One of the thing that is most challenging about my writing is that I strive overall for a realistic feel, especially in my characters themselves, and yet I cannot avoid elements of the surreal in my big picture. There is something of a French New Wave feel to some elements of my writing. It stems from a host of influences: my background in scifi and fantasy, my immersion in Japanese television, my love of acid rock and prog rock, my desire to deal with the intersection of the abstract and the concrete, my own mind's elusive grasp on the rational, and so on. [Edit: For some reason, when I was writing this, half asleep at 1:20am last night, I forgot one of the biggest influences on me in this regard: wu xia fiction. If I could write wu xia and get away with it, I very likely would.] For a long time I fought the inclusion of these elements in my "realistic contemporary fiction."
Then I read Fight Club and Choke.
While I have mixed feelings about both the content and the writing of those novels, they have influenced me greatly in this way: they showed me it was possible to mix real lie and larger-than-life, if one was bold enough to do so, and that such writing could find a home.
Alas, my writing is not Chuck Palahniuk's. He writes literry fiction that hits home with the John Lennon and Chumbawumba crowd. I write genre fiction that is targeted more at the Our Lady Peace, Metallica, and Blue October crowd. (Loosely.)
So, despite the courage I have taken from those novels, and a handful of short stories in a similar vein, I still find I struggle with the mixture of realism and surrealism. If I were writing for a Japanese audience, I know I would be home safe. But it is far more likely that I am writing for an American, Canadian, or UK audience (at least, initially).
In Sublimation, there are two characters that are themselves realistic models, but there are things in their past that can feel surrealistic, and the situation which bring the two together, the common foe (sorta) is much more surrealistic, even to the point of direct reference to Hieronymous Bosch.
The content is solid, and I don't feel the need to alter that, but I do sometimes worry over the best way to present it. Here, then, is the question for you, dear friend and reader: are you okay with literature that mixes realism and surrealism? Does it have to be done "just right"? What is it that, for you, makes it succeed or fail? And do you have any particular examples that leap to your mind that I might consider as I refine and complete Sublimation?
Thanks, all!
.Nevets.
I think it's very interesting to think about why you write or even pick the genre you chose to writing in. I couldn't write a romance or chic-lit, but I want to make what I write to come alive to all kinds of readers.
ReplyDeleteHope you and your family have a happy Christmas and all the very best with your writing in the New Year.
"John Lennon and Chumbawumba" / "Our Lady Peace, Metallica and Blue October"
ReplyDeleteI want to know more about these groupings.
--
In his post-Fight Club work, I've noticed a fair bit of recycling from Palahniuk. It's put me off him for now.
--
Realism w/ surrealism.
Okay with it? Love it.
Done "just right"? The same way any other novel has to be done right.
Makes it succeed or fail? solid story. If the novel is just a vehicle for trick gimmicks without any structure, call me a cab.
@Jarmara - If you check my back-posts, you'll see that I wrestle with and talk about the notion of genre and finding personal style and what-not quite a lot. So I agree! :) Merry Christmas to you and yours!
ReplyDelete@B - I'll take the third part first.
One of the reasons I love what you do is precisely that your own short fiction shows a lot of this. I try to reassure myself that this is precisely what I'm doing: it's just part of my story, and if the story is sound, it's all good. I guess there's just a little insecurity that I run the risk of being an MC Escher writer. That's not a bad thing, but as much as I might love his work at a deeper level, for a lot of folks he's a party trick.
I have a real love-hate thing with Palahniuk and I want to delve a little deeper into his catalog to see if that resolves at all. I love that he wrestles with philosophical ideas and I think he's capable of doing some interesting things structurally. But, he's also capable of rambling and a beating a dead horse. On balance, I think I really liked Fight Club. On balance, I think Choke started out as one story, ended up as another, and felt like an old man on the porch in the middle.
In brief, John Lennon and Chumbawumba represent cynical optimism, peaceful anarchy/nihilism, pop intellectualism, briefcase liberals, and lunchpail philosophers. Our Lady Peace, Metallica, and Blue October represent weakly optimistic cynicism, absurdist existentialsm, hipster intellectualism, apathetic college kids, and frustrated adults.
-Ish.
It's a rough short-hand.
I think all stories have some sort of surrealism in them. Without it, most fiction would not be possible. (After all... what are the odds of the one person blundering into a top secret organization before saving tha world AND getting the girl?)
ReplyDeleteStill, I find surrealism (of the kind I think you refer to) works best if it comes with reality at its side.
:-)
I think that because a story is, after all, fiction, there's always something surreal about them. I don't think it has to be done "just right"; there can be different elements of realism and surrealism in a book and I'll still enjoy it.
ReplyDelete@Misha - I tend to differentiate between surrealism and the suspension of disbelief, but I may do so more rigidly than necessary, The general reader experience may not necessarily notice. Thanks! Gives me something to think about. :)
ReplyDelete@G'Eagle - You may be right that a mixture of the two is more common in some ways than I think, but it does seem to me that, especially in the past ten to twenty years, the shift in fiction (in almost all media) has been strongly towards realism over simple verisimilitude. I shall ponder.
All I know is that what you're doing so far in your book is working for me, at least. :)
ReplyDelete@Michelle - Awesome! :) I hope you still feel the same after you read the ending. Actually, the ending is pretty killer. I think. But the before the ending part of the ending is probably where the surreal stuff gets most surreal. I think. lol I'll stop thinking about it now.
ReplyDeleteI think the value of writing to an audience has been discussed before. But I'll mention it again. I see no point in imagining yourself writing to an audience that you assume won't like your fiction. You should assume that, due to a newly developed technology involving quantum entanglement, C.N. Nevets has been duplicated one million times. They all share your tastes in reading material, but they are not writing the book--they have to buy it from you. There are now a million buyers of your work, which should be enough to bump you to the New York Times bestseller list, if you can sell all of those copies sold from specific bookstores in New York in a two week period. I'm not sure where your clones live, so I can't promise anything.
ReplyDeleteOr, just imagine you are writing for a Japanese audience.
P.S. I am going to go out and read wu xia fiction now. Sounds awesome.
@Tara - Ummmm thanks for the reminder. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd the tip.
And enjoy!