Uncategorized
I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE IDEA “EXPERIMENTAL WRITING”
usually when someone says experimental writing s/he seems to be referring to something odd. like, if i wrote a story where hitler was playing scrabble against a werewolf, then that would be experimental. or, odd meaning the way it is written. like i could write a story about a person cleaning his or her house and use strange punctuation and syntax and then it would be experimental. no one has ever provided a clear definition of experimental writing to me.
which makes me think that every piece of writing is experimental. i think this because if i define the word “experiment” to myself, then i’m all like, “an experiment is something you try and then you see what happens.” to me this means that every time someone writes down some words it is an experiment, to see what happens. if the definition of experimental is strangeness, or a renunciation of previous forms, then all writing should be experimental or it will be a repeat of something before it. these are just some thoughts i have with myself when i am on the bus and i don’t know where i am and i am in between thinking “should i re-tie my shoes or are they tight enough” and “i feel aggressive but i will stay still.” i would like to hear other peoples’ opinions about experimental writing. say like, maybe 200 other people (fuck you jimmy chen).
Tags: experimental writing, tradition
Um, I don’t know.
Um, I don’t know.
on shane’s blog, he remarked a dislike for the term ‘experimental’, that it was lazy. my response to that was all classification proceeds from generalization to specification. and that experimental is a genus-order rubric that allows a level of initial orientation when entering a certain field of entertainment or expression. i like the term ‘experimental’ more for what it doesn’t say. basically when i hear the term i know that i’m not going to encounter the run-of-the-mill linear structure of mainstream narrative. after that, it’s anyone’s guess.
but now i can appreciate where shane’s coming from after another post, expressing his frustration over ‘light boxes’ being called experimental, when he thinks it’s more akin to the sensibility of a folk tale or fable. but i guess that’s part of the strength and the flaw of such a vague term: it’s true that ‘light boxes’ doesn’t conform to notions of mainstream narrative, but it also has a particular voice and quality that simply labeling it as experimental doesn’t do it justice.
as reader i like the term for the initial orientation it provides, but as a writer i could see being pissed off if something i wrote with a specific tone was in a sense brushed under the rug of the often dirty and cloudy nomenclature ‘experimental’.
on shane’s blog, he remarked a dislike for the term ‘experimental’, that it was lazy. my response to that was all classification proceeds from generalization to specification. and that experimental is a genus-order rubric that allows a level of initial orientation when entering a certain field of entertainment or expression. i like the term ‘experimental’ more for what it doesn’t say. basically when i hear the term i know that i’m not going to encounter the run-of-the-mill linear structure of mainstream narrative. after that, it’s anyone’s guess.
but now i can appreciate where shane’s coming from after another post, expressing his frustration over ‘light boxes’ being called experimental, when he thinks it’s more akin to the sensibility of a folk tale or fable. but i guess that’s part of the strength and the flaw of such a vague term: it’s true that ‘light boxes’ doesn’t conform to notions of mainstream narrative, but it also has a particular voice and quality that simply labeling it as experimental doesn’t do it justice.
as reader i like the term for the initial orientation it provides, but as a writer i could see being pissed off if something i wrote with a specific tone was in a sense brushed under the rug of the often dirty and cloudy nomenclature ‘experimental’.
you guys are full of shit (i am trying to provoke comments to assert my worth)
you fucking pussies (aren’t you mad yet)
all writing without quotes around dialogue is experimental you losers (comment on how i need to clarify terms)
get dead you bastards (this specific comment will garner roughly three more comments which in turn will proliferate into eternity when god raises my hand as the arch-htmlgianter)
you guys are full of shit (i am trying to provoke comments to assert my worth)
you fucking pussies (aren’t you mad yet)
all writing without quotes around dialogue is experimental you losers (comment on how i need to clarify terms)
get dead you bastards (this specific comment will garner roughly three more comments which in turn will proliferate into eternity when god raises my hand as the arch-htmlgianter)
How experimental is it to write about experimental writing.
I will agree that all writing SHOULD be experimental, if only for the sake of our boredom.
How experimental is it to write about experimental writing.
I will agree that all writing SHOULD be experimental, if only for the sake of our boredom.
when i was working on my under-grad thesis i was constantly berated for not putting dialogue in quotations… granted they didn’t really like my second narrative in footnotes either.
“experimental” is fairly amorphous, and i’m not sure that i’d even consider not using quotation marks as experimental, at least not any more with how common its become.
i think for me, when i hear the term experimental used i think of something that is pushing the boundaries of “tradition” whether thematically, structurally, etc. i don’t think of it as a “genre” label, more like an umbrella for things we’re unsure of how to define. in some ways it reminds me of “alternative” rock. like what exactly makes alternative rock… at one time it had a more definite descriptive sound that people recognized, but now it’s a blob that pretty much encompasses everything that’s not “classic” rock or “pop” music… and even those blur.
when i was working on my under-grad thesis i was constantly berated for not putting dialogue in quotations… granted they didn’t really like my second narrative in footnotes either.
“experimental” is fairly amorphous, and i’m not sure that i’d even consider not using quotation marks as experimental, at least not any more with how common its become.
i think for me, when i hear the term experimental used i think of something that is pushing the boundaries of “tradition” whether thematically, structurally, etc. i don’t think of it as a “genre” label, more like an umbrella for things we’re unsure of how to define. in some ways it reminds me of “alternative” rock. like what exactly makes alternative rock… at one time it had a more definite descriptive sound that people recognized, but now it’s a blob that pretty much encompasses everything that’s not “classic” rock or “pop” music… and even those blur.
I just oppressed Sam’s vision, and experimented with the picture below the break.
I just oppressed Sam’s vision, and experimented with the picture below the break.
i wish all aggression and acts of violence were perpetrated with the same polyphony as you have displayed: an aura of cognition in which to situate the madness. or at least empathy, as in clockwork orange, where the protagonist was rewired to experience the victim’s sensations. all violence should be experienced simultaneously from the point of view of the perpetrator and the victim, as biological requisite. things would be different if that were so. although i could imagine the simultaneity of that perspective becoming somewhat addictive in certain cases, where people might attempt to provoke others to acts of violence upon themselves. violence makes me nauseous unless it’s mutually consented. hmmm…. where am i going with this?
i wish all aggression and acts of violence were perpetrated with the same polyphony as you have displayed: an aura of cognition in which to situate the madness. or at least empathy, as in clockwork orange, where the protagonist was rewired to experience the victim’s sensations. all violence should be experienced simultaneously from the point of view of the perpetrator and the victim, as biological requisite. things would be different if that were so. although i could imagine the simultaneity of that perspective becoming somewhat addictive in certain cases, where people might attempt to provoke others to acts of violence upon themselves. violence makes me nauseous unless it’s mutually consented. hmmm…. where am i going with this?
I think the thing is experimental is not a concrete adjective, it’s subjective and fuzzy, but we can find fuzzy lines I think and say one thing is experimental and one thing isn’t. If we think of experimental in terms of absoluteness, then everything is experimental and the concept dies, because you can always find something new or different in everything published, that is almost why things get published in the first place. What if Alice Munro published a sci fi story in the new yorker written in finnegans wake-speak. She’d piss off I think a lot of die-hard fans, bring in some new ones, but the very notion that she is breaking away from an expectation means to me she is being experimental. It’s a matter of degrees, but something that tips it for me is when there is a clear expectation of something and there is risk involved w/r/t veering from that expectation.
Experiment isn’t a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ description for me. It just describes something that’s happening. Why are we angry at it?
There is always risk involved whenever we call something an experiment because when we call our own work an experiment, we are buffering our egos in case it is not excepted or laughed out of the room. We don’t want to give the impression we are commiting ourselves to this new thing, we are ‘just experimenting’ it’s ‘just an experiment, something I’m trying.’ It’s become a term that helps our fragile fingers find new pencils. I’d prefer everything be an experiment than everything to be not.
I think the thing is experimental is not a concrete adjective, it’s subjective and fuzzy, but we can find fuzzy lines I think and say one thing is experimental and one thing isn’t. If we think of experimental in terms of absoluteness, then everything is experimental and the concept dies, because you can always find something new or different in everything published, that is almost why things get published in the first place. What if Alice Munro published a sci fi story in the new yorker written in finnegans wake-speak. She’d piss off I think a lot of die-hard fans, bring in some new ones, but the very notion that she is breaking away from an expectation means to me she is being experimental. It’s a matter of degrees, but something that tips it for me is when there is a clear expectation of something and there is risk involved w/r/t veering from that expectation.
Experiment isn’t a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ description for me. It just describes something that’s happening. Why are we angry at it?
There is always risk involved whenever we call something an experiment because when we call our own work an experiment, we are buffering our egos in case it is not excepted or laughed out of the room. We don’t want to give the impression we are commiting ourselves to this new thing, we are ‘just experimenting’ it’s ‘just an experiment, something I’m trying.’ It’s become a term that helps our fragile fingers find new pencils. I’d prefer everything be an experiment than everything to be not.
although it sounds like people are talking about mislabeling something experimental? Are we talking about that or that ‘experimental’ is not a valid classification for anything.
although it sounds like people are talking about mislabeling something experimental? Are we talking about that or that ‘experimental’ is not a valid classification for anything.
who uses the word experimental though? i don’t think many writers would say their work is experimental. i just think it’s a stupid term that should stop being said. it’s confusing. and most of the people that use it are either reviewers – because they don’t understand what’s going on and their lazy, their is no depth to saying experimental. and then the publishers who say it to warn readers. it’s a red flag for some and glitter for others who desire something “different.” i’m not angry at the term. i just think it’s kind of silly.
who uses the word experimental though? i don’t think many writers would say their work is experimental. i just think it’s a stupid term that should stop being said. it’s confusing. and most of the people that use it are either reviewers – because they don’t understand what’s going on and their lazy, their is no depth to saying experimental. and then the publishers who say it to warn readers. it’s a red flag for some and glitter for others who desire something “different.” i’m not angry at the term. i just think it’s kind of silly.
I get angry at it, because ‘experimental’ works like ‘creative.’
People can say ‘he’s so experimental’ and what the fuck are they saying?
‘You’re so creative!’ What does that even mean? Someone could love to paint dicks on pine cones and they would be ‘creative.’ The term is insultingly vague.
I get angry at it, because ‘experimental’ works like ‘creative.’
People can say ‘he’s so experimental’ and what the fuck are they saying?
‘You’re so creative!’ What does that even mean? Someone could love to paint dicks on pine cones and they would be ‘creative.’ The term is insultingly vague.
I feel bad about it now. I’m sorry Sam.
I feel bad about it now. I’m sorry Sam.
well said gene.
how about avant garde? i was warned once that i was getting too avant garde.
well said gene.
how about avant garde? i was warned once that i was getting too avant garde.
i immediately thought of Yoko Ono.
i immediately thought of Yoko Ono.
ahh, yoko
ahh, yoko
I agree then. We are talking about misusing it. It should never be used when refering to someone else’s work.
I agree then. We are talking about misusing it. It should never be used when refering to someone else’s work.
i don’t think i could have looked at that picture again…
i don’t think i could have looked at that picture again…
categories are dangerous because they allow people to isolate themselves and their own ideas from ideas that they might find threatening. I think even the most experimental writer would argue that he is simply presenting reality as it is. I read somewhere that absurdists called themselves, “internal realists”. I feel like it’s this idea that you are arguing against, and I agree with it.
If you take out the “weird” part of the definition, you are left with something that I think is fair. Instead of inventing (yes, this is experimenting too…) a world with techniques that have been used before, an experimental piece does more to question the solidity of language and meaning. It has less faith in the fact that, for all people, “The cat’s tongue felt gritty and rough,” will add up to the same reaction, so it goes back further, takes apart tradition and language a little more, in its attempt to communicate.
That’s how I define experimental.
categories are dangerous because they allow people to isolate themselves and their own ideas from ideas that they might find threatening. I think even the most experimental writer would argue that he is simply presenting reality as it is. I read somewhere that absurdists called themselves, “internal realists”. I feel like it’s this idea that you are arguing against, and I agree with it.
If you take out the “weird” part of the definition, you are left with something that I think is fair. Instead of inventing (yes, this is experimenting too…) a world with techniques that have been used before, an experimental piece does more to question the solidity of language and meaning. It has less faith in the fact that, for all people, “The cat’s tongue felt gritty and rough,” will add up to the same reaction, so it goes back further, takes apart tradition and language a little more, in its attempt to communicate.
That’s how I define experimental.
the problem though is that when you call someone else’s work experimental, what you are really saying is the work is not successful, or is not even ready to enter that realm, is not something a public body is ready to accept as successful even if the writer feels it is perfectly successful as it is. An experiment is something less than a thing, it’s an experiment of a thing, it’s a thing that isn’t ready yet. An experiment is not the accepted result of the experiment, it’s still the experiment.
the problem though is that when you call someone else’s work experimental, what you are really saying is the work is not successful, or is not even ready to enter that realm, is not something a public body is ready to accept as successful even if the writer feels it is perfectly successful as it is. An experiment is something less than a thing, it’s an experiment of a thing, it’s a thing that isn’t ready yet. An experiment is not the accepted result of the experiment, it’s still the experiment.
“most experiments fail” is something some philosopher said…..but in the sense that they yield information even if that information is “that was a dead end” then it could also be said that “all experiments succeed.” in a way.
“most experiments fail” is something some philosopher said…..but in the sense that they yield information even if that information is “that was a dead end” then it could also be said that “all experiments succeed.” in a way.
I dunno, people like labels. It’s not that different than calling something science fiction that has elements of science fiction in it that might not be really science fiction.
I agree that really all writing is experimental but that’s really a different term. Yeah, we all sit down and don’t know exactly how it’s going to turn out. But ‘experimental’ in this case has more to do with identifying a style, or a genre even.
But, none of these terms should be binaries. Also, do people still use the word ‘experimental’? I do think it’s useful to have a label for something most of us could identify as ‘different’, so innovative, experimental, avante garde, whatever. All these terms have problems, but is it really that important?
I dunno, people like labels. It’s not that different than calling something science fiction that has elements of science fiction in it that might not be really science fiction.
I agree that really all writing is experimental but that’s really a different term. Yeah, we all sit down and don’t know exactly how it’s going to turn out. But ‘experimental’ in this case has more to do with identifying a style, or a genre even.
But, none of these terms should be binaries. Also, do people still use the word ‘experimental’? I do think it’s useful to have a label for something most of us could identify as ‘different’, so innovative, experimental, avante garde, whatever. All these terms have problems, but is it really that important?
Innovative and avant garde are different. They implicitly mean something that is done and good and successful. Experimental doesn’t imply this, it carries a not necessarily successful connotation. I’m starting to agree more that it should be wiped out of literary criticism’s vocab.
Innovative and avant garde are different. They implicitly mean something that is done and good and successful. Experimental doesn’t imply this, it carries a not necessarily successful connotation. I’m starting to agree more that it should be wiped out of literary criticism’s vocab.
Here’s a great essay by Ann Lauterbach about the term ‘experimental’: http://archbold.blogspot.com/2006/02/use-this-word-in-sentence-experimental.html
Here’s a great essay by Ann Lauterbach about the term ‘experimental’: http://archbold.blogspot.com/2006/02/use-this-word-in-sentence-experimental.html
I agree with everything you say.
Question though: does it work that way for visual art? Writers have no physical medium. That means our work rides a far rockier path on its way to being experienced, and so dialogue with the past/convention is undeniably more important.
I’m not saying that that means that experimental/different/postmodern/whatever works should not be respected or lack the capacity to convey meaning. In fact, I believe the contrary. For these very same reasons, language needs to be constantly torn apart; that’s the only thing that keeps it meaningful, keeps the weight in words — the evolution, the motion, the violence of our relationship with language. What I am saying though is that our medium invites anxiety towards that which is less conventional. I don’t know that there’s any way around the inclination that people have to nudge the less conventional stuff off to the side.
I agree with everything you say.
Question though: does it work that way for visual art? Writers have no physical medium. That means our work rides a far rockier path on its way to being experienced, and so dialogue with the past/convention is undeniably more important.
I’m not saying that that means that experimental/different/postmodern/whatever works should not be respected or lack the capacity to convey meaning. In fact, I believe the contrary. For these very same reasons, language needs to be constantly torn apart; that’s the only thing that keeps it meaningful, keeps the weight in words — the evolution, the motion, the violence of our relationship with language. What I am saying though is that our medium invites anxiety towards that which is less conventional. I don’t know that there’s any way around the inclination that people have to nudge the less conventional stuff off to the side.
I agree with everything you say also.
You can make maybe the distinction also between writing as art and writing as simply communication, because we rely on the latter to be clear, we are less hesitant to accept disclarity in the former.
I agree with everything you say also.
You can make maybe the distinction also between writing as art and writing as simply communication, because we rely on the latter to be clear, we are less hesitant to accept disclarity in the former.
i’ve never thought of experimental as having a negative connotation. i’ve heard it said before, but personally have never thought it. and i don’t think avant garde necessarily means something is good and successful, more often than not i’ve heard it used when something is “weird” good weird and bad weird, but weird.
ultimately there’s no way to go without terms being used to describe art of any kind. there’s always going to be tons of them floating around. there will never be a way to agree with them all. but by producing art and letting it into the world for others’ consumption we are allowing this to happen. at least people are consuming it, thinking about it, and trying to put their reactions into words.
i’ve never thought of experimental as having a negative connotation. i’ve heard it said before, but personally have never thought it. and i don’t think avant garde necessarily means something is good and successful, more often than not i’ve heard it used when something is “weird” good weird and bad weird, but weird.
ultimately there’s no way to go without terms being used to describe art of any kind. there’s always going to be tons of them floating around. there will never be a way to agree with them all. but by producing art and letting it into the world for others’ consumption we are allowing this to happen. at least people are consuming it, thinking about it, and trying to put their reactions into words.
Writing would be so much easier without words. Anyways, I like it when writing is super boring and repetitive and doesn’t really know what it’s doing. Like when it says all these things that don’t make sense but I still kind of like it. Or when it really makes me hate it but I wish I was the one writing it. And when it’s about nothing. I like that kind of stuff the best. I don’t want it to be anything and I don’t want it to be about anything. I guess I just want it to destroy capitalism and the USA.
Writing would be so much easier without words. Anyways, I like it when writing is super boring and repetitive and doesn’t really know what it’s doing. Like when it says all these things that don’t make sense but I still kind of like it. Or when it really makes me hate it but I wish I was the one writing it. And when it’s about nothing. I like that kind of stuff the best. I don’t want it to be anything and I don’t want it to be about anything. I guess I just want it to destroy capitalism and the USA.
Spot on, Sam.
I confess now that I have – shudder – used the term ‘experimental writing’ in the past, to describe some of what I do. I wish I hadn’t. But hey, it’s in the past. I also regret wearing FRANKIE SAYS RELAX t-shirts in 1985 and having my hair highlighted with blonde streaks. We were all young, foolish and impressionable once.
What I can’t forgive myself more, however, is how I chose to use the word ‘experimental’. It was like I was trying to apologise for myself upfront (I’m good at this – ask my friends). It was like: “Hey, this is experimental writing. Sssh. Don’t tell anyone. But it means that you might not like it and you might think it’s crap and you might want to move on to the funny stuff or the ‘this is what I did today, oh god, I hate my life’ stuff or the ‘war is bad! fuck war! peace, man!’ stuff. Or whatever. I’m sorry. You’re going to hate this writing. But please don’t hate me. I’m sorry for daring to be a little bit different and a lot more pretentious.”
I don’t do this any more. I try and just say ‘fuck you’. I admit that I don’t always succeed. Sometimes, I am a fucking coward.
Spot on, Sam.
I confess now that I have – shudder – used the term ‘experimental writing’ in the past, to describe some of what I do. I wish I hadn’t. But hey, it’s in the past. I also regret wearing FRANKIE SAYS RELAX t-shirts in 1985 and having my hair highlighted with blonde streaks. We were all young, foolish and impressionable once.
What I can’t forgive myself more, however, is how I chose to use the word ‘experimental’. It was like I was trying to apologise for myself upfront (I’m good at this – ask my friends). It was like: “Hey, this is experimental writing. Sssh. Don’t tell anyone. But it means that you might not like it and you might think it’s crap and you might want to move on to the funny stuff or the ‘this is what I did today, oh god, I hate my life’ stuff or the ‘war is bad! fuck war! peace, man!’ stuff. Or whatever. I’m sorry. You’re going to hate this writing. But please don’t hate me. I’m sorry for daring to be a little bit different and a lot more pretentious.”
I don’t do this any more. I try and just say ‘fuck you’. I admit that I don’t always succeed. Sometimes, I am a fucking coward.
it’s an easy way to get out of conversations where you are asked to explain what you write to unhappy people who hate you. what is it? what the fuck are you writing? uhm, experimental. [though for real any act of writing should be experimental. why else do it? write something that on some level you don’t know how to do = experiment.]
it’s an easy way to get out of conversations where you are asked to explain what you write to unhappy people who hate you. what is it? what the fuck are you writing? uhm, experimental. [though for real any act of writing should be experimental. why else do it? write something that on some level you don’t know how to do = experiment.]
it seems silly to self-describe with the word experimental unless you are trying to avoid having a conversation with a dumb-ass about why something isn’t stephen king or whatever the fuck
it seems silly to self-describe with the word experimental unless you are trying to avoid having a conversation with a dumb-ass about why something isn’t stephen king or whatever the fuck
I think I might have just repeated what this joseph young fellow said before me. i don’t hate stephen king. I don’t think I’ve ever read any .
I think I might have just repeated what this joseph young fellow said before me. i don’t hate stephen king. I don’t think I’ve ever read any .