In a message dated 97-04-20 20:43:30 EDT, you write:
> << Once in a while a talented writer will also have the
> knack of writing on a level where s/he can be produced quality work and
> still
> be understood and appreciated by millions--Dean Koontz is a good
example,
> as are Stephen King and Sara Paretsky, as were Heinlein and Asimov--but
> this
> is rare.
> >>
>
This topic, to me, goes to the question of why authors write stories at
all. I have never been published myself. However, on those instances when I
have thought of a story idea and written it out, my purposes were twofold:
first, to tell the story itself, whether because the story deserves it or
because I wish to flex my creative muscle, or because I wish to explore some
theme, etc.; second, to tell the story in a way that it can be readily
understood by, and perhaps even touch a chord of humanity in, the story's
reader(s). Those supposedly superior authors who write with a style that
precludes understanding by the majority of readers are, I believe, doing a
disservice to the very stories they have written. It is because of the
clarity of their writing that I like the works of Asimov, King, Heinlein,
Clarke, Resnick, and others. Are their stories of lower quality because they
can readily be understood by their readers? Of course not. However, and
here is my "controversial" point, I do believe that the opposite is true:
the stories written by authors whose prose is difficult to interpret are of
lesser quality. When I attempt to read their works, I sometimes ask myself
whether their works are really any good, or if they are hiding their
inability to express really worthwhile ideas clearly by using the style that
they do. If the idea is worthwhile, it is logical to me that expressing the
idea clearly is also worthwhile.
Jon R.
|