Storytelling Masters: General Observations
This is the first post in what I hope to be a regular series. Considering my background in academia, I am prone to examine closely the quirks and mannerisms that make some of the storytellers wildly accepted as 'masters' the professionals they are. One of the things I noticed, upon my journey through many a page, is that two basic rules apply to any great writer: they either help the reader understand their own self, or help the reader understand the world in which they live. The first is transcendental-- there will always be the need to be introspective to truly understand the self. In Attic Greece, the slogan was "know thyself and nothing in excess", and though we have institutions like psychiatry/psychology, and though we live in different times, the need for these two remains (that is, the fact that as humans we do NOT know ourselves and ARE prone to excess still remain).
In terms of the world in which we live, this is a more touchy subject in terms of relevancy. Some people honestly cannot connect with worlds different than theirs-- these are the type of readers who stick to nonfiction on current issues. While this perspective is limiting-- the reader is essentially limiting themselves by refusing to engage in how a work of fiction actually DOES talk about worldly issues, no work is 100% fiction-- it is nevertheless a growing trend. Less and less people are 'reading' though literacy remains relatively normal. How can this be? Well, because people are reading nonfiction. The news is being more highly read, leading to more global consciousness, magazines are being read, true stories etc. These stories are significant and important, but as a fantasy writer myself, I cannot help but think that the true wishes of humanity are revealed the most when we close our eyes... but that's just me, and I do not belittle anyone who goes under the category of a non-reading reader.
Back to the point: the reason people engage in non-fiction is because there still is room for a master storyteller within this genre. Because, as I stated before, the best stories are those that tell us more about ourselves (our subconscious, affected by our environment) and those that tell us more about the world around us (hence non-fiction's appeal).
The 'bad' writers are those that do not tell the audience anything they need to know, either about the world they live in or themselves. For instance, watching Sin City (as a story), you know nothing about yourself-- the characters are too shallow to gain any perspective-- and you learn nothing about the world around you-- for the laws of Sin City, not only legal but physical, are too inconsistent to learn ANYTHING. This is why I categorize Sin City as a bad story, and this is the reason some people could not watch the film for its inadequacies (I actually know of a few people who could not watch the film, got fed up with its uselessness, and just walked out).
Is there room to argue that Sin City was a good story? Sure. You probably won't convince me, but the definition of 'bad story' is not my point. George Orwell said it best with one of his most memorable characters, Winston from 1984: The best books are those that tell you what you already know. People who are lonely want to believe that they are not alone... they, in essence, know they are not alone, but when they connect to a good story, they UNDERSTAND that they fear being alone, and in the connection, feels that they are not the only one fearing being alone (if that makes any logistic sense).
I hope to look at writers, and see how they attain this tenuous relationship with the audience. There are a few 'classics' I tend to look at, writers such as Dostoevsky, Coetzee, people like that, but I also hope to look at 'pop' writers, such as Thomas Stewart (for business), Stephen King and Neil Gaiman (for fiction), and the such.
The reason I'm sharing this? Because I think it is integral to know what succeeds in the world of storytelling to truly understand your fellow human being.
In terms of the world in which we live, this is a more touchy subject in terms of relevancy. Some people honestly cannot connect with worlds different than theirs-- these are the type of readers who stick to nonfiction on current issues. While this perspective is limiting-- the reader is essentially limiting themselves by refusing to engage in how a work of fiction actually DOES talk about worldly issues, no work is 100% fiction-- it is nevertheless a growing trend. Less and less people are 'reading' though literacy remains relatively normal. How can this be? Well, because people are reading nonfiction. The news is being more highly read, leading to more global consciousness, magazines are being read, true stories etc. These stories are significant and important, but as a fantasy writer myself, I cannot help but think that the true wishes of humanity are revealed the most when we close our eyes... but that's just me, and I do not belittle anyone who goes under the category of a non-reading reader.
Back to the point: the reason people engage in non-fiction is because there still is room for a master storyteller within this genre. Because, as I stated before, the best stories are those that tell us more about ourselves (our subconscious, affected by our environment) and those that tell us more about the world around us (hence non-fiction's appeal).
The 'bad' writers are those that do not tell the audience anything they need to know, either about the world they live in or themselves. For instance, watching Sin City (as a story), you know nothing about yourself-- the characters are too shallow to gain any perspective-- and you learn nothing about the world around you-- for the laws of Sin City, not only legal but physical, are too inconsistent to learn ANYTHING. This is why I categorize Sin City as a bad story, and this is the reason some people could not watch the film for its inadequacies (I actually know of a few people who could not watch the film, got fed up with its uselessness, and just walked out).
Is there room to argue that Sin City was a good story? Sure. You probably won't convince me, but the definition of 'bad story' is not my point. George Orwell said it best with one of his most memorable characters, Winston from 1984: The best books are those that tell you what you already know. People who are lonely want to believe that they are not alone... they, in essence, know they are not alone, but when they connect to a good story, they UNDERSTAND that they fear being alone, and in the connection, feels that they are not the only one fearing being alone (if that makes any logistic sense).
I hope to look at writers, and see how they attain this tenuous relationship with the audience. There are a few 'classics' I tend to look at, writers such as Dostoevsky, Coetzee, people like that, but I also hope to look at 'pop' writers, such as Thomas Stewart (for business), Stephen King and Neil Gaiman (for fiction), and the such.
The reason I'm sharing this? Because I think it is integral to know what succeeds in the world of storytelling to truly understand your fellow human being.
Labels: Coetzee, Dostoevsky, fiction, George Orwell, Neil Gaiman, nonfiction, Stephen King, storytellers, storytelling
posted by Shannon | 7:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home