(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Stephen Dobyns, in his book Best Words, Best Order, says that when the reader comes to the page, he brings with him a store of trust:

[A] willingness to trust is the one thing the reader may give the writer for free, and it is based on nothing the writer has done but on the reader's whole relationship to literature. (p. 134)

The reader will keep reading if his trust is rewarded; this reward usually comes in the form of delight. Wordsworth said that "the end of Poetry is to produce excitement in co-existence with an overbalance of pleasure." Delight often comes from word choice, a vocabulary that is pleasantly unusual. Word order, or the conscious manipulation of syntax, also contributes to this delight. But delight most often can be effected in the reader by implanting a sense of surprise.

Dobyns says that "part of the pleasure of poetry is that it imposes pattern" (p. 140). Elsewhere he says

A poem works by setting up various patterns that heighten the reader's anticipation. . . . Once a pattern has been established, then any variation creates surprise. (p. 46)

Dobyns defines surprise as "the sudden occurrence of an unanticipated event that creates tension partly by shaking our good faith in our anticipation and producing uncertainty" (p. 46).

Surprise, it can be said, is brought about by misleading. The reader, by coming to the page, has agreed to (and apparently wants to) be mislead. This misleading is possible, ironically enough, only because the reader comes with that initial store of trust.

Misleading can occur only when the poet is leading. If, via obfuscation and opacity, the poet gives the reader no clear sense of where the poem is going, that reservoir of trust is depleted and the reader looks for a more reliable poem. In order to effect surprise, clarity is vital.

Comments

[tay-en-pointe.livejournal.com]

that is probably the most succinct and perfectly written description of what writing is that i have ever read. kudos. btw, though i write some poetry, i write mostly fiction, and the same rules apply. with fiction we get to add character to the mix, hopefully offering up people the reader can identify with in an either positive or negative fashion. however, it is cadence, rhythm, and yes, suprise that keep the pages turning. suspense only works if the reader is uncertain of what might happen next. i remember watching "The Sixth Sense" with my ex-wife back in the matrimony days, and saying within five minutes, "Oh, that guy's already dead." i was disinterested (and the then wife was pissed off that i'd ruined it for her). likewise, formulaic authors tend to eventually fade when their formulas dont change, and the faithful reader gets tired of investing themselves in something predictable. John Grisham is a perfect example (at least for me). a polar opposite is Elmore Leonard, who i think writes loosely enough within an established format (crime fiction), but still keeps you wondering, what's gonna happen next.
i love this subject. sorry for rambling on.
great post!

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Well, what turns pages in both fiction and poetry is the sense of tension. Dobyns distinguishes between suspense and surprise. He says suspense "is a state of mental uncertainty. It means wanting some specific thing to happen or not happen." He says that fiction depends mainly on suspense as a source of tension, while poetry relies on surprise.

formulaic authors tend to eventually fade when their formulas dont change

Yeah, but then you have authors like Danielle Steele.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Oh, and you'll notice that most of the words in this post are attributed to others. That might have something to do with why it's on-point. :) But thanks for the compliments.

[tay-en-pointe.livejournal.com]

yes. i've heard of Dobyns, but not read him. i have read Wordsworth though. i've also read the Strunk & White,the John Gardener; and Stephen King's book, "On Writing", is a great inspiration to me (though like anything else he's written cept The Stand and The Shining, i've only read it once). but your post remains still a great piece of connective logic regarding a subject i spend a lot of time pondering.
as for Danielle Steele.. i've not read her either. and i didnt say that Grisham doesnt remain equally hugely successful. i just dont read him anymore. i guess, regarding successful writers in the "Marketplace", you just gotta wonder...
when does writing a book become the same as punching the clock?