/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12098695]

What do you think about all these journalists and authors piling on Franzen on Twitter for his 10 rules for novelists?

Link to rules:
https://lithub.com/jonathan-franzens-10-rules-for-novelists/

[Anonymous No.12098699]

>Jeff Pearlman

Literally whom?

[Anonymous No.12098700]

>>12098699
get good pleb, he's an actual quality author

[Anonymous No.12098703]

>8. It’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.

lol basedboy got BTFO

[Anonymous No.12098704]

>>12098700
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Pearlman

sounds like a fag

[Anonymous No.12098707]

>1.
>The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.

>2.
>Fiction that isn’t an author’s personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn’t worth writing for anything but money.

>3.
>Never use the word then as a conjunction—we have and for this purpose. Substituting then is the lazy or tone-deaf writer’s non-solution to the problem of too many ands on the page.

>4.
>Write in third person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.

>5.
>When information becomes free and universally accessible, voluminous research for a novel is devalued along with it.

>6.
>The most purely autobiographical fiction requires pure invention. Nobody ever wrote a more autobiographical story than The Metamorphosis.

>7.
>You see more sitting still than chasing after.

>8.
>It’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.

>9.
>Interesting verbs are seldom very interesting.

>10.
>You have to love before you can be relentless.

--

Well do you agree, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12098721]

>>12098704
>writes non-fiction about sport

Why is he even commenting?

[Anonymous No.12098723]

>>12098695
Reading the twitter channels or whatever related to this is pretty entertaining, so many non-entities trying to justify their existence, Franzen is right in not having a Twitter and looking down on the internet in general

[Anonymous No.12098735]

>>12098695
I don't even like Franzen but I care even less about the opinions of Jeff Pearlman.

[Anonymous No.12098855]

franzen is 10x better than whoever this clown is

[Anonymous No.12098866]

>>12098700
had a good bellylaugh when i actually googled him. man fuck you, you devil.

[Anonymous No.12098872]

>>12098695

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

ALL MODERN, MAINSTREAM COMMENTARY ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY WELL-READ, PUBLISHED, AND INTELLIGENT WRITERS STEMS FROM AN ABSURD, JUVENILE, AND RELATIVIST STANDPOINT AND CAN BE DISMISSED ALMOST UNIVERSALLY.

[Anonymous No.12098899]

Haven't read his stuff, but I instinctively dislike him. His rules seem pretty solid to me though. I'll probably give one if his books a shot now.

[Anonymous No.12098908]

>>12098707
>8.
>It’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.

What is that even supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.12098918]

>>12098707
I'd say the most important rules, in order, are:

7 > 6 > 4 > 10 > 2 > 5 > 9 > 8 > 3 > 1

[Anonymous No.12098921]

>>12098908
The internet is a plague to true literary creativity

[Anonymous No.12099512]

>>12098707
Thank you for actually posting them.

>1.
>The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.

Fancy way of saying don't try to be Nabokov or Joyce? Agree I guess.

>2.
>Fiction that isn’t an author’s personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn’t worth writing for anything but money.

Sounds like a dressed up version of the midwit platitude that should art should be "dangerous". Disagree, good art is good, regardless of topic.

>3.
>Never use the word then as a conjunction—we have and for this purpose. Substituting then is the lazy or tone-deaf writer’s non-solution to the problem of too many ands on the page.

This and 9 are both saying essentially the same thing, certain words, like "said" or "and" are essentially invisible, and you shouldn't worry about how many of them are on a page. Agree, hard.

>4.
>Write in third person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.

Agree, 1st person usually adds nothing.

>5.
>When information becomes free and universally accessible, voluminous research for a novel is devalued along with it.

Agreed HARD. The last thing the world needs is another period piece novel that takes place "the week the modern world began" or whatever the fuck, characters strolling through a series of wiki articles is BORING

>6.
>The most purely autobiographical fiction requires pure invention. Nobody ever wrote a more autobiographical story than The Metamorphosis.

Agreed, and would add the corollary that trying too hard to scrub your fiction of your self only achieves the opposite result.

>7.
>You see more sitting still than chasing after.

Agreed, see Wilde's "The decline of lying" for more (or Borge's career). Franzen's zen koan tone is really starting to piss me off here though.

>8.
>It’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.

Of course the internet can be an awful distraction, but lacking the discipline to stay off for a couple hours a day is what prevents you from writing good fiction not the ethernet cable. In a sense, it's this generation's version of the complaint that one lacks the quiet and solitude to write-it has a kernel of truth, but is more often an excuse for not writing.

>9.
>Interesting verbs are seldom very interesting.

See #3. You used to be able to buy lists of verbs to replace "said" in the back of fiction magazines, they are as useless as this advice is. Soft disagree, if only because I think this might be a barb aimed at McCarthy.

>10.
>You have to love before you can be relentless.

Fuck you Franzen, this sounds like it belongs on a green plastic plaque my mom buys from Target to hang in the garden, stick to writing about your autistic son's struggles to get accepted to Yale and go practice your speaking voice for your appearance on Fresh Air with Terry Gross.

[Anonymous No.12099529]

>>12098695
>Pearlman
Interesting, that an Icelandic name?

[Anonymous No.12099541]

>>12098707
This is all great advice. What's the problem again?

[Anonymous No.12099545]

>>12098707
Most of this is vagueness hiding behind profound sounding words.

[Anonymous No.12099583]

>>12099512
nice formatting you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.12099595]

>>12098699
Someone trying to siphon relevance from Franzen. What a bizarre overreaction, it's pathetically transparent.

[Anonymous No.12099631]

>>12098872
this is about franzen though

[Anonymous No.12100777]

>>12099583
Blow me

[Anonymous No.12100788]

>>12098695
>"This is one arrogant fuck"
>"i've written 8 books, six best seller, im better than him, don't listen to his garbage"
:thinking:

[Anonymous No.12100805]

>>12098707
>1
Sort of fair in the sense of a friend as someone looking for compassion and understanding in you
>2
Retarded
>3
Creative Writing 101 in the worst sense
>4
Generally agree
>5
Fair
>6
Very true, autobio or thinly veiled autobio has become the hallmark of hack writers recently
>7
Trite
>8
Internet is indeed cancer for anyone trying to project a message with any soul
>9
Trite
>10
True

[Anonymous No.12100867]

>Franzen thinking literature is about stories, characters, and the author's feelings, instead of the uninhibited play of writing
cringe and bluepill'd

[Anonymous No.12100903]

>>12100867
Other way around, he's arguing for traditional enjoyable story craftsmanship against degenerate discourse oriented aesthetes
A true brave white man

[Anonymous No.12100952]

>>12098721
DFW did that too

[Anonymous No.12100994]

>rules for writing
Suck a dick, gay boy.

[Anonymous No.12101062]

>>12099512
>but lacking the discipline to stay off for a couple hours a day is what prevents you from writing good fiction not the ethernet cable.
It's not about that, but rather the fundamental changes in the brain that result from internet usage due to neuroplasticity. Or, to put it another way, being off the internet is not going to help if you have the same internet-addled brain.

[Anonymous No.12101172]

I love it when a person says something 'controversial' and all these losers sperg the fuck out and start acting like children.

[Anonymous No.12101200]

He's right about the net. All of the promises made by the pundits and the futurists never came true, and in many cases fell a long way short. Even now the defences people make for it are divorced from how things actually function.

[Anonymous No.12101212]

>>12098695
sounds fairly correct but I'll never read him because he seems to be DFW's less talented little brother

[Anonymous No.12101256]

>>12098699
>>12098704
>>12098855
He's a kike.

[Anonymous No.12101597]

>>12098899

The Corrections was his best.

[Anonymous No.12101601]

>>12099545
That’s why we have have brains to decipher the meaning

[Anonymous No.12101651]

>>12101212

The nice way to say that is "accessible"

[Anonymous No.12101754]

>I grew up in a friendly, egalitarian suburb reading books for pleasure and ignoring any writer who didn't take my entertainment seriously enough. Even as an adult, I consider myself a slattern of a reader. I have started (in many cases, more than once) "Moby-Dick," "The Man Without Qualities," "Mason & Dixon," "Don Quixote," "Remembrance of Things Past," "Doctor Faustus," "Naked Lunch," "The Golden Bowl," and "The Golden Notebook" without coming anywhere near finishing them.

Can you take anything he says seriously after this?

[Anonymous No.12101771]

>>12098695
i’ll say it again, a version of this list came out years ago and it was compiled by more than just Franzen. idk why anyone still gives a fuck/why no one realizes how revealing it is that no one remembers a fucking lisicle by him bc of their lack of familiarity with his work.

[Anonymous No.12101790]

>following one man’s rules to make art

[Anonymous No.12101923]

>>12101771
I have also been familiar with that article for years and find it funny that this is suddenly causing a big stink, with articles being written about it and a bunch of people like the kike in the OP tweeting about it.

I like Franzen generally and find his stated takes uncontroversial or whatever but wouldn't be surprised if this was a publicist ploy to put his name in the news. Just seems odd.

[Anonymous No.12103198]

>>12098695
Franzen sucks, but the people being triggered by him are an order of magnitude worse.

[Anonymous No.12103236]

>>12101754
holy based.

[Anonymous No.12103350]

>>12098695
They’re just assblasted that he’s made it and they haven’t. Franzen is great; everyone can fuck off.