Comments on Craft

The other day I read an article on writing craft entitled, “25 Essential Notes on Craft from Matthew Salesses”.

I found the article both thought provoking and disturbing. Thought provoking in that it gave me a sneak peak at how other cultures view craft. Disturbing in that it was a typical academic rant condemning Western culture in the promotion of diversity.

Why academics, and the Left in general, feel the need to promote diversity by bashing the West baffles me. In so doing, they strip diversity of the very diversity they are trying to promote. We cannot embrace diversity (which I see as a good thing) if we condemn a part of the human community. If we truly are one, then all cultures and people are one — and all approaches to the craft of writing have value.

In my own writing journey, I am deeply indebted to the Japanese outlook regarding storytelling. The, by Western standards, “plotless” approach of Japanese craft suits me. And in discovering the so-called plotless novel, I found the freedom to write fiction.

I learned much of my craft from the poets Basho, Saigyō, and Ishikawa Takuboku; the movies of Yasujirō Ozu; and the novels of Kazuo Ishiguro. Yet, I’d say I write very much in a Western style.

What the above artists gave me was an appreciation for the impact that under-telling has on the reader. Of course Elmore Leonard said much the same thing when he advised writers to leave out the parts readers skip over.

The Japanese writer also views himself in partnership with the reader. For example: a tanka poem is said to be the middle of the story. The reader is expected to supply the beginning and the end. Both writer and reader contribute to the wholeness of the poem.

Both of the above aspects of Japanese writing remain with me. I don’t have to write everything. The reader can (and will) fill in.

Cultural exchange has been going on ever since there have been cultures, and I think it’s a good thing. We all become richer by adopting the good aspects of each other’s cultures.

Sure, there are purists in all cultures who want to isolate their culture from all outside influence. That leads to stagnation. And there are plenty of examples in history. And none worked in favor of the isolationists.

What’s worse, though, to my mind, is the hypocrisy of one-way appropriation: one culture taking from others, while at the same time being opposed to anyone taking from them. Unfortunately, we see a lot of this going on today.

Salesses makes a point regarding audience: that craft is tied to audience expectations. The two reinforce each other. I think this is true and inevitable. Especially with regards to popular fiction. Lit Fic writers have a much freer hand to experiment.

In my opinion, Salesses is merely stating the obvious. And in doing so, I can’t help but get the feeling that he doesn’t like it. That somehow readers should divorce themselves from their culture.

If I’m writing in a particular genre, if I wish to communicate to my audience, I must write in their language. That is, I must use the conventions of the genre that the reader expects to see.

I can’t write an urban fantasy action-adventure novel using a sweet romance formula — it won’t communicate. We especially see this in book covers — which are the first tool in the marketer’s arsenal.

Craft dictates that I meet my reader’s expectations. 

At the end of the day, a writer must be true to himself or herself. He or she cannot be something they are not. I cannot write an honest novel from the perspective of Native Americans, or Americans of African descent. Because I’m not Native or Black. We need writers from those cultures to tell their story.

In addition to being true to themselves, writers must also be true to their audience. If they aren’t, they will fail to communicate and they will fail to entertain.

And in the end, fiction is about communication and entertainment.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!