Experimental Literature

Last week I reprinted an IWC blog post about mixing creativity and formula. As I noted in that post, some people disdain formula and assume that only “different” can be “creative.” Unfortunately, these are often the same people who write bad experimental literature.

Personally, I’m not fond of experimental literature. While some of it is good, I won’t know that until I read it, and I’ve got such a long reading list already that I don’t need to add something I might not enjoy. But my bigger issue is that I have read some experimental literature that was awful. In those cases, the “creativity” that may have existed in the author’s mind didn’t make it onto the written page. Some attempts even sound as if the writer tried experimental literature because he or she was too lazy to figure out how to be creative in a more traditional format.

Not that I haven’t tried experimental literature myself. A few years ago, I decided to write a novel made up of passages taken from a dozen classics. As I planned it, the only aspect that would be original with me would be the choice and arrangement of the passages. Each paragraph would be taken verbatim from a single source, except that the names of the characters and places would be changed to maintain consistency throughout the story. I had chosen the source novels and created a basic plot, but I was unsuccessful in the execution. Bad experimental literature is worse than none, and I wasn’t going to write something I wouldn’t be willing to read.

Maybe I’ll pick that project up again someday, but for now I have too many other ideas competing for my time. These more traditional ideas provide plenty of scope for my creativity, so I’ll stick with what I do best, at least for now. 

If you want to try writing experimental literature, I wish you all the best.

Just make sure it isn't the lazy way out.