In the midst of acknowledging my own problems with "story", an excellent post by Michael at 2 Blowhards on Story and narrative structure versus the necessity of "saying something". I need to read the post again–just scanned it quickly–because this is a point that while I haven’t seen in all contemporary fiction, it is the basis on which I have noticed many of the literary journal editors make their selections: make a stand, make it meaningful for society, pick the liberal’s latest pet project and you’ve got a winner.
Before I go further, I’ll need to read it with more attention than I can give it with the headache I’m dealing with right now.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
“. . . literary journal editors make their selections: make a stand, make it meaningful for society . . . . ”
Get a copy of The Passionate Accurate Story, Making Your Hearts into Literature by Carol Bly (ISBN 1571312196), and read it if you want to wrap your mind around this type of writing. This is exactly what Carol Bly teaches. The whole taking-a-stand-and-making-it-meaningful moral for society element is at the heart of what she discusses.
To tell the truth Vikk, I’m more of the “man hasn’t changed, the problems just take on new faces” mind. While I think it is very important to use fiction as a historical record of society’s current conditions,I would still put story above moralizing or politics as primary aim of fiction personally, while incorporating contemporary society and its tensions. Although fiction is based on folklore and fables–tales with lessons, I think fiction should also be an escape from the reality around us. This may be why literary fiction is less read than fantasy fiction these days.