Form Must Come First (Knausgaard)

[Katie-Ellen]

Knausgaard's message seems to be that Literature is more than just novels. So what is the chosen form for the 'story' that will super arch the delivery? A novel, poem, epic, autobiography (as with Promise At Dawn) or drama/play?

What is to be included or excluded as being 'not' literature? Could a published screen play ever become included as Literature? When is a biography or autobiography Literature, and when is it not?

His own books are subject to this very question, as per links, and are regarded by some as adding a new 'form' to Literature.

'Not quite an autobiography, My Struggle contains invented dialogue and details that it would have been impossible for Knausgaard to remember. '

Knausgaard is not the first though. As mentioned 'Promise at Dawn' and 'The Story of San Michele' are 'autobiographical' AND literary classics.

 

[Madeleine Conway]

Thanks! These both seem to focus on screenplays, though?

They do - but essentially applicable to any narrative structure, i.e. short story/novel. I'd also recommend Juliet Mushens's book, Get Started in Writing YA Fiction - I know it is YA, but it is succinct, helpful and thorough in talking through the process of writing something long-form. Although the books are about forms or genres that might not be your natural home, they have good advice on shaping ideas in particular, how to organise your material and how to break your book down into manageable chunks for you as a writer and ultimately for the reader.

And don't apologise for nit-picking - that's the way to get to a workable place for you as a writer. If you are scientifically minded and you are looking for something useful for your own structure, check out the snowflake writing template How To Write A Novel Using The Snowflake Method

It's not for me particularly, although I have used elements of it when feeling stuck, but the thing about writing anything is that you need to find what works for you. If you have something that you want to say/a story to tell, then you need to find out a way that suits you to tell the story. There are no hard and fast answers, no magic bullet. Writing is all about testing, experimenting and being prepared for failure. I actually think scientific enquiry is a good metaphor. You've got your hypothesis - the story you want to share, and every time you write, you are testing it. The hardest lessons to learn are accepting when your story isn't working. I don't think this means it's useless, just that you haven't yet worked out the right way to tell it. The difficulty with writing is that there are no hard and fast rules, whatever any guide/template/book tries to suggest.

Re Knausgaard, I don't think his comment is particularly helpful as a tool to improve writing - but it's certainly useful as a means of getting us to discuss writing. I also think that his division of writing into 'literature/not-literature' is way too binary and simplistic.

There are essentially two types of commentary/exploration of the art of writing - a) nitty gritty guides, and the best ones tend to be on screenplays there, because it is all about balancing commercial needs and deadlines with story, and goes some way to explain why according to various people, Batman vs Superman is so poor; b) broader, woollier explorations of writing - Annie Dillard is my go-to woman, but I also like Stephen King and Elmore Leonard, and the Paris Review interviews.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

'I also think that his division of writing into 'literature/not-literature' is way too binary and simplistic.'

Knausgaard hasn't done that. That's me, not putting it clearly

The idea here was that exactly that...the division is not necessarily simple. He has written a series of autobiographical novels, they are not diary accurate, not presented as such, and they are regarded as literature. ie If he writes an autobiography in the form of a novel, then it is a novel.