Young Writers Society

For those of you who are like me, you like an entertaining story. But you also have a need to satisfy that craving for the experimental side of you as well. So we read Faulkner or Mark Z. Danielewski, etc.

I've been working on an experimental novel, mixing stream of consciousness amongst other things. There's just one notion that's been bothering me this entire time. How much is too much experimentation? Can a writer go too far and be too pretentious for his own good, or what? Is it possible to be able to write in a way that will satisfy your own need to create a unique storytelling experience while still keeping readers hooked?

What are your thoughts on being experimental, and how much is too much?

In my opinion you can go too far, but that limit is determined by you. If you like it there will probably be others out there who also like the unique writing style developed from experimentation. I do think you should probably stick to one or two experimentations in any one story. At least for the first couple of stories at least.

Unique writing style is great, but, as with everything, there is a balance. Experimentation tends to err on pretentious when the writer is experimenting just for the sake of experimenting. As with many things in writing, the most important thing to consider is whether the experimentation contributes significantly to the story. Does the story call for some mixing and matching of styles? How much does it call for? Figuring these things out is often trial-and-error, but it's important to keep in mind. So, I'd say experiment all you want. Just make sure there's a good reason having to do with the story itself.

For reading or writing?

I don't write to have someone read me and go "wow, that was a polsihed professional piece". Why would I?

I write to improve. If I don't experiment, how am I going to break my current mode of writing?

Anyway, ever read James Joyce?

Hypocrit wrote:Anyway, ever read James Joyce?

This is part of the reason I posted this thread; that and Danielewski's book "House of Leaves." I started reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, but I had to stop for some reason (coughcoughschoolcough) and I actually read the first few chapters of Ulysses, and was enjoying it until I forgot and left it at home when I had to come back to campus after spring break. Now there was a man who clearly played around and was highly successful because of it. Do you think it's wise to go balls out like him, though? That's what I've been wondernig. My newest work, Cash for Souls (in Advanced Critiques for anyone interested) is me at my most 'experimental' and even then I'm not entirely going off the deep end like Joyce tended to do. I want to, I admit; but on the other hand, I don't want to be way too self indulgent, like I've been with past works.

At any rate, I wonder what you think about Joyce's experimentation.

The basic rule of thumb is if you find yourself thinking more about the style and less about the story, you're paying too much attention to the wrong thing. Concentrating on the style after the first major drafts is okay, but story always always goes first.

Yo,
if you're really experimenting, then experimenting should be for the sake of experimenting and the plot can go to hell if that is necessary. If you have to ask yourself 'but will people stop reading?' this means you're trying not to find a specific style, but to sell yourself in a certain manner and are fiddling with the details of the product- 'how to make it safely quirky, to make the reader appreciate my uniqueness, and yet not be too outlandish?'
I think, that if you're writing 'for the market', you, and most of us, already know that the market thrives only on dumbed down generic soap opera, which is mixed in with fantasy, or supernatural romance, or police procedures, or doctors, or gangsters, or people bonding just after the end of the world.
Joyce, for instance, lived on loans to the end. His writing blew minds, but could not support him. So, if you're writing to blow minds - no need for kid gloves. There will always be someone there to appreciate it. There always is. And if you're writing for the market - then the experimental style has to be there in small doses and to be balanced by big piles of normal crud in order to keep the gentle average reader from bolting.
hehe, here is my rant/contribution

Experimentation is just right so long as it does something other than be creative and sit on a page. I love House of Leaves all the wild experimentation of that novel puts you inside the madness, makes you psychotic. He's a brilliant writer. He does it to forward the insanity and the movements of the house. It has a purpose.

I wrote a story once which was as experimental as I had been, from the POV of a mentally retarded man intermixed with letters he was stealing from people. It was crazy, and a lot of people hated it, but I knew what I was doing it. You had to see things in that way or the story wouldn't be what I wanted it to be. So, the story is important, but the story is significantly different depending on how you tell it. Everything is interconnected. Your plot, your characters, might be interesting, but if the style isn't setting it up in a way that makes it powerful, you'll lose a lot, in my opinion.

House of Leaves would be no where near as good if it was just a novel written from the POV of Navidson about his house being freaky. Honestly, don't you love it more for its quirkiness?

Have you ever read Jonathan Safran Foer? I adore him.

No I have not, but I will certainly be looking him up later today. I wish that we could create a thread for experimental novels and writers - a recommendation thread if you will. However I think that would just get blown to hell and largely ignored.