In the last post, I introduced Lisa Cron's book "Wired for Story" as an exemplar of the third wave in the evolution of thinking about writing stories. I called this the Grounded Technique Phase because it not only takes a very structured approach to writing but it grounds that approach in recent developments in cognitive neuroscience. This is both good and concerning. It is good because writers will be able to design and construct more compelling stories. If you think of stories as the humanities equivalent of experiments (perhaps thought experiments) we can learn a lot more about ourselves by writing stories and, perhaps, follow on stories. (I am tip toeing into Possible Worlds here, but will tip toe back so as not to digress further.)
It is concerning because writers who know more about how stories impact people will have a major advantage over readers (think propaganda and advertising). The food industry in the end of the last century learned a lot about what makes food taste good and that is why we have potato chips claiming, rightly so, that you cannot eat just one. What if stories were that compelling and that addicting? Would brainwashing replace obesity as one of our leading (mental) health problems? Just thinking out loud.
Earlier in this blog, I mentioned Will Storr's book "The Science of Storytelling" as an example of this emerging approach to writing. But Storr's book did not come out until 2020, eight years after Cron's book came out. Was Cron's book the first in the third wave? I really don't know, but I suspect it was.
Regardless, it is a well written, informative book and an exemplar for the Grounded Technique Phase. So, I am using Cron's book as a marker for this significant turn. What, exactly, is this significant turn? In simple terms, it is the integration of reader psychology (cognitive neuroscience) with storytelling techniques. You don't create a sympathetic protagonist because we think readers like a sympathetic protagonist. You create a sympathetic protagonist because the reader wants to feel what the protagonist is feeling in response to the events that are occurring in the story, specifically those events that affect the protagonist in a current area of vulnerability. It is all about the reader's emotional experience reading the story and the reader's ability and desire to identify emotionally with the protagonist. Nobody wants to read a story in which the protagonist is just fine.
At the risk of being simplistic, I would summarize the Grounded Technique in the following way. 1) You need a protagonist who is in a moment of crisis because there is something that matters to the protagonist which is not the way the protagonist believes it should be. 2) The reader must care enough about the protagonist to emotionally bond with him or her and feel what the protagonist feels as he or she seeks resolution to the crisis. 3) The writer must reveal important information about changes in the protagonist's condition on a timely basis so as to maintain the interest of the reader.
Sounds pretty simple. (Perhaps because I have over simplified it). But, how do you do this? Well that is what the book (Wired for Story) is about. Some of this is what some writers already know. Some is counter to traditional views. Some is clarified tradition views. And some involves mistakes that beginning writers make and could avoid if they knew more about what they are doing. I have avoided getting into any detail regarding the cognitive neuroscience which grounds this advice as the book does an admirable job of explaining this as it goes along. And, if you are interested, which you should be if you wish to write popular fiction, then you read this book at some point.
So, on the positive side, I would strongly recommend this book to any aspiring writer of fiction. It not only spells out what you need to do, but why and how as well. Most of the techniques you might, eventually, figure out for yourself. But, that would take some time and study. And, figuring out the "why" would be even more challenging. This is a problem because without understanding the why, one cannot easily vary from the script (that is the 'how to write' script, not the script you are writing), which means that the end products will look a lot alike. For a lot of writers this is OK. After all, if you can sell a few TV scripts and get a book on some best seller list now and then, why complain?
Here is the problem. You often hear advocates of the Refined or Grounded Techniques Phases making a distinction between "literary" and "popular" fiction. They will say things like "The difference between literary and popular fiction is that popular fiction sells and literary fiction doesn't". They might pull up examples of literary fiction such as James Joyce's Ulysses or William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury" as evidence that there is no joy as well as no profit in literary fiction. OK, OK, I get it. But, I feel inclined, if not obligated, to defend literary fiction even though I am no fan of either of the works just mentioned.
I would make a distinction between three types of fiction: popular fiction, quality fiction and experimental fiction. Although there is some overlap, each has a very different purpose and must be judged by different standards. The purpose of popular fiction is entertainment. The reader wants to enjoy the story. It is possible that a work of popular fiction provides more than entertainment, but if it fails to provide entertainment, it fails as a work of popular fiction. The purpose of quality fiction is to hold up a mirror to the human condition so that we can better understand it. The reader is looking for growth and enrichment. If the reader enjoys the story as well, then so much the better. But, if the story fails to provide any enrichment, then it has failed as quality fiction. Some might argue that a piece of work must provide quality writing in order to be quality fiction and I would agree. But, if a work delivers great insight into the human condition through simple prose, it does not lose the designation of quality. On the other hand, if a piece attempts to provide insight into the human condition by barbarically abusing the language, I would respectfully submit that it has fallen short of quality fiction. Finally, the purpose of experimental fiction is to push the boundaries of what we consider as legitimate fiction. There are plenty of examples of this within the academic realm. There purpose is to expand our understanding of fiction as opposed to our understanding of the human condition. At one point, stream of consciousness pushed the boundaries. At another point film and graphic novels joined the challenge. It is unfair to restrict experimental fiction to fiction which is difficult to read, although it may very well be. It is the quality of providing insight into our understanding of fiction that makes it experimental. Personally, I would say that the books by Joyce and Faulkner mentioned above were failed experiments. But, that is just my opinion.
The three types of fiction mentioned in the previous paragraph still don't cover the full range. For example, children's stories, folk tales, zen stories and so on don't really fit into the trinity just provided. The good thing about an approach like the Grounded Technique approach is that it structures the work of writing for the aspiring writer and reduces the complexity of fiction to a manageable level.
I have heard advocates of the technical school attempt to prove that this technique is more general than it really is. Examples are presented, usually from quality fiction, that arguably fit the technical mode as though this gives the technical approach credibility. This is not necessary. It can easily stretch to other kinds of fiction and can be intentionally ignored in cases where it does not apply. After all, if we did adhere to the strict use of the Grounded Technical approach, we would have to give up children's stories, folk tales, and the majority of quality and experimental fiction.
I have gone on a bit here as I both herald the Grounded Technique approach and stress its limitations. My reason for this is that stories written to explore possible worlds may not easily fit the Grounded Technique paradigm. (They may, as well, but that is a different argument). The purpose of a story written to explore a possible world is different from the purposes of Popular Fiction, Quality Fiction or Experimental fiction. Why is that? We will take that up in the next post.
