September 30, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
I just finished coding the new issue of ChiZine and received permission to post it a couple of hours early. So if you feel like some late-night reading, check it out.
I have a feeling there will be a lot of talk about Paul Tremblay’s “The Blog at the End of the World.” Brilliant concept, excellent story. (And props to Deena Warner on the design.)
You know what? (and this might be heretical to say, but) I really don’t like post-modern stories like this. Same thing with HOUSE OF LEAVES (which I haven’t read much of, in fairness). I’m a bit of an old-fashioned puritan when it comes to fiction, and a story like Paul’s, one I can’t feel in my hands (if that makes any sense) just frustrates me.
I get what he’s doing, and it’s a smart use of modern technology and tools to tell a story, and there’s obviously historical precedence for this sort of thing (which is, after all, pretty much an updating of the style Stoker used, for example, in DRACULA) but there are too many “footnotes” to the story, and I don’t like stories with footnotes.
But, again, that’s me, and it shouldn’t detract from any one else’s enjoyment of the tale. Why bother bringing it up then? I haven’t the foggiest. Maybe it will inspire some healthy discussion?
Stranger things have happened.
Nothing wrong with stating a preference. I dig all kinds of stories. I liked Stephen Graham Jones’ Demon Theory even though it was suffering serious footnote overload. It bugged me at first, but I got used to it. At the same time, I can understand why some people may not like it.
I also enjoyed House of Leaves, although I must admit that I felt it was trying a bit too hard to be artsy and different. I liked that he tried to tell a story in a different way, but I think there was too much emphasis put on the delivery of the story rather than on the story itself.
I don’t read much online fiction, because I prefer to have something I can hold in my hands (and printing the story out doesn’t cut it), but in the case of a tale like Paul’s, it really has to be enjoyed online since the format is so closely entwined with the story itself. Not sure how it would be put on paper if it’s picked up by a reprint anthology, but I’d be curious to see it.
I’ve heard it said - I think by Elmore Leonard, but I’m not sure - that it’s the job of the author to be invisible, and I like that idea. I want a story to draw me in and not let me go until I turn the last page. I don’t want to be getting pulled out of the story every five minutes to be reminded of how smart the author is, and unfortunately, in post-modern pieces that put more emphasis on form than story, that’s the feeling I get.
Yeah, I can see that. As much as I enjoyed a book like Demon Theory, I was constantly pulled out of the story by the gimmick in which it was written. It’s a different kind of reading experience, and one I admit I don’t usually like. I’m more of a meat-and-potatoes reader/writer.
Leonard is very much an invisible writer. He just lays the words done simply and effortlessly, nothing but story. I’m a huge fan of his work. Especially his dialogue.
it’s probably a good time to mention that Leonard isn’t necessarily right. Plenty of great fiction calls attention to itself. This idea that fiction should be invisible is a fairly recent one and not everyone agrees. Look at Nabakov, for petes sake!
Do I have to look at Nabakov? :) I don’t think it’s a matter of Leonard necessarily being right or wrong as it is simply a good point to note. I tend to like my fiction where I’m not reminded of the writer’s presence, much less him/her pointing out how clever they are. There were parts of American Gods I didn’t like where it was clear Neil Gaiman was just spouting all the research he had clearly done for the book. It’s what I think of as the Dan Brown approach to writing where you have two characters, one asking all the questions (like the heroines in both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, who seem to serve no other purpose), and the other spouting all the factoids.
I don’t think it’s the fiction that is invisible, but rather the writer. I shouldn’t care who wrote the story as long as it’s been written well. I mean, I wouldn’t like Nabakov just because he is Nabakov — although I’m sure for some people that’s all it takes.
It’s all just different styles and techniques and sometime a style that’s more obvious is right for the tale being told. It’s not strictly being a pedant either.
Let me put it this way: every time you read a passage by an author that you think is beautiful is a time that author has forgone being “invisible” to create an effect. The invisible author is one who write fiction you forget you are reading and instead “living”. I’m all for that, but there is also a place for that writer who creates fiction you know you’re reading, but you can also savour. The words and how they work together has an added effect on you, the beauty of how the writer works like an … yes, I’m going there … “artist”.
I see the argument that writer’s should be invisible akin to suggesting painters ought to aspire to photorealism. Sure, photorealism is cool, but it’s not the only way to paint a picture.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. There are those beautiful moments, which are positive ways in which the authors shows himself/herself. As you said, it’s all different styles and techniques. I guess some authors are good because they show themselves and others are good because they don’t.
I also think though that invisible doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t to be savoured. I think of Leonard as invisible, but I also think he’s an artist. I’m sure some people wouldn’t because his style is simple, but I think there’s more to be an artist than producing the pretty prose line. Leonard’s work isn’t pretty, I guess, but it is deceptively simple, in that it looks like it would easy to recreate, but I haven’t read many others who do it as well as him.
But I agree that there are many ways of painting a picture, though. I suppose that’s part of the fun, in both the reading and the writing.