I've been reading Sol Stein's Stein on Writing, which I am mostly finding inspiring. Even if I have questions about some of his examples, or some of his broader assertions, it's a superb overview of many concepts that inhere in the craft of writing. It makes me want to dive into my manuscript and start improving things. I'm very appreciative.
His discussion of the concept of resonance, however, left me wanting more. Stein explains that resonance is "an aura of significance beyond the components of a story." He then discusses a vast array of sources of resonance, so disparate as to give the whole discussion a tantalizing vagueness. Resonance, he says, can come from biblical reference, historical allusion, hyperbole, reference to life and death, broad philosophical statements, the use of aphorisms (!), and on and on. He even asserts that made-up psychological theories and technobabble can lend resonance to a story. Stein finds reasonably good examples of these techniques for achieving resonance (I'm not at all convinced by the aphorisms or the made-up psychology). On the other hand, some of the techniques would be very dangerous if not handled with care (such as philosophical statements).
The chapter left me thinking that resonance is nothing less (and nothing more) than writing meaningfully about things that are of importance to people. Perhaps one can do that using any of the approaches he gives, or thousands of others; much easier, I think, would be to use any of those approaches and fail spectacularly.
I want to write meaningfully about meaningful things. It's a central goal for me. If you ask what my novel-in-progress is about, I can truthfully say "it's about lesbians in the McCarthy era," but I would like to be able to say "It's about desire, duty, and fulfillment" and be equally truthful. I wonder if resonance is what makes that possible. Yet cameos by historical figures and characters spouting down-home philosophy are not going to get me there.
What do you think? Have you encountered the concept of "resonance", in Stein or elsewhere? Do you find it illuminating to think about?
His discussion of the concept of resonance, however, left me wanting more. Stein explains that resonance is "an aura of significance beyond the components of a story." He then discusses a vast array of sources of resonance, so disparate as to give the whole discussion a tantalizing vagueness. Resonance, he says, can come from biblical reference, historical allusion, hyperbole, reference to life and death, broad philosophical statements, the use of aphorisms (!), and on and on. He even asserts that made-up psychological theories and technobabble can lend resonance to a story. Stein finds reasonably good examples of these techniques for achieving resonance (I'm not at all convinced by the aphorisms or the made-up psychology). On the other hand, some of the techniques would be very dangerous if not handled with care (such as philosophical statements).
The chapter left me thinking that resonance is nothing less (and nothing more) than writing meaningfully about things that are of importance to people. Perhaps one can do that using any of the approaches he gives, or thousands of others; much easier, I think, would be to use any of those approaches and fail spectacularly.
I want to write meaningfully about meaningful things. It's a central goal for me. If you ask what my novel-in-progress is about, I can truthfully say "it's about lesbians in the McCarthy era," but I would like to be able to say "It's about desire, duty, and fulfillment" and be equally truthful. I wonder if resonance is what makes that possible. Yet cameos by historical figures and characters spouting down-home philosophy are not going to get me there.
What do you think? Have you encountered the concept of "resonance", in Stein or elsewhere? Do you find it illuminating to think about?