels of abstraction. George Orwell's Animal Farm describes communism. Walt DIsney's Scrooge describes capitalism. Descriptive symbols do the work.

I'd like to hear your thinking about the relation between reality and fiction. I think it's very important stepping stone in writing fiction and deserves to be noticed.

"Fiction is a language for communicating a type of reality that can't be communicated in any other way."

©Alan Aspie

 

[tinkerdan]

I would think: in pulling out the example of Orwell's Animal Farm that this falls apart somewhat.

Orwell was socialist and at the time communism was often and still is equated to socialism.
What Orwell did was take Animal farm from a pseudo democracy and across several evolutions into a totalitarian society and he used caricatures of Russian figures to tie the Russian government to his thesis. His intent was to demonstrate that Communism was totalitarian rather than socialism.

In this particular instance we're talking about realities that are not solid, because there are various opinions about what constitutes Socialism and whether Communism can be compared to socialism. In reality we put up a mirror and some people see Socialism. Orwell put up his own mirror through Animal Farm and we were supposed to see Totalitarianism rather than Socialism.

Fiction describes often an opinion of phenomenon and is not rooted solely in reality, but more in personal perception.

I hope that's clear while I'm trying not to take this thread into areas that are verboten. However the link you have might force a lot of people to end up in that area anyway so I guess we should be careful how we proceed.

 

[JS Wiig]

My thoughts are that good fiction writers have a deep understanding of human nature, and are able to extrapolate into phenomena that may actually occur in some eventual future.

More of a correlation than a causation.

 

[sknox]

Most fiction is just idle entertainment. A good deal of fiction aims for something higher or deeper, but either fails to speak to certain readers or else plain misses the mark entirely. So we're really only talking about a tiny percentage of literature. Oh, and another big chunk consists of literature that is so old as to be nearly opaque to a modern reader. Or is culturally remote.

Just because it's a tiny percentage doesn't mean it's irrelevant. That tiny percentage has had an outsized influence; after all, I imagine every member of this forum recognized every title in the OP.

But when speaking of the effects of art, I proceed cautiously because we're talking about the hearts and minds of individual human beings. Any one work of art (literature or any other) speaks differently to different people. Indeed, the very same work speaks differently to the same person at twenty than it does at sixty.

So I'm cautious about any grand generalizations. I think they are good as goals to which a writer might aspire. And they're always good for a thread or two. <grin> I admire and am amazed by writers who can aim high and hit the target. They can write a good story *and* have it be something more. Me, I still struggle just to put together something coherent that doesn't embarrass me.

 

[Alan Aspie]

I admire and am amazed by writers who can aim high and hit the target. They can write a good story *and* have it be something more.

Maybe they can hit the target & write a good story because they aim high?

 

[sknox]

Well, yeah, you don't hit without aiming. For myself, just telling a story ... any story ... well is an almost overwhelming challenge. I try to do right by my characters and try not to waste my readers' time. That's enough. After that, it's no longer my story; it belongs to the reader, who will do with it as they will.

 

[Steve Harrison]

My challenge is to make my stories as real as possible in terms of human emotion and experience, regardless of the real or imagined setting and circumstance; the aim being to make the reader believe this could actually be happening while reading the story. That's not to influence them with any of my pet philosophies or beliefs, or push a particular view, but purely to provide an immersive reading experience.

Anything else they get out the work - if they get anything - is down to their perception.

 

[Thiswriterinme]

I really enjoy what @sknox said about art and writing. It is true that art and creativity are entirely subjective, therefore what is taken away is often a result of the perception of the reader/viewer. Artists shouldn't feel the need to explain their motives or purposes behind creating something that is meaningful to them. Take Phillip Pulman, I don't particularly like the His Dark Materials series, or him as an author in general, but he did say something that I resonated with in regards to writing. He said that he has no obligation to explain to his readers why he writes what he writes, or justify the thoughts he has behind his writing.

I've always had a deeper respect for writing than other art styles because there is so much that goes into it. When writing, I'm not only concerned about proper grammar and the rules of the English language, but I'm thinking in terms of captivating the senses and imagination of anyone who reads it, not just myself. Other forms of art are impressive in their own right, definitely, but I have never known a painter who wonders if their viewers will look at their painting and imagine the smell of the ocean exactly as they painted it or any sculptors or jewelry makers that have a sketchbook full of designs for one of their pieces the same way a writer can have more words written for world-building and character creation than in their actual manuscript. I guess that is a conversation for another thread, though.

Now, in regards to the initial question for this thread, I've been wrestling with this a lot lately. Not in my own work, but in a lot of books I've been reading and coming across lately. The literary world is changing, and I sometimes don't think it is doing the craft justice anymore. While I am very passionate about and thankful for avenues to self-publishing, I also think they have greatly watered down modern literature. I mean, if you go to the Amazon Kindle store and type in some currently popular genre like "Reverse Harem Paranormal Romance" (I may or may not be working on one of these for a ghostwriting project), there are hundreds of self-published books that all follow a very similar execution. If you read deeply into the reviews, most of the books are riddled with typos, don't have great character development, aren't professionally edited, don't have consistency, and the plot or story is confusing or underdeveloped. And this is not the only genre that has succumbed to mass production of self-published titles that are half baked and unedited.

Now, if you read the positive reviews for the same books, it is all about how much the reader loved the book, and how much the readers can't wait until the next installment is released, or how steamy the romance is. There aren't a lot of technical reviews on the positive side, which makes me think that the majority of readers aren't even aware of what character or relationship development looks like, or what scenery and landscape description looks like, or how a story should be experienced and not explained in conversation after the fact. Due to this, I've really shied away from new releases of books unless I am already familiar with the author's work.

Okay, I'm getting a little ranty here, but the point I'm going for is, I agree that writers describe phenomena and not create them. I think one of the major goals of writing is to use words as a means to provide an emotional, immersive, and sensory inclusive experience that can often surpass the imaginations and creations of other media like shows, video games, and movies. This sets writing apart from a lot of other art styles and in many ways makes it much more complex. Unfortunately, that type of description in and respect for writing seems to be dying in newer books. Let's keep it alive, shall we!?

 

[BAYLOR]

They take what's inside themselves and, using words and descriptions translate it into a form that we can all comprehend. With these words , sentences, paragraphs and chapters , the writer brings into being , on the medium of paper , peoples places and things that had no other prior existence. If you think about it, it makes the writer somehow godlike.

 

[sknox]

>... literary world ...
It's at least arguable that the literary world is in the process of ceasing to exist. Or, rather, to become simply "the world."

The literary world is a created thing, beginning in the mid-19thc or so, when writers began to be able to have entire careers supported by writing rather than living off landed income while they wrote, or being dependent upon a princely patron. If you wish, I suppose we could push it as far back as the Reformation, but as a "world" I'll still hold to the 19thc.

It persisted because there was a relatively small number of people in that world, surrounded by a nimbus of patrons, critics, publishers, etc. It had its own lexicon, centers of power, and so on. Like most aristocratic societies, they managed to convince themselves and others that they had special powers and were specially gifted, lifting them above the common run. Even their failures and flame-outs were more spectacular.

That's the world I see ending. In its place is a more democratic world, which means a more common one, which certainly means populated by folks who would *never* have been allowed into the salons of the literary world. It also means there's a good deal of crap published (see Sturgeon's Law).

I guess I'm ok with that. There's also really excellent stuff that gets published (not necessarily widely read) and some (much?) of that would never have seen the light of day back in the days that were old but not necessarily good.

 

[Thiswriterinme]

I guess I look at it in terms of something like this: in order to become a certified organic food farm, the process is expensive and really detailed. The slightest thing can disqualify an applicant. That makes organic food more expensive.

If they made the process easier, more farms could become certified organic and the prices of the food would come down. However, if the process was easier, then farms that didn't adhere to true organic practices would slip through the cracks, and suddenly the organic food on the market wouldn't be completely free of pesticides, GMOs, antibiotics, and all the other additives and chemicals that organic food shoppers want to avoid, often for health reasons.

Books and writing is taking on that kind of feel.

I don't think writing and publishing should be an elite craft that only highly educated should enjoy. While I do believe that anyone can do something they set their mind to, it still takes work and effort. Most people can't just decide to write a symphony and then do it without any prior music experience or without knowing how to read/write musical notes. It takes work, study, practice.

What I am seeing is a lot of new writers taking the easy way out with self-publishing and not putting in the work or effort. They model their story after something they read, hence why so many genre specific books read very similarly. Then they rush through the writing and creation just so they can self-publish and get paid (as a ghostwriter, I work with a lot of people who don't even want to write the book themselves, just sell it in their name because someone they know did the same thing).

Writers who have made the biggest impact on fiction genres didn't set out with the goal of getting rich and famous. So, I guess this is what I mean by "watered down." People see self-publishing and massively popular genres as an easy way to make cash, and then it isn't even about the writing anymore.

 

[sknox]

I also see this, but I see it not so much in new writers as in more experienced ones. New writers are the ones who tend to take on too big of a project, or to write the Great American Novel, or the like. There are certainly exceptions, but I see more of those who have written a series, saw it make some money, and decide they're going to do twenty more of the same.

This is neither new nor entirely reprehensible. In earlier generations it was called pulp writing or hack writing. Hundreds of magazines were filled with thousands of such stories, all alike. What sells best is what sells. And out from that morass emerged some real gems, plus a fair number that were gems at the time but which have not aged well. What a great many of them did was provide entertainment to the masses. And none of it prevented truly gifted writers from writing truly memorable stuff.

Sturgeon's Law deserves elaboration and corollaries. Seventy percent of everything may indeed be crap, but that means thirty percent is better than that. Within that thirty percent lies everything from pretty good to ephemerally great to timeless genius. From one generation to another, the percentages don't seem to shift much. And the door is always open to the individual artist to strive for timeless genius.

 

[Dragonlady]

@sknox being able to write is still a thing of privilege though , with a few exceptions. Not everyone can afford to do it. In terms of the original topic, the books that speak to me most really capture human nature and relationships. Create whatever fantastic setting you want, the people need to be believable for it to work. This is why the books that appeal most to me are often not epic in scale or grand in purpose, and one reason I read a lot of crime and YA

 

[sknox]

Everyone can write stories. Not everyone can write stories that sell, and even fewer are lucky enough to live off that income exclusively. But anyone who can write, can write stories. It's not a privilege, except in the global sense where there are still people without education. Even then, pre-literate peoples told stories, rather than write them.

As for what captures as a reader, that's changed for me over the years. When I first began really devouring literature, it was all SF all the time, and what captured me were the ideas and images. The big exception was Tolkien, whom I read around age 15, and it was definitely the world first, characters second. I discovered Russian literature around age 19 and it was both plot and characters that caught me. I liked War and Peace so well, I read it aloud on second reading. Then I started studying history and for a decade or so fiction reading fell by the wayside. When I started up again, in the mid-80s, I had a pretty good selection of reading from which to choose. And in the late 90s is compiled my reading list and started in on classics mixed with an occasional newer book. With the more classic books, the writing itself often captured me as much as anything--Conrad, Chandler, and many others.

The point of that brief summary is to illustrate that readers change. They change in tastes, in access to works (less a constraint, these days), and in sophistication and expectation. The books don't change; the reader does. So it's hard for me to say X or Y constitutes the core or key of fiction. It's much easier to say what makes bad writing than to identify what is good.

 

[Dragonlady]

@sknox I agree with you about readers changing and tastes varying, and 'good ' being hard to identify. So many people dismiss as bad books that are just offering something different from what they are looking for.

In terms of privilege I'm really lucky- i only work 21 hours a week, only have one child, no severe mental or physical health problems and we can afford a comfortable house and a decent computer. I still struggle to find the brain energy and time to write as much as i need to. And many are not as lucky.

 

[Don]

Although one of my favorite Science Fiction quotes pertains specifically to politics, it can also serve as an augmented axiom applicable to humanity's ever-changing fads and fashions, in general.

Our government does not represent our people. It represents our people as they once were. The delay in the democratic process is such that the treaty signed today fulfills the promise of yesterday—but today the Body Politic has formed a new opinion, is following a new logic which is completely at variance with that of yesterday.

Citadel by Algis Budrys

Free kindle book and epub digitized and proofread by Project Gutenberg.

www.gutenberg.org

 

[Thiswriterinme]

Everyone can write stories. Not everyone can write stories that sell, and even fewer are lucky enough to live off that income exclusively. But anyone who can write, can write stories. It's not a privilege, except in the global sense where there are still people without education. Even then, pre-literate peoples told stories, rather than write them.

I agree with this. When people think "I can't draw" or "I can't play music" it is incredibly limiting. Everyone can create with their own style. That being said, in certain art forms, like writing and musical composition, there are some factors present that are more complicated than in art forms like painting and drawing or playing a musical instrument.

Grammar, for example, is a fundamental necessity to book writing. If a writer is unable to follow the grammatical rules of the language they are writing in, then that makes the story very difficult to understand for most readers. It can also be very frustrating to read. Sure, they wrote a story, but it is still lacking an important piece of general writing. Thankfully there are editors to help remedy this.

Not everyone writes stories for others to read, in which case, grammar might not matter. Yet, I'm seeing more and more books being self-published that lack basic grammatical understanding (along with other things). The popularity of some of these books is overwhelmingly high. Regardless of whether the story is "good" or "bad," when someone decides to take up a craft, there is a certain amount of work, practice, and study that goes into it. If I wanted an architect to design a new home for me I would expect them to understand dimensions and blueprints. If I wanted someone to handcraft a piece of furniture for me I'd expect them to have the proper tools, and know how to measure, cut, and level the finished product. The same can be said about writing books intended for publishing or self-publishing.

Maybe I'm the odd one out in thinking it, but if a whole generation of readers expects short, underdeveloped books with poor grammar, that drastically changes the writing industry, sending it in a direction I don't personally feel does the writing craft justice in any way.

 

[sknox]

Well everyone can write, draw, play the piano, etc. This doesn't mean they can do it well. My only point was that being able to write is not due to any sort of socio-economic privilege.

 

[JohnM]

For those who want to make a little money by writing, there are rules. Learning to write well or draw well or play a guitar well involves rules. Master those rules and you can produce work others will enjoy. Yes, there has always been bad writing and formula writing. And vanity presses. Ebooks are the latest incarnation.

A correct mindset must exist in a cooperative endeavor. Publishers limit me. Editors limit me. Well, then don't use them. Unless you see that longtime publishers have been longtime publishers for many years because they can tell the wheat from the chaff, and the same with longtime editors. As a working editor, I have to be able to spot those elements in a manuscript that work and those that do not. Sometimes, a little trim, sometimes a larger trimming and some rearranging. If there is indeed a "writing craft" and that writers are craftsmen, why think that anyone can do as they please? I can assure you, no one wants junk. I know that from years of experience.

Readers have not changed. The basic storytelling elements have not changed. That's why a Greek play from a few thousand years ago can still be enjoyed today. Man, minus some gadgets, has not changed. The motivations, the problems, the victories and defeats common in life have not changed.

Good fiction can create the light saber and make it real, even if for just a short time. Or a speeder bike. Great fiction often adds novel things - out of thin air.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Sort of related to this topic, I found it interesting that the protesters in Myanmar are using the three finger salute popularized by "The Hunger Games." In this case, fiction has created a phenomenon.