A 3-Point Commentary on the Latest Short Fiction Kerfuffle [EDITED]

[snurri]

1. Writing is hard.

2. You get no points for doing your best.

3. Readers award no points for difficulty. (Suggested by Greg van Eekhout.)

Comments

[snurri.livejournal.com]

See, I like the sentiment, but I just don't think it's true. Plenty of bad writers really enjoy writing--I did, when I was a bad writer, and I still often do when I'm writing badly--and I don't think that makes a bit of difference as to how others receive the work.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

Oh, oh, how about this, then?

3. If you are COMPETENT and write with joy, your readers will read with joy.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

WE MUST NEVER BE COMPETENT.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

OR REPENTANT ABOUT BEING COMPETENT!!!

(I'm basically describing myself as a writer there: I write competently, but with joy.)

(or if not with joy, with much happiness most of the time)

[snurri.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that, as Jay Lake pointed out, the response seems to be splintered in part due to varying definitions of the word "competent." To me it means "decent but unexceptional," and I wouldn't place your work in that category.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

Competence as JVdM seems to be defining it is "refusal to take chances." Or "safe."

For me it's putting the words in an order so that they make sense.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Well, again I think that "safe" is something that can be read a lot of ways.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

You are so right.

Like, for example, dare I say, the writers who write the experimental narrative because it's safe, because they don't actually know how to write plot and character, which is, maybe, dangerous?

You know they're out there.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Sure, I'll buy that. But to me, dangerous can also mean something as simple as writing about real emotions.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

AGREED.

This is why I apply the principles of wabi sabi to my writing, making sure at least one fundamental aspect of the story is royally screwed up, thus making it more human and beautiful.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Wow . . . I can't quite tell if you're serious, but if you are, that's really interesting and I want you to elaborate.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

I wasn't serious, but I wish I was. Then I could have a reason to be indignant about how badly I write and how little of it I sell.

It's an interesting idea in theory, but stories are mechanical at the level I was thinking. In the sense that, you can't apply the aesthetic principle of wabi sabi to something that must "go." If it doesn't go, it doesn't work, and it's aesthetic value is meaningless.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

True. I wonder, though, if you aren't onto something anyway. I often have things in my stories that I'm not sure I can entirely justify, but which just seem to belong, and a lot of the works I really enjoy do the same. The exemplar, to me, is the Mike Yanagita scene in "Fargo"; in a lot of ways it doesn't belong there, but it also kind of perfects the film.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

That's a very interesting example and I'm going to have to think about this more now.