"I apologize for being the bearer of such difficult news, but I must uphold the ideals of our founders. Simply put, we can’t just let anybody in, especially you."
That's a great question. Before I attempt to answer, you could also argue that too much complexity isn't great, either! Like James Ellroy's L.A. Confidential, for example...it is so complex that it veered into convoluted territory, at least for this poor reader...
What makes great writing? The obvious is lyrical language, I think. Florid, rich metaphors, unusual turns of phrases, etc. When I was attending my NYU MFA, a fellow writer would flag every single cliche in my submissions (i.e., "to die for," would be red marked!), and he was right, a tired phrase is just laziness.
One of my chief complaints about Roth's American Pastoral is just the sheer number of repetitions in the narrative. Like how many times can The Swede bemoan his daughter's transgression (she bombed and killed innocent people)? I found nothing additive in his continuing complaints. On the other hand, Goodbye, Columbus was propulsive, efficient, and quite funny, too. But it is a lighter novel, and full of youth, too. So maybe I'm just favoring the fun over the torture...
Ugh...I'm not a very good assessor of my own writing! What I can tell you is this: with every book, I've been able to make it work. Certainly the last one, Lines, was the most challenging, since I had to dovetail two timelines and yet still tell a coherent, single story. Though Everything Asian also had a split narrative, between the story of the Kims and the rest of the shopping mall...but Lines was definitely more difficult to pull off. Though maybe that's just because I'm older and don't have the energy I used to!
Beyond plotting skills (where more complexity is apparently better) what other criteria do you use to evaluate?
That's a great question. Before I attempt to answer, you could also argue that too much complexity isn't great, either! Like James Ellroy's L.A. Confidential, for example...it is so complex that it veered into convoluted territory, at least for this poor reader...
What makes great writing? The obvious is lyrical language, I think. Florid, rich metaphors, unusual turns of phrases, etc. When I was attending my NYU MFA, a fellow writer would flag every single cliche in my submissions (i.e., "to die for," would be red marked!), and he was right, a tired phrase is just laziness.
One of my chief complaints about Roth's American Pastoral is just the sheer number of repetitions in the narrative. Like how many times can The Swede bemoan his daughter's transgression (she bombed and killed innocent people)? I found nothing additive in his continuing complaints. On the other hand, Goodbye, Columbus was propulsive, efficient, and quite funny, too. But it is a lighter novel, and full of youth, too. So maybe I'm just favoring the fun over the torture...
So on that broader range of points, where would you say you've come in 15 years?
Ugh...I'm not a very good assessor of my own writing! What I can tell you is this: with every book, I've been able to make it work. Certainly the last one, Lines, was the most challenging, since I had to dovetail two timelines and yet still tell a coherent, single story. Though Everything Asian also had a split narrative, between the story of the Kims and the rest of the shopping mall...but Lines was definitely more difficult to pull off. Though maybe that's just because I'm older and don't have the energy I used to!