That which HASN'T been done
Anyone who knows me knows that I have been unapologetically crushing on A.O. Scott, the New York Times' movie critic, for years. Years. Something about that man's elitist, wittily sarcastic prose just sends me aflutter. When he loves things, his praise is perfectly glowing without being lofty. When he hates things, the disdain drips off the page. (Please, for your own sakes, go read his archived review of Smokin' Aces. I have never laughed so hard in my life.) The man can write. And clearly this is one surefire way into my heart.
So last Friday, Mr. Scott and the other chick (sorry, Manohla, you've grown on me, but my heart has already been won) wrote a series of memos to Hollywood. The final one is the one that I want to quote for you.
To: Hollywood
From: A.O.S. & M.D.
Yes, green is good. But there is no ecological benefit in recycling intellectual properties or in treating pop-culture treasures like so much scrap material. Let us read our comic books and watch our DVDs of old movies and television shows and try to capture our imaginations with something new. So, enough with the serial killers (unless you’re David Fincher); period dramas; movies in which children die or are endangered; (bad) literary adaptations; superhero epics; tween-pop exploitation vehicles; scenes with bubble-breasted women working the pole in strip clubs; shady ladies with hearts of gold; Google Earth-like zoom-ins of the world; sensitive Nazis; sexy Nazis; Nazis period; dysfunctional families; dysfunctional families with guns; suburban ennui; suburban ennui with guns; wisecracking teenagers; loser dudes scoring with hot women who would never give them the time of day even if they were drunk out of their minds or too young to know any better (hello, Judd Apatow!); feature films that should have been sketch comedy routines; shopping montages; makeover montages; bromances (unless the guys get it on with each other); flopping penises; spray-on tans; Kate Hudson; PG-13 horror remakes; or anything that uses any of the “classic” songs that we are sick of hearing. What’s left? We don’t know. Isn’t that your job?
Ah...the eternal issue of "What's new?" I'm sure you writers out there have heard this before a million times: "This doesn't feel fresh to me."
Surely you wonder what that means when we see so many copy-cat books, movies, whathaveyou, be incredibly successful, proving that maybe it doesn't have to be so fresh for it to work. Trend-chasing exists for a reason. It pays to copy others sometimes--until it doesn't.
In truth, there are actually only so many story formats out there. Any one who's taken any kind of literary theory course at university knows this. My English major advisor, Peggy Ellsberg, was fond of pointing us to Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale. All stories can be boiled down to just a few basic forms.
And yet, we keep writing books, telling stories, making movies, etc. So what keeps it new?
I've had this conversation with several editors lately. And we all kind of arrived at the same conclusion: all things being equal, it's the voice.
Only voice can be the truly unique element separating one vampire novel from another, one steamy summer romance from another, or one dystopian thriller from another. Obviously the rest of the story can't be too much of a rip-off, but any three-dimensional, gripping voice will be the thing that makes a story new. Which of course means the writing better be stellar, and the craft perfected. (You already know how I feel about that.)
Maybe that's what our dear movie reviewers are railing against. Not the actual repetition of story or genre (since you can't really get around that), but the repetition of FLAT, COOKIE-CUTTER CHARACTERS in those steadfast stories and genres. Of course every superhero movie can look the same when said superhero has no unique nuances or internal struggle. Of course wisecracking teenagers feel rote when they have photocopied issues and affects and idiosyncrasies. As for Kate Hudson, well, they got me on that one.
But for the sake of a hopefully boisterous comment chain, my question is this:
What's left for books? What's on your list of genres and trends you want to permanently retire? And if so, what would you replace them with? Just don't say Kate Hudson.
Ready...go.
A.O. Scott, New York Times, genre, voice
Reader Comments (8)
Couldn't agree more. If everything's been done, it ALL boils down to voice. That's all that's left to differentiate you. And, really, it's the most important driving voice TO differentiate you as a writer. We'll all be telling the same stories over and over years from now... It's HOW you tell that story that makes you a great writer.
Great post!
You've posed some really tough questions - which I love, of course. It's why I keep coming back to your blog. :)
I can list a few things that I'm tired of, like vampires and catty cheerleaders, but that's just my personal preference. Someone else might scream at me if I did away with all the vampires (quite likely). :)
As for what I'd like to see more of? Literary fiction with life. I like to read stories with many layers. Then I can discover more layers in re-reads, and it feels like a new experience all over again. There are a few that really knocked my socks off, and then there are others that put me to sleep (like the one I'm reading now).
The sleepy stories all had flat or mediocre voices, like you were talking about earlier, and I have a harder time staying interested. Especially if the story has been done a zillion times before. I think you really hit the nail on the head with voice as the unique trait that can carry a common story.
I would love to see a ban of celebrity memoir. Take a look at the Publisher's Marketplace deal page for memoir, and nine out of 10 (or at least it seems that way) are written by celebrities whose only credential is the fact that they're famous. And they are best-sellers! Who is buying these books? Somehow, thousands and thousands of people are lining up to buy hardcovers by Bob Barker and Cloris Leachman.
Rachael, I'm right there with you. And actually, I'm tired of the whole "Hollywood" thing in fiction too--especially YA. I know girls will always be starry-eyes for celebrity, but I'm sure how you'd even try to reinvent that one.
There is, of course, a peril in pursuit of the novel (pun guilt experienced) and that is loss of commercial viability. As I wrote to a friend who enquired after one of my projects:
"I started writing XXX almost two years ago. At the time, I wanted to read a hybrid of Thackery's "Vanity Fair" and Pratchett's "Witch's Abroad." The result is a mongrel; it has none of the virtues of its ancestors. It suffers from literary hip dysplasia and nervous fits. However, it kept me, audience of one, amused while I wrote it. I have since come to learn that there isn't a larger readership for allegorical ramble novels with snotty intrusive narrators."
I am so happy with your new web design. It feels comfortable, but exciting. A perfect blend of the old and new. Ah.... That was the point of your post: There is a happy place between the old and the new.
It's hard to throw out whole genres of novels because there are gems hidden in there. Personally, I have no interest in books with vampires (or werewolves), but my wife devours these novels. Formulaic romances hold no interest for me, but millions of the are sold every year.
I dislike dystopian novels, but then I read Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake. That book grabbed and wouldn't let go, thrashing my emotions about. When I read the last page, I didn't want it to be over and I felt like crying at the same time.
I'm not a fan of horror novels or magical realism, but then I read Dan Simmons' The Terror. The monster he introduced into the fictional account of a historical mystery was scary enough, but it held no candle to the sheer terror of these men who struggled to survive ice-locked in the Canadian arctic for several years. It's over 700 pages long and I read it in two days.
I'm not usually interested in novels with a precocious child as a narrator. The kid at the center of Jonathan Safran Foer's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close hooked me from the start, and my heart ached as he struggled to solve his father's mystery.
It's all in the voice. A great voice can overcome any overdone genre.
I disagree with voice being the only thing that sets a story apart from another. Yes, voice has a lot to do with it, but if the voice is great and the characters are flat, doesn't that make for a boring story? Voice has to be there, that's a fact. If the words are holding up their hands and won't let you in the door, then there's no hope for reader connection.
But I really think that three dimensional characters, ones that force readers/viewers to care about them, are just as important. In every novel, there is a main character (s). If that character is flat, has no identifiable quirks or personality traits for the reader to connect or empathize with, then the writing/voice can not stand on its own. It must be a combination.
Without voice - you have no reader interest, no connection to words on the page
Without unique, three dimensional characters - you have no reader empathy, no connection to character
I really believe it takes both of these things to find success steming from the spine (of the book).
Slumdog Millionaire was told in a unique way (nonlinear story line) in a unique place (India) with unique characters (kids who had gone through something millions of people had never seen before) that people connected with.
Yes, many characters have been done before. But isn't it easier to create unique characters than a unique storyline? Interesting characters make for interesting stories. Isn't that why millions of people watch reality shows, for the characters/people, not what they're actually doing. They could be mowing the grass, but it's HOW they mow the grass that makes them funny, entertaining, interesting, different. It's HOW they shop, it's HOW they talk, it's the HOW they do it factor. :-)
I am always thrilled when I realize I can´t wait for bedtime so I can pick up the book I´m reading again. What´s in those books? Memorable characters, the kind that invade my daytime thinking; a story that pulls me along, and a voice that sounds like the person telling the story is my best friend. My most recent example- The Fig Eater by Jodie Shields. If all of the above are present, I´ll read about vampires, sharks, bowling leaguers, professional athletes, mothers, lawyers...