One afternoon last week I was reading an article in Publishers Weekly that I found deeply unsettling in many ways. The column, written by author Mark Sullivan, detailed advice on writing distilled from his experience working with best-selling novelist James Patterson. As someone who has written on and off for well over a decade, the article gave me a lot to think about, especially after having read other ideas on writing, coming from writers as diverse as Stephen King, Terry Brooks, and the late Brian Jacques (the latter memorably said that to write well one must "paint pictures with words"). I've never read anything by James Patterson, honestly, though I used to read a number of books in that genre, but his status as a constant best seller makes him a force to be reckoned with. Sullivan, one of Patterson's seemingly endless series of co-authors, does give some advice which is valid (advice that other writers would surely be quick to agree with). Characters must be carefully thought out and believably human, he tells us, and that makes perfectly good sense. Other aspects of his advice, including the need for detailed outlining and intense planning, are matters of dispute. Some authors, including Terry Brooks, find that outlining is essential to completion of their works (Brooks discovering this after writing an entire novel only to find it was completely unsalvageable, probably one of the most horrific experiences an author could undergo). Other authors do not find this to be true, preferring instead to let the work grow organically. Stephen King noted that he often starts with the end of the story in mind and writes from there. The point is that whether or not outlining is a good idea depends on the individual writer; like finding one's own "voice" as a writer, the author has to find what works for them. In the same category of questionable advice must go Sullivan's notion that exposition should be severely limited That may work well for the genre in which he and Patterson write, but it cannot be considered true for all authors. This advice is unlikely to work well for an author of fantasy and would have been death to works such as Jordan's Wheel of Time saga and Tolkien's epics.
What disturbed me most about the piece, however, is the idea that is encapsulated in Patterson's statement that "We are in the business of entertainment, not edification or enlightenment." This is a sentiment that may work for Patterson, but one that I find personally abhorrent. When I write, when others write, not everyone is in the business of entertainment alone! If someone reads a piece that I've worked on I certainly hope that they are entertained, but I hope that they are enlightened or educated as well. Having a good, exciting story is important, but it is not the only thing that matters! I recall well so many novels by Clive Cussler and Lilian Jackson Braun that I found immensely entertaining--but they were instantly forgettable and with rare exception I recall nothing of their plots and retain only vague remembrances of their characters. Compare that to other works I've read which were not only entertaining but deeply edifying, books that had a lot to say about the human condition, books that enlightened while they enthralled. Most people who read have those books that they can never forget no matter how long ago they read them, whether it was Les Miserables, in my case, or The Children of Hurin. Whatever book it happens to be in your case, I do not doubt for one moment that it was a book that aimed for more than just entertainment. These books are works that speak deeply to us, books that stay with us precisely because they mean to do more than just entertain, whether it is a classic work like The Grapes of Wrath or a modern author who wants to say something about humanity, like John Green or Philip Pullman.
Sullivan's advice reveals a cavalier attitude towards writing. This emphasis on entertainment to the detriment of anything else may be the key to the success of Patterson and others, but it is one that I must soundly reject. It is also a failure to acknowledge that not every author wants to write like James Patterson--and not every reader is interested in reading Patterson-like writing either. This attitude is a recipe for mass-produced works (Patterson seems to produce at least a half-dozen new works, now mostly with co-authors, each year), works that entertain but have no heart, books that sell by the dozen but have no staying power. Many authors may embrace this approach, and there is a market for these books, but not every author wants this. Sullivan's column may contain some good advice, but it is nearly overwhelmed by ideas about writing that I find to be cynical.
"like"
ReplyDelete