Insights

[popmuze]

Probably more than plot, what I've noticed that defines books called "literary" is the quality of the insights the author brings to the writing. Insights about life, emotions, character, the art of writing.
Although I often have these insights in conversation, I find them absent from my fiction.
How do you weave insights into a novel without being obvious, heavy handed, cliched, or worse, conventional?

[Nateskate]

It's like jeapardy, is it phrased in the form of an answer or a question.

[Jamesaritchie]

How do you weave insights into a novel without being obvious, heavy handed, cliched, or worse, conventional?

I don't try. I think intentionally trying to weave insights into fiction usually makes for preaching, or for bad tangents, or for "raisins in a cookie" syndrome.

I think that if you just tell a good story, fill it with real people, and let them behave and speak in realistic ways, insight is a byproduct.

I tend to like many literary novels, but if I find fault in them it's that too many of the bad ones intentionally try to add insight and message. I don't think good writers need to do either of these things. A good story filled with good characters brings about the best insights.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I agree with James, although I'm not sure what he means by "raisins in the cookie."

Just have realistic people and sometimes out of just ordinary conversations come insights.

[PeeDee]

I agree with 'dem folks above me. If you preach, even a little, your reader will know. Nothing irks me more than a novel that shakes its finger at me and says "Boy, we better learn, or next time will be worse!"

If there are insights you want in your story, make sure you really know what they are...but leave it at that. Write it in a notebook, perhaps. Write "It's about change. It's about growing up." Stuff like that. It'll be somewhere in the back of your mind as you're writing, and that's where it should be in your story too. IF the reader looks hard enough, he might look up surprised one day and go, "Oh. It's about growing up." And they'll feel good for finding this, or deciding this. That's good enough.

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree with James, although I'm not sure what he means by "raisins in the cookie."

Just have realistic people and sometimes out of just ordinary conversations come insights.



"Raisins in a cookie" syndrome is where things stick out of a story like raisins in a cookie, rather than blending seamlessly into the whole. When a writer intentionally tries to insert certain things into a story, they often stick out, become visible, and take the focus away from the story.

[PeeDee]

So you want to make peanut-butter cookies, rather than raisin cookies. The flavor is there, it's just not sticking out.

(If you've already made the raisin cookies and now find yourself having to make the peanut-butter, you can drop the raisin ones off with me. I'll recycle them.)

[popmuze]

Some of these novels seem to have a paragraph of action, and then six pages of digressions (insights) about character and life in general (even for the most minor of characters). You wind up with a 1000 page book, mainly filled with the author's view of the world.

I have to admit, you definitely get the feeling the author knows a lot. Not so sure if the novels are very readable though.

[PeeDee]

It's easy to acknowledge that Robert Jordan is a very smart man, and that he has a very clear and epic vision of the world in which he writes his stories. This is not debated.

What's debated is whether or not we need 1200-ish pages on the matter. And we've had, what, eleven books? That's a lot. A lot, a lot.

As with all things, they're useful to a point...

[DamaNegra]

I guess moderation may be a key factor here. (dog won't let me use both hands for writing so I apologize for mistakes, bear with her, she's not feeling well). I enjoy reading things like that, but I'd rather read it in the dialogues and see the characters discuss deeper matters. I really don't like reading 100 pages of the author digressions without any dialogue.

[SusanR]

How do you weave insights into a novel without being obvious, heavy handed, cliched, or worse, conventional?

Show, don't tell. And write from the center of your passion.

Do you need people to undestand that if you hold anger and bitterness all your life, you will be poisoned by it, and only love can redeem you? Write a story about a person whose entire life is contaminated by bitterness until she is forced to confront herself, and learns to forgive.

Are you fascinated with the notion that very bad people can have tiny pockets of conscience, and that very good people can do very bad things? Write these people facing life-altering moments that shatter their boundaries and change everything.

Whatever "it" is....burn to tell it.

SusanR

[reph]

Dama N., when the dog next takes a nap, would you kindly reveal what nideration is?

[veinglory]

I would note that although insight is a feature of literary work it is also commonly found in novels from other genres. Octavia Butler writes sci fi with themes that haunt me for years. I found some stories develop themes and others do not, and I write erotica (yes, erotica can have insights). Keep your mind open and themes may find there way in. What is important to you? What is important to your characters? What are their spiritual, rather than physical, obstacles?

[DamaNegra]

Dama N., when the dog next takes a nap, would you kindly reveal what nideration is?

I'm sorry!!! Guess there ARE disadvantages to writing single-handed *sigh*

I meant moderation, sorry about that, I've already corrected the post

[pdr]

Perhaps if you let your characters show the idea/world view/insight you want to convey in their every day behaviour or in casual comments?

It is done in genre novels. C. J SHerryh's Chanur books ('Pride of Chanur' plus the others) give the reader lovely moments of 'Huh?'...pause...'Ooh! I never thought of that.'

[pianoman5]

For me, insight is the reason I read, and write, and it's one of the factors that distinguishes literary work from other genres. (Not that it's absent from other genres, only that it's a sine qua non of literary pieces.) Most of the time it's evident from reading a few paragraphs at random from a book. It's not overt "look at me, aren't I clever?" raisins in the cookies as JAR puts it, but elemental truth about 'us' woven seamlessly into the fabric of the prose. And it doesn't have to be elaborate prose, far from it; in fact, that seems to be a turn off for most people -- an unworthy attempt to show off for the sake of it. But it does have to be elegant prose, or powerful, or witty, or economical, or stylish; or at least something better than utilitarian.

There's a regular flow of innuendo on these (and other) boards that suggests literary work is plotless. While that's sometimes the case, it's an absurd, and dare I say, an ignorant observation, used as a cop-out defence by people who can't be bothered to embrace the finer points of their own culture. What is generally going on there is that so-called literary writers are not hostages to the tyranny of plot. While they are obliged to tell stories mindful of pace and drama, they don't necessarily have to follow the dreary old three act structure, with a setback or corpse appearing in the first few pages followed by a series of deepening crises and concluding with a satisfying denouement and triumph. (Yawn)

I'd urge all you Yanks who've never read any (e.g.) Philip Roth or Saul Bellow to at least try them. And all patriotic Poms ought to take a look at Martin Amis and Ian McEwan. You don't have to like them, but you might appreciate what they're doing with the written word. Whatever you might think they lack in terms of story, they make up for it in insight, craft and style.

[zornhau]

Probably more than plot, what I've noticed that defines books called "literary" is the quality of the insights the author brings to the writing.

Literary often means "dicking around with narrative structures whilst using alienation techniques."

[Jamesaritchie]

For me, insight is the reason I read, and write, and it's one of the factors that distinguishes literary work from other genres. (Not that it's absent from other genres, only that it's a sine qua non of literary pieces.) Most of the time it's evident from reading a few paragraphs at random from a book. It's not overt "look at me, aren't I clever?" raisins in the cookies as JAR puts it, but elemental truth about 'us' woven seamlessly into the fabric of the prose. And it doesn't have to be elaborate prose, far from it; in fact, that seems to be a turn off for most people -- an unworthy attempt to show off for the sake of it. But it does have to be elegant prose, or powerful, or witty, or economical, or stylish; or at least something better than utilitarian.

There's a regular flow of innuendo on these (and other) boards that suggests literary work is plotless. While that's sometimes the case, it's an absurd, and dare I say, an ignorant observation, used as a cop-out defence by people who can't be bothered to embrace the finer points of their own culture. What is generally going on there is that so-called literary writers are not hostages to the tyranny of plot. While they are obliged to tell stories mindful of pace and drama, they don't necessarily have to follow the dreary old three act structure, with a setback or corpse appearing in the first few pages followed by a series of deepening crises and concluding with a satisfying denouement and triumph. (Yawn)

I'd urge all you Yanks who've never read any (e.g.) Philip Roth or Saul Bellow to at least try them. And all patriotic Poms ought to take a look at Martin Amis and Ian McEwan. You don't have to like them, but you might appreciate what they're doing with the written word. Whatever you might think they lack in terms of story, they make up for it in insight, craft and style.

Well, I want it all, story, characters, insight, craft, and style. The best literary writers certainly do this in spades, but so do the best genre writers. Just as many put down literary writing, many also put down genre writing, and in reality there is no difference between the two, when done by a great writer.

As Sturgeon said, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." This applies to both genre and literary fiction. Much literary fiction is plotless, clueless, and horribly written, just as most genre fiction is over-plotted, clueless, and meaningless.

If you look at all the classic novels of the last two hundred years, a huge percentage of them would be classifed as genre fiction today. Breaking fiction up into literary and genre is a very modern notion, and a false one. Doing so was a marketing decision to make life easier for bookstores, libraries, and readers. It was never meant to indicate quality, or lack thereof.

Now, I'm not overly fond of Roth, but it isn't because his writing lacks quality. He simply writes about people I have trouble relating to, and about a culture that doesn't seem come alive for me. But he is a fine writer.

I will say this, however. I don't care what kind of writing a person does, if the story is lacking, the fiction is meaningless. Good literary writers don't fall short on story, and do follow the three act structure just as closely and as well as any genre writer.

The best, and most lasting, literary writers are always mindful of story. I think what many of them do that irritates so many readers lies in lack of perceived action. No one is getting killed or beat up often enough, there isn't enough romance, and nothing goes boom every so often. Without these elements, many see lack of plot.

Not true, of course, but action elements aside, story has to be there, else the "literary" writer has failed just as surely as the "genre" writer.

[Vuligora]

The little things are what matter. The emotions and responses and actions of the characters. The subtle reality behind the words, those phrases and events that push you to hate the villian and the corruption he stands for or to cry becasue you realize something you never knew before, and still don't. But something in your subconcious stirs and you know you've just read something magical. It's like when I'm reading a novel, and in the next room, a family memebr here's me shout , "You stupid idiot! You evil f**ks!" If you can make a reader "feel" the meaning, then trust me , you did it right.

Or if AP English teachers are making kids examine and then write a paper on your book. That works too.

[SusanR]

This is a passage from one of my favorite novels, WATER DANCER, by Jennifer Levin. I think it's full of insights, and lyrical language and I just love it.

Here's Anne Norton, a former world-class long distance open water swimmer, preparing to train to be a pacer for her old competitor. (A pacer goes in to help a long-distance swimmer maintain their pace when they slow. They are not allowed to touch by competitive rules.) This is quite a humbling experience for Anne. In this scene, she is standing at the edge of a pool at the Y. She hasn't been swimming for some time, needs to get in shape if she'd going to pace.

From WATER DANCER:

"Anne was talking and once in a while words slipped out aloud. She was asking herself some questions this morning. This was what facing the water you were about to jump into did. She'd forgotten how it always did that. You had to sure, to jump in. Had to be. To know exactly what you wanted out of it and how much that was worth to you. How much of a price you were willing to pay for what you wanted. If what you wanted was a lot you could bet the price would be high and it would come from your own flesh. Yes, yes, you could bet on it. And she wasn't so certain right now because, before, the goal had always been clear. Now the goal had changed. Change fogged it somehow in her mind's sight, and because it hadn't yet become clear she wasn't really sure what she'd be willing to give. For Sarge, how many 200's this morning? What percentage of effort. Was he worth seventy percent? Fify percent mingled with some ninety percent intervals? Worth a few miles at sixty percent? She wasn't certain. Always brought you back to how much you had to give. Then you understood something fundamental about yourself, risked knowing through and through the value you placed on your own effort. Risked finding out what was the carrot that led you on and what was the yearning that kept you going and what was the music that made you dance. Sometimes it masqueraded as a chocolate bar. Sometimes.

No, Norton, no. She was shaking her head. It couldn't be for Sarge. Not for friendship, nor grief, nor money. All were lovely visions that appealed but none touched her core. So she wondered, asking herself discomforting questions until as escape she became aware of only one thing clearly, one desire, the desire to swim now. Throw all this questioning junk to the winds because it would never be sorted out now and maybe it would never be sorted out ever and there was really just one thing clear and that was to swim now.

The lifeguard had shut his eyes and yawned again. He missed her dive.

It was silence that sparkled gold-stained blue and white at goggle level while she breaststroked. It was silence and she'd remembered again what the phrase blessed silence meant. All the babble and clutter. All the books, languages, words spoken, ideas important or trifling, bombardment of sights and of sounds. All cut away with a whoosh! and splash and then the gliding in continual rhythm, this her favorite stroke, her silver medal stroke, the one she'd first survived on. Nothing else mattered here. In that first rush of silence, she knew how much it was worth to her.

*sigh*

I just fall in love with this book every time I read it. I think it's out of print now. Big shame.

SusanR

[popmuze]

When I first started swimming laps, at a relatively advanced age, I was overcome with metaphors for the experience: getting in over my head, going the distance, keeping my own pace, finding my rhythm, learning to kick hard enough to make a difference, the tranquility of being underwater, etc. etc.

Haven't used any of these things in fiction yet, exept the notion that writing a novel is like swimming a mile (or fifty), but when I first progressed from accomplishing a lap without stopping to one day being able to go a half mile without stopping, it was probably the greatest achievement of my athletic life.

[SusanR]

I'm so glad you posted your reaction. I, too, used to swim a bit. In med school I either ran 5 miles or swam a mile, depending on the weather. Grew to love the meditative mind that comes with repetitive physical activity. There's just something so primal about living in one's body so directly.

I loved WATER DANCER because reading about ultimate endeavors thrills me. Getting into (and through) med school was like that for me--nobody thought I could do it, and my mother was so upset by my ambition that she literally didn't talk to me for nine months.

This passage of Anne's now feels something like the moments before I start my daily writing stint. I kind of dread it before I begin...even when I have reason to think it's going to be an easy writing day, I dread starting. Something about that feeling of diving in, feeling the waters closing over my head, sinking or swimming....

And then, once I'm in, I'm okay. But those moments of reckoning the cost...of figuring how much is it worth...ahhhhhhh.

SusanR

[PeeDee]

When I lived on St. Croix, in the Carribbean (which I did for about foru years) I went swimming a couple times a week. There is nothing in the world that can compete with swimming in the ocean, and if you can learn to swim with your eyes open in that kind of salt-water, you can survive anything.

Very useful passage. Loads of people read it and agree. One of the true abilities of a writer is to take things that people everywhere have long felt but have not articulated.

I would point out that, without a sound story, a beautiful passage about swimming would mostly be useless, though. So really, theme and insight are not everything, just as relating to the reader is not everything.

(My point? Everything in moderation, I suppose.)

[popmuze]

I'm so glad you posted your reaction. I, too, used to swim a bit. In med school I either ran 5 miles or swam a mile, depending on the weather. Grew to love the meditative mind that comes with repetitive physical activity. There's just something so primal about living in one's body so directly.

I loved WATER DANCER because reading about ultimate endeavors thrills me. Getting into (and through) med school was like that for me--nobody thought I could do it, and my mother was so upset by my ambition that she literally didn't talk to me for nine months.

This passage of Anne's now feels something like the moments before I start my daily writing stint. I kind of dread it before I begin...even when I have reason to think it's going to be an easy writing day, I dread starting. Something about that feeling of diving in, feeling the waters closing over my head, sinking or swimming....

And then, once I'm in, I'm okay. But those moments of reckoning the cost...of figuring how much is it worth...ahhhhhhh.

SusanR


Can't believe I left out the biggie "Sink or swim." Or how about jumping into the coldest water and then getting used to it ("I can compete at this level!") or the classic "Going off the deep end."
There's probably a whole inspirational book in there somewhere.

[PeeDee]

It's either inspirational, or very depressing, depending on which side of each metaphore you go to. :)

[popmuze]

But if you're already "in the pool" or ocean, then how could it be depressing?

I'd better stop before I wind up with the 156 metaphors I came up with for my Anxiety Diet & Exercise book:
Eating Crow
Egg on your face
Spilling your guts
Chickening out
Eating your heart out
Choking on your pride
Running in place
Lifting the weight of the world on your shoulders,
etc. etc.

[SusanR]

*grin*

Can't stomach that one.
I guess I'll just have to swallow it.

SusanR