What an outsider storyteller is:
I've been thinking about what an outsider storyteller is. I think that certain concerns of creative writing are more universal than others, because they relate to the formal constraints of writing. For instance, if you're writing fiction, you're writing a story on paper that may or may not be time bound and may or may not feature characters. What makes good writing? When do you write? Do you have a schedule for writing? Etc. Basically, the process includes formal constraints and that means that a lot of writers have the same concerns, regardless if they've been schooled or given any opinion on what writing is.
I think that this concept of fiction and nonfiction writing crystallized with the 19th century novel, a recognizable plot, characters, temporal storylines, etc. Modernism is recognizable as a reaction to that. I think the first kneejerk is, "Who is this story about? What is happening?" Modernism is ensconced in the history of how fiction defined itself in the 19th century and is inextricable from it. Postmodernism is also recognizable as reaction. While picking up a book from the 19th century or what I will call a "conventional" book with a temporal background and recognizable characters today will be understandable for someone who is not studied in literary history, reading a book in the modernism tradition as well as a postmodernist one will not be understandable or enjoyable, nor will the reader be able to pick up insights.
I think that an outsider storyteller is not recognizably tied to either a canonical way of telling the story in fiction (unconsciously "challenged" in the 18th century, cemented in the 19th century, and challenged frmo the mid to late 19th century on) in this reaction to the canonical way of telling fiction. Thus, they have a possibly intuitive or traditional way of telling the story. Perhaps their way of understanding how a story is crafted is more organic because they are not weighed down by the history of where they ought to be from?
I've been thinking about what an outsider storyteller is. I think that certain concerns of creative writing are more universal than others, because they relate to the formal constraints of writing. For instance, if you're writing fiction, you're writing a story on paper that may or may not be time bound and may or may not feature characters. What makes good writing? When do you write? Do you have a schedule for writing? Etc. Basically, the process includes formal constraints and that means that a lot of writers have the same concerns, regardless if they've been schooled or given any opinion on what writing is.
I think that this concept of fiction and nonfiction writing crystallized with the 19th century novel, a recognizable plot, characters, temporal storylines, etc. Modernism is recognizable as a reaction to that. I think the first kneejerk is, "Who is this story about? What is happening?" Modernism is ensconced in the history of how fiction defined itself in the 19th century and is inextricable from it. Postmodernism is also recognizable as reaction. While picking up a book from the 19th century or what I will call a "conventional" book with a temporal background and recognizable characters today will be understandable for someone who is not studied in literary history, reading a book in the modernism tradition as well as a postmodernist one will not be understandable or enjoyable, nor will the reader be able to pick up insights.
I think that an outsider storyteller is not recognizably tied to either a canonical way of telling the story in fiction (unconsciously "challenged" in the 18th century, cemented in the 19th century, and challenged frmo the mid to late 19th century on) in this reaction to the canonical way of telling fiction. Thus, they have a possibly intuitive or traditional way of telling the story. Perhaps their way of understanding how a story is crafted is more organic because they are not weighed down by the history of where they ought to be from?
No comments:
Post a Comment