The Good is the Enemy of the Great

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know where I heard this, but I seem to find myself thinking this more and more when I'm writing.

I take it to mean that, at certain points in a story, you can opt out for some nice, reliable prose, or you can take a chance and leap for some wild plot twist or figure of speech that might be brilliant or might make you fall on your ass. Too often we choose the 'good' way out, and so the good becomes the enemy of the great.

I think about this too sometimes when I'm reading someone else's story, or even listening to my kids practicing on their instruments. I hear them going for good, solid technique, and think, "Don't do that. Cut loose and take a chance. Too much is not enough."

They say once you create something you think is really good, that's when you stop developing as an artist or writer. A man's reach should exceed his grasp and all that.

---dr.M.

 

[gauchecritic]

Not sure I've got your meaning here Mab.

If you mean, for (lame) example, maybe writing 4 paragraphs of one word each because that's how it comes out best rather than realising paragraphs can't be one word and should actually say something, then I'm with you.

Writing properly versus writing well is not something I pay a great deal of attention to.

The times that I think I've created something 'really good' are the times that those 'great' parts are surrounded by 'good' writing.

Personally, I think it would take more for me to travel the safe route than it would for me to suddenly find I'd written a great segment.
I don't think I could bring myself to remove something great in editing.

For me, the leap is what writing is all about. When you can sit back and ask "where the hell did that come from?"

When I'm editing other's work I often find a place or two where I'm thinking: If I'd written it I would have followed this sentence rather than the next 3 paragraphs.

It's only very occasionally that I will tell a writer these places because that means probably dumping most of the rest of the story.

Gauche

 

[CharleyH]

. . . at certain points in a story, you can opt out for some nice, reliable prose, or you can take a chance and leap for some wild plot twist or figure of speech that might be brilliant or might make you fall on your ass. Too often we choose the 'good' way out, and so the good becomes the enemy of the great.

I think about this too sometimes when I'm reading someone else's story, or even listening to my kids practicing on their instruments. I hear them going for good, solid technique, and think, "Don't do that. Cut loose and take a chance. Too much is not enough."

I think many people don't take enough chances, but go with the familiar because it works and because in many areas, that's what gets the reward.

IE. Figure skating. Shouldn't the Dushanneys(sp) have won and not Torvill and Dean?

It often strikes me as ironic when people say 'think outside the box' but the moment you do, no matter how brilliant the idea, the act or the paragraph, form etc. might be . . . it's always "too" outside the box.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: Re: The Good is the Enemy of the Great

IE. Figure skating. Shouldn't the Dushanneys(sp) have won and not Torvill and Dean?

OH, that was a blantant rip-off, they were considered so "out of the box" then, now you can see how they've influenced so many new skaters.
It's how many years and I still feel pissed over that. I need to move on.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... listening to my kids practicing on their instruments. I hear them going for good, solid technique, and think, "Don't do that. Cut loose and take a chance. Too much is not enough."...

When one is learning any skill, be it writing, performing on the saxophone, or terpsichorean striptease, one begins by slavishly following all the rules and fashions of that field, until one understands it so well that one knows why one breaks a rule to produce one’s contribution to that art.

Musicians tootle through their scales and assigned pieces, apprentice artist copy masters learning their techniques, and strippers study dance, erotic art, the gimmicks used throughout 150 years of burlesque, as well as mime, if they wish to excel at their chosen discipline.

Don’t expect divergence while your kids are still learning their instrument, Doc. Even later, there will remains some value in their being able to combine their talent with others in a common effort to reproduce a classical work.

There is room for both adherence to traditional standards, as well as for individual innovation.

Are you, for example, familiar with the works of Benny Goodman. He was a fine, classically trained musician, who became obsessed with early Jazz and helped transform it into Swing. If you listen to his music — especially the early recordings, employing smaller numbers of instruments — it is very idiosyncratic and seemingly spontaneous — which of course he sometimes was.

But, listen also to his recording of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto, it was performed both with a classicist’s regard for the text, and an improvisor’s touch of lightness.

Traditional rules produce a firm grounding from which to improvise, while improvisation teaches the classicist how to produce ersatz spontaneity.

 

[alyxen]

It's the opening line of a book by Jim Collins' titled: Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . and Others Don't

I know that wasn't the focus of your query Dr M., but I like to find stuff.

 

[nushu2]

I have been so disappointed going outside the box. When I have wriiten something that I figure that one person in a hundred will understand, I only get feedback from some of those other 99. Still, I continue writing to touch that one person in a personal way. Where are you?

Analogies can be confusing. Writing can't be judged like an olympic athlete and works on a different level than music. Maybe, Hunter S.Thompson can be compared to Yardbird Parker as a whole but that doesn't account for the meaning of the words or the feeling of the music.

I had to stop myself here because I was going off topic, again. I was getting into style versus substance.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

When my reach exceeds my grasp, I sometimes spend months writing nothing (like now for instance) because I become too self-conscious about my work and don't let it flow twisted and unadulterated from the deepest recesses of my mind.

 

[hiddenself]

It is a tough call

Isn't this similar with everything in life? Not just art, but also sports, science, money, relationships -- take your pick. Trouble is, for any one who passes on the good and does attain the great, there are probably thousands who jump and fail, losing even the good.

I've been gambling for a few hours at a casino and have managed to win $1,000. Do I now walk away from the table? Or do I risk all on a single 100:1 odds bet to get to $100K?

It is not a fun choice if you use your mind. Most people who go for it do it on mostly emotional grounds and come what may.

 

[Guest]

... listening to my kids practicing on their instruments. I hear them going for good, solid technique, and think, "Don't do that. Cut loose and take a chance. Too much is not enough." They say once you create something you think is really good, that's when you stop developing as an artist or writer. A man's reach should exceed his grasp and all that.

I presume you know that your kids need to learn to be "good" first. For a great performing artist technique is bedrock, that's why it takes a good dozen years to "train" as a classical dancer or musician, preferably when young. Then with age and experience (and hopefully a soul) one can leave "the box".

This proves true for me in opera and ballet. The majority of performers are technicians, like Olympic medal winners. But the crème de la crème go beyond circus tricks. It's why I prefer Maria Callas with a wobble in her voice to Joan Sutherland's 'perfection'. It's why Alicia Alonso in her late fifties showed me the most innocent and real 15 year old peasant girl in "Giselle" more than the most proficient 20 year old ballet star of that time (early 70s) or today.

I recently saw the film-bio, "Delovely", and heard awful versions of Cole Porter's songs by contemporary pop singers. None of them had a clue to the style and mood of Porter's music and lyrics. My point is that they might be fine singers or musicians but they can't survive outside their boxes of limited vocal technique.

I think too many writers have a false sense of what "great" is, and it too often has to do with a superficial idea that "good" equals banal. Good pop lit. comes from a youthful attitude, but it doesn't develop indefinitely. Look at rock'n'roll, rap and hip-hop.

Young writers say they need their freedom, e.g., they don't want to be bound by rules (grammar) and style or they'll lose their creativity or some such crap. But good writers with great potential have writing rudiments as a foundation from which they can jump off cliffs and be secure in something new. Simply look at the progression of works by Beckett or Joyce.

In art, the greatest innovators (cubists, impressionists, abstract expressionists, etc) had their technical foundations in classical techniques. There is a freedom in that unknown to the undisciplined mind. For a writer practice is as important as for a classical pianist. One must write and write and write, and at some point know when it's time to go beyond one's self.

Hope this makes sense to someone, I realize it may read like b.s.

Perdita

 

[rgraham666]

You said what I was thinking perdita.

OK, taking a moment to gather my thoughts.

I don't think any of the great people in any field wanted to be great, they wanted to be good. They wanted to be as good as they could be and that turned out to be great.

Speaking for myself, and with what little I have written so far, all I have tried to do is tell a story. I do worry about whether my prose describes the characters, the setting and advances the plot. I never worry if my prose is great.

My own feeling is that if I start worrying about greatness, I'll forget how to be good.

 

[R. Richard]

They say once you create something you think is really good, that's when you stop developing as an artist or writer. A man's reach should exceed his grasp and all that.

---dr.M.

I would politely disagree. An artist (or anyone, really) should be reaching a BIT beyond their current grasp. From time to time, a writer should produce the best he/she is currently capable of. If he/she stops at the point, then he/she stops developing. If he/she enjoys the moment and then says, 'How do I top that?' then the writer is still capaable of development.

JMHO.

 

[oggbashan]

The good is the enemy of the best

J.Kelman 1912 'Thoughts on Things Eternal':

Every respectable Pharisee proves the truth of the saying that 'the good is the enemy of the best' ... Christ insists that we shall not be content with a second-best, though it be good.

R.A.Habas 1939 'Morals for Moderns' vii
'The good' runs the old aphorism, 'is the enemy of the best.' Nowhere is this... better exemplified than in connection with... self-deceit.

Source: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs Second Edition 1992.

Og

 

[sweetnpetite]

Doc, when I read the thread title, I thought you meant that *moral good* was the ememy of greatness. Or in otherwods that *great* men/people were necessarily fiends and crimimals.

But now I see that you mean that if you settle for 'good enough' you'll never reach greatness.

Funny language we have, hu?

I don't know where I heard this, but I seem to find myself thinking this more and more when I'm writing.

I take it to mean that, at certain points in a story, you can opt out for some nice, reliable prose, or you can take a chance and leap for some wild plot twist or figure of speech that might be brilliant or might make you fall on your ass. Too often we choose the 'good' way out, and so the good becomes the enemy of the great.

I think about this too sometimes when I'm reading someone else's story, or even listening to my kids practicing on their instruments. I hear them going for good, solid technique, and think, "Don't do that. Cut loose and take a chance. Too much is not enough."

They say once you create something you think is really good, that's when you stop developing as an artist or writer. A man's reach should exceed his grasp and all that.

---dr.M.