This was fascinating. Thank you. I love your idea of a reading/discussion/making group - do try to set one up, I'd love to hear how it goes!
I'm also interested in that sense of writing a novel that is 'inclusive' in that those who aren't 'readers' may be engaged. The Barbara Comyns novel I talked about in my Saturday post is rather like this. Not in the contrived voice of a child, but in an 'uneducated' voice, if I can put it that way.
Thank you! Yes, the idea of doing things while engaging with literature, music etc is appealing, isn't it?! I think that Comyn was doing something a bit different, but I've never really read her, only about her. (Really enjoyed your writing about her!)
Maria , I really enjoyed this exploration of the audience for novels (and wish I could read the trilogy in Swedish). Novels are my very favorite kind of writing, partly because the good ones have the space to pull you into the setting and lives of their characters - it’s why I like big fat social novels as well as mysteries. It’s also why I’m not always captivated by literary novels that are too conceptual. Some of what you’re noting relates to the appeal of Tolstoy, with his combo of fictional characters and discussions of history, which expand the form of the novel. I’ve always thought novels written for general audiences share characteristics with journalistic nonfiction features, in which writers need to think hard about what a reader needs to know to make sense of a story - and how to engage readers who aren’t really readers.
Thank you! And yes, wish that the novels were available in English! Will think about this idea of fiction as similar to journalistic non-fiction, and readers for whom novels are not a major part of everyday life. More coming on writing, I think, inspired in part by your question over on your newsletter.
Wonderful post and I'm now wishing I could read Swedish! It's interesting how the two things you discuss - simple language/accessibility and trying to convey information or ideas - are often really disapproved of. I guess there's a suspicion of novels that are "worthy", trying to teach somebody something or convey an obvious message. But we all read to be taken into different worlds and that doesn't just mean the scenery or emotions but ideas or history too.
I write ideas novels and it's something I grapple with, how to make that integral and enjoyable to the reader.
This is fascinating; am caught up now in thinking about your comment, and especially about a novel of ideas, and what it means to share ideas via a novel. Is the goal to give readers access to established ideas (eg, economic theory); or share your own ideas; or give them sparks to come up with their own on specific topics; or some combo of all of that?
I wanted mine to share all sorts of knowledge, and now I'm trying to think of whether I would call it an ideas novel as well.
Would you be interested if I were to start a little discussion on conveying things through fiction-writing in the Chats section of this Substack? It could be really nice to talk about, together with anyone else interested!
Let me see about setting it up, after I get the next essay out. I think that it's just as simple as my starting a thread in the chat here and then letting you (and everyone else) know about it.
How interesting, Maria. I’m no longer an avid fiction reader and this year am hardly reading any fiction at all, except for WAR AND PEACE, which creates the illusion that I’m living through the tumult of history with the characters. I did, however, make time to reread BAD LITTLE HANNAH, an Edwardian children’s novel by the wildly prolific L.T. Meade, and it succeeds by way of the attributes you describe here: simple, serviceable prose, a well-drawn character I care deeply about (still) and a sharp focus on the desires of young readers. There are no long descriptive passages. Meade had no use for the muse or any gauzy ideas about art; she sat down at the blank page and wrote “chapter 1.” It worked. Hannah is the opposite of Little Lord Fauntleroy (whom I loathed) and I fell in love with her all over again.
Fascinating. Have never heard of L.T. Meade, and looked her up just now. It looks as though the Hannah novel isn't available online, but I took a glance at a different one (Dumps) and will likely come back to it. So interesting to think about different kinds of simplicity. Just reread Sarah Plain and Tall, incidentally, speaking of children's books, and was impressed all over again. (Had recommended it someone as possibly a book to read to kids in her class here, and wanted to see if I'd made a good recommendation.)
Hope you're enjoying Tolstoy!
But wait — did you really loathe little Cedric? In the book, as opposed to the movie? And if so, why??
Oh, that's too funny! It makes one think about how she went out of her way, in her other two novels that have lasted (The Secret Garden and A Little Princess), to specify that the main characters weren't beautiful and knew it, and didn't care. Maybe she felt the way you did over her creation in Fauntleroy. (Also, she may been trying to undercut the Fauntleroy craze that I remember reading made millions of little boys in the English-speaking world loathe her, since their mothers made them wear their hair longish and dressed them in little velvet suits — seriously). Thanks for the Meade comment and intro. Glad that you share my readiness to enjoy, exactly as you say, serviceable prose as well as the more literary kind.
Although I cherish beautiful sentences and strive to write them, the truth is that most readers do not care. They only want a reason to keep reading. Clear, propulsive sentences, relatable characters and a certain measure of suspense are all they ask. Also, they don’t want reading to feel like work. This is why I don’t res experimental fiction.
You know, I think it all depends on one's mood. I veer wildly among forms that appeal to me, but am consistent in staying away from things whose tone or sensibility feels unkind or whatever.
I remember in the 8th grade being in the mood to reread one of the Wizard of Oz books in class, instead of the serious lit that I was generally reading at the time; and hearing the other kids whispering about it and thinking, “screw you, I can read L. Frank Baum if I want to!”
Did you know that the Wizard of Oz is a kind of parable about currency reform, of all things? The yellow brick road supposedly represents the gold standard. So again the simplicity masks some serious ideas ...
This was fascinating. Thank you. I love your idea of a reading/discussion/making group - do try to set one up, I'd love to hear how it goes!
I'm also interested in that sense of writing a novel that is 'inclusive' in that those who aren't 'readers' may be engaged. The Barbara Comyns novel I talked about in my Saturday post is rather like this. Not in the contrived voice of a child, but in an 'uneducated' voice, if I can put it that way.
Thank you! Yes, the idea of doing things while engaging with literature, music etc is appealing, isn't it?! I think that Comyn was doing something a bit different, but I've never really read her, only about her. (Really enjoyed your writing about her!)
Maria , I really enjoyed this exploration of the audience for novels (and wish I could read the trilogy in Swedish). Novels are my very favorite kind of writing, partly because the good ones have the space to pull you into the setting and lives of their characters - it’s why I like big fat social novels as well as mysteries. It’s also why I’m not always captivated by literary novels that are too conceptual. Some of what you’re noting relates to the appeal of Tolstoy, with his combo of fictional characters and discussions of history, which expand the form of the novel. I’ve always thought novels written for general audiences share characteristics with journalistic nonfiction features, in which writers need to think hard about what a reader needs to know to make sense of a story - and how to engage readers who aren’t really readers.
Thank you! And yes, wish that the novels were available in English! Will think about this idea of fiction as similar to journalistic non-fiction, and readers for whom novels are not a major part of everyday life. More coming on writing, I think, inspired in part by your question over on your newsletter.
Wonderful post and I'm now wishing I could read Swedish! It's interesting how the two things you discuss - simple language/accessibility and trying to convey information or ideas - are often really disapproved of. I guess there's a suspicion of novels that are "worthy", trying to teach somebody something or convey an obvious message. But we all read to be taken into different worlds and that doesn't just mean the scenery or emotions but ideas or history too.
I write ideas novels and it's something I grapple with, how to make that integral and enjoyable to the reader.
This is fascinating; am caught up now in thinking about your comment, and especially about a novel of ideas, and what it means to share ideas via a novel. Is the goal to give readers access to established ideas (eg, economic theory); or share your own ideas; or give them sparks to come up with their own on specific topics; or some combo of all of that?
I wanted mine to share all sorts of knowledge, and now I'm trying to think of whether I would call it an ideas novel as well.
Would you be interested if I were to start a little discussion on conveying things through fiction-writing in the Chats section of this Substack? It could be really nice to talk about, together with anyone else interested!
That sounds like it could be interesting. I don't know how chats work though?
Let me see about setting it up, after I get the next essay out. I think that it's just as simple as my starting a thread in the chat here and then letting you (and everyone else) know about it.
Sounds good to me!
How interesting, Maria. I’m no longer an avid fiction reader and this year am hardly reading any fiction at all, except for WAR AND PEACE, which creates the illusion that I’m living through the tumult of history with the characters. I did, however, make time to reread BAD LITTLE HANNAH, an Edwardian children’s novel by the wildly prolific L.T. Meade, and it succeeds by way of the attributes you describe here: simple, serviceable prose, a well-drawn character I care deeply about (still) and a sharp focus on the desires of young readers. There are no long descriptive passages. Meade had no use for the muse or any gauzy ideas about art; she sat down at the blank page and wrote “chapter 1.” It worked. Hannah is the opposite of Little Lord Fauntleroy (whom I loathed) and I fell in love with her all over again.
Fascinating. Have never heard of L.T. Meade, and looked her up just now. It looks as though the Hannah novel isn't available online, but I took a glance at a different one (Dumps) and will likely come back to it. So interesting to think about different kinds of simplicity. Just reread Sarah Plain and Tall, incidentally, speaking of children's books, and was impressed all over again. (Had recommended it someone as possibly a book to read to kids in her class here, and wanted to see if I'd made a good recommendation.)
Hope you're enjoying Tolstoy!
But wait — did you really loathe little Cedric? In the book, as opposed to the movie? And if so, why??
He was a goody two-shoes. Also, as a dark, average-looking child, I disliked blonde, beautiful ones on principle.
Oh, that's too funny! It makes one think about how she went out of her way, in her other two novels that have lasted (The Secret Garden and A Little Princess), to specify that the main characters weren't beautiful and knew it, and didn't care. Maybe she felt the way you did over her creation in Fauntleroy. (Also, she may been trying to undercut the Fauntleroy craze that I remember reading made millions of little boys in the English-speaking world loathe her, since their mothers made them wear their hair longish and dressed them in little velvet suits — seriously). Thanks for the Meade comment and intro. Glad that you share my readiness to enjoy, exactly as you say, serviceable prose as well as the more literary kind.
Although I cherish beautiful sentences and strive to write them, the truth is that most readers do not care. They only want a reason to keep reading. Clear, propulsive sentences, relatable characters and a certain measure of suspense are all they ask. Also, they don’t want reading to feel like work. This is why I don’t res experimental fiction.
You know, I think it all depends on one's mood. I veer wildly among forms that appeal to me, but am consistent in staying away from things whose tone or sensibility feels unkind or whatever.
I remember in the 8th grade being in the mood to reread one of the Wizard of Oz books in class, instead of the serious lit that I was generally reading at the time; and hearing the other kids whispering about it and thinking, “screw you, I can read L. Frank Baum if I want to!”
Did you know that the Wizard of Oz is a kind of parable about currency reform, of all things? The yellow brick road supposedly represents the gold standard. So again the simplicity masks some serious ideas ...