I've been reading lots of classics lately. Okay so maybe I read classics all the time but it's for a good reason. If you're interested I am currently reading The Grapes of Wrath, The Count of Monte Cristo, (which is my favorite so far) and Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens. As aforementioned, it is not at all unusual for me to read time-honored tales, but it got me thinking, what makes a classic a classic?
It's not all about growing riper with time; many of the old novels that remain beloved today were considered "instant classics" at the time of their publication. But why are they so beloved? Classic books must contain, a theme, moral or aspect that transcends time. It's not all about how well-written and clever they are, though that may certainly earn the book success in the time they are written. Pride and Prejudice though witty and romantic, teaches a lesson more valuable: people aren't always what they seem, and love comes in many forms. Likewise Lord of the Rings shows us the that the right thing isn't always the pleasant thing, yet justice sometimes demands sacrifice.
If you want your book to withstand the ages and changing trends, you must communicate those themes that are poignant so long as humans walk the earth. While good stories are not only wanted but needed, they should reward the reader with something valuable. Even though right now it seems that readers are eating up anything so long as it is thrilling and entertaining, we must consider what truly matters, and last a great deal longer.
Written by: Karoline Kingley
Writing What You Know
21 March 2013
Ah, it's good to be back again! Yes, perhaps I did neglect my blog for the past couple of weeks but I have excuses and blah blah blah. I suppose I should update you though; hmm, what has happened? Well I can tell you that I gave the book Uglies another go and let me tell you I just couldn't do it. It is the only book I can recall reading that held so little merit that I relinquished any idea of finishing it. I've begun reading The Grapes of Wrath and The Count of Monte Cristo, both of which I am enjoying immensely thus far. But I'm not just here to ramble, I intend to join in on a conversation I have seen floating around the various writing blogs I follow, a subject I am personally familiar with and feel reasonably able to discuss.
"Write what you know." Have you ever heard that? If so, for heavens sake pound that ludicrous notion out of your dear little brain before it manifests. Hopefully that firm command has you shaking a little bit. Now, I may clarify. While it is certainly acceptable and even good to, "write what you know," writers are not limited to personal experience. Maybe this is a no brainer for you but I think it deserves reinforcing as I spent five years failing to write a coherent novel due to believing the latter lie. Think about how boring the world of literature would be if all authors wrote exclusively about that which they are familiar with. There would be no hobbits, no vampires, or perfect men for us to fall in love with. You may notice that I did not mention Narnia, and that is because a small, no, rather large fraction of my heart still believes Narnia is out there somewhere.
But you see what I mean? While life experience may provide substantial writing material for some, our imaginations are limitless! The ability to create fantastical lands with new animals and concepts others would never think of, all comes from our purely inventive imagination. So don't buy into a lie that you must write what you know. Much like growing up, it's a trap!
"Write what you know." Have you ever heard that? If so, for heavens sake pound that ludicrous notion out of your dear little brain before it manifests. Hopefully that firm command has you shaking a little bit. Now, I may clarify. While it is certainly acceptable and even good to, "write what you know," writers are not limited to personal experience. Maybe this is a no brainer for you but I think it deserves reinforcing as I spent five years failing to write a coherent novel due to believing the latter lie. Think about how boring the world of literature would be if all authors wrote exclusively about that which they are familiar with. There would be no hobbits, no vampires, or perfect men for us to fall in love with. You may notice that I did not mention Narnia, and that is because a small, no, rather large fraction of my heart still believes Narnia is out there somewhere.
But you see what I mean? While life experience may provide substantial writing material for some, our imaginations are limitless! The ability to create fantastical lands with new animals and concepts others would never think of, all comes from our purely inventive imagination. So don't buy into a lie that you must write what you know. Much like growing up, it's a trap!
Book Trends
06 March 2013
I recently started reading Uglies by Scott Westerfeld, the first book in a hit series for teens. The concept is gripping, however his writing remains lifeless. If something exciting does not happen soon I don't think I can endure anymore. But I mention the book because it continues a trend I have noticed in modern, (mostly teen) fiction.
Recent popular books and series are set in future America, or some kind of fictional land in the future, complete with snazzy new inventions and a systematical drawback. More often than not, in these types of books the government is responsible for some sort of abnormal law or tradition. Take The Hunger Games for example. Future America and a totally warped system, yet the long-accepted pattern takes a surprising turn in the end. The other day a friend of mine was telling me about a book (whose title I cannot recall) where the kids are match-made with someone to spend the rest of their life with, who they most likely do not know. And Uglies takes place in a futuristic city/country where when children turn eighteen they undergo an operation that makes them pretty, that is, removing every flaw or uniqueness that in reality would provide you identity. But of course, something must go wrong to upset the general balance of a tradition that the reader recognizes to be immoral, or just all around wrong.
To be honest I am not entirely certain why this trend is so popular. Perhaps because when writing about the future you can make up whatever you want, and can warn humanity against the perils of say, too much war or too many electronic inventions. I am not opposed to this trend, yet an idea for a book set in the future has never crossed my mind. And I find myself feeling distant from these books, maybe because the concepts are so foreign that it is difficult for the writer to convince me they could be true. However The Giver by Lois Lowry demonstrated a similar setup to that of Uglies, and I was wholly engrossed, gripped by the nauseating insuffiiciences and injustice of the system.
But what do you think?
It is it better to write book that takes place in the pas,t present or future, or does it matter at all? For now I am more inclined to stick with say, French Revolution era Les Miserables where the resounding events are something I am vaguely familiar with.
Written by: Karoline Kingley
Recent popular books and series are set in future America, or some kind of fictional land in the future, complete with snazzy new inventions and a systematical drawback. More often than not, in these types of books the government is responsible for some sort of abnormal law or tradition. Take The Hunger Games for example. Future America and a totally warped system, yet the long-accepted pattern takes a surprising turn in the end. The other day a friend of mine was telling me about a book (whose title I cannot recall) where the kids are match-made with someone to spend the rest of their life with, who they most likely do not know. And Uglies takes place in a futuristic city/country where when children turn eighteen they undergo an operation that makes them pretty, that is, removing every flaw or uniqueness that in reality would provide you identity. But of course, something must go wrong to upset the general balance of a tradition that the reader recognizes to be immoral, or just all around wrong.
To be honest I am not entirely certain why this trend is so popular. Perhaps because when writing about the future you can make up whatever you want, and can warn humanity against the perils of say, too much war or too many electronic inventions. I am not opposed to this trend, yet an idea for a book set in the future has never crossed my mind. And I find myself feeling distant from these books, maybe because the concepts are so foreign that it is difficult for the writer to convince me they could be true. However The Giver by Lois Lowry demonstrated a similar setup to that of Uglies, and I was wholly engrossed, gripped by the nauseating insuffiiciences and injustice of the system.
But what do you think?
It is it better to write book that takes place in the pas,t present or future, or does it matter at all? For now I am more inclined to stick with say, French Revolution era Les Miserables where the resounding events are something I am vaguely familiar with.
Written by: Karoline Kingley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
