I think there will always be critics who want to categorize and authors who object to such categories. That's partly because the critic is engaged in more analytical thinking, while the author is engaged in more creative thinking. The two types of thought are not opposites, but they involve looking at reality through a different lens. Analysis years for categorization. Creativity yearns for a lack of external restraint.
In my younger days, I read a lot of analyses of Greek mythology in which the critics made heavy use of saga and marchen as descriptive terms. Almost universally in that kind of writing, saga referred to material closer to history (like the Iliad) while marchen referred to the more fantastic stories (like the exploits of Perseus.. These are not the original German meanings, as you point out, but one could argue that they meant something specific in the literary criticism of a certain era.
I agree with you and love the analogy of the viewing of the work through two sides of the same lens. What I respect about the older critics (like Northrop Frye, Erich Auerbach, and Ernst Robert Curtius) was that they laid out early on what gauges and measures they would be using to evaluate a work. If they were going to adopt a term like “saga” and apply it in a specialized way, they clearly defined that in the introduction or over the course of their essay. I feel that many fiction writers today are reversing the lens that you described and, instead of leaving the work open for a critic or reader to interpret or contextualize, the writers themselves are telling the reader beforehand how the work should be read: “What you are about to read is a story of psychological trauma involving the sea of exactly 100 words written in response to a prompt suggested by so-and-so.” That doesn’t feel very authentic. I contrast that to the trippy experience of reading Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse Five” for the first time. That could never have been written to a prompt. And it cannot be easily categorized.
I love this, Daniel. Really fascinating history, and the illustrations are gorgeous. And, yes, I never understood the need for intensively classifying anything and everything to do with the arts in the first place (mini-movements and microgenres are my pet peeve, whether in literature or music). These are by definition subjective, creative realms, and should defy taxonomic classification, but our instinct is to shove them into smaller and neater boxes anyway. Perhaps another way to slice and dice our own identities by identifying with ever more niche cultural artifacts. But do they enhance our understanding or enjoyment of the work itself? I don't see how. I've often wondered what exactly is gained by focusing on the word count of a story at such a minute scale, and naming each new iteration. It can be a fun exercise to, say, set out to write a story that is exactly X words, but I wouldn't want to make a career of it or slap a label on it. After a while, as with any formula, you stop writing the story and the story starts writing you. This seems like a creativity killer. Just say what needs saying.
And thank you for correctly defining "fable" and "saga." One of the (many) things that has baffled me about the traditional publishing world is its weird insistence that the word "saga" should apply almost exclusively to family sagas. I'm not sure why that distinction came about, but it always seemed arbitrary, like insisting all fables must be about anthropomorphized animals. Luckily, we don't have to work under anyone else's narrow definitions :-)
This comment made my day. I’m so glad I’m not the only one frustrated with the “mini-movements and microgenres” of the art world. It makes me wonder if the hyper-focus on short-form fiction among certain writing communities on the internet is because many of the authors engaging in it simply can’t write longer stories. In the ‘80s I used to write microfictions on the fly leaves of my Judy Blume novels — with a purple glitter pen, no less. But I would never have thought of trying to market these as “windows into the adolescent mind” or hawking them for $$$.
some writing i call ‘memoir stylings.. & explain if ‘any fiction’ is deployed within & my ‘excuse or reason’ - ideally All are Under 5 minute read some are just an ‘idea, image or poem ..
I like that. I do like the very short form of storytelling. Otherwise, I would not have amassed such a collection. A really short tale can have the effect of a tarot reading. 😊
there’s lessons in legendary tales.. stranger than fiction n that’s a fact i’m witness too.. but i can say this re most of us .. ‘when the going gets weird.. Hunter S 🦎🏴☠️🧨
I think there will always be critics who want to categorize and authors who object to such categories. That's partly because the critic is engaged in more analytical thinking, while the author is engaged in more creative thinking. The two types of thought are not opposites, but they involve looking at reality through a different lens. Analysis years for categorization. Creativity yearns for a lack of external restraint.
In my younger days, I read a lot of analyses of Greek mythology in which the critics made heavy use of saga and marchen as descriptive terms. Almost universally in that kind of writing, saga referred to material closer to history (like the Iliad) while marchen referred to the more fantastic stories (like the exploits of Perseus.. These are not the original German meanings, as you point out, but one could argue that they meant something specific in the literary criticism of a certain era.
I agree with you and love the analogy of the viewing of the work through two sides of the same lens. What I respect about the older critics (like Northrop Frye, Erich Auerbach, and Ernst Robert Curtius) was that they laid out early on what gauges and measures they would be using to evaluate a work. If they were going to adopt a term like “saga” and apply it in a specialized way, they clearly defined that in the introduction or over the course of their essay. I feel that many fiction writers today are reversing the lens that you described and, instead of leaving the work open for a critic or reader to interpret or contextualize, the writers themselves are telling the reader beforehand how the work should be read: “What you are about to read is a story of psychological trauma involving the sea of exactly 100 words written in response to a prompt suggested by so-and-so.” That doesn’t feel very authentic. I contrast that to the trippy experience of reading Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse Five” for the first time. That could never have been written to a prompt. And it cannot be easily categorized.
I love this, Daniel. Really fascinating history, and the illustrations are gorgeous. And, yes, I never understood the need for intensively classifying anything and everything to do with the arts in the first place (mini-movements and microgenres are my pet peeve, whether in literature or music). These are by definition subjective, creative realms, and should defy taxonomic classification, but our instinct is to shove them into smaller and neater boxes anyway. Perhaps another way to slice and dice our own identities by identifying with ever more niche cultural artifacts. But do they enhance our understanding or enjoyment of the work itself? I don't see how. I've often wondered what exactly is gained by focusing on the word count of a story at such a minute scale, and naming each new iteration. It can be a fun exercise to, say, set out to write a story that is exactly X words, but I wouldn't want to make a career of it or slap a label on it. After a while, as with any formula, you stop writing the story and the story starts writing you. This seems like a creativity killer. Just say what needs saying.
And thank you for correctly defining "fable" and "saga." One of the (many) things that has baffled me about the traditional publishing world is its weird insistence that the word "saga" should apply almost exclusively to family sagas. I'm not sure why that distinction came about, but it always seemed arbitrary, like insisting all fables must be about anthropomorphized animals. Luckily, we don't have to work under anyone else's narrow definitions :-)
This comment made my day. I’m so glad I’m not the only one frustrated with the “mini-movements and microgenres” of the art world. It makes me wonder if the hyper-focus on short-form fiction among certain writing communities on the internet is because many of the authors engaging in it simply can’t write longer stories. In the ‘80s I used to write microfictions on the fly leaves of my Judy Blume novels — with a purple glitter pen, no less. But I would never have thought of trying to market these as “windows into the adolescent mind” or hawking them for $$$.
Illuminating analysis, Daniel. I might have a crack at some flash fiction, get in on the action.
some writing i call ‘memoir stylings.. & explain if ‘any fiction’ is deployed within & my ‘excuse or reason’ - ideally All are Under 5 minute read some are just an ‘idea, image or poem ..
I like that. I do like the very short form of storytelling. Otherwise, I would not have amassed such a collection. A really short tale can have the effect of a tarot reading. 😊
there’s lessons in legendary tales.. stranger than fiction n that’s a fact i’m witness too.. but i can say this re most of us .. ‘when the going gets weird.. Hunter S 🦎🏴☠️🧨