"For a piece of criticism, many magazines want you to have a
thesis statement in neon lights, and that is something I’ve been trying to
actively avoid doing. I think it’s just really unrealistic—both in terms of the
craft of writing and in terms of how unwieldy the world actually is—and often
not very fun to read. A good essay will have many arguments in it. The
arguments in the essays I write accrue—they’re almost narrative, in that you
start in one place and end up somewhere else. With a thesis statement, you have
nowhere to go, or you start at the end and go in a circle. "
- Lauren Oyler, interviewed for The Paris Review by Sheila Heti
Getting savaged in reviews for her new collection No Judgment ( a freakily forensic going-over here - breaking down the Wiki sources, including Wiki footnotes, behind one essay).... still, Oyler's observation above struck me as interesting thinkige.... the best blogging operates according to this logic... it has no obligation to pick up the thread, return to its starting point. Its starting point may not even be at the start.
That circular structure, returning the piece to its starting point, is a real trick of the trade for newspaper columnists. It's meant to give the reader the feeling that everything has been resolved neatly, the promise made in the opening paragraph has been kept. Like a piece of music returning to its original key.
ReplyDeleteI once read Caitlin Moran advising aspiring writers, saying that if you can't work out how to conclude your piece in a satisfying way, just cut-and-paste your second paragraph and put it at the end instead.
I've never read any of Oyler's work, so I have no view on whether any of the attacks are justified. But I think I am right that she has been scathing about some of her contemporaries and competitors in the past. There may be some scores being settled.
ReplyDelete