![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Exasperating Maleness of Long Novels
Aug. 6th, 2011 10:39 amThis is a very interesting piece: The Exasperating Maleness of Long Novels.
Yes, any large-scale work of fiction is bound to contain rough patches, and stylistic virtuosity can easily become its own kind of macho competition. But to claim that perfection isn't the goal of art is to play semantic games. And to strive for a "torrential" style is, in part, to hedge your bets: a book that pretends to know everything stands a good chance of sounding smart about something...
Storytellers should be Scheherazade, holding us captive in spite of ourselves, not the king, intimidating us into submission.
I'm not trying to dismiss the Epic Novels—that would be unfair, since I've failed to finish, or start, so many of them—but I do wish we could stop lauding them for swollen "ambition." Why can't achievement be the standard instead? Male or female, novelists should be judged not by how much they throw at the wall, but by how much sticks. Until that happens, authors who equate length with power will keep right on overcompensating.
I'm still thinking about this, but I'm mostly inclined to agree. I always thought writing was about communicating, and that the best communication was clear and simple (I'm not saying dumnb writing down, but challenging for its own sake is just as pointless). And the best writing speaks to someone, not talks about how smart the writer is. There's a reason one of my muses is Scheherazade.
Mostly this post reminds me of the question I ask myself all the time when it comes to a lot of "Capital L Literature": Why these books? Who determines their value over other books? Why are only these valued, as opposed to books that are less verbose?
And therein lies my disillusionment with academia, and part of the reason I picked Slytherin for my House over Ravenclaw. Because I love knowledge and I value learning, but I don't believe in the ivory tower, Western-centric, straight, white, male definition of what constitutes that learning. And unfortunately in a lot of academia, you're still not valued unless you study the "right" things.
Yes, any large-scale work of fiction is bound to contain rough patches, and stylistic virtuosity can easily become its own kind of macho competition. But to claim that perfection isn't the goal of art is to play semantic games. And to strive for a "torrential" style is, in part, to hedge your bets: a book that pretends to know everything stands a good chance of sounding smart about something...
Storytellers should be Scheherazade, holding us captive in spite of ourselves, not the king, intimidating us into submission.
I'm not trying to dismiss the Epic Novels—that would be unfair, since I've failed to finish, or start, so many of them—but I do wish we could stop lauding them for swollen "ambition." Why can't achievement be the standard instead? Male or female, novelists should be judged not by how much they throw at the wall, but by how much sticks. Until that happens, authors who equate length with power will keep right on overcompensating.
I'm still thinking about this, but I'm mostly inclined to agree. I always thought writing was about communicating, and that the best communication was clear and simple (I'm not saying dumnb writing down, but challenging for its own sake is just as pointless). And the best writing speaks to someone, not talks about how smart the writer is. There's a reason one of my muses is Scheherazade.
Mostly this post reminds me of the question I ask myself all the time when it comes to a lot of "Capital L Literature": Why these books? Who determines their value over other books? Why are only these valued, as opposed to books that are less verbose?
And therein lies my disillusionment with academia, and part of the reason I picked Slytherin for my House over Ravenclaw. Because I love knowledge and I value learning, but I don't believe in the ivory tower, Western-centric, straight, white, male definition of what constitutes that learning. And unfortunately in a lot of academia, you're still not valued unless you study the "right" things.
