The Art of Fiction

My friend sent me a copy of Kundera's The Betrayed Will, a book about the art of fiction. The book is long, and I disagree with some of it, and I don't understand some of it (the book is interlaced with staff, but I don't read music, and I don't have a piano at home), but I do understand and agree with most of it. My particular complaint about the book is that it makes no mention of the highest achievements of modern fiction: Calvino, Euthenal, Gunter Grass, Modigano, and an infrequent writer, Margaret Duras. As early as half a century ago, Zweig complained that even the works of the great masters contained elements of sheer redundancy. If he had lived to see the work of modern novelists, these complaints would have disappeared. Whether Kundera's failure to mention this achievement in modern fiction is due to peer jealousy or artistic disagreement, I don't know. Of course, Kundrati is free not to mention anyone. But if I write this book, I'm going to include it. Anyway, I agree with the author that there is indeed an art of the novel, which is far from universally understood. Kundera said: He who does not understand pleasure will not understand any art of fiction. In addition to know happy, but also know more, to understand the art of fiction. But if you don't know how to be happy, you can only spoil the novel. In the end, Kundera is right.

I myself have a genuine love of reading novels, which cannot be satisfied by reading any other kind of work. I write novels myself, and the pleasure I get when I write well is no substitute for any other pleasure. That said, I have a genuine love for fiction and that love is a love for the art of fiction -- and I can relate to Kundera on that. I imagine that this is not the case for the average reader, who has a general interest in cultural life. There is now an argument that the main achievement of contemporary literature is essay, which may be true, but I feel sad about it. I read and sometimes write my own essays. As far as I am concerned, essays are nothing more than reason. If you see the reason, just talk straight ahead. Of course, to explain the truth thoroughly, tell beautiful, read also have a kind of dripping pleasure, but after all, and read a novel is two ways of strength. Writing a novel requires a deep sense of the beauty of fiction and a talent for making something out of nothing. I'd rather do it right. Therefore, although I can speak well of this theory, I do not think it is a strength, and even think it is a fundamental weakness that needs to be overcome. Indeed, as a person, I have a moral responsibility, and I have to say that this is my motivation for writing essays. Therefore, it can only be overcome appropriately, but not completely.

Not long ago, I read in a newspaper an argument that essays have taken the place of novels and assumed the moral responsibility of society. If this were so, it would be a good thing -- the moral responsibility of the novel would be, as the Greeks said, to fasten the saddle on the head -- but only in literary terms. For society as a whole, it is not right that moral responsibility should be placed solely on the person who writes. Moral responsibility, on the other hand, is not the standard of art, especially not the standard of fiction. It's very important.

Kundera's book is also about this. The writer of fiction has to make people happy. He has to have a talent for fiction and a drive to use it -- I think that's the main thing. Mr. Kundera, on the other hand, said that in order for a reader to be happy, he could appreciate fiction and become tolerant of it -- which he said was the main point. I have no such hope. The art of the novel will first form in the novelist's will, will not be betrayed in the future, that is later. You have to have it in the first place, that's the main thing.

Kundera says the fiction tradition is a European tradition. But it would also be wrong to say that the art of the novel has never been taken seriously in China. Many years ago, there was a historical moment when the young Eileen Chang emerged and showed a talent for writing novels. Mr. Fu Lei discovered this and immediately wrote an article saying: The technique of the novel is worth noting. At that time, even Zhang Chunqiao was writing novels under a pseudonym. As far as art was concerned, it was a mess, and Eileen Chang was a red in the green -- but if any will had been betrayed, it was not Eileen Chang's, but Fu Lei's. God knows what Eileen Chang wrote later. She took her sickness for a gift... People have talent is not an artist, know the value of their own talent is an artist.

At this point, I would like to end. But nothing is said about the art of the novel except what it is not and what it really is. If you want to understand, and you won't find it in Kundera's books, you should head straight for two good novels. If you can understand it, it's better. If you can't understand it, you can't think about it. You can try something else -- don't listen to anyone. Any art can only be seen in the work -- to paraphrase Kundera, no art can be understood by anyone who only likes to read essays, reviews, and profiles.