(no subject)
All the book posts lately have gotten me thinking about a question I've had about the sci-fi/fantasy genre for a long time.
Disclaimers:
1) The last formal training in literature I had was sometime back in high school and I didn't necessarily pay as much attention as I should have. As such, the ideas may be simplistic. Any literary types reading this can feel free to pat me on the head and ignore me.
2) I'll probably bruise at least a few cherished opinions. Anyone so bruised can refer to disclaimer #1 as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and can also ignore me. Pats on the head accepted only if not resulting from a desire to return the bruising.
The question follows from a theory of mine, and the theory is this -- that there are two kinds of writers. The two kinds are authors, and storytellers. The terms are imperfect and prone to confusion; feel free to suggest better ones. Authors I define as being technically good writers. Good authors are able to use the language and its structure to enhance the plot. Mediocre authors manage to keep the language from getting in the plot and I'm sure everyone has read at least one book where the poor use of the language completely obscured whatever that writer was trying to say. Storytellers are easier to define, they're the ones that keep you up until 3am just to finish the book.
Almost every writer has some skill as both an author and as a storyteller, its hard to get published without both. Not impossible perhaps, but hard.
Some examples:
Heinlein
A darn good story teller and considered a master of the genre largely for that reason. Most of his books are fun to read.
As an author he varied quite a bit in quality. When he was on, his writing style and technic greatly enhanced his work. Examples of this are 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' and 'Starship Troopers' (ignoring the classroom scenes which are almost completely philosophy and rather clumsy). The books where his authorship slipped can be hard to read and stand or fall on the quality of their storytelling.
James Joyce
A fantastic author. Evidenced by Ulysses. The depths to which the writing support and expand on the story are amazing. This is also one of his main drawbacks -- the authorship is so good that it often obscures the story. The story is there, but after several re-readings I still am finding new parts of the story line. Admittedly this is one of the few examples I can think of where the authorship is so _good_ that it causes a problem. Arguably, that in and of itself is bad authorship.
Peter S Beagle
A very strong author and storyteller, both. I tend to prefer 'A Fine and Private Place' over the better know Last Unicorn in part because the authorship is slightly less polished (it was his first book) and its a little easier to tell what he was intending with the story.
John Steinbeck
A very strong author and in some ways the opposite of Joyce, all of Steinbeck's complexity is in the story instead of the language. An excellent storyteller as well, to the extent that I can only rarely read his work -- I empathize with the characters too much.
Tolkien (go reread disclaimer #2 before lynching me, please)
A good storyteller, but not a fabulous author. The strength of the trilogy especially is the depth of the history and backstory. The actual page-by-page language is sometimes a bit clumsy. In that regard, 'The Hobbit' is more tightly written and smoother to read.
The question is this: While there are plenty of great storytellers, why are there not more top-notch _authors_ in sci-fi and fantasy?
Disclaimers:
1) The last formal training in literature I had was sometime back in high school and I didn't necessarily pay as much attention as I should have. As such, the ideas may be simplistic. Any literary types reading this can feel free to pat me on the head and ignore me.
2) I'll probably bruise at least a few cherished opinions. Anyone so bruised can refer to disclaimer #1 as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and can also ignore me. Pats on the head accepted only if not resulting from a desire to return the bruising.
The question follows from a theory of mine, and the theory is this -- that there are two kinds of writers. The two kinds are authors, and storytellers. The terms are imperfect and prone to confusion; feel free to suggest better ones. Authors I define as being technically good writers. Good authors are able to use the language and its structure to enhance the plot. Mediocre authors manage to keep the language from getting in the plot and I'm sure everyone has read at least one book where the poor use of the language completely obscured whatever that writer was trying to say. Storytellers are easier to define, they're the ones that keep you up until 3am just to finish the book.
Almost every writer has some skill as both an author and as a storyteller, its hard to get published without both. Not impossible perhaps, but hard.
Some examples:
Heinlein
A darn good story teller and considered a master of the genre largely for that reason. Most of his books are fun to read.
As an author he varied quite a bit in quality. When he was on, his writing style and technic greatly enhanced his work. Examples of this are 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' and 'Starship Troopers' (ignoring the classroom scenes which are almost completely philosophy and rather clumsy). The books where his authorship slipped can be hard to read and stand or fall on the quality of their storytelling.
James Joyce
A fantastic author. Evidenced by Ulysses. The depths to which the writing support and expand on the story are amazing. This is also one of his main drawbacks -- the authorship is so good that it often obscures the story. The story is there, but after several re-readings I still am finding new parts of the story line. Admittedly this is one of the few examples I can think of where the authorship is so _good_ that it causes a problem. Arguably, that in and of itself is bad authorship.
Peter S Beagle
A very strong author and storyteller, both. I tend to prefer 'A Fine and Private Place' over the better know Last Unicorn in part because the authorship is slightly less polished (it was his first book) and its a little easier to tell what he was intending with the story.
John Steinbeck
A very strong author and in some ways the opposite of Joyce, all of Steinbeck's complexity is in the story instead of the language. An excellent storyteller as well, to the extent that I can only rarely read his work -- I empathize with the characters too much.
Tolkien (go reread disclaimer #2 before lynching me, please)
A good storyteller, but not a fabulous author. The strength of the trilogy especially is the depth of the history and backstory. The actual page-by-page language is sometimes a bit clumsy. In that regard, 'The Hobbit' is more tightly written and smoother to read.
The question is this: While there are plenty of great storytellers, why are there not more top-notch _authors_ in sci-fi and fantasy?