What's the function of a short story?
Clwblues9
What is a short story supposed to do?
I know this may sound like a dumb question, but I really am interested in
your opinions.
Lately I've been reading some newer anthologies, the "best of the best" if
you will (I'm sure the publishers think so), and some literary magazines.
Sometimes, I read a story and I just don't get it. I've even reread a
story or two thinking I'd missed something, and still didn't get it.
I don't consider myself "mensa" smart, nor am I a dim bulb. I've been
reading since I can remember, mostly well written literature, including
many of the classics. One of may favorite short stories is "A Good Man is
Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Conor. It's a clearly written piece, with a
beginning, a middle and an end. And her theme, as I understood it, quite
apparent.
So, why do I keep coming up empty with some of these contemporary stories?
I truly get to the end of some of them and just shake my head.
Really. Is it me, or are some stories purposely obscure? Is there some
kind of elitist group of writers who intentionally write these types of
stories? And are they in cahoots with editors? This is a real mystery to
me.
I've always thought that short stories, as well as novels, were meant to
entertain, enlighten and/or educate the reader (not necessarily in that
order). I get to the end of some of these stories and I feel like I just
went to the dentist -- I'm numb, spaced out and there's a hole where
something else should be.
Is it just me or what?
Susan
Elestria
Joseph Conrad wrote in 1897.......
Fiction - if it at all aspires to be art - appeals to temperament. And in
truth it must be, like painting, like music, like all art, the appeal of
one temperament to all the other innumerable temperaments whose subtle and
resistless power endows passing events with their true meaning, and
creates the moral, the emotional atmosphere of the place and time. Such an
appeal to be effective must be an impression conveyed through the senses;
and, in fact, it cannot be made in any other way, because temperament,
whether individual or collective, is not amenable to persuasion.
All art, therefore, appeals primarily to the senses, and the artistic aim
when expressing itself in written words must also make its appeal through
the senses, if its high desire is to reach the secret spring of responsive
emotions. It must strenuously aspire to the plasticity of sculpture, to
the color of painting, and to the magic suggestiveness of music - which is
the art of arts.
And it is only through complete, unswerving devotion to the perfect
blending of form and substance; it is only through an unremitting
never-discouraged care for the shape and ring of sentences that an
approach can be made to plasticity, to color, and that the light of magic
suggestiveness may be brought to play for an evanescent instant over the
commonplace surface of words: of the old, old words, worn thin, defaced by
ages of careless usage.
The sincere endeavor to accomplish that creative task, to go as far on
that road as his strength will carry him, to go undeterred by faltering,
weariness or reproach, is the only valid justification for the worker in
prose. And if his conscience is clear, his answer to those who in the
fullness of a wisdom which looks for immediate profit, demand specifically
to be edified, consoled, amused; who demand to be promptly improved, or
encouraged, or frightened, or shocked, or charmed, must run thus:
My task which I am trying to achieve is, by the power of the written word
to make you hear, to make you feel - it is, before all, to make you see.
That - and no more, and it is everything. If I succeed, you shall find
consolation, fear, charm - all you demand - and, perhaps, also that
glimpse of truth for which you forgot to ask.
To snatch in a moment of courage, from the remorseless rush of time, a
passing phase of life, is only the beginning of the task. The task
approached in tenderness and faith is to hold up unquestioningly, without
choice and without fear, the rescued fragment before all eyes in the light
of a sincere mood. It is to show its vibration, its color, its form; and
through its movement, its truth - disclose its inspiring secret: the
stress and passion within the core of each convincing moment. In a
single-minded attempt of that kind, if one be deserving and fortunate, one
may perchance attain to such clearness of sincerity that at last the
presented vision of regret or pity, of terror or mirth, shall awaken in
the hearts of the beholders that feeling of unavoidable solidarity; of the
solidarity in mysterious origin, in toil, in joy, in hope, in uncertain
fate, which binds men to each other and all mankind to the visible world.
It is evident that he who, rightly or wrongly, holds by the convictions
expressed above cannot be faithful to any one of the temporary formulas of
his craft. The enduring part of them - the truth which each only
imperfectly veils - should abide with him as the most precious of
possessions, but they all: Realism, Romanticism, Naturalism, even the
unofficial sentimentalism (which like the poor, is exceedingly difficult
to get rid of), all these gods must, after a short period of fellowship,
abandon him - even on the very threshold of the temple - to the
stammerings of this conscience and to the outspoken consciousness of the
difficulties of his work. In that uneasy solitude the supreme cry of Art
for Art itself, loses the exciting ring of its apparent immortality. It
sounds far off. It has ceased to be a cry, and is heard only as a whisper,
often incomprehensible, but at times faintly encouraging.
Sometimes, stretched at ease in the shade of a roadside tree, we watch the
motions of a laborer in a distant field, and after a time, begin to wonder
languidly as to what the fellow may be at. We watch the movements of his
body, the waving of his arms, we see him bend down, stand up, hesitate,
begin again.
It may add to the charm of an idle hour to be told the purpose of his
exertions. If we know he is trying to lift a stone, to dig a ditch, to
uproot a stump, we look with a more real interest at his efforts; we are
disposed to condone the jar of his agitation upon the restfulness of the
landscape; and even, if in a brotherly frame of mind, we may bring
ourselves to forgive his failure. We understood his object, and, after
all, the fellow has tried, and perhaps he had not the strength - and
perhaps he had not the knowledge. We forgive, go on our way - and forget.
And so it is with the workman of art. Art is long and life is short, and
success is very far off. And thus, doubtful of strength to travel so far,
we talk a little about the aim - the aim of art, which, like life itself,
is inspiring, difficult - obscured by mists. It is not in the clear logic
of a triumphant conclusion; it is not in the unveiling of one of those
heartless secrets which are called the Laws of Nature. It is not less
great, but only more difficult.
To arrest, for the space of a breath, the hands busy about the work of the
earth, and compel men entranced by the sight of distant goals to glance
for a moment at the surrounding vision of form and color, of sunshine and
shadows; to make them pause for a look, for a sigh, for a smile - such is
the aim, difficult and evanescent, and reserved only for the very few to
achieve. But sometimes, by the deserving and the fortunate, even that task
is accomplished. And when it is accomplished - behold! - all the truth of
life is there: a moment of vision, a sigh, a smile - and the return to an
eternal rest.
Kathie Meyer
In article <19970709161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
clwb...@aol.com says...
>
>What is a short story supposed to do?
>
>I know this may sound like a dumb question, but I really am interested in
>your opinions.
>
>Lately I've been reading some newer anthologies, the "best of the best" if
>you will (I'm sure the publishers think so), and some literary magazines.
>Sometimes, I read a story and I just don't get it.
I think I know what you mean, but it would help me to understand what you
don't get if you would mention the authors of the stories you are reading.
Like you, I prefer a story that is straightforward. I only get as obscure as
Raymond Carver. My favorite short story collections are written by Elinor
Lipman and Pam Houston.
To answer your question, I think a short story is supposed to mirror a
scenario that the reader can relate to. Not necessarily to the minute
detail, but somewhere in the story the reader should feel kindred to the
characters. That is, of course, just my opinion.
Kathie Meyer
CLaGuire
In article <19970709161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
clwb...@aol.com (Clwblues9) wrote:
> What is a short story supposed to do?
>
> I know this may sound like a dumb question, but I really am interested in
> your opinions.
>
> Lately I've been reading some newer anthologies, the "best of the best" if
> you will (I'm sure the publishers think so), and some literary magazines.
> Sometimes, I read a story and I just don't get it. I've even reread a
> story or two thinking I'd missed something, and still didn't get it.
Your mistake is in reading only the "best of the best"
anthologies--basically those tend to all adhere to a single taste. Read a
wider variety of short stories. Look for ones you LIKE, and ones that mean
something to you. If it makes no sense or don't you like it; get away from
it. You were correct, it was intentionally obscure.
The fact is, we live in a multicultural world now, and much literary
fiction is for, well, the literary culture. Not all of it, and certainly
not the best of it. However, "best of the best" anthologies generally
reflect the prejudices of the editors more than the state of literature.
Personally, I think some of the more creative work being done today is in
the area of Speculative Fiction (a fancy word for science fiction, fantasy,
horror and magical realism). Some of the most entertaining work is being
done in Mystery and Crime markets.
But more than that, I think short fiction is in a bad state right now. It
is a "writer's medium" now, rather than a readers medium. People just
don't read as much short fiction these days, so the market is now more and
more a training ground for writers to try out new things. This can be
intriguing for the writer, but leave the reader cold. Personally, I think
that anyone who wants to write short stories should read P.G. Wodehouse,
Roald Dahl, Lawrence Block and Agatha Christie to round out their reading
of current literary work.
Camille
------------
Visit my homepage at http://www.sff.net/people/Camille/
(WARNING: remove the .NO_SPAM from my address to reply by email.)
Fred and Dorothy Westphal
cam...@sff.net.NO_SPAM (CLaGuire) wrote:
> clwb...@aol.com (Clwblues9) wrote:
> > What is a short story supposed to do?
> But more than that, I think short fiction is in a bad state right now. It
It is an editor's medium.
>People just
> don't read as much short fiction these days,
We would if we could find it!
>so the market is now more and
> more a training ground for writers to try out new things.
Non-obscure stories are being written. They are not being bought.
> This can be
> intriguing for the writer, but leave the reader cold.
I also am really put off with the trend to publish only stories that
confuse and frustrate. Where's the "good read" these days? (in short
stories)
>Personally, I think
> that anyone who wants to write short stories should read P.G. Wodehouse,
> Roald Dahl, Lawrence Block and Agatha Christie to round out their reading
> of current literary work.
> Camille
Amen to that! I still recall the days when you could actually pick up a
magazine, read a story, and be left with a sense of fulfillment and
enjoyment.
Maybe children's literature comes closer these days.
dorothy
CLaGuire
In article <wkiuyi7...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> IMHO "Speculative Fiction" is not simply an alternative name for the
> sum of science fiction, fantasy, horror and magical realism. I much
> prefer Harlan Ellison's definition of "Speculative Fiction" from his
> preface to the "Dangerous Vision" anthology. To paraphrase
> "speculative fiction" is that in which the author is using fiction as
> a medium to speculate on the social condition as it might be projected
> in the future. The difference is that speculative fiction -- which
> crosses all genre -- has something to say, a message from the author,
> which is a condition beyond those required for the genre.
I love Harlan, but I consider that definition of Speculative Fiction to say
merely that it is GOOD Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror and Magic Realism.
It also puts a very heavy bias toward what some call Soft Science Fiction,
and completely leaves out fantasy. The entire area (both the good and the
bad stuff, the old cliches and the new wave) is a category. We are all
lumped together on a single shelf, and in a set of magazines.
I don't think Speculative Fiction is the best term for the category, and it
certainly wasn't coined to cover the whole category. Still, it's all we've
got, and I hate having to say "Speculative Fiction, the literary movement"
or "Speculative Fiction, the marketing category."
Todd
In article <wken98g...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> thus spake:
>There is a trend in short fiction, that when I'm derisive, I describe
>as "NewYorker Chic [sic]." It seems to have originated on the US East
>Coast, among writers who teach for a living, spend summers in
>"writer's colonies," practice angst as a lifestyle and want to publish
>in the new New Yorker magazine.
Huh? Which New Yorker are you reading? The New Yorker has never been known
for its "experimentalism" in fiction. In fact, it's just the opposite. It
has always been very safe. I don't find it the least bit challenging.
>The problem is that it is very difficult to write these stories well,
>very easy to get it almost right, and almost right is sterile.
Some writers often strive for sterile. Walter Abish, one of the best living
postmodernists tries to make his writing as flat as possible. However, that
does not mean that the outcome is sterile. Check out "How German Is It?" for
a prime example (and perhaps one of the greatest ending sentences ever
written).
>It's the new editor of the New Yorker ;-)
Let's not blame it on her. She's making some poor choices of stories, but
The New Yorker is not the standard by which short fiction should be judged.
>Seriously, though, this writing is from a school that goes back to the
>French existentialists, of whom Camus is probably the most well
>know. It seems to be very trendy on the East Coast, and in the US
>traces its roots to Faulkner.
>
>marty
>
Much of experimental writing also harkens back to the work of Oulipo, the
experimental writer's group that claimed Italo Calvino, Harry Mathews, and
Raymond Queneau as members. The group is still around today, but the roster
changes as the old avante garde dies off. The main thread running through
Oulipian fiction is the use of constraints within the work. We see this in
every media. In film, you can find it in the works of Peter Greenaway.
I'm disturbed by this tendency to dismiss writers who challenge the reader to
do some work. As a reader, do you want to just sit there and let the words
passively wash over you? Entertain me! Educate me! Enlighten me! Without
experimentation, we wouldn't have had Calvino's Cosmicomics or If On a
Winter's Night a Traveler, nor would we have had Briar Rose, Robert Coover's
latest novella (which is highly recommended).
It seems to me that we should embrace writers who take some chances. All I
ever hear is how bad the state of the short story is right now. That's
bullshit. There are some wonderful conventional stories out there and some
wonderful experimental pieces, and there are shitty examples of both.
Personally, I find the latter in The New Yorker much more than I'd like.
Todd
(There. I'm done venting.)
The opinions expressed above do not reflect those of my other personalities.
CLaGuire
In article <wku3i2nu...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts
<fo...@null.net> wrote:
> I'm very uncomfortable about grouping "Magical Realism" with SF et
> all, because I don't like to see useful terms diluted, although in
> this case it is probably too late. "Magical Realism" properly
> describes a literary genre indigenous to Spanish speaking South (and to
> a lesser extent) Central America which relies heavily on cultural
> conventions from those areas.
>
> SF and Fantasy, and to a lesser extent Horror, are in the large genres
> of "imaginary universes" in which the writer is allowed to vary from
> "reality." "Magical Realism" appears to an outside observer as
> similar, at first glance, because the worlds described seem to have a
> fantasy element in them, but to the writers of the genre that "magic"
> is not fantasy, it is a real, although sometimes allegorical, part of
> the universe about which they write.
If I was saying it was the same thing as science fiction, I wouldn't have
listed it at all. Of course it is a specific kind of fantasy, deserving of
its own separate listing.
I wonder if you read much current short fantasy. Do you know how much of
the short fantasy written today is classic Magic Realism? I don't think
you realize either that the roots of all fantasy is in very similar kinds
of historic fiction (read Ovid, read the majority of folklore). Magic is
always a real and natural part of the universe in which fantasists write.
If you are not extremely ignorant of the genre, perhaps you are basing your
assumptions on novels marked "fantasy"? This would be understandable,
since most people only read novels. However, the novel (especially the
popular novel) is a different medium. Read a little more widely. Sure,
not all fantasy is Magic Realism, but much Magic Realism is certainly
published in the fantasy genre.
Which brings me back to my objection to the definition of Speculative
Fiction as fiction which speculates on possible futures of our culture.
That does not apply to any fantasy at all. (All fantasy has an
allegorical, mythic, and/or psychological core--and neither speculation,
nor futurism can have more than a cosmetic purpose in it.)
CLaGuire
In article <wksoxmnt...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts
<fo...@null.net> wrote:
> I certainly agree that Ellison was trying to market his way out of the
> box that science fiction had earned for itself with the thrashy work
> of the early part of this century, and I agree whole heartedly that
> lumping SF, Fantasy and Horror (about Magic Realism, I've started a
> separate thread,) together as one genre for a marketing ploy isn't
> working.
Actually, for me it works fine. I like the broad variety--something I
never find on the mainstream shelves.
> But I disagree that the distinction he arrived at is either one of
> GOOD versus BAD SF, or that the definition -- at least as I've
> paraphrased it -- includes or excludes any specific genre. It is
> possible to write compelling and entertaining post-apocalyptic novels
> that have no social commentary at all, for instance. That is, it is
> possible to write GOOD (marketable, entertaining) Sci-Fi that has no
> intentional social commentary. Although he might be shocked to find
> this out, William Gibson is a good example. Neuromancer is *not*
> social commentary, it's just a good action thriller set in the Sci-Fi
> genre.
Well, let's look at it this way. You said you don't like fantasy, but you
seem to like Magic Realism quite a bit. You don't like putting Magic
Realism in the fantasy category. I'm wondering, though, if you aren't
really just trying to define the stuff you like away from the stuff you
don't. That strikes me as splitting the genre along taste lines.
On the other hand, I have no objection to you calling that particular kind
of fantasy Magic Realism, and refusing to use that term for elf stories.
(Elaboration follows below.)
> Lumping all the fiction from four different genre together under one
> label will only result in the label getting a bad reputation, as the
> stinkers from each category are held up as examples why the new
> super-category is a "bad thing."
>
> I know that the language is constantly being devalued because of the
> way marketing makes phrases empty, but I've found this one useful and
> would like to keep it around for a while ;-)
Good point. Like I said about Magic Realism above, I would hate to lose
that useful term. I feel there is a need for a general term for the area
(heck, I'll take "genre" and I would like just plain old "fantasy" which I
think does cover it all), and the world seems to have already taken up
Speculative Fiction.
However, I disagree that it the four different genres under one label is
the cause of the bad reputation. TV and movies and the pulps did that.
(Romances also have a bad reputation, and it certainly isn't the wide
variety that did that--it was the pulp houses that did it.) The thing that
keeps the bad rep around for SciFi is that so many writers treat it as an
unworthy thing. Certainly Harlan doesn't like to be categorized, but he
has done more for the genre by his _writing_ than any amount of
redefinition of the genre.
> A more interesting phenomena is the blending of SF and Fantasy so that
> there are some works that don't categorize very well, but more
> importantly so that most bookstores merge the genre into one area. I
> think that from the point of view of the genre [sic] it isn't going
> to help.
You can't deny, however, that it saved a stagnating industry. I remember
the state of the genre bookshelves back in the seventies, and how the new
wave of hybrid books made those shelves expand. Of course, I'm biased. I
like variety. I don't like things to stay neatly in categories. One of
the reasons I don't read much mainstream any more is because it is so much
the same.
> An example: I used to be a fan of a certain class of SF. I
> don't like fantasy (only taste, nothing wrong with the genre.) When
> the two were merged in the bookstores, I quit looking for SF 'cause I
> didn't want to sort through the fantasy to find it. I've seen the same
> thing happen in the music industry where fans get confused by shifting
> catagories and just give up looking for artists 'cause they can't find
> 'em in the bins.
I think, though, that you are really talking about a shift in taste and
publishing fads more than the merging of categories. The populace wanted
elves and unicorns for a while. Those who didn't like that stuff had to
look long and hard to find other things. There was a while when everything
went cyberpunk, too. (Even the elves and unicorns started getting gritty
and wired.)
We can't fight the natural evolutionary process, but as writers, we can
combat the bad effects. We can, when we see a loss that is more than a
swing of the pendulum, write wonderful fresh versions of what we want to
see. (Emphasis on "fresh".) I think the mixing of categories is actually
the best opportunity we have for reintroducing "dead" styles and genres.
> The word "marginalized" is running around in my head now looking for
> an outlet.
The shelf space devoted to the several genres we have been talking about
has grown significantly. Recently, we were the "in" thing in publishing.
Mysteries are in now, but are beginning their back swing (personally, I
think mysteries were probably over purchased in the past few years--I've
found so few that were worth reading lately).
Of course, I'm assuming that you mean that the marketing of the genre has
been unsuccessful for the genre(s) as a whole. If you mean that the kinds
of books you miss have been marginalized, well, maybe you are right.
However, I believe that is a natural part of evolution (I've certainly lost
a number of favorites myself) but whether they are dead or hibernating is
up to us.
CLaGuire
I hope that previous post didn't sound too cranky. I'm in a cranky mood
tonight, I guess. It's been a rough week, and the placement of the mouse
in my temporary office is such that I have a very sore wrist. <snarl,
growl, nip>
CLaGuire
In article <wkafjsa...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> BTW, as someone who is *permanently* disabled due to not paying
> attention to the pain, let me shout at you FIX THE PLACEMENT OF THE
> MOUSE *NOW*. The pain is a very important clue and you need to deal
> with it before it becomes a permanent part of your life.
Thanks Marty: I appreciate the warning. My problem currently is that the
whole building is suddenly under construction, and I'm basically jammed
into a corner with a pile of boxes. I have a pen mouse in one of those
boxes (a jittery annoying little thing that everyone else hates, but I love
because you can "write" on anything with it--you can use a cat as a
mousepad!), and I promise I will get it out and use it ASAP.
As for my cranky tone; it wasn't entirely the wrist. It happened that a
few phrases you used hit a pet peeve of mine, and I stuck you in the wrong
category. Sorry about that.
There is so much ignorance of fantasy (even among some writers of the
genre), and it is so condescending that I find people respect me more for
writing children's literature (apparently you can grow out of that into a
Real Writer). I get tired of the argument by many academics who have never
read anything earlier than this century, that Magical Realism is not that
awful fantasy genre. They go under the belief that somehow it was
completely invented by whoever their pet Magical Realist of the month
happens to be. They have no idea that it is simply a modern variant of a
very long tradition. Didn't really mean to put you in that category.
Fred Willard
In article <wkafjsa...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, fo...@null.net says...
>
>BTW, as someone who is *permanently* disabled due to not paying
>attention to the pain, let me shout at you FIX THE PLACEMENT OF THE
>MOUSE *NOW*. The pain is a very important clue and you need to deal
>with it before it becomes a permanent part of your life.
I really agree with this. I have switched to a touch pad. I have arthritis
and when it flares I am always amazed at how many places a mouse can create
stress.
--
-----------------------------------
Fred Willard
fwil...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~fwillard
Grey
In article <camille-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>,
cam...@sff.net.NO_SPAM says...
>
> I see your point. I was taking the stand that Homer was not writing
> Magical Realism, but Ovid was. You seem to be taking the reverse stand. I
> also believe that you may be making assumptions about the belief systems of
> some modern fantasy writers. ;-)
Just a quick question... Regardless of what Homer had in mind when he
wrote his two major works... they did lay the foundation for an entire
belief system like the Mahabarata and Ramayana did for the Hindi. Isn't
that the point here? Not what Homer had in mind, but what people made out
of it afterwards?
>
> I guess I want to be clear here. The original Magical Realists were
> writing what they considered straight realistic fiction
I'm very curious what "Magical Realism" is. Could you elaborate?
--
Grey
Reluctant Channel Manager for #Artist
Frequent guest on #Authors
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/4235/
Grey
Grey
In article <wkiuyed...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, fo...@null.net says...
> >> Grey writes: [among other things]
>
> Grey> I'm very curious what "Magical Realism" is. Could you
> Grey> elaborate?
>
> I'll take a stab at it and let Camille fill in what I've missed.
>
> "Magical Realism" is the name originally given to a school of art
> (and later writing) that started in the Spanish speaking countries
> of South and Central America. My personal description is that it is
> art that relies on the hispanic cultural use of religious allegory
> in its form so that it contains "magical" incidents as an acceptable
> part of an normal reality, where the magic is understood in an
> allegorical way. The painter Frita Kahlo may have been a magical
> realist, for example.
>
> The term was coined in an essay in 1925 by Franz Roh and the genre
> was introduced to the US as "lo real maravilloso" in 1949 by Alejo
> Carpentier. For the literary minded, there is an excellent book
> (which supports Camille's thesis that MR isn't just latino")
>
> Magical Realism : Theory, History, Community
> by Lois Parkinson Zamora (Editor), Wendy B. Faris (Editor)
>
> which suggests that it is possible to consider Derek Walcott and
> Toni Morrison as Magical Realists.
>
> Probably the best known writer of the original genre is Gabriel
> Garcia Marquez. His best known book is "Cien Anos De Soledad" (One
> Hundred Years of Solitude.)
>
> The genre became well known in the United States at about the same
> time that Laura Esquivel's novel "Like Water for Chocolate : A Novel
> in Monthly Installments, With Recipes, Romances and Home Remedies."
> became the movie "Like Water for Chocolate."
This is very interesting...
I'm assuming it's writing about the sort of practices that could get one
burned as a witch in Salem? Herbal Healing that has a Placebo Effect, or
actual (if Minor) magics?
I've seen this kind of stuff in texts from the old Witch Trials in which
people were burned or hung for using "Pollitically Incorrect" methods of
Healing and Midwifing.
You through in Drama with a tad bit of magic... that would definately be
fun to read!
Do you know any other examples?
Todd
In article <wkvi2in...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> thus spake:
>I didn't mean to dismiss anything. I tried to describe a school of
>writing. Apparently not very well, since I've confused you into
>believing I was discussing experimental or post-modern writing when I
>was discussing NewYorker Chic, which is something quite different. For
>"NewYorker Chic," think Cheever, Irving and Updike, not Calvino. They
>are the authors who's style informs that movement.
Well, I got the impression that the original poster was confused by writers
who are purposely "obscure," and the ones you mentioned--indeed, any writer
featured in The New Yorker--don't strike me as particularly obscure. Perhaps
I was mistaken about the style she was referring to.
>I'm not sure who the "we" is that should embrace writers who take
>chances, but I agree with the rest of the points in this
>paragraph. There is good conventional writing out there, and perhaps
>even some good experimental. (I withhold judgment because of my lack
>of knowledge, not as a condemnation.) On the New Yorker, we seem to
>agree.
Most definitely. The NY has done more to harm fiction writing than help it.
An unwillingness to take chances seems to only reinforce the status quo rather
than push the envelope.
Todd
CLaGuire
In article <wkvi2fl...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> CLaGuire writes: [and marty snips for space]
>
> Camille> [...] Magic is always a real and natural part of the
> Camille> universe in which fantasists write.
>
> I happen to agree with Carlos Fuentes that it is not possible to write
> 'magical realism' -- in the "traditional" sense -- out of the context
> of the South/Central American Hispanic culture. And you have hit on
> what I think is the reason why. Let me expand:
>
> As you point out elsewhere, fantasy as a genre arises from 'mythos'
> the writing that arose in early literate cultures to capture the
> 'bardic' or 'epic' tradition of explaining that part of the universe
> that wasn't understood as 'acts of gods.' Homer was a fantasy writer
> in the modern sense. The difference between "western fantasy" (for
> want of a better name,) and "traditional magical realism" is the
> cultural point that when homer wrote his epics, people really believed
> that all those characters existed. What is fantasy to us now was
> "real" to Homer. This is precisely what separates the two genres
> now. The "magic" in "magical realism" is really believed in, if only
> allegorically, within the culture it arises. That is the distinction I
> want to preserve. Hispanic "magical realims" writers are writing "true
> magic" in a cultural/allegorical sense that doesn't exist very often
> in western writing.
I see your point. I was taking the stand that Homer was not writing
Magical Realism, but Ovid was. You seem to be taking the reverse stand. I
also believe that you may be making assumptions about the belief systems of
some modern fantasy writers. ;-)
I guess I want to be clear here. The original Magical Realists were
writing what they considered straight realistic fiction. Is this what you
are saying? How much room are you leaving for religious metaphor? A
devoutly Christian friend once told me that the wine she drank at communion
was literally the blood of Christ--however, I'm pretty sure she doesn't
believe that if you took a sample to a lab, that you could do a blood type
on it. I'm positive she knows that blood does not taste like wine. She
IS, however, tasting the blood of Christ.
There is a very wide area between literal belief, and allegorical belief,
and just making stuff up. It isn't a gap, each is the end of a spectrum.
Thus I ask, where do we put fiction based on our "roots?"--things we deeply
believe, even if we no longer think them literal. And where do we put the
story when we don't _know_ whether the writer belived it literally or
allegorically?
I think this idea of True Magic Realism is a nice explanation of where it
comes from, but to apply it as a definition turns back on itself, and makes
ALL fiction into Magic Realism. (After all, we all write from our
beliefs....) Not that this is such a bad thing. It is one of many
influences on our writing, and we should explore all those influences.
Of course, you have to understand, I'm a storyteller first and foremost.
It makes me cringe when all of the Important People in children's fiction
keep talking about Authentic Folktales, (as if a cold rendition out of
context can possibly be authentic). They think they want storytellers, but
they are asking for folklorists. A folklorist studies a culture with a
scientific eye, from the outside, trying not to affect or interfere with
the culture. A storyteller is a part of the culture and both creates and
reflects the culture. A storyteller doesn't give a shit about
"authenticity" because whatever she does is authentic to her culture.
> I would like to make it very clear that I separate my personal taste
> from any judgment of the genre.
Okay.
> You could easily convince me that I am a
> fantasy fan by reminding me that Ursula LaGuin's incredible novels
> might well fall into that category.
Just remember that Harlan Ellison is a Primo fantasist as well. Many of us
worship him as a god. (Something which he objects to strenuously.) Jefty
is Five. The Whimper of Whipped Dogs. Susan.
> I think you have a good point. The 'possible future' bit isn't fair. I
> like to separate "speculative fiction" based on the fact that it is
> using a *changed universe* to speculate. Let me make my personal
> distinction concrete here: No matter how hard you try, you are never
> going to get me to accept Piers Anthony's "Xanth" novels as
> speculative. Some of them are very well written and the puns make me
> groan, but there just ain't no speculation there. On the other hand,
> it wouldn't be hard to convince me that Sheri S. Tepper is a fantasy
> writer, and her work seems to all be speculative.
Actually, after sleeping on it, I've come over to your way of thinking.
While I have no problem attatching the word "speculative" to any fiction
(isn't it ALL speculation?), I think there is a solution that would please
both of us. It's obvious, really, use your definition of Speculative
Fiction, and then call the publishing category "Speculative Fiction and
Fantasy." (Or "...and other Fantasy," but that's getting way too wordy.)
SF&F for short.
The problem is that people are using Spec Fic as the politically correct
term for all of the above. Kind of like calling people Trekkers instead of
Trekkies, regardless of the Spock ears and the Klingon makeup.
CLaGuire
> >> Grey writes: [among other things]
>
> Grey> I'm very curious what "Magical Realism" is. Could you
> Grey> elaborate?
>
> I'll take a stab at it and let Camille fill in what I've missed.
I don't see anything to fill in....
Just that if you've heard that the world is made up of splitters and
lumpers, you can figure (on this issue) I'm a lumper and Marty's a
splitter.
I guess you could say I do recognize a difference between "The Magical
Realists" as a Latin American school of writing, (or you could say Classic
Magical Realism), and that I see people like Toni Morrison as Magical
Realists. I also feel that there is a LOT of fiction that is descended
from Magical Realism that has to be acknowledged. It really does serve the
same purpose. Some of it is an imitation, some of it is the real thing,
but from a culture so far removed that it is less obvious.
CLaGuire
In article <wkk9iud...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> Camille> A folklorist studies
> Camille> a culture with a scientific eye, from the outside, trying
> Camille> not to affect or interfere with the culture. A storyteller
> Camille> is a part of the culture and both creates and reflects the
> Camille> culture. A storyteller doesn't give a shit about
> Camille> "authenticity" because whatever she does is authentic to
> Camille> her culture.
>
> I agree with everything but the last sentence. I'm also a storyteller
> and love to tell "Coyote" stories, which aren't even part of my
> culture. I make a point of telling my audiences that they are not
> folklore by deliberately introducing anachronisms into the stories,
> usually in the form of the dialog. I think it is enough for a story to
> be internally consistent.
But if you were Native American, and you played around with the Coyote
stories to suit your present life, it would still be authentic. Further,
if you, as a storyteller in your own culture, were influenced by a Coyote
story to tell it in a way that reflects and informs your own culture, you
would be telling an authentic story of YOUR culture. (And actually, I'm of
the opinion, that because you are a member of your own culture, everything
you choose to tell, because YOU choose to tell it, is authentic to YOUR
culture. You make it so, simply by telling it.)
Anthony Duggan
Marty and Camille have been debating Magic Realism as a genre I would
like to thank them both for a wonderful debate and for inadvertantly
helping me with my education.
Although there were a number of points on which they disagreed they
conducted the debate beautifully. Congratulations to both of them.
The sad thing is that we're about due for another outburst from
someone upset at the lack of relevant posts in this NG;)
rgds
Anthony