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.

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.