ozarque ([info]ozarque) wrote,
@ 2008-04-30 08:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Writing science fiction; the "current fashion"; part two...
[info]raqs commented:

"I don't know, I'm not that old and I'm an avid multi-tasker and fan of lots of complicated stories, but I still agree with you that current SF seems to be oftentimes too hard to figure out. Personally I think it's laziness on the part of the writer, or (probably more accurately) on the part of editors who so want something new that they're willing to overlook lack of craftsmanship to get it. If I as a lifelong SF fan and professional reader can't figure out what's going on, I suspect there is a problem in the supply chain somewhere."

This comment got me thinking. [I have been thinking about this discussion -- not in a very organized fashion, I'm afraid, because I'm dealing with a batch of interacting deadlines that distract me mightily, but it's been perking on my cognitive back burner.] And the comment brought to my mind a depressing possibility that hadn't occurred to me previously: What if it's not laziness on the part of the writer? What if the explanation is that the sf writers who lean toward this "make the reader struggle" style of writing are trying to prove that their fiction qualifies as Real Modern Literature?

Because I write fiction, it's easy for me to imagine how this would go. First you'd write an ordinary well-crafted "any-literate-reader-can-follow-this" narrative. Then you'd look at what you'd written, smack your forehead, and say, "Oh, cottonpick! Any literate reader could understand that!" And then you'd go back through your draft and deliberately take out the parts that make things clear, and you'd throw in new hifalutin stuff that would make things obscure, and you'd fool around with the order of presentation so that the beginning was near the end and the middle was scattered through the work in pieces. And when you got through doing all of that you'd look at your new draft with a warm feeling that readers were now going to have to work just as hard to follow it as they'd have to work to follow James Joyce's Ulysses.

I hope to goodness this isn't happening. It's bad enough that so many writers of nonfiction are terrified that if they write with decent clarity they'll be accused of "popularization" and "dumbing down"; it would be awful if that leaked into the writing of science fiction.


(Post a new comment)


[info]matociquala
2008-04-30 01:58 pm UTC (link)
Or yanno.

Possibly some of us are trying to get at thematic and narrative things that are more effectively evoked through nontraditional narrative and layering.

To paraphrase Ursula Le Guin, fiction is a means of talking in words about the things that cannot be talked about in words.

Also, the idea that linear narrative is the default seems to me kind of left-brain centric, as it were. For some of us, intuitive logic and patterning are far more natural than deductive logic and chaining, and a straightforward external story sometimes feels very flat and two-dimensional unless there's other stuff going on underneath it.

I think it's dangerous to start applying value judgments to how stories are structured. "In literature as in love, we are astonished by what is chosen by others."

Edited at 2008-04-30 02:04 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]dulcinbradbury
2008-04-30 02:20 pm UTC (link)
I agree. However, if someone thinks that it "should" be done in a non-linear, layered way, that could lead to some godawful work. It gets back to the form follows function idea in some ways, but, also honesty. If you're using a form because it's "trendy" or you think it makes your work seem more "literary," your audience is fairly likely to recognize it as pretense at best. (And if you've done it poorly, it's an incomprehensible mess instead.)

For the record, I love complicated works. Slaughterhouse-five, Catch-22, and The Blind Assassin come to mind as far as books go. However, I've also read books (and seen a few films) that tried to emulate that style and *failed*. There are some people who confuse incomprehensible with complex.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]matociquala, 2008-04-30 02:22 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dulcinbradbury, 2008-04-30 02:32 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]cristalia
2008-04-30 03:20 pm UTC (link)
I have to second this one. Rather than attributing it to deliberate action or conspiracy...well, at least for me, some of us are just writing the stories we want to be reading.

For me, a story where I don't have to do some of the work as a reader is boring -- it's noninteractive -- passive -- entertainment. I'm of that habitually multitasking mindset where I have to be doing something else if I'm to partake of passive entertainment (ie, knitting in front of the hockey game) or I will wander off counting the monkeys in my head (which is incidentally not fun when you're trying to sleep). So when I write, I write interactive/active entertainment. Because I'm not going to foist off on the world things that I wouldn't personally love to read. *g* None of us are.

So rather that "Ooh, this'll make me look smart" I suspect this has mostly to do with personal reading tastes?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ataniell93
2008-04-30 05:43 pm UTC (link)
Thank you. But then, I like the new stuff--not because it's complicated, but because it gives me good thinky-thoughts. I'm not particularly interested in "Joe gets his fanny in a bear trap" stories any more.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Response to ataniell93... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-08 07:22 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to ataniell93... - [info]ataniell93, 2008-05-12 05:41 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to ataniell93... continued... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-12 08:23 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to ataniell93... continued... - [info]ataniell93, 2008-05-12 10:14 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to ataniell93... continued... again... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-15 03:59 pm UTC (Expand)
Response to matociquala...
[info]ozarque
2008-05-08 04:50 pm UTC (link)
I have let some time go by, hoping that if I let this perk a while I would understand it better -- and it's not working. Which is appropriate .... that is, I'm having roughly the same problem understanding your comment that I have understanding the current fiction that prompted the discussion in the first place.

This may be a generation-gap problem -- for example, probably everyone under thirty knows what "Or yanno" means. It may also be an intelligence-gap problem, in that -- except for the paragraph starting with "Also," which I think I do understand -- you're writing way over my head and I just can't think that high. Which may mean that's that's the problem I have with the current fiction as well.

Very humbling, in any case.



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Response to matociquala... - [info]matociquala, 2008-05-08 05:04 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to matociquala... continued... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-08 07:20 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to matociquala... continued... - [info]matociquala, 2008-05-08 07:26 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]lovecraftienne
2008-04-30 02:07 pm UTC (link)
What I find interesting is that no one seems to have mentioned Vonnegut, who gave us half a century of nonlinear, absurdist writing.

Personally, I've never been able to handle/enjoy Vonnegut either, though I recognize that what he did takes tremendous skill to do well.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]indefatigable42
2008-04-30 02:13 pm UTC (link)
I love what I've read of Vonnegut, although I didn't think of him automatically when this subject came up. Odd and absurd things happen which don't seem to make sense until you've read it several times.

I read Cat's Cradle in a literature class, so we spent a lot of time picking it apart and finding that a lot of the seeming non sequiturs really were meaningful. I did enjoy letting my mind play with the ideas until I found an interpretation that made sense in context.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]indefatigable42, 2008-04-30 02:19 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dulcinbradbury, 2008-04-30 02:22 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]matociquala, 2008-04-30 02:25 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ataniell93, 2008-04-30 05:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]lilairen, 2008-04-30 11:20 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]indefatigable42, 2008-04-30 02:26 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2008-04-30 03:16 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ataniell93, 2008-04-30 05:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]wolfangel78, 2008-05-01 03:14 am UTC (Expand)

[info]ladyqkat
2008-04-30 04:33 pm UTC (link)
I have been skimming the posts on this subject, but it seems that no one has mentioned A. E. van Vogt either.

He wrote short stories with a lot of detail in a concise fashion. I remember being enchanted and highly confused when I first read "The World of Null-A" when I was in single digits in the 50's. I just recently read my husband's copy of Mission to the Stars" (original title "The Mixed Men") and, when done, felt like I had read a wonderfully long complex story, not one of 174 pages.

It surprised me simply because I had tried to muddle through Rebecca Locksley's The Three Sisters, a book of nearly 500 pages that I found was, in short, an annoying read. I could not make sense of most of the narrative or the world it was placed in. I had trouble trying to read it in the order it was written, not because the viewpoint changed between the seven major characters, but because none of the characters seemed to be, except accidentally, in the same story. So of a blender version of Grimm's Fairy Tales.

I know I am comparing apples and oranges here, but both stories were set in extremely complex situations. One was delightful and refreshing and left me with wanting more. The other was burdensome and dragging and I just wanted to finish the darn thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]indefatigable42
2008-04-30 02:08 pm UTC (link)
I don't think it would leak into nonfiction. Nonfiction is meant to inform; the goal is to communicate a lot of information as clearly and accurately as possible. ('Accurately' here means 'conveying the idea you wish to convey', as nonfiction can be a vehicle for opinion as well as fact.)

Fiction is meant to tell a story, but there is some experimentation with giving more vague details and letting the reader's imagination fill in blanks or subjectively interpret what's happening. If it's done well it's really neat, and if it's done badly it's pretentious. But I think it's something that appeals to some fiction writers and would not hold the same attraction for nonfiction writers.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]victoriacatlady
2008-05-01 06:15 am UTC (link)
I don't think it would leak into nonfiction. Nonfiction is meant to inform; the goal is to communicate a lot of information as clearly and accurately as possible.

An interesting point. However, Ozarque's concern was that the tendency to obscurity is already present in nonfiction, and she hopes that it won't leak from nonfiction into science fiction:

"It's bad enough that so many writers of nonfiction are terrified that if they write with decent clarity they'll be accused of 'popularization' and 'dumbing down'; it would be awful if that leaked into the writing of science fiction."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]indefatigable42, 2008-05-01 02:06 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]rosalux
2008-04-30 03:18 pm UTC (link)
I've been thinking about this a lot too, and it's hard for me to apply it to science fiction because I'm not very widely read in the genre recently (I had pretty much stuck to romance fiction for my genre fix until a year ago - the romance fans recommended Bujold and now I'm reading a lot more SF again, but there's a decade or more backlist on the writers I know I like keeping me busy).

I think that science fiction has an extra burden that other generes generally don't, which is worldbuilding. Literary fiction (and romance, and mystery, and even historical novels and biographies) generally assume you know quite about the world the characters are in.

Authors that are trying to impart a large amount of knowledge usually iron out narrative and viewpoint complexity to allow for all that extra information. When they try to do a lot of things at once, you get amazingly dense and difficult books - Mason & Dixon comes to mind for recent fiction.

Atwood's a good example, I think. She generally sticks with a very familiar near-current or historical world. When she strays from that, she either keeps to a very tight viewpoint (Handmaid's Tale) or seems to be deliberatly making things murky (Oryx & Crake, which I'm trying to be objective about even though I hated it.)

I'm trying to think of a very layered narrative structure that also builds a complex new world at the same time in the genre, and failing - but like I said, I'm not very widely read in SF.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]archangelbeth
2008-04-30 04:21 pm UTC (link)
I think that science fiction has an extra burden that other generes generally don't, which is worldbuilding. Literary fiction (and romance, and mystery, and even historical novels and biographies) generally assume you know quite about the world the characters are in.

Yes, this. (Though I must say, Barbara Hambly's "Ben January" series? Starting with A Free Man of Color? Excellent stuff -- she doesn't stint the worldbuilding, even though the world she's building is grounded in history. (Hambly is She To Whom I Look Up when it comes to description. Most literary writer I can think of who doesn't wander off into being literary at the expense of stories that engage me. (Bujold's style is more "transparent" to me, though I think her Sharing Knife series, especially the 3rd of them, is dipping toes into elements of The Cool Description.))) *beth eyes the nested parentheses and sighs*

I've got my Grand Unpublished Epik Trilugy here, and it's a romance. In a fantasy world. Which needs a minor mystery to round things out so we have something else for the characters to react against besides each other. And I didn't short-cut with much in the way of "OMG HAWT" to form the attraction. And it's so. blighted. long. Because quite aside from the romance+mystery plot, which hinges on this certain fantasy schtick, I have to explain the schtick, and it's an original fantasy world, so I'm working on painting a picture of that, and... Big! *whine* (So I'm going through with a chainsaw and seeing how many stray words I can pry away from Mr. Verbose Character. Grr.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]rosalux, 2008-04-30 06:00 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]archangelbeth, 2008-05-02 01:25 am UTC (Expand)

[info]dteleki
2008-04-30 06:28 pm UTC (link)
I think that science fiction has an extra burden that other generes generally don't, which is worldbuilding.

And if an author is going to go to the trouble of building a whole world, an s.f.-ish world... if that world is interestingly complicated, a single point-of-view character isn't realistically likely to see that whole world. The now-quaint plot of The Nobody Who Rises From Obscurity To Become The Emperor is partly a device to give a grand tour of the world that has been built; but even the Rising Nobody can't reasonably experience all the interesting roles and situations in the as-built world.

For example:
. The old-money socialite whose family disapproves of her but doesn't quite dare to get rid of her, and now she's getting ready to really shock them.
. The self-made billionaire industrialist wondering "now what?".
. The high priest trying to prevent a schism.
. The long-suffering mid-level career bureaucrat with no ambition, trying to do a thankless job honorably.
. The hermit in the desert who's trying to escape civilization entirely.
. The hard-working character actor, always a supporting actor and never the lead.
. The scientist shrieking "Eureka!" over the experiment that conclusively disproves what it was supposed to confirm.
. The muckraking journalist chasing the scoop of the century.
. The college professor trying to show "kids these days" why the classics are as relevant today as the latest headlines.

No one person, or close-knit group of people, can plausibly inhabit all those roles, either at once or one after the other. Then, when Whatever-It-Is happens, all those people are going to have very different perspectives on the events as they unfold, and all of them all at the same time. Beyond a certain level of complexity, the multi-tasking multi-camera approach is simply unavoidable.

And one of the actual specialties of s.f. is world-building, of a world that is big enough and complicated enough, to require the multi-tasking multi-camera approach.

Of course, it's possible to overdo it, just as it's possible to go gaga over jump-cuts. I can even imagine a Swiftian satire about a fad for over-complication that leads all art and popular culture into such incomprehensibility that all audiences abandon them completely in favor of careerism, leading to a Great Economic Leap Forward -- and then a Neo-Aesthete Backlash And Mid-Life Crisis. But sooner or later, in the satire as in real life, some sort of middle ground is going to be arrived at, where needless non-linearity is pared away while interesting non-linearity is retained.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Thoughts
[info]ysabetwordsmith
2008-04-30 03:55 pm UTC (link)
I hope that doesn't happen, because if it does, the same thing will happen to fiction that has already happened to poetry: people will mostly stop reading it because they can't find any worth reading.

I'm also concerned that, due to the general dumbing down of schools and such, more people will be unable to write coherent material.

Yet another factor is that people will write good coherent stories, and editors will either reject them without explanation, or be told to change them so as to match an incoherent market drive. That would, of course, feed into scenario #1 above.

I'm reminded that at least one type of fiction relies on obscurity: the mystery. But I don't think it's mystery --> science fiction causing the problem, because a mystery must be retroactively crystalline. Really good SF stories that feature startling revelations have a lot in common with mysteries, that way.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Thoughts
[info]indefatigable42
2008-04-30 05:23 pm UTC (link)
Yet another factor is that people will write good coherent stories, and editors will either reject them without explanation, or be told to change them so as to match an incoherent market drive.

The internet makes a difference there, though -- buy webspace or get a free account at a fiction archive, and you can post your stuff regardless of whether an editor for a big publisher would look twice at it. There's a lot of good writing out there that people are doing for fun and art instead of profit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Thoughts - [info]ysabetwordsmith, 2008-05-01 04:16 am UTC (Expand)

[info]nancylebov
2008-04-30 03:56 pm UTC (link)
[info]raqs's comment might apply to some of Gene Wolfe's fiction, though iirc, he's afraid of being too obvious and/or redundant and boring people.

Another thing that might be going on is the influence of Delany's idea that a major virtue of science fiction writing and reading is the ability to extrapolate a world from a small detail. If the story starts with a character getting a trickle from the salt water tap, someone who thinks sfnally will immediately know there's a longterm water shortage.

Like anything else, incluing (a useful word from [info]papersky for details that imply a lot about the world) can be overdone.

Edited at 2008-04-30 03:57 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]cbpotts
2008-04-30 04:16 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for two new (at least to me!) words. I love incluing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-30 05:41 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps some authors write that way. But others presumably don't: they're telling stories that depend on being told non-linearly. Maybe they imagine you write a story like they do, then reorder the chapters by time. (Doubtful that anyone thinks that.)

I also wonder if some of this is just that we forget all the terrible books that we read n years ago and remember the stellar ones -- and non-linearity is in fashion now. For instance, 'The Sparrow' was non-linear, but didn't, I think, make you struggle to follow it (oh, sure, you wanted to know what actually *happened*, but that's not the same) while there are linear novels which you do need to struggle to follow -- you can leave out information in a linear narrative just as easily, especially in SF where you're world-building.

And for what it's worth, I like stories on tv/movie which are non-linear (also ones which are linear) but I dislike a lot of rapid cuts (though in some scenes they are effective).

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]wolfangel78
2008-04-30 05:42 pm UTC (link)
Sorry, thought I was signed in.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]ataniell93, 2008-04-30 05:47 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]trochee
2008-04-30 08:27 pm UTC (link)
It has occurred to me that certain television shows have really beaten the non-linear narrative to death, and while in some respects this may have started it can certainly be abused.

For example, Seinfeld regularly had the structure of three or four apparently independent threads that wove together at the end into some ridiculous situation. So regularly, in fact, that I can't watch it any more, and I have developed the hypothesis that the writers work backwards from the absurd situation at the end in writing the story. This strikes me as somehow not fair, because it seems parallel to the scenario you ([info]ozarque) suggest in paragraph three.

The effect of these "write it clear and then obfuscate" strategies is that the result is something that seems layered and complex at first glance, but doesn't have the real structure and depth that is in works that "just grew that way", like Dune or Lord of the Rings or Handmaid's Tale or Always Coming Home.

But of course, how do you tell the writers who are writing complex vs those who are obfuscating? this is not obvious.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Seinfeld - obfuscation or formula?
[info]gement
2008-04-30 11:58 pm UTC (link)
Hmm. I don't consider the "independent threads that turn out to blend into a single hilarious situation" formula to be obfuscation. For me it falls firmly into the category of farce.

Because really, someone writing a farce does not start with a bunch of well-developed characters, set them out to live their lives, and hope something funny will happen. She starts with, "At the end of it, I want three people in their underwear, two dressed as each other and trying to convince their own husbands to commit adultery, and the suitcase full of money has been stolen by the chimpanzee." And then they work backward from there to make that happen.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Seinfeld - obfuscation or formula? - [info]trochee, 2008-05-01 12:01 am UTC (Expand)

[info]gement
2008-04-30 11:48 pm UTC (link)
For as long as it lasts, the April 30, 2008 issue of the "Zits" comic strip speaks directly to the potential generational divide. http://www.arcamax.com/zits/s-338470-866512

I do find it interesting that you read multi-narrator books one narrator at a time. I hadn't heard of that before. I don't find multi-narrator very complex, as long as they have distinctive voices to make the shifts clear. This is possibly because when I make stories up in my head, I do them like plays, and often jump into each of the character's skins to experience the story from every angle.

I enjoy time-jumping, but appreciate that it has to be done carefully and requires more work on the reader's part. (For those collecting data points, I'm 28, firmly in the young whipper-snappers category.)

More often, what I find maddening is single-narrator stuff where they never get around to actually telling you anything. I'm willing to wait for it, and I'm willing to accept some ambiguity and loose ends if the major points are answered or clearly left hanging for a reason, but sometimes...

I read an entire story about a guy that was afraid his boyfriend might be an alien and eventually killed the boyfriend. There was a metaphor about goldfish involved, but no further explanations. I never even quite figured out what about the boyfriend's behavior flagged him as alien.

It was in an anthology of the year's best SF and Fantasy shorts. I was at a loss to give any reason that a reader would find it either moving or comprehensible.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]not_your_real
2008-05-01 02:24 am UTC (link)
I found Ozarque's method of reading Song of Ice and Fire surprising as well. My big question was, how do you know what time it was? Reading the books straight through, the characters are nearly universally, hopelessly relying on out-of-date information - worrying what dead people are going to think of something, for example (and not the ones who come back from the dead, either). If you read it as separate disconnected narratives, how do you know what is going on elsewhere that the characters don't know about?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Response to not_your_real.... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-01 06:20 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to not_your_real.... - [info]archangelbeth, 2008-05-02 01:34 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to not_your_real.... and to archangelbeth... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-02 01:21 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to not_your_real.... - [info]dteleki, 2008-05-02 02:15 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to not_your_real.... and to dteleki... - [info]ozarque, 2008-05-02 01:30 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Response to not_your_real.... and to dteleki... - [info]dteleki, 2008-05-02 08:57 pm UTC (Expand)

(Anonymous)
2008-05-01 06:55 pm UTC (link)
Writers who write non-linearly and then put the pieces into chronological order: Diana Gabaldon, for one. In interviews and other comments, she has described her method as writing scenes in whatever order they come to her, without necessarily having an overarching plot to connect them. When she has enough scenes to make most of a book, she arranges them in the proper order and constructs plot threads to connect them. C. S. Lewis claimed to write fiction essentially the same way (isolated "pictures" came to him), although his novels are of course much shorter than hers. I couldn't possibly write that way. I outline thoroughly first, and I discovered long ago that I have to write the book in order, because if I start by composing the most exciting scenes first, I don't have the enthusiasm to write the less exciting transitional ones.

Popularizers: Two of my favorite writers of nonfiction are people I admire because of their gift for lucid, entertaining exposition: Isaac Asimov (in science) and C. S. Lewis (in theology). Both of them perform a vital service for the laypersons their works reach. Why "popularizers" are looked down upon (as Lewis' popular works were regarded with some disdain by his Oxford colleagues) is quite beyond me. Shouldn't the "elite" WANT to live among an educated public? And in any given field, there are thousands if not millions more interested laypersons than specialists.

(Reply to this)


[info]raqs
2008-05-01 11:22 pm UTC (link)
I'm so pleased you followed up on my comment and I appreciate getting to see all this discussion!

I wouldn't want to conflate nonlinear with obfuscatory; nor would I conflate complex with obfuscatory. Some of my very favorite novels are not at all easy; there is excellent twentieth century fiction (like _Invisible Man_ or Barth's novels) as well as excellent science fiction (such as _The Sparrow_ or Vonnegut's works) that are quite complex, and/or quite nonlinear, without being obfuscatory. In fact I would say the basic tool of craftsmanship are MORE necessary when you are asking the reader to come along for such a twisty ride.

Of course, it's a judgement call when something crosses the line from a complexity/nonlinearity that CONTRIBUTES to meaning, to one that DETRACTS from meaning. My line seems to be in a different place from some other folks'.

I remain disappointed that the SF that I am buying trying to stay "current" in the field is so often difficult to follow for reasons that are not apparent to me. I don't want to be curmudgeonly (which of course wouldn't prevent me from BEING curmudgeonly; still, I state it as a goal), but I think writers like Frederic Brown or Judith Merril wrote short fiction that was innovative in structure and used that difficulty to convey meaning (or theme or awe or whatever was their purpose). I'm not seeing that in a lot of today's work. If I'm missing it, I hope I stumble across it.

Since you promoted my offhand comment to a central spot, let me say that I take back the possibility of laziness on the part of the writer, given how hard it is to get anything in print, especially in the short fiction realm. I remain suspicious that it could be the kind of trend everyone jumps on. And I do wish editors would steer away from the trend; if their intent is to publish "art", I think it is failing. Maybe today's writers are trying to be Delanyesque, but it's not working for me. (I should also mention that I purely WORSHIP Chip Delany.) However, that is my very own opinion and I'm pleased to see others offering theirs.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…