This has been on my mind lately too. I almost always read at least one classic a year from a time when writing style was much different. I remember reading Middlemarch maybe a decade back and it was a struggle to stick with it, but also one of my favourite reading memories. I've realized that I haven't read anything in that category in this past year and I want to change that.
I love this being a regular reading goal — funny you should mention Middlemarch, as it’s been tugging on my sleeve in a similar fashion. Getting outside the bubble feels more important than ever these days — we all went into little bubbles in 2020, and the algorithms keep us entrenched in our habits and I want to stretch outside them so much!
Oh my goodness...Middlemarch! I read it over 20 years ago and I STILL think about it. In fact, Haley Larsen (via Closely Reading here on Substack) is starting a guided close reading of Middlemarch on May 26. Interested...?
That timing is TOO GOOD. I did see a very pretty copy of Middlemarch at Dussmann. I am also in the Wolf Crawl slow read that @Simon Haisell is running, but why not do both? I’m IN.
I am so tempted but this summer is going to be bananas and I promised myself no commitments. Besides, my beloved hardcopy is in storage. I love that you are both diving in! Can't wait to see those covers!
I also find myself bored with the same “formula” with every book. I was recently reading an enjoyable light book to ease my weary mind. I knew exactly what was going to happen next. In fact I knew how the whole book would transpire before I was a 1/3 of the way through. For an average reader it would work, and clearly it did since it was published. However once I was over being tired I walked away from it and found something more enjoyable. I don’t want to read or write inside a code. I’m a creative, not an engineer.
You're definitely not alone. I regularly raise an eyebrow at the so called "rules of story", especially since these rules seem to be rooted in meeting publisher's assumptions of what is marketable. This is not to say that plot points aren't helpful or that shifts in POV can't be disorientating, but I wonder if what we should be looking for is a set of rules (aka boundaries) for each particular story or writing project rather than imposing a structure or a set of rules on our stories.
One of the reasons I write (and read) is because I love to explore other worlds and other lives that I can't experience in real life. I'm not interested in every story following the same plot line or the same adherence to POV "rules". How the story is told matters, and if there are broken "rules" along the way, and the story still feels true and the experience of reading (or writing) opens up my world, then the story is successful. Plus, isn't play and experimentation the point of writing (and of any creative endeavour)?
EXACTLY! I feel that the expectations publishers have currently are in service of trying to please all of the people all the time, so to speak. This reminds me as well of the issue I see in film -- so many remakes. Rather than letting a writer come up with something new and groundbreaking, studios clutch at former hits, not taking into account that they were hits before because they tried something new (in many cases).
Thankfully, we still see exceptions, like the very brilliant Sinners. When someone breaks the rules it's a big deal to support this, when possible. I know everyone isn't up for a vampire film, but if you're holding back because you're sensitive to horror, I can share that I am a giant baby and it was fine for me. It does get a little bloody (see above; vampires) but the artistry makes it feel earned.
What a tangent! To return to your point, Sandra, I think you're absolutely right that the goal of "rules" is more useful when the structure helps serve the particular stories individual needs, to help it become its best self, so to speak, rather than trying to force it into a more easily sold commodity.
I was also thinking about the way we see this play out in film. How many Marvel movies have been made now? All because studios want a sure financial thing rather than taking a chance on something new. There's a new series on Apple TV about this very issue. It's called "The Studio", and it stars Seth Rogan and Catherine O'Hara.
I haven't seen Sinners yet, but I'm interested. I am likewise a huge baby when it comes to horror, but you make a good case.
This also leads me to think about Lost in Translation (one of my all-time faves). Would a film like that be released today? Quiet, introspective, loose plot structure...? It didn't follow conventional rules for storytelling and yet it was a success.
I keep hearing about The Studio. You know I'll watch anything with Catherine O'Hara in it. Ok -- since I'm in for the Middlemarch, I DARE you to see Sinners and report back. You can do it!
I think sometimes the "rules of story" have gotten taken out of context so many times they have become "rules of the industry". Those rules often started when writers received feedback about headhopping or plot in their novel, but they got that feedback because they were doing things inconsistently or unconsciously in their manuscript and that didn't work. If an author is doing something purposeful and trains you on how to "read" their novel then those rules don't need to be followed.
Somewhere along the way, this became shorthand for books must all follow these rules all the time and now many readers are trained to read a particular style of writing so that is what publishers look for and writers try to provide. It's a tough conundrum. The books that really stick with me though are the ones that follow their own rules.
I think overall we read (quantitatively) much more these days than we used to read in the 90's. Then we used to read magazines, newspapers, snail mail, instruction manuals, and subtitles (feel free to add more to this list). Communication used to be more verbal than written. And the big chunks of reading were reserved for the more "elevated" (in lack of a better term, I am not an elitist) reading (books, literary magazines, academic articles). Right now the volume of what we read and write has grown really much, we basically spend almost our entire days reading and writing. The quality of what we read and write has decreased substantially, because it is so easy to write and send / post etc. This, I would think, adversely affects both our capacity to write more "elevated" (because we produce more junk text) and to read more "elevated" text (because we are used to consume more junk text). This is my thought on this subject as a philosopher.
I agree with a lot of this, absolutely. This feels similar to the shift when digital photography arrived. It was much easier to take a photograph, so we could be looser and less precise when there was no limit to the number of pictures.
It was also a different matter to write and send a letter or anything that would be published only in hard copy and therefore only available to edit up to publication. Now we can post and fix things after they go live. We can be looser, but I also find I am less concentrated and critical about what I write because I know it can be changed. In some ways this is good- it’a easier to begin, knowing things aren’t set it stone, but this now makes me want to add a few more passes in to edit and refine further so the ultimate output feels more satisfying.
Yes, Caroline, absolutely. Very good comparison with the digital pictures. I am thinking mostly about communication via Teams, WhatsApp, via other messengers, light e-mails and social media postings. Of course, some people do take good care of what they post. There may be a limit to how much text we can ingest and produce per day (which could fluctuate individually) and the more text messages / e-mails, postings, etc. we read the less we may have the capacity to read the good texts in any given day (and I would incline to think of good texts as the kind of texts that stir something in us).
If I were to do a word count on everything I write during one day (longhand, in messages and e-mails) I am sometimes not surprised that I have not managed to write any literary text on a given day. I feel kind of used up from creating all the other text. The same goes for me sometimes for reading literature. By the time I would read in the evening I have read so much all day (mostly random stuff that demands my attention), that that kind of reading has already exhausted my reading capabilities. Reading literature does give a lot back and that is why I am trying to be intentional about it. Could be that all these thoughts come from a very personal experience, to which other people do not relate, and it is probably just one part of the explanation of why we write differently nowadays.
I’d love to know if anyone has read Liars by Sarah Manguso - there are so many discussion points in this book but, to this point, it was written completely in short paragraphs. No chapters. Almost like poetry. You could take small sips if feeling distracted, or gulps if time and focus allowed. It left me wondering about ‘rules’ and how they can be broken when the story is good.
I haven’t read it, but now I want to! Based on your description, you may also enjoy Weather by Jenny Offill, which also had unconventional structure. I loved it, and would be curious about your thoughts.
This has been on my mind lately too. I almost always read at least one classic a year from a time when writing style was much different. I remember reading Middlemarch maybe a decade back and it was a struggle to stick with it, but also one of my favourite reading memories. I've realized that I haven't read anything in that category in this past year and I want to change that.
I love this being a regular reading goal — funny you should mention Middlemarch, as it’s been tugging on my sleeve in a similar fashion. Getting outside the bubble feels more important than ever these days — we all went into little bubbles in 2020, and the algorithms keep us entrenched in our habits and I want to stretch outside them so much!
Oh my goodness...Middlemarch! I read it over 20 years ago and I STILL think about it. In fact, Haley Larsen (via Closely Reading here on Substack) is starting a guided close reading of Middlemarch on May 26. Interested...?
https://haleyalarsen.substack.com/p/announcing-middlemarch
That timing is TOO GOOD. I did see a very pretty copy of Middlemarch at Dussmann. I am also in the Wolf Crawl slow read that @Simon Haisell is running, but why not do both? I’m IN.
Eek! Let's do IT! OMG, I'm so excited!
Please pick up the very pretty copy at Dussmann ASAP and then send us a pic of the cover.
Just ordered it for collection when I get home. Will have it Friday! Eeeeek.
Love it! Currently looking up special editions here in Canada. <3
Please share the cover you end up. I am somehow salivating over this entire topic. (Are we surprised? We are not surprised.)
I am so tempted but this summer is going to be bananas and I promised myself no commitments. Besides, my beloved hardcopy is in storage. I love that you are both diving in! Can't wait to see those covers!
You have a LOT on this summer, love. I am sure there will be another chance. 🩷
I also find myself bored with the same “formula” with every book. I was recently reading an enjoyable light book to ease my weary mind. I knew exactly what was going to happen next. In fact I knew how the whole book would transpire before I was a 1/3 of the way through. For an average reader it would work, and clearly it did since it was published. However once I was over being tired I walked away from it and found something more enjoyable. I don’t want to read or write inside a code. I’m a creative, not an engineer.
You're definitely not alone. I regularly raise an eyebrow at the so called "rules of story", especially since these rules seem to be rooted in meeting publisher's assumptions of what is marketable. This is not to say that plot points aren't helpful or that shifts in POV can't be disorientating, but I wonder if what we should be looking for is a set of rules (aka boundaries) for each particular story or writing project rather than imposing a structure or a set of rules on our stories.
One of the reasons I write (and read) is because I love to explore other worlds and other lives that I can't experience in real life. I'm not interested in every story following the same plot line or the same adherence to POV "rules". How the story is told matters, and if there are broken "rules" along the way, and the story still feels true and the experience of reading (or writing) opens up my world, then the story is successful. Plus, isn't play and experimentation the point of writing (and of any creative endeavour)?
EXACTLY! I feel that the expectations publishers have currently are in service of trying to please all of the people all the time, so to speak. This reminds me as well of the issue I see in film -- so many remakes. Rather than letting a writer come up with something new and groundbreaking, studios clutch at former hits, not taking into account that they were hits before because they tried something new (in many cases).
Thankfully, we still see exceptions, like the very brilliant Sinners. When someone breaks the rules it's a big deal to support this, when possible. I know everyone isn't up for a vampire film, but if you're holding back because you're sensitive to horror, I can share that I am a giant baby and it was fine for me. It does get a little bloody (see above; vampires) but the artistry makes it feel earned.
What a tangent! To return to your point, Sandra, I think you're absolutely right that the goal of "rules" is more useful when the structure helps serve the particular stories individual needs, to help it become its best self, so to speak, rather than trying to force it into a more easily sold commodity.
So glad you all are as fired up as me!
You are correct: I am equally fired up! :)
I was also thinking about the way we see this play out in film. How many Marvel movies have been made now? All because studios want a sure financial thing rather than taking a chance on something new. There's a new series on Apple TV about this very issue. It's called "The Studio", and it stars Seth Rogan and Catherine O'Hara.
I haven't seen Sinners yet, but I'm interested. I am likewise a huge baby when it comes to horror, but you make a good case.
This also leads me to think about Lost in Translation (one of my all-time faves). Would a film like that be released today? Quiet, introspective, loose plot structure...? It didn't follow conventional rules for storytelling and yet it was a success.
I keep hearing about The Studio. You know I'll watch anything with Catherine O'Hara in it. Ok -- since I'm in for the Middlemarch, I DARE you to see Sinners and report back. You can do it!
Deal!
I think sometimes the "rules of story" have gotten taken out of context so many times they have become "rules of the industry". Those rules often started when writers received feedback about headhopping or plot in their novel, but they got that feedback because they were doing things inconsistently or unconsciously in their manuscript and that didn't work. If an author is doing something purposeful and trains you on how to "read" their novel then those rules don't need to be followed.
Somewhere along the way, this became shorthand for books must all follow these rules all the time and now many readers are trained to read a particular style of writing so that is what publishers look for and writers try to provide. It's a tough conundrum. The books that really stick with me though are the ones that follow their own rules.
Yes!! You have captured it so well. Totally agree.
I think overall we read (quantitatively) much more these days than we used to read in the 90's. Then we used to read magazines, newspapers, snail mail, instruction manuals, and subtitles (feel free to add more to this list). Communication used to be more verbal than written. And the big chunks of reading were reserved for the more "elevated" (in lack of a better term, I am not an elitist) reading (books, literary magazines, academic articles). Right now the volume of what we read and write has grown really much, we basically spend almost our entire days reading and writing. The quality of what we read and write has decreased substantially, because it is so easy to write and send / post etc. This, I would think, adversely affects both our capacity to write more "elevated" (because we produce more junk text) and to read more "elevated" text (because we are used to consume more junk text). This is my thought on this subject as a philosopher.
I agree with a lot of this, absolutely. This feels similar to the shift when digital photography arrived. It was much easier to take a photograph, so we could be looser and less precise when there was no limit to the number of pictures.
It was also a different matter to write and send a letter or anything that would be published only in hard copy and therefore only available to edit up to publication. Now we can post and fix things after they go live. We can be looser, but I also find I am less concentrated and critical about what I write because I know it can be changed. In some ways this is good- it’a easier to begin, knowing things aren’t set it stone, but this now makes me want to add a few more passes in to edit and refine further so the ultimate output feels more satisfying.
Yes, Caroline, absolutely. Very good comparison with the digital pictures. I am thinking mostly about communication via Teams, WhatsApp, via other messengers, light e-mails and social media postings. Of course, some people do take good care of what they post. There may be a limit to how much text we can ingest and produce per day (which could fluctuate individually) and the more text messages / e-mails, postings, etc. we read the less we may have the capacity to read the good texts in any given day (and I would incline to think of good texts as the kind of texts that stir something in us).
If I were to do a word count on everything I write during one day (longhand, in messages and e-mails) I am sometimes not surprised that I have not managed to write any literary text on a given day. I feel kind of used up from creating all the other text. The same goes for me sometimes for reading literature. By the time I would read in the evening I have read so much all day (mostly random stuff that demands my attention), that that kind of reading has already exhausted my reading capabilities. Reading literature does give a lot back and that is why I am trying to be intentional about it. Could be that all these thoughts come from a very personal experience, to which other people do not relate, and it is probably just one part of the explanation of why we write differently nowadays.
Thank you for the post and for the comment.
Completely agree! If only we had a device that could show us how much more “text ingestion” we had in us for that day, so we could plan accordingly…
I’d love to know if anyone has read Liars by Sarah Manguso - there are so many discussion points in this book but, to this point, it was written completely in short paragraphs. No chapters. Almost like poetry. You could take small sips if feeling distracted, or gulps if time and focus allowed. It left me wondering about ‘rules’ and how they can be broken when the story is good.
I haven’t read it, but now I want to! Based on your description, you may also enjoy Weather by Jenny Offill, which also had unconventional structure. I loved it, and would be curious about your thoughts.
putting it on my list! I'll report back.
🙌🙌