Professor Audiard was confused at why a writer from a scientific discipline would be fundamentally less insightful to literary matters than a literary practitioners. Aside from hours applied to the study of the subject, if anything, the ability to be rigorous, and perceive levels of understanding, systematic, but still mysterious, would aid the quality of a writers’ vision. Moreover, those who were used to utilising flowery, melodramatic and hackneyed language, as a means of showing off literary skills, likely did so to maintain a culture of the writer as a genius, or priest. So the professor proposed a simple game to his colleagues. That they write a new piece of fiction that took the form of an interview or dialogue. That way, that simple, familiar constraint, could navigate some of the pitfalls of the ‘empty page’ and its temptation to over-expression. For Professor Audiard knew, pure freedom was impossible, and the notion of freedom to the human mind was sometimes painful.
Three simple rules were proposed.
- The writer must answer the question posed in the fiction that came immediately before your own piece. Truth or lies, that didn’t matter. The content was not important.
- The writer must then pose the next question, and make it reasonably real, if not banal.
- They must do both in direct, immediate and relatively plain language.