Shields believes that in the same way the music industry "samples" songs, authors should be able to sample other people's writing and words in their own work without citing sources. His premise is that novels are being written in an archaic way that doesn't represent today's reality...at least that's what I understand of it.
So, here I sit, thinking...really? The best way to modernize writing is to take pieces, verbatim, from other people and act as if it were your own original thought?
I suppose that Shields would argue that in this new "form" of writing, it should not be assumed that the author actually came up with everything in the book from their own head. But if that's true, then why would you even bother putting your name on the book in the first place?
I also feel like writing style would go completely out the window. If I can just piece together passages from all the stories in the world, it's going to sound pretty...disconnected.
These are just a couple of the concerns I have with this.
But what if this is actually a great idea? There are already autobiographies that blend fiction with fact, like "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius". Or what about books like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"? I know the difference between what Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith wrote. But someone not familiar with Austen might not know what was part of her original story and what has been added by Grahame-Smith (from what I'm guessing...I haven't actually read it). Is Shields' idea just the next logical step?
Honestly, I'm mostly against this. But it's an interesting conversation, in the very least.
No comments:
Post a Comment