Acceptable styles change in just 25 years

[gmw]

I was recently revisiting Stephen Donaldson's "Gradual Interview" on his website (searching for a particular quote, I didn't find the one I was looking for, but posted another on the relevant thread here). I came across the following, in the Mar-2004 section, that I thought was interesting.

Donaldson is asked: "has it been difficult to jump back into this series after so long and keep the same "feel" as you had two decades ago?" He answers:

Strangely, recapturing the narrative tone and rhetoric of the earlier books has been relatively easy. I guess it comes naturally. The hard part has been convincing my editor to leave the "feel" of the prose alone. She's a modern woman, much younger than I am, who hasn't read any previous "Covenant" books, and who lacks my background in the study of Conrad, James, and Faulkner. Instinctively she prefers the kind of lean and ambiguous prose which never calls a spade a spade (never mind a ^#$%# shovel), and which certainly never identifies any of the emotions of the characters. Nor does she like the pacing of Covenant-style prose: to use a musical analogy, she would rather jump from key to key without modulations, which, she feels, "bog down the narrative." So my biggest technical challenge in revising "Runes" has been to preserve the stylistic essence of the previous books without outraging her sensibilities.

And there is a second short response to a similar question:

As I suggested in answer to an earlier question, I'm trying to strike a balance between what I prefer to call the "operatic" prose of the earlier "Covenant" books and the less poetic sensibilities of modern readers.

Since the books in question (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant) are among my favourites, I find it rather disconcerting to read that a modern editor finds the prose unacceptable. I also find it odd that Donaldson would be assigned an editor that hasn't read the first books in the series. But most of all, I find it strange to have pointed out how much things have changed in (what seems to me to be) such a short time.

In some respects it is good to see that a famous author is being conscientiously edited, and is taking notice of the editor (it often seems, to me, that famous authors get away with more than they should - to their own detriment). On the other hand, for a project like this it would appear important that the style remains at least identifiably similar to the starting point.

Yes, okay, so the above quote is close to 10 years old now, but it seems still relevant because this is an author that was undertaking a project that he knew then was going to take 9 years or more of his time - the last of the four books is getting close to publication now. That, in itself, makes the whole topic all the more interesting.

[John Carroll]

I agree that it's ridiculous that an editor who hasn't read the original books is assigned to him.

I also see that the style of writing and books has changed. It's much like the movies. There is no 10 minute pan over the Enterprise like in the first Star Trek movie. Now the filmmaker gets straight to the action. Kirk is arguing with Spock and then they're both shooting at Klingons.

Books are now like that too. There's no time to stroll through the forest or sit smoking a pipe in quiet reflection. The dragons are about to show up and everyone better get ready for the action!

I'm guilty of the new style, honestly. I like my books to read like a movie. I take the time to introduce the characters, but they better get to doing something interesting soon.

[gmw]

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.)

[crich70]

I think it's a result of the faster paced world we live in, not to mention the fact that we have live in color pictures of places that people 100 or so yrs ago might never have been able to visit. I mean for example Jules Verne went into detail about Nemo's submarine for example because it was unknown technology to all but a few dreamers at the time, but now we all know what a submarine looks like from movies like Hunt for Red October and Destination Tokyo so it's not as necessary to go into great detail about such.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by John Carroll

I agree that it's ridiculous that an editor who hasn't read the original books is assigned to him.

Thing is, though, that she's the editor and he's the author. If he wants to use a traditional publisher then he has to go with whoever they give him and be thankful he didn't have to sign a Work For Hire contract.

[BillSmithBooks]

One more reason that self-publishing is preferred for some authors.

Covenant series fans know what to expect...and there are a lot of them.

I am bewildered that they assigned an editor who is unfamiliar with the series and the editor is effectively dictating to the author how to tell his story.

I would love to see this editor get assigned to a Harlan Ellison project...he takes constructive criticism quite well I hear.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

One more reason that self-publishing is preferred for some authors.

Covenant series fans know what to expect...and there are a lot of them.

I am bewildered that they assigned an editor who is unfamiliar with the series and the editor is effectively dictating to the author how to tell his story.

I would love to see this editor get assigned to a Harlan Ellison project...he takes constructive criticism quite well I hear.

Ah yes. He'd be sure to set her straight in no time flat I'm sure.