Earlier today I posted a blog entry entitled “Complex Reading vs. Simplistic Reading, which you can read here. Adam has written a rebuttal of his personal views on the subject which you can read below:
I was always taught in school a simple acronym when writing short or long essay questions; K.I.S.S, or Keep it Simple Stupid. (I think my teacher’s just added on the stupid part to get a laugh out of the students) It’s that very same rule that I feel many authors should comply with when they write their novels. Many times authors feel the need to explain the hell out of a situation to give the reader a visual to base their understanding of the novel off of. I believe that’s what a person’s imagination is for. Yes, the setting needs to be set and characterizations need to be established but I think some things are better left unspoken. Many times, in my opinion authors over-write their books when they should instead follow the same advice I was given as a middle school student and keep it simple stupid.
I don’t necessarily mean simple wording or simple language when I say keep it simple. I understand that as a person, you should constantly challenge yourself and reading is an admirable way to do that, but I think that some things are better left unsaid. I think the author should give basic details and cut out a lot of the extra stuff, or fluff. Think of Fluff when you put it on a peanut butter sandwich, it adds nothing to the sandwich. If you cut it out, you don’t necessarily miss it. A lot of times authors go off on a 40-page tangent to say what could have been said in 10 pages. They instead should challenge the reader with introducing them to new language and new ideas, but not bore them with inane details.
One author who I feel understood the average reader like me, kept it simple, and didn’t bore readers with frivolous details was Ernest Hemingway. In his short, but classic novel The Old Man and the Sea, Hemingway got right to the point and told a story about an old man and the sea. There’s no 7-page digression of how the water is calm or how the old man is conflicted between capturing the fish or humanity. It is a simple worded book and is a story in it’s basest form. You may say that I am being lazy by not wanting to read all the details or read longer novels but I like that the story is just that, a story.
You may or may not know this about me, but I am obsessed with musicals. The best comparison I can make to what I am trying to say is that a book with tons of inane details is like a poorly produced musical. The reason the musical is so bad is that the music doesn’t push the story forward. The characters sing for the sake of singing, leaving the audience bored with the musical. I feel when authors over-analyze the setting or go into every last detail about what the character is wearing, it takes the reader away from the main plot of the story. Unless the character’s clothes suddenly go up in flames and we have to figure out why it occurred, I don’t need to know that the shoes they were wearing were given to the character on her 12th birthday by grandma. I just think those minor details are filler and fluff.
One author who did detail overload is Stephanie Meyers. I can just picture 2,000,000,000 teenage girls cursing my name, but it is true. Twilight was one hell of a boring book. She went into so much minor detail about everything. It didn’t make me like the story any better; it made me dislike it to the point where I couldn’t finish the book. I couldn’t handle the 40 pages of explaining one simple event that could’ve been explained in 10 pages. A lot of that book was filler crap, and I refused to read the other three because I didn’t want to put myself through that sort of torture again.
I think books are best when kept simple. When reading a book, the author should give you the basic details, but then you, as the reader, should be able to imagine what the author is telling you. In my opinion any other way is being spoon-fed the information. When Kim and I were discussing this she said that if you’ve never been to a place or never given the details, how are you to supposed to get a feeling for the surroundings? I am not advocating that all details should be thrown out the window, I just think the author should give us the basic details of the surroundings and we figure out the rest. As readers, we should be able to visualize what the author is saying from the hints given. If the author said, “The setting is a typical high school cafeteria, it is raining and all the kids are wearing rain coats and boots” we should then be able to visualize the kids walking in wearing squeaky boots. We assume that the boots will be squeaky because we’ve seen in our own daily lives that wet boots squeak when you walk on the floor. We can also assume that if a kid didn’t bring an umbrella they’d be wet. I don’t need the author to go on a tangent talking about little Pete and how he’s upset because he didn’t bring an umbrella. I can assume that because I’ve been in that situation. We should as humans take our own experiences and be able to visualize the scenes in our own mind without be giving every little detail.
If you’re like me and want to read novels minus the fluff, two other works of literature come to mind; Of Mice and Men and Our Town. Both of these works are literature in its purest form. In Of Mice and Men Steinbeck strips everything down, into a quick and easy read. Our Town is a play that doesn’t deal with the frivolous components that are often connected with a play. There are no sets and nothing to distract the reader from really understanding what actions the characters are taking. In my opinion they show that literature is at its best when there is nothing distracting the reader from the main plot.