- Which is more important in making a great book, form or content?
- Without a conventional narrative structure, how much control does an author lose?
So it’s been a while since I last posted, that happens to coincide with the mid-semester break, in which I sat around and did absolutely nothing, including not doing any blog posts.
Laziness overcame me, and I allowed it’s brilliance to wash over me.
But now we are back into the last stretch of the year, and it is time to pull my thumb out and post a little bit more.
All that crap being said, and due to the fact the laziness has not fully gone away, my ability to come up with an original blog post is waning.
So I shall reflect on past questions.
1. Simply neither, or both. Bit of a paradox.
There aren’t any overall rules or guidelines to make a great book. What makes a great book isn’t always about the form or content, it’s about the person reading it. And what the person reading it takes away from it.
Conversely the books that remain the pinnacle of literature, and are remembered hundreds of years after their published, require both good form, and good content. But even then, what makes something good? Just because a majority thinks something is good, does that mean the minority is wrong?
What if one person hates Shakespeare? Arguably every one of his better plays were gold. But no matter how well you write, or how good what you’ve written is, this doesn’t guarantee people will like it.
Some people may recognise that they’re reading shit. That the author has no idea about form or good content, but the reader still loves it, for whatever reason.
I mean, ’50 Shades of Grey’ sold like hot cakes, and that is shit. So very, very shit. But again, that’s my opinion, and many people would consider me wrong, and consider that steaming pile of literary horse crap to be both good in form and content.
So, what makes a good book isn’t the book itself, but the reader, and what the reader takes away from it.
2. The author always has complete control over what they’re writing.
I’m assuming the ‘conventional’ or ‘traditional’ narrative is the 3-part narrative; the beginning (intro), middle (problem), and end (resolution). In that case, an author isn’t exactly given more control, but is given a safety net to fall on when they become lost. But what is ‘conventional’? Is there a strict criteria that a narrative must fit into to be considered conventional?
Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway” came to my mind.
Let it be known I did not read this book by choice, but for High school literature. Even though I personally did not enjoy the book all that much (I guess that happens when you analyse every last line of the entire book, and having it dictated to you every lesson), it must be recognised as a classic. Woolf was one of the most prolific authors of the time, and her “Mrs. Dalloway” was a prime example of her narrative style.
The narrative is anything but conventional. It jumps from the mind of one character to another, without allusions or hints, only that the language and their thoughts change, and the reader is expected to catch up. The entire book has very little external dialogue, and is almost exclusively played out in the minds of the characters.
And to this, I feel Woolf had more control than if she had decided to stay conventional.
Not only are we delved deep into the most inner thoughts of all her characters, but we are also given multiple perspectives of many different occurrences, all from very different frames of mind.
With this technique, Woolf has complete control over what the audience thinks of their characters, because she is not identifying each one as their raw, inner selves.
