At least in the first draft stage, the voice in my head who asks "Is this necessary?" is NOT my friend. I think you're right that it comes back to our ruthless attention economy. We're trying to control or forestall anyone getting bored with our book (or whatever we're creating). We have internalized the idea of the impatient person as our primary reader. Not good.
Bradbury once said something like “digression is the soul of wit.” I’m fully on board with ignoring that “is this necessary” voice, especially in early drafts. There’s an interesting question in here of whether or not the author needs to know the “purpose” of every passage in their book. Sometimes it just feels right.
Something that also bothers me about when people say "sex scenes are only for titillating the audience which makes them unnecessary" is that. Yes sometimes people turn to art for titillation. Most people aren't watching Bridgerton for its social commentary. It's okay to appreciate sex in art because sex is something many people enjoy. There are whole genres and subgenres built around sex and sometimes they have some Deeper Meaning and sometimes the artist says "I made this because I was horny and thought it was hot" and I think it's good that those are all out there! People want different things from their art and sometimes what they want is sex! It's okay!
Brilliant piece, as always. You nailed it with this question: “does this work want to be a moral intervention into power structures and life? Does this art seek social change?”
Also, woah! I would love for someone to be able to say something even remotely close to this about my writing one day: “He tricks you into having better thoughts than you otherwise would have imagined yourself capable of having.”
"Like, what you are describing is not something unnecessary, but something digressive or discursive which by means of its inclusion broadens the terrain and concern of the film or the book or the whatever under consideration. Those are not unnecessary things you’ve just added for fun. Those are deeply integral aspects of the experience of the art."
banger post as always (the pantser vs plotter one lmfaooooooo). i wonder if the "unnecessary"/"necessary" discourse originally stemmed from anime fan circles where filler/non-filler moments is discussed regularly and fervently. i mean i don't doubt it's always existed in some form, but this modern version of it seems... a specifically online thing somehow.
I’ve been rereading more lately. and have been surprised and delighted to discover that some books I thought were just ok when I first read them are amazing this time around. Clearly the book is the same and all that’s changed is me (apparently for the better 😂)
“Another defense of the unnecessary that crops up in writing advice forums and in threads and tweets (now posts), is that “you need an unnecessary scene where the characters are just hanging out to give the story room to breathe.” And I would argue that that is…not an unnecessary scene? That is a very necessary scene? It literally has a function? How can it be unnecessary if it has a function? I mean, truly, use your human mind. “
This made me laugh so hard..... like how can something be unnecessary if it’s literally necessary
I loved this, but god it was long! 🤓This is a much need reflection on contemporary art and exactly the sort of thing I come to substack for. Perhaps I’m a little dense but I often find the second or third reading/viewing is when I actually begin to understand/appreciate a complex work, especially one that challenges my expectations.
"is xyz necessary?" is such a frustrating question and, in addition to being a bummer framework for evaluating art, also feels like an incomplete question. i see people on twitter arguing over whether or not a scene was "necessary" for a movie/tv show, but never saying necessary for /what/. necessary for the plot? character development? aesthetics? there's a whole discourse centered around necessity as if we all have some simple cut and dry definition of necessity when it comes to art - like there are a set number of easily identifiable essential components and everything else is extraneous.
"In a story, all things are related. What a character feels about what is happening is as much a part of what they do next as anything else. We only believe character action when it seems to come out of real human response to situation and circumstance."
I love how Donna Tartt achieves this in The Goldfinch; the plot is so vast and incorporates such major transformations of context and character (begins with a terrorist attack and ends with mob violence via Vegas, an antique store, and lots of OxyContin) that the mundane inner life of Theo Decker glues the story together, cementing the richness of meaning in the novel.
One could argue that Tartt gives a lot of airtime to somewhat indulgent reflections and conversations about the power and purpose of art, which almost seems at odds with such a gripping plotline and such rich, nuanced characters, but I also understand the necessity of the unnecessary in an epic novel. Digressions are, after all, what maketh the epic.
Problem with sex scenes is that people are encouraged just to evaluate if the scene turned them on and not the meaning of that scene within all the other ideas the writer presumably has in the book.
Epic cheer. A modernist literary education of any kind will teach that the writer has been taught to let the reader struggle with the meaning of the text and so every detail has to be there to tell the reader what kind of puzzle this is. People would not say about mystery stories that details were not necessary. If anything they are there to distract the reader in that genre. (It is relatively easy in this year's crop of Hugo novels to know why almost everything is there and perhaps not by coincidence except for "Nona The Ninth" they all come in at 300 pages or less.)
Is this changing my life right now? Thank you for writing this!
"I mean, truly, use your human mind" is my new mantra. I need this as a bumper sticker, tattoo, as a reminder, engraved on other people's souls. People really do not think. And I need to get your new book and Zadie Smith's post haste
I read Anna Karenina only once, decades ago, and through the fog of memory I vaguely recall that she made bad choices. And I remember the scything. Oh, and the horse race. The scything and the horse race are really what I remember best. And I loved it, I think. Especially the scything and the horse race. I’ve been told that kids at Berkeley High are assigned excerpts of novels - EXCERPTS - rather than whole novels. This may be apocryphal, but the mere thought of it. I just know they’d leave out the best parts (although the horse race would probably make the cut).
At least in the first draft stage, the voice in my head who asks "Is this necessary?" is NOT my friend. I think you're right that it comes back to our ruthless attention economy. We're trying to control or forestall anyone getting bored with our book (or whatever we're creating). We have internalized the idea of the impatient person as our primary reader. Not good.
Bradbury once said something like “digression is the soul of wit.” I’m fully on board with ignoring that “is this necessary” voice, especially in early drafts. There’s an interesting question in here of whether or not the author needs to know the “purpose” of every passage in their book. Sometimes it just feels right.
Something that also bothers me about when people say "sex scenes are only for titillating the audience which makes them unnecessary" is that. Yes sometimes people turn to art for titillation. Most people aren't watching Bridgerton for its social commentary. It's okay to appreciate sex in art because sex is something many people enjoy. There are whole genres and subgenres built around sex and sometimes they have some Deeper Meaning and sometimes the artist says "I made this because I was horny and thought it was hot" and I think it's good that those are all out there! People want different things from their art and sometimes what they want is sex! It's okay!
Brilliant piece, as always. You nailed it with this question: “does this work want to be a moral intervention into power structures and life? Does this art seek social change?”
Also, woah! I would love for someone to be able to say something even remotely close to this about my writing one day: “He tricks you into having better thoughts than you otherwise would have imagined yourself capable of having.”
Always so insightful! I think also people need to realize that, "Not for me" does not equal 'bad.'
This right here:
"Like, what you are describing is not something unnecessary, but something digressive or discursive which by means of its inclusion broadens the terrain and concern of the film or the book or the whatever under consideration. Those are not unnecessary things you’ve just added for fun. Those are deeply integral aspects of the experience of the art."
Yes!
banger post as always (the pantser vs plotter one lmfaooooooo). i wonder if the "unnecessary"/"necessary" discourse originally stemmed from anime fan circles where filler/non-filler moments is discussed regularly and fervently. i mean i don't doubt it's always existed in some form, but this modern version of it seems... a specifically online thing somehow.
I’ve been rereading more lately. and have been surprised and delighted to discover that some books I thought were just ok when I first read them are amazing this time around. Clearly the book is the same and all that’s changed is me (apparently for the better 😂)
“Another defense of the unnecessary that crops up in writing advice forums and in threads and tweets (now posts), is that “you need an unnecessary scene where the characters are just hanging out to give the story room to breathe.” And I would argue that that is…not an unnecessary scene? That is a very necessary scene? It literally has a function? How can it be unnecessary if it has a function? I mean, truly, use your human mind. “
This made me laugh so hard..... like how can something be unnecessary if it’s literally necessary
I loved this, but god it was long! 🤓This is a much need reflection on contemporary art and exactly the sort of thing I come to substack for. Perhaps I’m a little dense but I often find the second or third reading/viewing is when I actually begin to understand/appreciate a complex work, especially one that challenges my expectations.
"is xyz necessary?" is such a frustrating question and, in addition to being a bummer framework for evaluating art, also feels like an incomplete question. i see people on twitter arguing over whether or not a scene was "necessary" for a movie/tv show, but never saying necessary for /what/. necessary for the plot? character development? aesthetics? there's a whole discourse centered around necessity as if we all have some simple cut and dry definition of necessity when it comes to art - like there are a set number of easily identifiable essential components and everything else is extraneous.
this was a great read!!
Rereading is underrated, and this post is the BOMB! THANKS!
"In a story, all things are related. What a character feels about what is happening is as much a part of what they do next as anything else. We only believe character action when it seems to come out of real human response to situation and circumstance."
I love how Donna Tartt achieves this in The Goldfinch; the plot is so vast and incorporates such major transformations of context and character (begins with a terrorist attack and ends with mob violence via Vegas, an antique store, and lots of OxyContin) that the mundane inner life of Theo Decker glues the story together, cementing the richness of meaning in the novel.
One could argue that Tartt gives a lot of airtime to somewhat indulgent reflections and conversations about the power and purpose of art, which almost seems at odds with such a gripping plotline and such rich, nuanced characters, but I also understand the necessity of the unnecessary in an epic novel. Digressions are, after all, what maketh the epic.
Thanks Brandon!
Problem with sex scenes is that people are encouraged just to evaluate if the scene turned them on and not the meaning of that scene within all the other ideas the writer presumably has in the book.
Epic cheer. A modernist literary education of any kind will teach that the writer has been taught to let the reader struggle with the meaning of the text and so every detail has to be there to tell the reader what kind of puzzle this is. People would not say about mystery stories that details were not necessary. If anything they are there to distract the reader in that genre. (It is relatively easy in this year's crop of Hugo novels to know why almost everything is there and perhaps not by coincidence except for "Nona The Ninth" they all come in at 300 pages or less.)
Is this changing my life right now? Thank you for writing this!
"I mean, truly, use your human mind" is my new mantra. I need this as a bumper sticker, tattoo, as a reminder, engraved on other people's souls. People really do not think. And I need to get your new book and Zadie Smith's post haste
I read Anna Karenina only once, decades ago, and through the fog of memory I vaguely recall that she made bad choices. And I remember the scything. Oh, and the horse race. The scything and the horse race are really what I remember best. And I loved it, I think. Especially the scything and the horse race. I’ve been told that kids at Berkeley High are assigned excerpts of novels - EXCERPTS - rather than whole novels. This may be apocryphal, but the mere thought of it. I just know they’d leave out the best parts (although the horse race would probably make the cut).