July 19th, 2010 / 7:39 pm
Power Quote
Lily Hoang
Power Quote
chemically free but not in a straight edge kind of way
“The real story, which we have grown unaccustomed to, is chemically free of explanation. . . . The story is always about something unexplainable. The art of narration declines as explanations are added.” -Cesar Aira
Tags: Cesar Aira
I can think of two things more pleasurable than blotting out explanation from my writing.
weededge
*weed edge
Cesar is it. He writes gems.
I’m still straightedge. Sometimes teenage decisions are good decisions.
Awesome.
I can think of two things more pleasurable than blotting out explanation from my writing.
weededge
*weed edge
Cesar is it. He writes gems.
the computer and the shirt make that photo better than it should be.
straight edge are a bunch of violent assholes.
fuck them.
I’m still straightedge. Sometimes teenage decisions are good decisions.
is ‘cesar’ the window, computer or green-T guy?
Awesome.
source?
the computer and the shirt make that photo better than it should be.
straight edge are a bunch of violent assholes.
fuck them.
I can’t really tell if comments are ironic or not, so I’ll take them as not and clarify that Aira is a badass writer, published more than 50 books (that’s right, kids, 50). He’s Argentinian, and only recently has his work been translated into English (mostly by New Directions). I’ve only read a couple of his books and enjoyed them very much, and I’d wager that he’s stylistically and narratively aligned with a lot of the HTML Giant crew. That is: he’s worth the read. I’ll probably post a review of one of his novellas within the next week or so.
Whereas people have commented on the funny-ish title of the post (thanks!) and the photo, no one has really touched on the substance of the quote, which is very provocative and both right and wrong. So, I’ll be more up-front in my question: Does the art of narration decline as explanations are added?
source?
Okay, I’ll bite…I find the quote pretty wrongheaded though I’ve liked the Aira I’ve read. Narration of any sort is explanation…however much or often writers strive to be “chemical-free.” Beyond that there’s a great deal to be gained in emulating the various explanatory strategies going in the here and now. “Chemical-free” sounds like purity and purity is something I generally want fiction to leave alone.
Yes and no. Yes – in the sense that any sort of explicit explanation can feel weighty, like overeating or putting on one too many layers of clothing. Even on the level of the sentence, amazing how much plucking a “because” out of a sentence can improve it, a triple jolt of allowing the reader to make the inference, greater immediacy, and (usually) smoother rhythm.
On the other hand, explanations are part of the experience of being human, and so any work that excludes them utterly as a matter of course is fencing out human experience, which seems daft. I like a story which uses explanation as a sleight-of-hand, which uses sands down the planks of lesser explanation to build the swaying bridge that pitches over the abyss of the inexplicable.
That should just be “which sands down the planks…”
Damn, I couldn’t resist explaining.
I can’t really tell if comments are ironic or not, so I’ll take them as not and clarify that Aira is a badass writer, published more than 50 books (that’s right, kids, 50). He’s Argentinian, and only recently has his work been translated into English (mostly by New Directions). I’ve only read a couple of his books and enjoyed them very much, and I’d wager that he’s stylistically and narratively aligned with a lot of the HTML Giant crew. That is: he’s worth the read. I’ll probably post a review of one of his novellas within the next week or so.
Whereas people have commented on the funny-ish title of the post (thanks!) and the photo, no one has really touched on the substance of the quote, which is very provocative and both right and wrong. So, I’ll be more up-front in my question: Does the art of narration decline as explanations are added?
Aira engages in what he calls (roughly translated) “flight forward,” which I understand to be a constant movement forward, focusing more on what’s to come than explanation or even exposition. His fiction, then, can tend towards Surrealist automatic writing, though I’d argue he pushes things in a different direction than the Surrealists.
I find a lot of fiction–my own included–tends towards being over-explanatory, like I fear the reader may not get what I’m trying to say so I repeat or explain and explain and repeat again. This comes not from my distrust of readers but from MFA school, where my readers often didn’t “get” what I was trying to do or simply dismissed it off hand for being too “experimental.” I like Aira’s concept of moving away from explanation. Whereas I wouldn’t want to abandon explanation as a whole, there’s something to be said in having the belief in our readers, such that we would need less explanation and more narrative movement.
Okay, I’ll bite…I find the quote pretty wrongheaded though I’ve liked the Aira I’ve read. Narration of any sort is explanation…however much or often writers strive to be “chemical-free.” Beyond that there’s a great deal to be gained in emulating the various explanatory strategies going in the here and now. “Chemical-free” sounds like purity and purity is something I generally want fiction to leave alone.
lily, i kept it light because what is there to discuss? the guy is right.
narrative is a journey. it happens regardless of explanation.
explanations are arbitrary and distract from the experience.
for example: explaining the road while driving does distract from the enjoyment of traveling along that road.
Smile.
Yes and no. Yes – in the sense that any sort of explicit explanation can feel weighty, like overeating or putting on one too many layers of clothing. Even on the level of the sentence, amazing how much plucking a “because” out of a sentence can improve it, a triple jolt of allowing the reader to make the inference, greater immediacy, and (usually) smoother rhythm.
On the other hand, explanations are part of the experience of being human, and so any work that excludes them utterly as a matter of course is fencing out human experience, which seems daft. I like a story which uses explanation as a sleight-of-hand, which uses sands down the planks of lesser explanation to build the swaying bridge that pitches over the abyss of the inexplicable.
That should just be “which sands down the planks…”
Damn, I couldn’t resist explaining.
Aira engages in what he calls (roughly translated) “flight forward,” which I understand to be a constant movement forward, focusing more on what’s to come than explanation or even exposition. His fiction, then, can tend towards Surrealist automatic writing, though I’d argue he pushes things in a different direction than the Surrealists.
I find a lot of fiction–my own included–tends towards being over-explanatory, like I fear the reader may not get what I’m trying to say so I repeat or explain and explain and repeat again. This comes not from my distrust of readers but from MFA school, where my readers often didn’t “get” what I was trying to do or simply dismissed it off hand for being too “experimental.” I like Aira’s concept of moving away from explanation. Whereas I wouldn’t want to abandon explanation as a whole, there’s something to be said in having the belief in our readers, such that we would need less explanation and more narrative movement.
lily, i kept it light because what is there to discuss? the guy is right.
narrative is a journey. it happens regardless of explanation.
explanations are arbitrary and distract from the experience.
for example: explaining the road while driving does distract from the enjoyment of traveling along that road.
Smile.
It’s interesting to apply Aira’s statement to historical narration where there are external referents (what happened or didn’t happened) and processes of authentication (researching and grading the evidence, peer review). The outcomes for history are unstable, that is provisional and arguable, narratives with elements of both fact and interpretation that are falsifiable.
When it comes to fictional narratives all this is typically absent, explanations located in the story are just more stories and the explanations that are the structure & pretext for most fiction are, for me, only a way of holding & manipulating the reader’s time (one which most readers find peculiarly pleasurable). You can place a character in a plot and explain ‘everything’ and you’ve explained nothing. ‘The story is always about something unexplainable.’
I like ‘narrative…happens regardless of explanation’ by the way – thanks.
An eloquent way of expressing the “show don’t tell” principle — one that applies to all writing, screenplays, fiction, and even narrative poetry. Or, even better, in relationships.
It’s interesting to apply Aira’s statement to historical narration where there are external referents (what happened or didn’t happened) and processes of authentication (researching and grading the evidence, peer review). The outcomes for history are unstable, that is provisional and arguable, narratives with elements of both fact and interpretation that are falsifiable.
When it comes to fictional narratives all this is typically absent, explanations located in the story are just more stories and the explanations that are the structure & pretext for most fiction are, for me, only a way of holding & manipulating the reader’s time (one which most readers find peculiarly pleasurable). You can place a character in a plot and explain ‘everything’ and you’ve explained nothing. ‘The story is always about something unexplainable.’
I like ‘narrative…happens regardless of explanation’ by the way – thanks.
An eloquent way of expressing the “show don’t tell” principle — one that applies to all writing, screenplays, fiction, and even narrative poetry. Or, even better, in relationships.
Too much explaining does indeed slow the movement forward of a story and treats the reader as if he is some kind of village bumpkin new to the world and to a few of the conventions of narrative. The ‘over-eating’ comment is exactly right on how it feels, way too much thick layers of explaining and all you want is a nap. Good poetry, it is worth noting, is often very sparse on explaining and lets the words and images speak for themselves. Many poems say ‘here are the dots. You connect them.’
Perhaps, what Aira is explaining ( by the way am I the only one who notes the irony of this topic and his last name?) is the need for subtleties and nuance as the narration’hurries slowly'( Italo Calvino)
Too much explaining does indeed slow the movement forward of a story and treats the reader as if he is some kind of village bumpkin new to the world and to a few of the conventions of narrative. The ‘over-eating’ comment is exactly right on how it feels, way too much thick layers of explaining and all you want is a nap. Good poetry, it is worth noting, is often very sparse on explaining and lets the words and images speak for themselves. Many poems say ‘here are the dots. You connect them.’
Perhaps, what Aira is explaining ( by the way am I the only one who notes the irony of this topic and his last name?) is the need for subtleties and nuance as the narration’hurries slowly'( Italo Calvino)