Prose vs Plot

[KatG]

Come on, KatG. Surely there's someone, one writer out there, that you absolutely hate and can't say one good thing about.

I have a lot of writers whose work I don't like and I've given critical remarks of many writers in this forum, even when I like other aspects of their work. In this thread, I mentioned that I feel Scott Lynch has plotting problems, I've mentioned my problems with Rothfuss' dialogue (although I may have to rethink that as my reading of its satiric aspects may have been off.) What I don't do is A) say nasty things about authors whose work I don't love; and B) declare that every author must write the same kind of story and have the same strengths and then get pissed off when they don't. I don't expect to like everything I read and when I don't, I don't ascribe to that some deep significance.

Interesting, so you'd say good characters are what make or break a fantasy novel?

No, I'm saying that readers of fantasy seem to react most to characters in stories. If they like the characters, then they tend to get into the prose and plot and world-building or tolerate any problems or differences from their preferences that they feel exist, and if they don't, they complain about the prose and plot and world-building. There is no magic key of characterization either. But fantasy readers tend to make whatever judgment they are going to make about a book based on how they feel about the characters.

 

[Trip]

I also don't entirely get the point of observations about how "most readers" feel and what their generalized preferences are, however correct they may be. I mean, it's a matter of common sense to acknowledge that fantasy-readers (especially) tend to project themselves into the characters: most of them treat fantasy literature as escapism, after all. Most of them, also, construct the story (meaning the world, the events, the characters) in their heads using the text as rough blueprint, uninterested or simply oblivious to the finer points of prose richness, characterization techniques and plot structuring.

To me, for example, that Sturgeon beginning acts as a great characterization technique, painting both characters as parts of a harmoniously-nuanced picture, and as a clever plot technique, in terms of foreshadowing. And that's before we know anything about the man and the woman, before the "plot" has even started.

"Most" readers would not have caught that. Most readers do not see the text as a fruitful ground for constructing meaning; but then again most readers don't pontificate in threads such as these. And since, apart from me, there are definitely other people here inclined to actually using their heads, I'm interested in their individual take on things, not general observations on the state of affairs in the fantasy readership today. Especially when it comes to Kat, who is inclined not only to using her head, but to writing at (interesting) length about the results of that use.

 

[saintjon]

And neither is Salvatore unprofitable. It's just that most readers have low standards when it comes to... well, everything. And therefore Drizzt is one of the most beloved characters in fantasy, even though he's a whiny emo *impolite word for female genitalia*...

I don't see how he shouldn't be a little bit on the emo side all things considered...

 

[Palfrey]

I mean, it's a matter of common sense to acknowledge that fantasy-readers (especially) tend to project themselves into the characters:

What are you basing that on? I think all throughout my reading life there have been a grand total of three characters I identified with, and one of them wasn't from a fantasy book.

 

[BreakLater]

Do we really need to be so technical?

I think you know what I mean when I talk about character as separate from prose or plot.

If you were an author and your editor said "Your prose is very readable but I think some of your characters need to be more distinct from one another" you would know what she meant. Yes, you would have to alter your prose or plot to fix the issue, but you'd know you were altering it to achieve a certain specific effect: a more unique character.

I get what you're saying when you say they're all interconnected, but you also understand what I'm saying so just meet me halfway?

I also don't entirely get the point of observations about how "most readers" feel and what their generalized preferences are, however correct they may be...

You can't see the value of observing that most readers seem to respond to specific characters more than the writing style or plot or setting of a book? That seems like a really on-point observation to me and I'm not even the one that made it. So I'm not biased!

Most of them, also, construct the story (meaning the world, the events, the characters) in their heads using the text as rough blueprint, uninterested or simply oblivious to the finer points of prose richness, characterization techniques and plot structuring.

But you are not oblivious to these so-called finer points?

To me, for example, that Sturgeon beginning acts as a great characterization technique, painting both characters as parts of a harmoniously-nuanced picture, and as a clever plot technique, in terms of foreshadowing. And that's before we know anything about the man and the woman, before the "plot" has even started.

You think most people who read that book did not observe what you're observing there?

"Most" readers would not have caught that. Most readers do not see the text as a fruitful ground for constructing meaning; but then again most readers don't pontificate in threads such as these. And since, apart from me, there are definitely other people here inclined to actually using their heads, I'm interested in their individual take on things, not general observations on the state of affairs in the fantasy readership today

Eh, I agree that having conversations about what does or does not appeal to the 'ignorant masses' is pointless. Though it seems you've made some generalizations about these masses here yourself. Those types of generalizations are why conversations like that fail in my opinion.

Consider that sometimes when someone (Me for example) is talking about what 'most readers' respond to, that person is really asking himself what he responds to. When KatG makes a comment that most readers tend to follow characters from book to book, regardless of the quality of prose or plot, I weigh in on whether I think that's true. It may seem I'm talking about the mass of readers out there but I'm probably talking about me.

 

[JunkMonkey]

What would you rather have, a book that doesn't really have a exciting fast paced plot, but great prose, or a book with an addiciting plot that you can't seem to put down, but the writing it just very straight forward.

Surely it depends on your mood and the occasion. Tonight, reading to my kids - we're reading Kipling's Jungle Books at the moment, I was overwhelmed by the writing. It's wonderfully flowing and rhythmic stuff. They're brilliant to read out loud (as long as you can spot some of the more complex, longer sentences coming up and remember to breath in the right place.) Tonight, relaxing downstairs after a kid-filled day, I read partway through a collected book of Dilys Powell's film criticisms; elegant informative and opinionated journalism. Later, before I fall asleep, I'll be reading some 'Crash! Bash! and then...' potboiler SF book with very short sentences and nothing lost when I fall asleep in the middle of a chapter.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

"Most" readers would not have caught that. Most readers do not see the text as a fruitful ground for constructing meaning;

I don't know, Trip. Some of the readers who have reached out to me have speculated on meanings and innuendo in my stories that I wasn't even aware existed. Certainly not everyone sees the same thing, but I'd venture that SFF readers are more on the ball than you're giving them credit for.

 

[Trip]

@ BreakLater:

Starting at the end - just talk about yourself then; I don't think it's necessary for your posts to "seem" to be addressing one thing, but "probably" to be addressing another thing. It's a thousand times easier to talk about yourself and not "the masses".

Yes, I think that most people that read Slow Sculpture did not observe what I observed. And that's not because my readerly sight is somehow keener, but simply because my response to that text is quite idiosyncratic and I realize that. The observation is not what counts here though. It's the process by which one becomes capable of making it.

And that means exactly not being oblivious to the finer points of whatever aspect of writing. Not being oblivious doesn't automatically endow you with some mystical insight into the secrets of the text, but at least creates opportunity for you to create a more complex meaning for that text in your head.

As a counterpoint, let me give an example of that unrewarding blueprint kind of reading I mentioned in the previous post:

On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head.

A blueprint reader would simply ignore the oxymoronic nature of that sentence and would probably imagine the curator first freezing in fear, then slowly turning his head. Based on my experience relating my various literary disappointments and excitements with other people - yes, that's how they read. On many occasions I've related some of these more nuanced and idiosyncratic excitements, like the effect of Sturgeon's text, and I've been met with incomprehension.

During a writing course a couple of months ago I read a story that didn't have any pointers as to where the events take place, except for two - one of the guys called another one of the guys "mate", and the author once used the expression "Like a cangaroo caught in the headlights". I decided to compliment the author on the subtle way she introduced the Australian setting, by the means of a single address and a change of the deer-in-headlights idiom to accommodate the different setting. She didn't know what I was talking about, neither did the other people in the room. They had missed the finer point of these two elements of the text. Something more - as I spoke, they *kept missing* the point that these nuances *actually matter*. And those were people interested in creative writing, no less.

Unfortunately, in most cases when I start discussing books with people, when *they* relate *their*excitements and disappointments, they do *not* point out any of these finer points. Their arguments begin and end with "great/sucky characters", "interesting/boring story". I'm not saying it happens like that all the time, but it usually happens like that.

Hence the generalizations. As to Kat's generalizations (that could have easily been mine or yours, because we both seem to agree with her) - I don't see them leading anywhere. They talk, in very broad general terms, about some very broad general preferences on part of a some general segment of the fantasy readership (in Kat's case - the fantasy readers she knows/knows about). I recognize it as completely true, but it fails to excite my interest in responding to it. Actually, how does one respond to such general statements at all?

Do we really need to be so technical?

I think you know what I mean when I talk about character as separate from prose or plot.

If you were an author and your editor said "Your prose is very readable but I think some of your characters need to be more distinct from one another" you would know what she meant. Yes, you would have to alter your prose or plot to fix the issue, but you'd know you were altering it to achieve a certain specific effect: a more unique character.

I get what you're saying when you say they're all interconnected, but you also understand what I'm saying so just meet me halfway?

Well, I don't know, if at some point we don't at least *try* to get *at least somewhat more* technical, these discussions risk becoming all alike.

And no, I actually don't know what you mean when talking about characters as separate from prose or plot. I really don't I never presume what one means; my training doesn't allow it. My training has also given me some definitions of some the terms used here that are definitely not a part of the consensus (if such a thing as a consensus about plot, character and prose even exists here). So I tend to ask. It's not technical. It's an attempt at more effective communication

Then: If you can achieve the effect "a more unique character" only through altering prose and plot, then the only way for *a reader* to glean that effect would be... through prose and plot, right? So their perception of your character would be entirely dependent on plot and/or prose. So how can they ever have a positive impression of a character if they don't have a positive impression of prose/plot? Can an indifferent attitude to prose and plot result in a strongly positive attitude to a character? This is what I don't get.

@ Jon - Well, "some" may have well done that. I know a few such readers myself. But in that quote of mine I'm talking about most. All right, I may qualify that: most readers I know/know about. My point is that rarely do I come across an instance of people articulating their (lack of) excitement about a book by discussing something more subtle than how cool the characters are or how the story bored them/kept them on the edge of their seats.

 

[BreakLater]

@ BreakLater:

Starting at the end - just talk about yourself then; I don't think it's necessary for your posts to "seem" to be addressing one thing, but "probably" to be addressing another thing. It's a thousand times easier to talk about yourself and not "the masses".

Well, the thing is, I don't know I'm talking about myself when I'm referring to myself in this manner. Surely, I'll be more conscious of it now. I suppose I could have been more self-aware initially but I'm on here for recreation. Just having a chit-chat. So sometimes I'm just trying out ideas and seeing how they feel on me. Counting on people like you to make me think them through.

Unfortunately, in most cases when I start discussing books with people, when *they* relate *their*excitements and disappointments, they do *not* point out any of these finer points. Their arguments begin and end with "great/sucky characters", "interesting/boring story". I'm not saying it happens like that all the time, but it usually happens like that.

Okay, now I see what you're saying about people refusing to acknowledge the finer points. Honestly, your earlier examples just seemed like you were asserting your reading comprehension.

Yeah, I hate it when people limit their criticisms to "it sucked" or "it was boring". I hate hate hate that. But nobody was doing that in this thread. I don't even think you can say that 'most readers' do that. Based on what evidence? Maybe a lot of readers on the internet? Even then we're talking your experience.

Surely speaking about a book in terms of it having characters and saying those characters can be analyzed as sort of a separate category from the book's prose and plot is not as simplistic as just saying "it sucked!" in your view?

Hence the generalizations. As to Kat's generalizations (that could have easily been mine or yours, because we both seem to agree with her) - I don't see them leading anywhere. They talk, in very broad general terms, about some very broad general preferences on part of a some general segment of the fantasy readership (in Kat's case - the fantasy readers she knows/knows about). I recognize it as completely true, but it fails to excite my interest in responding to it. Actually, how does one respond to such general statements at all?

Hmmm not that broad. Kat always uses lots of examples. Looking back I see her posts filled with examples.

If it fails to excite your interest...I guess don't respond to it?

Well, I don't know, if at some point we don't at least *try* to get *at least somewhat more* technical, these discussions risk becoming all alike.

I disagree. I think these conversations all start to sound the same because a lot of posters (and I myself have been guilty of this) pick things apart until the discussion is about the discussion which was about the discussion. It probably helps to use lots of examples, like Kat does, so you don't end up bogged down in generalities and vague arguments about conversational do's and don'ts.

Then: If you can achieve the effect "a more unique character" only through altering prose and plot, then the only way for *a reader* to glean that effect would be... through prose and plot, right? So their perception of your character would be entirely dependent on plot and/or prose. So how can they ever have a positive impression of a character if they don't have a positive impression of prose/plot?

Okay, that's a really good question. Now I'm seeing what you don't understand about separating those elements. I need to think on this one! I'll get back to you!

 

[Roland 85]

BreakLater, you misunderstand Trip's use of the word "technical". He doesn't mean nitpicking on the meaning of the words posters use, but going into more in-depth analysis of the works we're commenting. I do not entirely agree with him on the whole "everything is prose/style" thing, because, really, at a certain level it's not. I have read books with great plot and "whatever" prose (Sanderson) or books with amazing prose and boring plot (McDonald). But on another, more "technical" level he is absolutely right - plot, characters, prose - those are connected and part of the whole process called "writing". And therefore you can't have great plot and HORRIBLE prose. Not if you are even remotely aware of the way words work together. Mind you, Trip is right that many people are not aware, and just use the book as a storyboard for their AWESOME D&D FANTASIES or something. But if you are aware, and the prose is horrible, it will affect the plot, characters and everything else. It's just the way it works.

 

[KatG]

I also don't entirely get the point of observations about how "most readers" feel and what their generalized preferences are, however correct they may be.

It means that the prose versus plot axis is rather limited as the main dynamic in fantasy perhaps.

I mean, it's a matter of common sense to acknowledge that fantasy-readers (especially) tend to project themselves into the characters: most of them treat fantasy literature as escapism, after all. Most of them, also, construct the story (meaning the world, the events, the characters) in their heads using the text as rough blueprint, uninterested or simply oblivious to the finer points of prose richness, characterization techniques and plot structuring.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this at all.

I'm interested in their individual take on things, not general observations on the state of affairs in the fantasy readership today. Especially when it comes to Kat, who is inclined not only to using her head, but to writing at (interesting) length about the results of that use.

I already stated my individual take on the OP's question earlier in the thread and talked about a number of individual titles at various points. What specifically do you want me to talk about re the thread topic?

 

[Sparrow]

I've no idea how it's possible to speak of good characters in separation from plot and prose. That's what they are.

Same could be said of any aspect of a story.
Why talk about the plot if it isn't populated by interesting characters that make some deeper connection to the reader.
And you can have great characters, a strong plot, all written well, and still have a story that falls flat. That's why I originally said the story is what matters most. To Kill a Mockingbird is a wonderful example. I don't think To Kill a Mockingbird attains greatness on any of the elements of a novel, except for the story.

 

[owlcroft]

Been away for a while, so water has passed, um, under the bridge...

Character is the cornerstone of good fiction. Plot and prose pale in comparison!

Egad. Which is the most important leg of a stool?

The elements of a tale may be classed in many ways, but the traditional one seems to me to remain serviceable: language, plot, characterization, setting.

While strength in one can make up for weaknesses on others, as a generalization, no tale that is really weak in more than one of those can possibly be rescued by any combination of strengths in the others. One leg of the stool can be tottery, but not two, else the tale and the writer (along with its readers) ends up violently dumped on their respective butts.

That said, I repeat my earlier contention that to readers not cursed with a tin ear, workmanlike prose can be an end in itself, in the sense that while the tale qua tale may not succeed, there can be nontrivial residual pleasure in the mere reading of well-crafted sentences and paragraphs. As also I said, we can be well pleased by a song in a language we do not comprehend, merely by the musicality of it.

It is also my experience that while it is common--well, not common, not at all, but not really rare--to find a writer who presents clever plots, a satisfactory world-setting, and interesting characters in tooth-grindingly awful prose that makes it impossible to finish the tale, much less enjoy it, it is rare bordering on unseen to find a writer capable of eloquent, elegant prose who writes dreadfully bad characterization (or setting or plot). I guess we are left to deduce that it takes a certain amount, or at least type, of brains to write prose of good quality.

Writers who sustain thoughts worth thinking seem to reel off fine prose as naturally as most people breathe (as here, for example).

 

[Trip]

@ BreakLater:

When I talked about the "it sucked/it was boring" blueprint (or storyboard, as Roland called it) school of thought in fantasy, I wasn't talking about people here in this thread; I was defending my observation that lots of fantasy readers *do* read like that. And of course it's my own experience, I said that in my reply to Jon Strunk. But my experience is with over a hundred people of all sorts of backgrounds (meaning both education/reading experience and the kinds of places I have come across their opinions) and of all ages - at the very least. Their eyes mostly glaze over when we go beyond topics like: "I can't stand that retard Sansa!" or "Let me tell you my theory about whose son Jon is" or "Wow, that was an awesome plot-twist there; sure didn't that one coming! Cool!" (I'm giving examples of topics, not of the way people talk about them. Some of them can be very articulate, but their opinions generally amount to the above.)

@ KatG:

And in that relation, Kat - that's what I meant when I said fantasy readers tend to treat fantasy as escapism. I can't count the times I've had to deal with or read about "Who's gonna win in a single combat?"-type of questions. Also, treating characters as your best friends, or your annoying little brat-sister, or in any way like people you can meet on the street IS a form of escapism. To me. It's a much healthier form of escapism than running around with a cape and a magic stick, or spending eight hours a day writing fan-fiction with you as the protagonist and Cersei as your step-MILF (or Tyrion as your sly little love-gnome), but it's still a form of escapism. And yes, sure I've done it. Sure I still do. But I keep it to myself and don't let this into my aesthetic impression of a book.

(That last one is a sort of emotional/intellectual response (not necessarily coherent) that, in order to effect, you need to go beyond personal likes/dislikes for character, plot and setting.)

Reading the text as a blueprint can be liberating, but it curtails exactly the force of that aesthetic impression. "Who are you to point out the lack of homoerotic tension between Eddard and Jaime?! It's there! Screw you! Who are you to talk about Brienne and the interesting deconstructionationism or whatever of female fighting characters ? She's an ugly boring b**ch!"

Valid opinions all. We all choose what to take in and what to ignore when we read. Most people read only for entertainment. I read Sanderson's books for entertainment. They are terrific entertainment. But the way he structures his narrative (all these pseudo-ScottCardian introspective analyses) and the way he sometimes writes a sentence could have made me put the books down if I hadn't chosen to just not pay attention to some of these.

Still, I just feel that this kind of snipping away of potential meaning impoverishes greatly both reading and discussions about stuff we read. Not to mention I'm strongly opposed to the inattentiveness to language that the blueprint approach engenders - not only to language in literature, but to language in general.

And in *that* respect, concerning your examples - I wouldn't call Salvatore's language bardic. I wouldn't deign to call him even a workhouse writer. In that example I gave earlier in the thread there is an obvious grammatical error in the first paragraph of his book. I mean, I wouldn't compromise so much as to turn a blind eye to that. (It's a regular feature of his books.) Some would. Some would just skip/skim the text, gleaning the main landmarks of the story along the way. God knows I did when I had to review a couple of his books. But then I *had* to review them.

Also, I would certainly *like it* (I don't *want* anything from you or anyone else, I like to think I'm not that presumptuous ) if instead of saying "Feist has tried some really interesting things" or "Salvatore can do comic and he can do dark", or "I think these and these books by Brooks are really well-written", you would give an example of the interesting things Feist has done, or Salvatore's skills with different tones (I remember some of his "comedy" - in one book Drizzt and the gang had a great laugh, cause Bruenor couldn't get his axe out of the mangled body of a goblin, as if it were a tree stump. Tasteful.), or some arguments why you think Brooks' prose is good in this or that particular instance.

I'm not saying you should write a 10-page essay on any of these subjects, I would just like it if you gave us a taste of your direct readerly impressions, unfiltered through generalizations such as "well-written" or "an interesting, fun character"; imagine being in a creative writing class and you're scribbling notes in the margins of a fellow-writer's text. If Sturgeon had been my writing buddy (hm, maybe I'm kind of presumptuous sometimes ) at the end of his first two paragraphs I would have written: (great colors, the bronze, the red-gold, the leather-color, the pears, the gold leaf; all fits; great contrast with the girl feeling she doesn't fit). Or something like that.

And, more generally speaking, I really don't think something like the above is more difficult to do than just talking about "cool/sucky characters" or "boring/interesting plots". If someting in particular has made a particular impression on you, it shouldn't be difficult to express it articulately and with excitement. I'm sure Roland could easily write an ode about one particular monologue in The Shadow of the Torturer, without being able to write anything as nearly engaging and perceptive about the whole Book of the New Sun as awhole (and neither could I).

What I'm trying to do, when I talk about something I've read, is not simply state how this or that struck me, but describe something of the process by which it struck me. For a review or an opinion on a message board, one obviously has to pick and choose which impressions to describe in more detail, but still, even a little goes a long way, with me at least.

 

[Trip]

It is also my experience that while it is common--well, not common, not at all, but not really rare--to find a writer who presents clever plots, a satisfactory world-setting, and interesting characters in tooth-grindingly awful prose that makes it impossible to finish the tale, much less enjoy it, it is rare bordering on unseen to find a writer capable of eloquent, elegant prose who writes dreadfully bad characterization (or setting or plot). I guess we are left to deduce that it takes a certain amount, or at least type, of brains to write prose of good quality.

Owlcroft, I don't know about you but I would qualify the above like this: "... a writer whose plots, characters and setting *seem* clever, interesting, satisfactory - when you read *about* them, outside the book. But not when you experience them in the book itself."

 

[Sparrow]

Owlcroft, I don't know about you but I would qualify the above like this: "... a writer whose plots, characters and setting *seem* clever, interesting, satisfactory - when you read *about* them, outside the book. But not when you experience them in the book itself."

I think Owlcroft is simply stating that gifted writers whose command of craft has reached a high level tend to bring all the elements of novel together and tell a great story. Certainly you have plenty of specialists out there who do world building really well, or write really engaging characters, or weave wonderful plots, but in general they do it all pretty well and that produces worthwhile books.

Beyond that it's a matter of personal taste, as we see in this thread.
For me it's very simple, the story is king. I can forgive some sloppy prose, stiff dialogue, meandering plot, so long as the story kicks ass. If at the end of it, using Owlcroft's metaphor(or is it analogy?), the stool sits a bit unbalanced on uneven legs but is still able to support a great story, then I'm fine with it.

 

[Trip]

I may repeat myself but - my point is that you *cannot* write a "really engaging character", unless as you say all the elements come together. Actually, all the elements *do* come together, each time, in every book. The question is how.

As for the "specialists", they are specialists only as far as the *premise* of a character/setting/plot is concerned. An author may think up an incredible character concept. But whether the actual character is going to come across as incredible is entirely dependent on how you create it through language, incidents of the story, etc.

In that respect, Jordan is a world-building specialist. But since he's not a very good writer, his worldbuilding will always pale in comparison to Wolfe's, irrespective of the fact that Jordan's secondary world may be more perfectly structured and richer than Wolfe's (in theory).

 

[Sparrow]

I may repeat myself but - my point is that you *cannot* write a "really engaging character", unless as you say all the elements come together. Actually, all the elements *do* come together, each time, in every book. The question is how.

As for the "specialists", they are specialists only as far as the *premise* of a character/setting/plot is concerned. An author may think up an incredible character concept. But whether the actual character is going to come across as incredible is entirely dependent on how you create it through language, incidents of the story, etc.

In that respect, Jordan is a world-building specialist. But since he's not a very good writer, his worldbuilding will always pale in comparison to Wolfe's, irrespective of the fact that Jordan's secondary world may be more perfectly structured and richer than Wolfe's (in theory).

That's a great example and yeah, you're right.
But what about Lord of the Rings?
The prose is good, in some places it's even brilliant, but in toto not even in the same league as some of our best modern writers; the characters are a bit cliche, dialog sometimes stiff and predictable... and so on. But what a story! Tolkien completely understood the tale he was telling and it works... the whole not being equal to the sum of its parts.

 

[Trip]

I also thought it's a great example, yeah BUT on the other hand...

Some readers just want to fill their imaginations with stuff. Objects. Races, magic rules, that forest over here and that mountain over there, exotic clothes, dresses, strange customs. It doesn't matter if they cohere in the text. They don't rely on the text to create coherence in their heads. They rely on their heads. And from that point of view Jordan's worldbuilding is better. He writes about more stuff than Wolfe.

My point is - value judgements are secondary. Perception is primary. And on that primary level, even the smallest change can change the flavor of everything at once - plot, characters and setting, effectively making all three different. Better? Worse? You decide. But as long as you recognize that and don't go with the "anything will do, prose-wise/plot-wise, as long as the characters are great" mentality, you and I are in agreement.

This means that Salvatore's characters are not interesting and engaging independently of his prose. If his prose was different (for example, better, as I see it), his characters would be infinitely different (better), even if they remained essentially the same in terms of basic concept.

 

[Erfael]

In reading through this thread I'm reminded of a struggle I constantly face in my work...teaching modern, 21st-Century children to play the violin. One of the constant issues I (and colleagues around the world) are dealing with is a gradual deadening of artistic sensitivity. To the kids I'm dealing with, if they can put their finger on the right spot on the string and they can move their bow in the right direction and then repeat this for about 90% of a piece of music, they announce they're finished with it and are ready to move on. The aspect they tend to miss is that there is so much expression that can happen with what that bow does between starting and ending a note. The is such a broad range of colors and shapes that can be produced, certainly much broader than the honking they're doing. Even if I play the same piece back to them musically and non-musically and then ask them the difference, they'll usually, at best, try to find some out of tune note or purely physical difference ("In the first one you leaned your bow more") or, at worst, stare at me in total bafflement and tell me nothing was different at all.

Not only that, but the kids tend to be terrified to even try to be musical. The reason is that when they first try something new, they usually mess up something. When they try to be expressive with a given note or phrase, they usually end up playing a wrong note or making their bow go the wrong way. And that is total disaster in their mind. They got something wrong. The next step is usually a turtling up and back to robotic honking. My usual mantra is usually, "I don't care if you only play two good notes in the whole piece, just make some music."

For my first few years of teaching this was totally baffling. Over time though, I've come to blame it on the schools. In this state there are End of Grade tests, which are more important to the schools and the teachers than anything else in that schools who don't have high enough pass rates on these get into trouble and teachers that have high enough pass rates get bonuses. Kids who don't pass them, even if all their grades throughout the year are perfect, don't move on to the next grade. The result of all this is that the teachers teach to the test. Once the tests are over, for the last few weeks of school, they mainly watch movies and waste time. The primary concern is whether the kids can fill in the right bubbles on the sheet for those three days in the year.

None of has to do with interpretation or discrimination. There's very little critical thinking going on. I've been shocked a few times when I've had high-school-aged students come to me in how little they're able to take some set of information (basically everything they've learned so far) and apply it logically to some question. Even something that only requires about three logical steps between data and answer is too much for some of them.

More alarming than the lack of critical thinking is the lack of aesthetic thinking. It's just not important to the schools where I live. And it's alarming. The schools aren't interested in making human beings. They're interested in making people who can pass the tests and then get into college.

All that is a long way of saying I think that in ways the world is moving past this idea of "prose" that you're all exploring here in this thread. I don't mean us...after all, we're here because we love the written word. But for many people, the written word is merely a (necessary? inconvenient?) way to communicate data. Any kind of extra words or odd constructions that get in the way of merely communicating the idea is too much (and I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that get a lower grade in today's school environment than something without any artistic expression at all).