In 1952, Arthur Miller lamented the formulaic writing of the current generation, his major complaints being that writers weren't taking enough risks, that writing itself had fallen into the Japanese practice of telling and retelling the same story.
Yet writing is, and always has been, the act of striving to tell a familiar story in a new and exciting way. At its core, Middlesex is nothing more than a coming-of-age tale. 100 Years of Solitude is Biblical lore. The Lorax is a morality play. The Crucible itself is an adaptation of actual historical events.
Far more important than risks in content are risks in intention. Miller has confused his lofty aims and allegories for The Crucible with genuine literary originality. The story of a group persecuted simply for there to be someone to point the finger at had been often seen and told at this point in time (see: McCarthyism; the Holocaust), but the way in which it was told is what differentiates it from the pack. Must Love Dogs follows the classic "boy meets girl" formula and tanked. When Harry Met Sally did the same and shined.
The risks writers take can't be restricted to just the content of the story. If they were, we all would have turned Japanese a long time ago, and I'd be munching on sushi and taking a break to read some manga. Not that I don't do that anyway.
Just kidding. I hate sushi.
No comments:
Post a Comment