Pale Faulkner

Last week I finished reading Pale Fire, my first and long overdue Nabokov. It’s the best possible version of what John Gardner described as a skilled writer “jazzing around,” a novel constructed of the implications within the text—which, superficially, is a long commentary on a long poem—and the inferences of the reader. A story told entirely between the lines, so to speak.

There’s a lot going on in Pale Fire and I look forward to a future second reading, but one of the most poignant aspects of the book is the way the painful personal reflection in the poem—which concerns the poet John Shade’s family life, including the apparent suicide of his only daughter—is ignored by the poem’s editor and commentator, Charles Kinbote (or, perhaps, “Charles Kinbote”). Kinbote, in notes that inevitably drift into tangents, spins or misinterprets every possible line and word of Shade’s poem as allusions to the imaginary kingdom of Zembla and its exiled king, about which he tells verbose, self-indulgent stories that the reader gradually infers are about himself—another layer of the story.

As TV Tropes puts it: “While Pale Fire is about a lot of things, one of the biggest is literary commentators who can't help but use other people's work as mirrors onto their own neurotic obsessions.” Or, even better, Man Carrying Thing (in a genuinely brilliant video): “It’s a hilarious maneuver watching this commentator wrangle a sincere poem about art and grief into something about his favorite subject.”

Nabokov parodies this brilliantly, and so this was all fresh on my mind when, having finished Pale Fire Friday, I picked up a book that I last read probably twenty years ago: The Sound and the Fury.

I didn’t bother with the introduction to this edition, a nice new paperback that I got for my birthday, but after a few days I flipped through it and was struck by the academic ability to Kinbote basically anything. Faulkner’s novel, apparently, is mostly about racism, the legacy of slavery and white supremacy, and the Lost Cause (that bugbear, which I’m less and less sure actually means anything). This TED Ed video, since the latter apparently wasn’t enough, adds that Absalom, Absalom! is about “the region’s intolerable* history of genocide” to the mix.

But is this really what The Sound and the Fury is “about”? I’ve written several times in recent years about the prevalence of theme over story. As annoying and distracting as that tendency is for genre fiction (not a distinction I pay much mind to, but bear with me), the way it dominates discussion of literary fiction is intolerable.

The Sound and the Fury is first and foremost a family drama. The alcoholic father and bedridden mother; the promiscuous daughter; the brothers—one jealous, another hardworking and embittered,** yet another mentally handicapped—the help, themselves by turns loyal, impatient, entitled, detached, but never deceived; the loss of patrimony and the entire bunch’s financial straits; the sense of decay and decrepitude and judgment hanging over everyone—this is what The Sound and the Fury is about. The characters themselves impotently fume or resign themselves and more than one talks of afflictions, of curses on the family. Quentin moons around Boston feeling the weight of his own sin, not the legacy of slavery. And it is hard to read the long opening section, told from Benjy’s perspective, and see how different people treat him when no one is looking, and think that Faulkner was animated or even cared about these big social themes. If you must have something more abstract and high-falutin’ than these, decline, disappointment, and guilt are still better options than those buzzword themes because they’re closer to the characters.

Not that the themes cited above and so beloved of critics and tastemakers—who want to shepherd us into the correct interpretation of Faulkner’s story just as surely as Benjy’s caretakers want to keep him off of the golf course—don’t matter at all. They are trappings, necessary component parts of the setting and its history. A story like The Sound and the Fury that did not have Jason Compson lashing out at the family’s black help in frustration would be unrealistic and lack an important means of revealing character. But these trappings are not the point, and making them the point is to turn Kinbote on Faulkner.

The difference is that, in Pale Fire, Kinbote is a lonely weirdo. Today the Kinbotes hold conferences.

* Thank goodness for that “intolerable,” otherwise I wouldn’t have known what to think!

** There is a strong sense of the elder brother in “The Prodigal Son” about Jason Compson—despite being the Compsons’ second son—that I haven’t really seen explored. Something for the future, perhaps.

All of us undomesticated writers

John Mahoney as W.P. Mayhew in Barton Fink (1991)

In Barton Fink, one of my favorite movies, put-upon playwright Fink has relocated from New York to LA to work “in pictures” as a screenwriter. He’s overawed and unsure of himself. Then, in a chance encounter in the bathroom of a swanky Hollywood restaurant, he meets WP Mayhew, an acclaimed Southern novelist of modernist gothic literary fiction (and a souse—a great souse) clearly modeled on Faulkner. They have this exchange:

Barton: I had no idea you were in Hollywood.

WP [producing a flask]: All of us undomesticated writers eventually make our way out here to the great salt lick. Must be why I always have such a powerful thirst.

Annoyingly, this line has been recorded on the internet—at IMDb, in the Google AI summary, and elsewhere—as “make our way out here to the Great Salt Lake.” This is annoying not only because it’s inaccurate, but because it makes nonsense of a nice bit of dialogue, one that demonstrates the Coens’ powers of specificity.

Mayhew could simply have said that he’s working for Hollywood because he needs the money. That’s the import of his line, and his personal problems will have an important role to play later in the movie. But phrasing it this way does a several things at once:

First, it reveals character. Remember, this scene is his introduction. On the most superficial level, he is a Southerner. The self-deprecation, implying that he is in some way untamed, a sort of unapologetic apology, and the agricultural image sound right in his mouth. The Coens have always been minutely attentive to dialect and, paired with John Mahoney’s performance and accent, their writing here makes WP an instantly and utterly believable character.

Related—a subpoint of the above—WP’s ability to switch registers from high to low, which we get more of throughout the rest of the scene, is indicative of his education and literary talent. He’s capable of both rhetorical flight and the prosaic or crude. This duality will came back later in the movie.

Thematically, WP’s cattle metaphor plays into the movie’s already established satirical theme of the way Hollywood treats writers and, in WP’s specific case, reveals his dismissive attitude. He recognizes what Hollywood is doing, feels above this sort of thing, and can be wry about it. (And wry understatement of this kind is, in character terms, exactly right for this kind of Southerner.)

Finally, it introduces WP’s drunkenness, which, like Hollywood’s treatment of him, he shows he is aware of while treating it as a joke. The nice construction of the joke (salt… thirsty… ha!) also downplays just how bad his problem is. And like his treatment by the studio, he is content to do nothing about it.

That’s a lot going on in two sentences. (At least, if you understand and record them accurately.) Masterful work—not least because it seems so natural and effortless when you watch it—and something to strive for in one’s own writing.

I’ll also add that it’s funny—the whole scene is, including WP’s introduction barfing in a toilet stall while kneeling on a monogrammed hankie and Fink’s awkward, starstruck gushing once he realizes who he’s talking to. Unfortunately I can’t find anything more than a shot or two in trailers or video essays, so I’ll just have to encourage y’all to watch Barton Fink if you haven’t. Just be sure, as I advised in my Coen’s ranking post linked above, to watch it knowing as little about it as possible.

The nature of such work

The opening paragraphs of The Unquiet Grave, a 1944 collection of aphorisms and pensées by Cyril Connolly:

The more books we read, the clearer it becomes that the true function of a writer is to produce a masterpiece and that no other task is of any consequence. Obvious though this should be, how few writers will admit it, or having drawn the conclusion, will be prepared to lay aside the piece of iridescent mediocrity on which they have embarked! Writers always hope that their next book is going to be their best, and will not acknowledge that they are prevented by their present way of life from ever creating anything different.

Quite the opening salvo even if “an artist should always strive for his best” is not going to be a revelation to most of us, but the challenge intensifies in the second paragraph—to me the most striking passage:

Every excursion into journalism, broadcasting, propaganda and writing for the films, however grandiose, will be doomed to disappointment. To put our best into these is another folly, since thereby we condemn good ideas as well as bad to oblivion. It is in the nature of such work not to last, and it should never be undertaken. Writers engrossed in any literary task which is not an assault on perfection are their own dupes and, unless these self-flatterers are content to dismiss such activity as their contribution to the war effort, they might as well be peeling potatoes.

This brought me up short, and not because I disagreed with it.

I recently read this review of the great film historian David Thomson’s latest book, A Sudden Flicker of Light: A Revisionist History of the Movies. The reviewer notes Thomson’s fame as the author of the massive and authoritative Biographical Dictionary of Film—first published in 1975 and now in its sixth edition—as well as what seems to be Thomson’s steadily increasing dislike of movies: “He has come to think of cinema as the cave in the Republic. Unlike Plato’s prisoners, though, who have no real idea of what is going on in the world outside, we have willingly chained ourselves in order to avoid thinking about anything external to the self. We have let ‘the lifelike’, Thomson says, ‘distract us from life’.”

I have to agree with more than I’d like, and I’ve slowly recognized a dissatisfaction—a falling out of love, in the terms of that review—in myself with regard to the movies. I’m not sure anyone noticed, but I didn’t write a movie year-in-review for 2025. I doubt I’ll have one this year, either.

But I don’t think I’ve arrived at Thomson’s place, not least because I still love old movies. So what if the new stuff is mostly terrible?

Well, it’s the ephemerality Connolly notes that bothers me. If a cruddy movie nowadays seems like a waste of time, effort, money, and talent, how much more so when you think about what it will take to preserve that movie? Will anyone be watching movies in a thousand years? Will they be interested? Crucially, will they be able to?

The fragility and impermanence bother me, I think, because I spend so much time studying the Early Middle Ages. So little of ancient literature survived, and that thanks only to the enormous effort of anonymous copyists. Years ago in college I began to wonder just how well one of my own books would survive a similar chain of transmission. This was prompted by the unlikely duo of Cormac McCarthy and Jonathan Safran Foer. McCarthy, of course, was a textual and punctuation minimalist. His meaning comes from the words themselves, simpliciter. Foer’s books play all kinds of postmodern typographical games. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has a multi-page spree of a single unbroken stream-of-consciousness paragraph in which the lines slowly run together until the letters and words are indecipherable and, finally, a solid block of black ink.

Suppose a collapse comes, or simply a long downturn—not a bang, but a whimper. Which author will be easier to copy? Which is easier to read now? Everything I write now I write with a view to being understandable without accurate punctuation or things like the italics used for emphasis in the previous sentence.

Even one movie relies on so much technological infrastructure that I have to assume the entire medium will be lost someday. For those of us who love movies, are they worth the time? The effort? The mental energy? Digital versions will inevitably be lost, but will the physical films become just so much Linear A, or the carbonized scrolls of Herculaneum? Assuming some future Canticle for Leibowitz society arises and is able to view them again, will even that be worthwhile?

This is worth thinking about, because Connolly betrays himself a bit in that final line. Potatoes may not last—you’ll have to grow them again, and you’ll have to eat again—but that doesn’t make them pointless. And isn’t even a masterpiece ultimately impermanent?

I have no answer to any of these things, but I’ve been more and more concerned with things that last. The digital age is the most ephemeral thing there is. Our culture is electricity. How long does a flash of lightning last? How much of it is left once it’s over? Look at YouTube, Tiktok, social media, and consider the nature of such work.

Toad ex machina

For the last couple months I’ve been slowly reading The Wind in the Willows to the kids before bedtime. Last night we finished the penultimate chapter, in which Toad, having escaped from prison and reached Rat’s riverbank hole after a madcap cross-country chase in disguise, learns that Toad Hall has been taken over by the stoats and weasels who live in the woods. They’re living off the fat of Toad’s patrimony and wrecking his house, and, what is more, have guards posted and regular patrols around the perimeter of the property.

Rat and Badger rule out a direct attack. The stoats on guard duty will warn the weasels, who will be ready and waiting—provided Toad and company ever get past the guards. Despite Rat’s passion for weaponry of all kinds, they’re outnumbered and outgunned by opponents who have no scruples. How will they ever get in and reclaim Toad Hall?

Then we read this exchange and revelation:

“Then it’s all over,” sobbed the Toad, crying into the sofa cushions. “I shall go and enlist for a soldier, and never see my dear Toad Hall any more!”

“Come, cheer up, Toady!” said the Badger. “There are more ways of getting back a place than taking it by storm. I haven’t said my last word yet. Now I’m going to tell you a great secret.”

Toad sat up slowly and dried his eyes. Secrets had an immense attraction for him, because he never could keep one, and he enjoyed the sort of unhallowed thrill he experienced when he went and told another animal, after having faithfully promised not to.

“There—is—an—underground—passage,” said the Badger, impressively, “that leads from the river-bank, quite near here, right up into the middle of Toad Hall.”

“O, nonsense! Badger,” said Toad, rather airily. “You’ve been listening to some of the yarns they spin in the public-houses about here. I know every inch of Toad Hall, inside and out. Nothing of the sort, I do assure you!”

“My young friend,” said the Badger, with great severity, “your father, who was a worthy animal—a lot worthier than some others I know—was a particular friend of mine, and told me a great deal he wouldn’t have dreamt of telling you. He discovered that passage—he didn’t make it, of course; that was done hundreds of years before he ever came to live there—and he repaired it and cleaned it out, because he thought it might come in useful some day, in case of trouble or danger; and he showed it to me. ‘Don’t let my son know about it,’ he said. ‘He’s a good boy, but very light and volatile in character, and simply cannot hold his tongue. If he’s ever in a real fix, and it would be of use to him, you may tell him about the secret passage; but not before.’”

Now for an odd comparison:

One of the great weaknesses of Ready Player One is that every time narrator Wade Watts meets some hitherto unprecedented challenge, something that should pose a problem and complicate his quest, he waves dismissively to the reader and lets us know he actually mastered whatever skill is required to complete it—playing an obscure arcade game, watching every episode of some trash 80s sitcom multiple times, memorizing every line of Monty Python and the Holy Grail—ages ago. No biggie. Very convenient.

Wade has a stash of knowledge and skills he only mentions once it becomes relevant. Ordinarily something like this should be set up or at least mentioned beforehand, as in a fair-play mystery. (Contrast this with the best Harry Potter novel, The Prisoner of Azkaban, in which Rowling performs dazzling sleight-of-plot with all but a few key elements plainly visible from the beginning.) What Ready Player One does is not exactly deus ex machina, but it feels both contrived and lazy and it’s all too common in bad fiction.

Badger’s revelation in Wind in the Willows, on the other hand, which similarly introduces a solution to a thorny problem just as it seems impossible, works. It works because the way the information is revealed is rooted in the characters. We know Toad all too well by this chapter—of course if there were a secret passage no one would tell him. And we know Badger both through his actions and his reputation among the other animals—of course if there were a secret passage he would be the best person to trust with the secret. It feels natural and therefore credible not because the secret passage was set up beforehand, but because of what we have seen of the characters all the way through.

The other animals looked hard at Toad to see how he would take it. Toad was inclined to be sulky at first; but he brightened up immediately, like the good fellow he was.

“Well, well,” he said; “perhaps I am a bit of a talker. A popular fellow such as I am—my friends get round me—we chaff, we sparkle, we tell witty stories—and somehow my tongue gets wagging. I have the gift of conversation. I’ve been told I ought to have a salon, whatever that may be. Never mind. Go on, Badger. How’s this passage of yours going to help us?”

That Kenneth Grahame is able to get some laughs—again, rooted in character—out of this plot point is just the icing on the cake.

A weird, unique, brilliant, funny, and fun little novel, and so much better written and plotted than a lot of fiction today. (This climactic section is also quite consciously modeled on the Odyssey, something even my kids picked up on. Perhaps material for a future post.) I’m glad I’m finally reading it and hope to finish it tonight.

Dialogue, dialect, and expectations

Back at the end of last month I made a dumb joke on Substack that went viral. A classical educator I follow shared this meme, which he captioned “Finally, dealing with the real issues…”

I restacked it and added, on the spur of the moment, “Muse, sing of a guy who was wicked smart…”

I don’t keep close track of my Substack analytics but I think this is now the most widely viewed thing I’ve shared on there. That was May 31st, and June is about to end and I still get multiple notifications a day that someone has liked it or restacked it or—the point of this post—commented on it. And the people commenting on it have made the same highly original joke over and over for a month. Maybe it’s already crossed your mind as you read my silly invocation above:

That should say “wicked smaht.”

I haven’t counted but I’ve gotten at least a dozen, maybe two dozen, versions of that joke. It’s actually given me cause to think, again, about writing dialect.

My abortive series of long-form posts on Elmore Leonard’s ten rules of writing ended with a single post about dialect. Leonard’s rule: “Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.” After examining several long passages from different novels featuring different approaches to writing dialect, I arrived at six general guidelines, my personal approach to the problem. What I think is one of the most important is: “Keep phonetic spelling to a minimum, using it always to suggest a broader pattern that you don’t render.”

I have striven to follow this guideline, letting syntax and vocabulary suggest the way a character pronounces words—so that the reader hears it in his head—rather than spelling the pronunciation out. Heavy use of phonetic spelling becomes difficult to read, distracting, or, at worst, insulting to the dialect being rendered. But.

But sometimes some words are so distinctive to the way a dialect is spoken they become emblematic of that dialect. The result is that writing even a line of dialect speech that does not spell a distinctive word phonetically will be interpreted by the reader as a failure. An unforeseen pitfall, one I fell straight into.

In the 2004 film The Alamo, Billy Bob Thornton’s David Crockett only wears his buckskins and coonskin cap for what amount to PR appearances. When questioned by Jim Bowie about his hat later (“What happened to your cap? Crawl away?”), Crockett confesses to wearing it only because of his popular image: “People expect things.”

A useful point to keep in mind when writing dialect. Even as a joke.

Latitude and the borders of the possible

For Father’s Day my wife gave me a gift card to a brand-new local bookstore. I used it to pick up, at long last, a copy of AS Byatt’s Possession, first recommended to me years ago by my best friend at Clemson. The novel’s epigraph, a passage from Hawthorne’s preface to The House of the Seven Gables, struck me:

When a writer calls his work a Romance, it need hardly be observed that he wishes to claim a certain latitude, both as to its fashion and material, which he would not have felt himself entitled to assume had he professed to be writing a Novel. The latter form of composition is presumed to aim at a very minute fidelity, not merely to the possible, but to the probable and ordinary course of man’s experience. The former—while, as a work of art, it must rigidly subject itself to laws, and while it sins unpardonably so far as it may swerve aside from the truth of the human heart—has fairly a right to present that truth under circumstances, to a great extent, of the writer’s own choosing or creation.

“Romance” here hewing closer to its original medieval meaning of “adventure.”

As it happens, just yesterday I finished rereading The Thirty-Nine Steps for the fifth or sixth time—and the first time I’ve revisited a book for John Buchan June. Buchan’s dedication, to his friend and publisher Tommy Nelson, includes this oft-reprinted explanation of the kinds of books Buchan liked—and wrote:

You and I have long cherished an affection for that elemental type of tale which Americans call the “dime novel” and which we know as the “shocker”—the romance where the incidents defy the probabilities, and march just inside the borders of the possible.

There’s that word romance again.

Just the other day I saw an ordinarily thoughtful Substacker assert that condemning TV while reading “plot-driven genre fiction” was hypocritical, as the latter was no different from the former; the reader just holds his head in a different position from the TV viewer. This is not the stupidest thing I’ve seen online recently but it wasn’t far off.

First, there is nothing wrong with reading for entertainment. I’d even argue, as I will momentarily, that a book should at the very least entertain, whatever its subject. But the romance, the story that stays “just inside the borders of the possible” and for which the reader must—but most often quite gladly—grants “a certain latitude,” need not be mere entertainment. A good plot and a little excitement open the imagination to truth and argument better than any bluntly stated thesis. If genre fiction is nothing more than brainrot, why have our most gifted writers turned their hands to it over and over for centuries? Why did Jesus tell pointed, engaging, and surprising stories in popular forms?

Per CS Lewis, for whom the fantasy stories of George MacDonald “baptised” his “imagination” long before the arguments of his friends Tolkien and Hugo Dyson could reach him, “every book should be entertaining. A good book will be more; it must not be less.”

Buchan and Hawthorne could hardly be more different, but I appreciated the consonance between their explanations of what the novelist who aims for something more striking than kitchen-sink realism—Hawthorne’s “very minute fidelity”—dull modern or postmodern rumination, or pure didacticism must do. The reader willing to grant that latitude and march with the author on the ragged edge of believability should, if the author knows what he’s about, be amply rewarded.

* * * * *

Our new bookstore is a small local brand of M Judson of Greenville. Check them out here. I reviewed The Thirty-Nine Steps for the very first John Buchan June in 2022. You can read that here. Last year I reflected on the duty of the good writer—in this case, Len Deighton and Ian Fleming—to entertain as a prerequisite to doing more here. And yesterday I recorded a podcast with a longtime reader about Buchan and The Thirty-Nine Steps specifically, a conversation I’m excited to share with y’all. Be on the lookout.

On audacity and plausibility

Earlier this week I got the chance to catch up with my friend JP Burten. We were talking about a recent writing project of his that involves Bitcoin as a plot element and he noted, as an aside, that he doesn’t really know anything about cryptocurrency. Could’ve fooled me, I said. I found his use of it for the purposes of his story completely believable.

I related my own plausibility story. In Dark Full of Enemies, Colour Sergeant Graves, the commando team’s explosives expert, carries a small tin of thermite with him for improvisatory use. In the sabotage scenes leading to the novel’s climax, the team uses some of this to melt the steel doors of the dam shut, sealing in the main explosive charge and thwarting German efforts to counterattack and remove them. I put a lot of imaginative effort into this passage and was pretty pleased with it, especially as a chance to play with the Arctic winter setting and theme of darkness:

McKay took the tin and went to the end of the gallery. At the steel door he took out a wad of thermite, prepared by Graves at the Petersen house, and a match and squashed it into the gap in the jamb, just above the lock. He set the bolt and lit the thermite.

The little wad caught and burned white. Molten steel fizzled and guttered in sun-bright globs onto the floor. The tunnel lit up—McKay shut his eyes. He had not seen real light for days. Yellow metal coursed in runnels down the jamb, cooling as it went. A minute later, and only the lock still glowed. The rest of the door stood smoking, fused shut.

“I’ll be damned,” McKay said.

He set another pinch of thermite in the jamb just above the lower hinge, set it aflame, and left.

But—I have no idea whether that would work. I did research on thermite (and knew more about it then than I remember now) but never determined whether one could use it the way Graves does. And yet no one has ever called that out as unrealistic, even the technically-minded Tom Clancy fans who’ve taken a look at Dark Full of Enemies and enjoyed it. Whether it’s possible or not, it came across as plausible enough to work.

Per my discussion with JP, the writer can—and should—do research and plan and prepare, but sometimes what sells something questionable is pure confidence. Whether a technical detail like these two or a plot contrivance or coincidence, present it without blinking and it’ll seem plausible. Believability is the daughter of audacity.

This requires art and good judgement and is no substitute for actually knowing things but, like Graves’s tin of thermite, it’ll do in a pinch.

Our conversation was prompted by JP’s new novella Dead Drop, a followup to his mystery The 8-Bit Detective, an internet-age cozy mystery. Dead Drop is a fun, tightly constructed short read and available free on his website.

The writing rule everyone misses

A recently popular genre of Substack note—judging by what the algorithm sends my way, anyway—is complaining by writers about “rules” for writing. These frequently take the form of fulminations against old advice to avoid adverbs. To paraphrase one note, which if I remember correctly was originally much ruder, “Every adverb I write is a little screw you to Stephen King.” More broadly, some will argue that the there are no rules for good writing and even to formulate rules is a kind of tyranny or imposition or—for a special subset of writers who self-consciously posture as independent outsiders—the mark of the dreaded “MFA writing.”

I can’t speak for every writer who has ever laid out a list of rules for their own writing, but these Substack warriors could save themselves a lot of time and lower their blood pressure by noticing one all-important caveat or disclaimer in every good list of rules I’ve ever seen: break the rules if breaking them will produce better writing.

In the early days of the blog I collected three sets of writing rules from three favorite writers: CS Lewis, George Orwell, and Elmore Leonard. They have areas of broad overlap, especially a concern with precision and clarity, but here’s perhaps the most important:

• Orwell: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”

• Leonard: “If you have a facility for language and imagery and the sound of your voice pleases you, invisibility is not what you are after, and you can skip the rules.”

Orwell’s rule comes at the end of his list; Leonard’s before he even lays his out. They’re emphasizing that these are their rules for how they write, a set of strictures that they have found effective, but space must remain for artistic judgment. This rubbishes another species of Substack complaint about rules, one often leveled at Orwell specific: that of hypocrisy.

Most of the complaints I’ve seen about rules for writing stem from a misapplication of or unwarranted rigidity in a using particular set of rules. This is a legitimate problem. The rule against adverbs exists not because adverbs are inherently bad, but because they become a crutch for weak writers. Most of the items prohibited by lists of rules have this temptation about them: overuse of adverbs can cause verbs, where the action happens, to atrophy; overspecific dialogue tags can, in addition to reading clumsily, bear more of a burden of information than the dialogue itself; passive voice can become an unthinking habit until the involuted relation of subject and verb in repeated passive sentences kills the pace of writing. Noticing and controlling these effects is necessary for strong prose; never, ever using an adverb or passive voice is something a high school English teacher might enforce (indeed, I know specific examples), but is an overreaction.

Again—the authors who lay out these rules usually say exactly that. These rules aren’t hard and fast. These rules aren’t universal. Sometimes you must break them. After all, they’re my rules.

One would think that would settle it, but some of these complaints also seem born of willful misunderstanding or mere resentment. This isn’t limited to Substack writers: I was surprised several years ago to see Ursula Le Guin taking an obvious potshot at Leonard in her book on writing. She took much the same tack, talking about his rules as if they are obviously phony and accusing him of hypocrisy. She was wrong, and the complainers are wrong.

Most crucially, rejecting or refusing even to consider rules and constraints will warp a writer’s artistic judgment. Any attempt to be bold or daring must begin at a baseline, because without that one cannot make judgments about what does and doesn’t work, and a writer who never works within constraints will never grow. Writing without rules is no more feasible than living without them.

* * * * *

Addendum: Even Strunk and White, who are the object of a Two Minutes Hate that comes in almost predictable cycles, were trying to train the sensibilities of beginners, not lay down eternal laws of good writing. One can write well while ignoring their advice, but not until it’s become a conscious decision, not a habit one slips into.

Preliminary notes on worldbuilding

Over the weekend I started reading my first Star Wars novel, Heir to the Empire, by Timothy Zahn. This isn’t my usual fare but it came highly recommended enough by enough trusted friends that I finally picked up a copy last year. I’m enjoying it.

What I’ve found especially enjoyable is the convincing post-Return of the Jedi situation Zahn imagines: the Empire struggling to recoup its losses, especially in manpower, and calling in reserves from the outer edges of its reach, and the Rebellion threatened by diverging priorities, in-fighting, overconfidence, and poor choices leading to bad PR. Grand Admiral Thrawn is not unlike “Hitler’s Fireman,” Field Marshal Walter Model, being rushed from one doomed campaign to another on the strength of his tactical acumen, and this outcome for the Rebellion will be familiar to anyone who saw Lawrence of Arabia or who has studied the American Revolution in real depth. (It is, in fact, the better outcome, since the members of most resistance movements end up like the protagonists of Rogue One, the most realistic Star Wars movie.)

That is, Heir to the Empire has good worldbuilding.

I hate the term worldbuilding.

It was cute as a term for what novelists, especially those dealing in fantastical or unfamiliar worlds, have to do to make their stories believable the first 10,000 times I heard it. But the more I heard it the less I liked it, or at least the way it was used—especially when it was used as a single criterion for praise of condemnation of a novel.

At any rate, Heir to the Empire got me thinking about this topic again, and I wanted to get some of my thoughts and misgivings about it down in writing. Consider the following informal preliminary notes toward a full account of worldbuilding.

As I conceive of it, “good” worldbuilding works along or toward the following aspects of a story:

• Plausibility

• Complication

• Depth

• Thoroughness

In addition to their obvious purposes—any story should be plausible, right? and “deep” is always preferable to “shallow”—the first three should all suggest the fourth.

This brings me back, as so often, to John Gardner’s “fictive dream.” I’ve written about this in much more detail before, but the short version is that fiction works like a dream in absorbing the dreamer’s attention with a situation and story that are unquestionably real as long as the dream endures. It should be “vivid and continuous,” with the reader’s senses convinced by carefully selected concrete details and nothing to distract and “awaken” them.

Gardner’s conception of fiction as a dream is key to my own understanding of writing, but if it is missing or fails to account for anything it is the strangest and most uncanny aspect of dreaming. In a real dream, we simply know a lot of things beyond the specific events and details of the dream itself. A dream comes prepackaged with unexplained context. This is often the most difficult part of a dream to explain to whatever patient person you’re telling about it: “I was in the lobby at work, but it wasn’t really the lobby, it was an airport terminal, and I was there to…”

Worldbuilding’s best and most proper function, I think, is to fulfil this role, to provide context for what is assumed by the characters within the story. Because really vivid characters will seem to have existed before your story begins, in a world that was carrying on without waiting for you, the writer, or the reader to show up.

I have two basic problems with worldbuilding as it is popularly talked about. The first arises with the verbs I keep using: seem just now, and suggest above.

There is no law governing how much worldbuilding an author should or must do for a given story. It’s going to depend on the story. A novel about ordinary people with nine-to-five jobs set last year will not need a lot of deliberate, calculated explanation. A story set in, say, the marches between the native Britons and the invading Anglo-Saxons in AD 550, or in a fantasy world, or in a galaxy far far away, will require much more. In writing a novel like these, some authors will lay it on with a trowel, and some readers will complain if they don’t.

But worldbuilding works best by suggesting thoroughness. The full world imagined by the writer should come through organically, without a lot of direct explanation, and “build” through allusive power that also characterizes and advances the plot. This requires skill and art. The infodump—which is not the same thing as exposition—does not. The writer must resist the urge to put every detail on the page. They must know what to leave out.

Pro and con examples: Tolkien is the paradigmatic example of allusive, suggestive worldbuilding done well. People who complain about the long songs or mentions of “irrelevant” legends of historical characters miss this dimension of his storytelling and read an impoverished version of his work. Robert Jordan, on the other, hand, actually does most of the things people accuse Tolkien of doing: going off on tangents, bringing the story to a halt for extraneous info, overexplaining, overdescribing, overstuffing.

My second problem with worldbuilding is that, as much as it is discussed as some special characteristic of fantasy, science fiction, or some other genre, it is something all writers of all fiction should be doing. Indeed, if they’re doing a good job of writing fiction at all, they’re already doing it. It is inseparable from imagination and good craftsmanship and is, ultimately, a meaningless subcategory of creativity. See again Gardner’s fictive dream.

Again, these are notes on the subject, not an exhaustive treatment. I may revisit the topic again soon, especially if having gotten this into writing I’m able to refine my thoughts.

Does it matter if the movie is faithful to the book?

Over the weekend Substack, in its mysterious way, showed me a month-old note by a literary critic I follow and respect. Since this is a month old and there was already some debate along these lines in the comments, I’ll share and gloss it anonymously:

It doesn’t matter if the film is faithful to the book.
It’s a film! Judge it as a film.
And anyway, you cannot faithfully turn prose into film.
It’s an affront to literary genius to think otherwise.

I’m not actually sure what the last line is supposed to mean. How does holding a filmmaker to a high standard when adapting a writer’s work degrade the writer? But I strenuously object to the rest of it.

To work backwards, the critic here is asserting that the difficulty of adaptation from one medium into another actually makes it impossible—“you cannot faithfully” adapt from book to film, he says. An appalling oversimplification. What does he mean by “prose,” here? When we talk about how a book is adapted into a film and the film isn’t faithful, we might mean it fails with regard to one or more of the following:

• The literal events of the book

• The overall story arc of the book

• Particular details of the settings and/or characters

• The narrative structure of the book

• The meaning or thematic import of the book

• The tone of the book

I’ve tried to arrange that list from simplest to most complex. The events narrated in a story are the easiest to get on screen. The meaning, what the author is apparently both getting out of the story and trying to share through it, and the tone of his storytelling are much harder. We’ve probably all seen movies that more or less adapted a book’s events without capturing the immaterial elements that give the book personality. A Handful of Dust, a quite literal adaptation of the great Waugh novel, comes to mind, as does the John Wayne True Grit. But other films might deviate here and there from the original while nailing its tone and moral register. The Coens’ No Country for Old Men and True Grit, both of which capture most of the events of their respective novels while, much more importantly, faithfully adapting their tones, are masterpieces in this regard.

All of this, according to our critic, is just “prose,” which “cannot faithfully” be made into a film. Cannot. This is not only oversimplified but wrong. Adaptation is difficult, but that we want to judge faithfulness at all indicates that it can be done, and can be done well.

Our critic is on firmer ground in asserting that films and books should be judged by different artistic standards, but this is common sense. Novels and movies tell stories in different ways and may or may not do so well, of course. But—still moving backwards—to assert a novel and its film adaptation are so separate that “it doesn’t matter” whether the adaptation is true to the book is foolishness.

Of course it matters. It matters because if a film adaptation of a book exists it exists because of the book. If a movie presumes to share a title with an author’s book, if it is meant to please readers of the book at all and not to be purely parasitic on the writer’s work and readership—we’re all familiar with the term cash-grab by now—the filmmakers owe it to the book to be faithful in at least some of the areas listed above. And having established that faithfulness is not, in fact, impossible, they owe it to the original to try.

I think it also matters because this kind of talk about the difficulty or impossibility of faithful adaptation has far too often served as an excuse for vandalism. Some vandalism originates with filmmakers contemptuous of their literary source material and wanting to drag it down to their level. Some comes from filmmakers who hubristically think they can improve on great literature. But perhaps the most common problem is the filmmaker with neither contempt nor reverence for the original, who sees it only as raw material to be reworked according to his preferences. It’s all content, after all.

This was my problem with two of the worst film adaptations I’ve seen in the last few years, The Green Knight and All Quiet on the Western Front, both of which—if you look at my reviews—I tried to judge on their merits as films while also noting their utter failure as adaptations. They don’t adapt the events, characters, meaning, or tone of the originals even a little bit faithfully. Are we to give them a pass because they have nice cinematography? Because they try to flatter our present assumptions?

There are other reasons to demand faithfulness of a film adaptation—the movie may be the one and only time many viewers, especially students, encounter any version of an author’s story—but these, I think, are the strongest. There is room for debate, of course. Arguments about whether and how Peter Jackson succeeded in adapting The Lord of the Rings, for example, have been fruitful for an appreciation of both the film trilogy and the novel. But handwaving even the possibility of faithfully adapting a book is bad for both.

A film might be just a film, but a film based on a book exists in relation to that book. If an author cared enough to write it and readers cared enough to read it, filmmakers owe them something more than apathy, hubris, or contempt. So do critics.