When I was a child—in the late 1940s and early 1950s—I used to enjoy listening to the radio on Sunday evenings. That was back in the days when radio had "programs," and my ear was glued to the entertainment parade headed by The Great Gildersleeve, Jack Benny and Fred Allen. Because this was radio, I had no idea what the scenes or the characters looked like. So I had to imagine them for myself.
Later on, when I saw movies of Harold Peary (or his replacement, Willard Waterman) as Gildersleeve, I had to adjust my mental images of him and the other characters in the show. But, interestingly, the adjustment was not a major one. What I, as the listener, had created almost matched what I saw on the screen.
I think a good novel is like that. The author doesn’t need to describe everything. He or she is "telling a story," not writing a screenplay. It is the reader’s responsibility to fill in the gaps with his imagination. The reader cooperates with the author in creating the story.
In Walking on Water (Harold Shaw, 1980), Madeleine L’Engle wrote: "The reader, viewer, listener usually grossly underestimates his importance. If a reader cannot create a book along with the writer, the book will never come to life. Creative involvement: that’s the basic difference between reading a book and watching TV. In watching TV we are passive; sponges; we do nothing. In reading we must become creators."
I belong to a critique group, and frequent comments about my fiction writing could be, "Don’t tell me, show me," "Nothing is happening; I’m pulled out of the story," or "Let me see his reaction to what she said." I am very sorry, dear friends. The reader who is easily "pulled out" of the story, or who has to be "shown" everything, isn’t the reader I’m writing for. I’m writing for the reader who will be a co-creator with me, who will involve himself in setting the scene and thinking in behalf of the dramatis personae. Only in this way would my novel be a memorable one.
Marshall McLuhan, in Understanding Media (McGraw-Hill, 1964), distinguished between "cool" and "hot" media. His intuition runs counter to what we might suppose. Television is a "cool medium" because it presents itself to both sound and sight, limiting the need for the viewer’s creative involvement. Radio, on the other hand, is a "hot medium" because it encourages the listener’s imagination. Perhaps that explains why TV today is such a wasteland of sensationalist "news," shallow comedy, predictable suspense and pharmaceutical ads—while "talk radio" has captured the attention of millions.
A screenplay is "cool;" telling a good story is "hot." When the reader participates in the creative process he takes away more from the story than he would if everything were laid out for him, because he has built part of the story in his own head. I can still remember the "scenes" I mentally created for The Great Gildersleeve; Fred Allen and Allen’s Alley; Mr. Keen; Tracer of Lost Persons; The Shadow; Fibber McGee and Molly; and others. They live on in my consciousness because I was involved in creating them.
Later on, when I saw movies of Harold Peary (or his replacement, Willard Waterman) as Gildersleeve, I had to adjust my mental images of him and the other characters in the show. But, interestingly, the adjustment was not a major one. What I, as the listener, had created almost matched what I saw on the screen.
I think a good novel is like that. The author doesn’t need to describe everything. He or she is "telling a story," not writing a screenplay. It is the reader’s responsibility to fill in the gaps with his imagination. The reader cooperates with the author in creating the story.
In Walking on Water (Harold Shaw, 1980), Madeleine L’Engle wrote: "The reader, viewer, listener usually grossly underestimates his importance. If a reader cannot create a book along with the writer, the book will never come to life. Creative involvement: that’s the basic difference between reading a book and watching TV. In watching TV we are passive; sponges; we do nothing. In reading we must become creators."
I belong to a critique group, and frequent comments about my fiction writing could be, "Don’t tell me, show me," "Nothing is happening; I’m pulled out of the story," or "Let me see his reaction to what she said." I am very sorry, dear friends. The reader who is easily "pulled out" of the story, or who has to be "shown" everything, isn’t the reader I’m writing for. I’m writing for the reader who will be a co-creator with me, who will involve himself in setting the scene and thinking in behalf of the dramatis personae. Only in this way would my novel be a memorable one.
Marshall McLuhan, in Understanding Media (McGraw-Hill, 1964), distinguished between "cool" and "hot" media. His intuition runs counter to what we might suppose. Television is a "cool medium" because it presents itself to both sound and sight, limiting the need for the viewer’s creative involvement. Radio, on the other hand, is a "hot medium" because it encourages the listener’s imagination. Perhaps that explains why TV today is such a wasteland of sensationalist "news," shallow comedy, predictable suspense and pharmaceutical ads—while "talk radio" has captured the attention of millions.
A screenplay is "cool;" telling a good story is "hot." When the reader participates in the creative process he takes away more from the story than he would if everything were laid out for him, because he has built part of the story in his own head. I can still remember the "scenes" I mentally created for The Great Gildersleeve; Fred Allen and Allen’s Alley; Mr. Keen; Tracer of Lost Persons; The Shadow; Fibber McGee and Molly; and others. They live on in my consciousness because I was involved in creating them.
3 comments:
Imagination is a wonderful thing! That co-creating element is delightful.
Good luck with your new blog!
Radio does have the edge over TV or film when it comes to describing events. Stan Freburg pointed this out, brilliantly, in one of his sketches. There are some things that you simply can’t portray on TV – or you couldn’t when he wrote his sketch. Maybe computer animation is changing that a little. Have you noticed how radio news reports now have to have clips interspersed with sound effects, or with the reporter’s voice describing something which the news reader has already told us? This happens in Australia, so I presume it does in the USA as well. It’s the radio version of the pictures without which TV news can’t go to air.
Post a Comment