Too clever by half

I think the problem with the argument is it implies that work written for laughs, or work with a catchy, clever-clever concept, can't have any heart. I often find it's the case that this kind of work has more to it than the sort of stories that strain for everyman profundity. The best jokes are the ones that ring true. The catchiest concepts are the ones that fill a void. But I also like stories that are seemingly very plain, with no obvious point or concept to them. I like them because I feel they're defying my culturally-ingrained need for a particular kind of closure, or reason-for-being. They seem more fugitive. In fact, I think my least favourite kind of story is the one with a tight plot, solid characterisation and an important issue at its heart.

Hey Jon, loved your response. I basically feel the same way, but couldn't really articulate it. Now you've done it for me. Almost as if you had a particular flair for language...

Or not clever enough by three-quarters. Visit my blog: http://whatisthisstrangeplace.blogspot.com/

I agree with Jack Cade, 'The best jokes are the ones that ring true. The catchiest concepts are the ones that fill a void.' However, I despise clever wanking on one's own feet. It is easily done, and I have been so guilty of writing stuff that has no heart and to be honest, is also utterly unintelligent. I read a poem by Spack the other day that truly pissed me off. I apologise for targeting him, but I have already expressed my contempt. My humble view is that I would respect him infinitely if he was able to write such a masochistic poem ( tongue in cheek, nod to a specific sliver of a predominately male audience. Aren’t I clever with language, look how I am subverting the stereotype) and also be at least willing to write a poem from say.... a male rape victim's point of view and try the same thing. Maybe I am getting het up over nothing, but truly it pisses me off. There is such a niche for groups such as Aisle 16, and they are truly brilliant. However, whenever watching them there is always a nagging sense that it is word wanking. Clever clever word wanking with a point (sometimes) Right, angry rant over. I apologise. Specifically to Spack. Span

What's this 'on one's own feet' business? Surely a more apt metaphor for obnoxious show-off writing is 'wanking on one's readers' faces'?

All forms of poetry are clever clever word wanking. Whenever you introduce arbitrary constraints like metre and rhyme, you're subordinating substance in favour of style. Whether a poem is a requiem for a stillborn child or a snarky tirade against celebrities, the point is essentially 'come revel in my ingenious use of words'. That's why translated poems and lyrics are such patent crap - the actual content is usually humdrum and/or obvious. 'Surely a more apt metaphor for obnoxious show-off writing is 'wanking on one's readers' faces'?' Wanking off on someone's face is an act of love, Jon. Wanking onto one's shoes - given the trajectories involved - would, I imagine, be quite tricky and yet utterly pointless - á la showy-offy writing.

"Wanking off on someone's face is an act of love, Jon." I rather think Will Self would say the same thing about his literary career. In any case, wanking into someone's face when they're trying to read is impolite, and wanking onto one's shoes surely only requires that one takes off one's shoes and places them where they would rather have their readers' faces. "Whether a poem is a requiem for a stillborn child or a snarky tirade against celebrities, the point is essentially 'come revel in my ingenious use of words'." You might as well extend that to all forms of writing. Whether the function is to convey a story, an emotion (bleh) a joke or otherwise, it's the writer's 'ingenious use of words' that is supposed to be on show. Poetry's no more wanky than any other use of language that doesn't perform an entirely practical day-to-day function.

Aha! Wrongo, Mr Stone; stories contain lots of other pleasures - characters, plot, etc - that you rarely if ever encounter in poetry. For most non-literary writers, the writing's just a means to an end. Whilst I don't think that poetry's particularly wanky, I have to say that my relationship with it is a lot less warm than my relationship with prose. I hardly care for any of my own poetry, and I'm rarely more than mildly amused by that of other people, whereas stories really have the power to connect with me. I just think prose is better. Oh, and thanks for the shoes tip. But I think your 'wanking into someone's face when they're trying to read is impolite' is somewhat culturally-bound; in some cultures, it is a mark of great respect, for instance, on Sexy Island.

You're such a xenphobe Tim. Everybody thinks that just because Sexy Island is called Sexy Island that everyone who lives there is really into being wanked on. Some tribes on Sexy Island have never had sex. They think it is yucky. Check your facts next time.

Ah no, you're right - I was thinking of Jersey.

"Aha! Wrongo, Mr Stone; stories contain lots of other pleasures - characters, plot, etc - that you rarely if ever encounter in poetry." All those 'pleasures' are things that are conveyed far better in film or on television. Or even in comics. Using bare prose as a means of getting such things across is like cooking a three course meal for a restaurant full of people without gas or electricity. I'll concede that there are two other reasons for writing prose. First of all, if you're a hack who makes money from airport novels, and secondly, if it's intended to be the first step towards getting a film made, a la Dan Brown. If you don't have one of these two purposes in mind, you're wanking on your own shoes.

Jon Stone casts his line and waits for a bite... but aha! The novelist fish shuns the bait and swims to freedom!

Cluck cluck.