MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Acceptable styles change in just 25 years

gmw · 08-07-2013, 12:39 AM

I agree that a book should gain the interest of the reader as early as possible - I don't think that has changed all that much - although it does seem that the definition of "interesting" may be changing. As you phrase it, they must be "doing". Action is coming to be seen as the only acceptable form of interest. And yet I don't see that as true among readers. Many people are still reading older works and finding them enjoyable.

I am not recommending pure exposition, that has rarely been a good thing, not now, not 25 years ago, not 200 years ago. (The first of the Star Trek movies was boring even when it was first released.

) Exposition should take place as an integral part of the story as much as possible. Donaldson's work can be wordy, but it isn't guilty of pure exposition (or not in my opinion).

But Donaldson isn't talking about how soon the elements of interest appear, he's talking about the way the elements are expressed. He speaks of the recent style as "lean and ambiguous" - where the events are all that matter, and the reader had better bring a full complement of current contextual understanding with them or they may become lost. Donaldson is, I think, speaking more a writer taking a larger responsibility for having their work understood as the writer intended it, and of providing mood and understanding through language rather than by some assumed commonality between the reader and writer. (Of course a certain amount of common ground must exist anyway - what Stephen King refers to as the ESP between the writer and the reader - but there are different levels of assumption that a writer can make.)

I like to think there is still room for expressive language and deliberate phrasing to be a part of literature - in all genres. It may not be as popular as it was, but I refuse to believe that even young readers are completely oblivious to such things. There are a lot more chances to get it wrong if you choose to be expressive, which is perhaps why it has become less popular, it can be easier to fill with more action than it is to construct something more subtle.

(Note: None of this is to be construed as criticism of work that takes a mostly action/event-driven path, there is a place for that too. I think that there is a place for both forms.)

08-07-2013, 12:39 AM	#3
gmw cacoethes scribendi Posts: 5,809 Karma: 137770742 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650	I agree that a book should gain the interest of the reader as early as possible - I don't think that has changed all that much - although it does seem that the definition of "interesting" may be changing. As you phrase it, they must be "doing". Action is coming to be seen as the only acceptable form of interest. And yet I don't see that as true among readers. Many people are still reading older works and finding them enjoyable. I am not recommending pure exposition, that has rarely been a good thing, not now, not 25 years ago, not 200 years ago. (The first of the Star Trek movies was boring even when it was first released. ) Exposition should take place as an integral part of the story as much as possible. Donaldson's work can be wordy, but it isn't guilty of pure exposition (or not in my opinion). But Donaldson isn't talking about how soon the elements of interest appear, he's talking about the way the elements are expressed. He speaks of the recent style as "lean and ambiguous" - where the events are all that matter, and the reader had better bring a full complement of current contextual understanding with them or they may become lost. Donaldson is, I think, speaking more a writer taking a larger responsibility for having their work understood as the writer intended it, and of providing mood and understanding through language rather than by some assumed commonality between the reader and writer. (Of course a certain amount of common ground must exist anyway - what Stephen King refers to as the ESP between the writer and the reader - but there are different levels of assumption that a writer can make.) I like to think there is still room for expressive language and deliberate phrasing to be a part of literature - in all genres. It may not be as popular as it was, but I refuse to believe that even young readers are completely oblivious to such things. There are a lot more chances to get it wrong if you choose to be expressive, which is perhaps why it has become less popular, it can be easier to fill with more action than it is to construct something more subtle. (Note: None of this is to be construed as criticism of work that takes a mostly action/event-driven path, there is a place for that too. I think that there is a place for both forms.) Last edited by gmw; 08-07-2013 at 12:45 AM.