Masters: Reality versus Fantasy
I had a riveting discussion with some coworkers about the significance of detail in literature. Alright, they would not have worded it that way, but that is what happened. Honest.
At any rate, what happened was that a coworker overheard me talking about Dostoevsky and Dickens. And so she admitted that she did not have a taste for Dickens for the same reason she hated Stephen King... she felt there was too much description and not enough "open" for the imagination.
One of the most common misconceptions is that a writer wants the reader to create a new world from scratch. That would defeat the purpose of a writer-- the reader would be creating a world for his or her self, what need would there be for a storyteller!? Rather, the writer wants you to actively engage in the world that is being created.
There are varying levels of detail, and these I usually define as the difference between the realists and the surrealists (i.e., fantasy). The surrealists do not care about plot detail; in fact, often in more drastic surrealism, the details of the 'world' are either contradictory or simply do not make sense. Samuel Beckett was a prime example of this, in which his worlds were randomized, not necessarily created but stumbled upon. Beckett's point was not to have a reader that was confused-- though he most certainly succeeded on that end. Rather, his point was to have his audience examine HOW he treated his plot rather than WHAT elements constructed it.
On the opposite end, you have writers like Charles Dickens and, to use a modern example, Stephen King. These writers truly want to create a world from the largest and grandest creatures ('creatures' mostly applying to King) to the smallest, microscopic detail. This is why both writers go through painstaking detail in order to paint on their particular canvas. You close your eyes, you can see the world. The point is not that the reader is actively creating for themselves (the creator is the storyteller) but that the reader is living in the world.
Everyone wants to think they can write better than the storytellers. But the truth of the matter is, even if you dislike a storyteller, if they are popular it is because they are good at a technique you yourself do not appreciate. In the case of my coworker, she does not appreciate having everything spelled out for her. However, that does not mean that the worlds of King and Dickens are not rich, vibrant worlds that can be lived in-- that is exactly what they are, and what their creators wanted them to be.
It all boils down to the experience the writer is trying to convey. Does the writer want to convey a particular emotion? Chances are, in those cases, plot details will be slim. Does the writer want to create a new world, like J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth or Stephen King's Dark Tower worlds? Then chances are, the writer will pay attention to all the flora and fauna, the bricks and mortar, that populate that world.
At any rate, what happened was that a coworker overheard me talking about Dostoevsky and Dickens. And so she admitted that she did not have a taste for Dickens for the same reason she hated Stephen King... she felt there was too much description and not enough "open" for the imagination.
One of the most common misconceptions is that a writer wants the reader to create a new world from scratch. That would defeat the purpose of a writer-- the reader would be creating a world for his or her self, what need would there be for a storyteller!? Rather, the writer wants you to actively engage in the world that is being created.
There are varying levels of detail, and these I usually define as the difference between the realists and the surrealists (i.e., fantasy). The surrealists do not care about plot detail; in fact, often in more drastic surrealism, the details of the 'world' are either contradictory or simply do not make sense. Samuel Beckett was a prime example of this, in which his worlds were randomized, not necessarily created but stumbled upon. Beckett's point was not to have a reader that was confused-- though he most certainly succeeded on that end. Rather, his point was to have his audience examine HOW he treated his plot rather than WHAT elements constructed it.
On the opposite end, you have writers like Charles Dickens and, to use a modern example, Stephen King. These writers truly want to create a world from the largest and grandest creatures ('creatures' mostly applying to King) to the smallest, microscopic detail. This is why both writers go through painstaking detail in order to paint on their particular canvas. You close your eyes, you can see the world. The point is not that the reader is actively creating for themselves (the creator is the storyteller) but that the reader is living in the world.
Everyone wants to think they can write better than the storytellers. But the truth of the matter is, even if you dislike a storyteller, if they are popular it is because they are good at a technique you yourself do not appreciate. In the case of my coworker, she does not appreciate having everything spelled out for her. However, that does not mean that the worlds of King and Dickens are not rich, vibrant worlds that can be lived in-- that is exactly what they are, and what their creators wanted them to be.
It all boils down to the experience the writer is trying to convey. Does the writer want to convey a particular emotion? Chances are, in those cases, plot details will be slim. Does the writer want to create a new world, like J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth or Stephen King's Dark Tower worlds? Then chances are, the writer will pay attention to all the flora and fauna, the bricks and mortar, that populate that world.
Labels: Charles Dickens, Samuel Beckett, Stephen King
posted by Shannon | 12:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home