I am so tired of the sort of feedback that goes round writers' circles these days. I've seen it in writing groups, competitions, even reddit -- everything is about 'immersion' and 'clarity'. Everything has to go down smooth and if a writer has made a choice to make a book challenging or draw attention to its prose, then the writer has actually fucked up and needs to hear once again about show don't tell. I don't care that everyone wants to be a writer. I am, however, tired that everyone seems to think they're a writing teacher.
And are MFA Creative Writing types the consequence or the cause of this?
>>798 I think they are somewhat the cause, but I actually think its more the democratisation of criticism. It's the idea that all you need is basic, entry-level literacy to tackle the faults or failures of a piece of work. That everything has to go back to the Hero's Journey or something. Basically, what I'm saying is that redlettermedia are to blame.
People stopped reading challenging novels. They have no background experience in recognizing literary complexity and developing the skills to manage it. And as the readers lose those skills, the writers (who are more likely to include literary complexity) stop pulling those kinds of tricks, and the downward spiral lowers discourse so rapidly that you have "living fossils" of postmodernism like Paul Auster competing for shelf life against YA lit.
Is it bad that I find Paul Auster kinda ridiculously lauded? His books reads like very conscientious bingos of every literary trick. It's enjoyable though, but it feels like pulp for graduates remembering their lit classes, rather than some sort of postmodernism masterwork. (or maybe I've discovered it late, and it feels dated, idk)
I like Paul Auster when he has a subject matter that gives a second register for the gimmicks. Otherwise yes, I think it's fair to think of his stuff as color-by-numbers applications of a technique.