Question: Is there such a thing as universally interesting material? When I was in graduate school, my advisor once told me that one of the projects I was pursuing wasn't interesting. I spent a lot of time thinking about that because I always thought what was interesting was rather subjective. But, temporarily, I decided to embrace the idea that some things were universally interesting, and when I focused on those topics, I did typically find that other people were interested too.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Drip
I had no running water at my apartment last night. And, to top it all off, it was the night I got a haircut, so I had all these pricklies in my neck and ears. I ended up going next door and filling up pots of water and carrying them back to dump on myself, taking my bath Thai-style. It was invigorating, actually. And, today, I'm not even that smelly!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know that there is a universal interest, no. I know some topics are more likely to have a wider audience than others, but I do think that that is subjective. And unpredictable, to an extent.
ReplyDeleteNo, for the simple fact that an interesting topic can be met with terrible execution and made uninteresting in the process.
ReplyDeleteHaircuts. Those were the days...
No! I think that there is stuff that will only be interesting to a small group of people, and I think there are ideas that might seem like they'd be interesting to only a small group of people but could be put into a narrative that people find interesting. And there are things that are wildly popular that bore me silly. The things in which I personally am interested are, of course, the only really interesting things on earth. Honest.
ReplyDeleteL.T., I think saying that some topics have a wider audience is probably more accurate. But, then, is there something about those topics that makes them appeal to the wider audience? Is there a general statement that can be made about them?
ReplyDeleteAnd, you know, in the research sciences, "interesting" is often synonymous with "something you can get grant funding to investigate." Which is entirely different.
ReplyDeleteRick, I think that's a topic for another discussion. What if we assume that it wasn't about execution. Can anything be made interesting by the right writer?
ReplyDeleteDavin, I think that those topics which have the widest appeal have in common:
ReplyDelete1. that they are simple, and
2. that they confirm rather than challenge the prejudices of the audience.
Hey Scott, I hope you weren't planning a post for today. Sorry if I took over. Anarchy, you know, anarchy.
ReplyDeleteTo get to your comment..."put into a narrative that people find interesting"
I think this is what I'm getting at. Are there ways to construct the narrative that people find interesting? Is it a matter of setting up an obstacle?
Scott, I'm behind you one in your comments. Thanks for the response!
ReplyDeleteI think Scott surrendered his set days with his last post. So it's all up for grabs. Just don't take my Thursdays, you two, or you're in trouble.
ReplyDeleteDavin, here's my favorite saying: One man's junk is another man's treasure.
I know that my husband would find Jhumpa Lahiri so boring the stories would put him to sleep. He would appreciate that work as well written - but the subject matter? He'd hate it, I'm pretty certain.
I think my Cinders story is popular with a lot of my friends because the subject is already something that has lasted a long, long time. So what's universal? I like Scott's two points about what has a wide appeal - I think those ring true on a lot of levels.
Oh, and I'm just imagining you dumping water on your head. That makes me laugh. :)
ReplyDeleteDavin, I think that there are a couple of ways to talk engagingly about subjects that people might not think they're interested in. It might depend on the type of subject matter. In A.S. Byatt's four-book "Babel Tower" series she talks a lot about subjects that clearly interest her, that might seem dry and academic if approached in isolation, like in an essay, but Byatt wraps her subjects (focused observations about certain minutae regarding poetry, history, biology, religion) in larger character-driven stories written in gorgeous prose. Some other writers will get you interested in the story and then, in the middle of the book, take you on a long digression about what they really wish to discuss, and then let you finish the outer story. Some other writers are more subtle than this and weave a subversive theme through the entirety of the novel. But--and I hate to become vague here--I do think it depends on what it is you want to talk about, and why you want to talk about it. I don't think there's any one universal narrative structure that can make any subject widely interesting, if that's what you're getting at.
ReplyDeleteReally good points, Scott. I also think it depends on the audience. Young adult readers, for instance, will usually find certain subjects appealing because of where they are in their growth process. Females, of course, will usually find certain subjects appealing that men won't find appealing in the slightest. These are generalizations, but on the whole, I think every writer needs to have in mind who they are gearing their story toward. Of course, you can always just write for yourself and not give a hoot for audience. That's usually where the best (not always popular) writing comes out, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I know that the word "interesting" in scientific research means something a little different than "interesting" in literature or media.
ReplyDeleteTopics of relatable human experiences are broadly found "interesting," but I think it's a matter of broader or narrower interest--I don't think there is any such thing as a topic that is universally interesting.
I thought about this A LOT in college, but then I happily settled into being OK with the idea of writing for a niche audience--as long as it isn't TOO small of a niche. :)
My current WIP is unapologetically written for a female audience. I didn't expect males to find it interesting. Surprisingly, I'm gaining a number of male fans since I narrowed my intended audience. Go figure. Maybe it only means I've let go of trying to please everybody, and it somehow improved my writing.
P.S. Professors can be a snotty, salty bunch. Not that I don't love some of them. Just sayin'.
Michelle, thanks for your thoughts! Lately, I'm trying very hard to write about the topics that interest me the most. But, I guess I'm feeling stuck because I don't think those topics are widely interesting, and like Genie says, I don't mind writing for a small audience as long as the audience isn't too small.
ReplyDeleteAnd, for me, there is no difference between scientifically interesting and creatively interesting. For those that say there is, can you discuss more? Science that gets funded seems about as random as fiction that gets funded.
Lady Glamis, I was SO thinking that exact same thing!! What is interesting to one person may not be interesting to 100 others, but it's still interesting to that person. Yes, there are some things that do appeal to a wider audience, but that doesn't mean the small audiences are unimportant. I think that's where self-publishing and vanity presses are useful. A bigtime publisher might not find value (aka...big sales) in a piece, but the author can still find a home for their work.
ReplyDeleteDavin: I agree. I don't mind a small audience at all, but I'd like it to branch out past just people I know. I'd like people to at least spend money on it because they thought it looked fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit right now that this is why I wrote Monarch - spy stories seem to have a wide appeal, and I'll take great pride in the fact that Scott read the whole thing and didn't get bored when he read it. He says so, anyway. And that's not a genre he normally likes or reads. Monarch seems to have a wide appeal, and there's a lot of reasons for that. I think if you put butterflies in your work, everyone will love it. :P
As for the scientifically interesting vs. creatively interesting, I have no idea. I would think we're dealing with right brain/left brain stuff here? But I do agree that it all feels very random. My dad's a scientist and always talking about things that get funded and things that don't, but should. It feels very political to me.
Stephanie: I agree that self-publishing can be a wonderful, wonderful thing, and it's not something I'd ever be ashamed doing for my work if I reach the point where it's obvious the subject matter I've written just isn't widely appealing enough to get traditionally published.
Universally interesting: death, sex, scuba diving, sky diving, cliff diving (okay, basically any diving), extreme sports in general, and sex.
ReplyDeleteUniversally boring: nose hair, sandpaper, actuarial sciences, people who tell stories about their pets.
I may have missed some things in those lists. Add and delete as you feel led.
Absolutely not. Everything is subjective to personal opinion and taste. I do believe in the concept of limited audience though.
ReplyDelete........dhole
What about sexy actuaries with sky-diving pets? What then, Mr. Larter?
ReplyDeleteWell, crud. Now I'm picturing Scarlett Johansson in horn-rimmed glasses, carrying a chihuahua (with aviator goggles and a leather cap) in a wee handbag.
ReplyDeleteYou have proved me wrong, sir.
I just posted on my blog how kids have very different tastes concerning what they would choose to read, which makes it seem like I am going to say, no, there aren't topics of universal interest.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think there are themes which are of universal interest. These are the stories of humanity. So many stories deal with good vs evil because as humans, we are fascinated by the duality of our own nature.
So, yes, I think broad themes that deal with the human condition might be universally interesting to, er, um, humans I guess, but the ways in which they are written and the details of the story will either draw the reader in, or repel them.
Oh, man, sorry about the water situation. That's a bummer. I think most things can be interesting if written well. There are subjects that the general populace tend to circle around that are esp. interesting to them, but that doesn't mean that there are subjects that no one is interested in. If you're interested in it, then obviously someone is, and, if someone is, then others will be.
ReplyDeleteWhat your college professor meant was that the topic didn't interest him. It obviously interested you.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with whoever set that execution is important. A comedien can take something completely mundane and make it hilarious.
With regard to scientific research, I've heard "interesting" used, as in, financial "interest." It's still subjective and seems to make little sense, but it's whether a prof thinks there is funding or glory in the project's future.
ReplyDeleteIn my college philosophy departments, I've heard the word "interesting" used in a very specific way that has nothing to do with keeping a person's interest or being entertaining--in short, nothing emotional. It simply means that a statement can be argued for or against with logic.
No idea if that's standard or just some lingo that philosophy profs at Kalamazoo College and U of Michigan happen to use.