We are coming to the end of our Level 2 Creative Writing. All the assessment pieces have been submitted and marked. Just the exam piece to go. I have 'classmates' who are tying themselves in knots over Distinctions and 2:1s or 2:2s. It does make me wonder about how indicative of good writing these marks are. Judging a piece is so subjective.
Even with classics or icons of literature, there will always be people who dislike an author or a particular book. Personally, my heart sinks when I think of Dickens, Hardy, Woolf or a Bronte (pick one, any one). I think I'd rather stab myself repeatedly in the leg with a fork than have to sit through Return of the Native or Wuthering Heights again. I understand there are those who love these books and the authors are thought to be literary genii, but personally I don't get it. Give me Austen, Shakespeare, Chaucer or Wilde every time. The same goes for modern authors.
So, bearing in mind that, apart from the rudiments we are taught, like metaphor, point of view, showing not telling, etc, Creative Writing doesn't have tick boxes or facts on a checklist, how does one judge? A history essay can be judged on whether you have your facts right, presented them in an intelligent fashion and put together a coherent argument - if the answer is yes, then this is your mark - if the answer is no, then marks will be deducted for each point missed. At what point might one conclude one is not cut out to be a writer, or at least not a writer of fiction? Less than 80%? Less than 60%? Almost certainly if you are getting less than 50% you might suspect you've missed the point somewhere along the line. But even if you are getting 90% or more, that won't get you an agent or a publishing contract, which is, I would have thought, what most of us are aiming for.
The literary nabobs deride authors such as Dan Brown, Barbara Cartland, Stephenie Meyer and the chick-lit genre almost in its entirety, but these writers sell books! Millions of them. The general public love them. And, frankly, who are we writing for? Critics or the general public?
At the beginning of our course, someone in our Student Cafe posed the question: if you had the choice of writing a book which only sold in limited numbers, but was considered by the critics to be a work of genius, or a blockbusting bestseller that would bring you fame and fortune, which would you choose? At first I, along with the vast majority, chose to write the work of genius, but now, I'm not so sure. My aim is to entertain. I like telling stories. I want to tell my stories to as many people as I can and I want my readers to be transported to the world I create for them. I don't want my readers to finish my tome and then have to sit in a quiet corner contemplating the implications of what they've read. I want them to finish the last page at 3 in the morning because they couldn't put it down, declare that it was a 'rollicking good read' and then go and hunt out something else I've written.
Well, I suppose time will tell. Will any of us end up on the shelves at Waterstones? Your guess is as good as mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment