Worthy of multiple reads!

Analogous to the Art Of NonFiction, the Art Of Fiction, by Ayn Rand details the core concepts of Rand’s writing repertoire, crystallized for all to see.

In the first half of the book Rand cogently creates very practical, and yet methodical approach that
narrows down on importance of the subconscious in writing, theme, plot and its development, climax, and characterization. The latter half of the book focuses on style from a variety of angles, all from her objectivist point of view.

Throughout the book Rand speaks at length of the two types of writing that exist in her eyes: naturalist writing vs. romanticist writing.

Naturalistic style catalogues things, which often are inconsequential. On the other hand, romanticist writing employs carefully selected concrete words in specificity to capture the essentials, what really matters, of a scene.

Rand juxtaposes the two, offering samples that precisely describe why in her mind one is superior to the other. Moreover, after showing the reader the pros and cons of each style, Rand speaks at length about how to maximize writing while not overstating words.

Imperative as well is the importance of avoiding floating abstractions, choosing instead to gravitate towards making writing more concrete, more specific. She also covers a few issues with style, for instance, narrative vs. dramatization, which was quite insightful. Exposition is also covered, as well as flashbacks, transitions, and other notable points.

On the importance of style, Rand notes:

“What constitutes the heart of any style is the clarity of the thoughts a writer expresses – plus the kind of thoughts he choose to express.”[1]

Further:

“A good style is one that conveys the most with the greatest economy of words. In a textbook, the ideal is to communicate one line of thought or a set of facts as clearly as possible. For a literary style, much more is necessary. A great literary style is one that combines five or more different meanings in one clear sentence. (I do not mean ambiguity but the communication of different issues).”[2][Bold Emphasis Added]

More importantly, however, Rand elucidates on the importance of precision in writing:

“I never waste a sentence on saying: “John Smith meets James Brown.” That is too easy; it is playing the piano with one finger. Say much more, just as clearly, say it in chords, with a whole orchestration. That is good style.”[3]

Anyone who has ever read any of Rand’s book knows that Rand’s novels function on multiple tiers, employing various layers of insights, just like a building features various floors that carry out different functions. For instance, analyzing one of her passage from Atlas Shrugged, she points out how one passage had four purposes: a literary one, a connotative one, a symbolic level, and an emotional level. The seamlessness of how Rand fuses multiple tiers of purpose is one of the many reasons Rand writing will always remain in the upper caste of the field/discipline.

Although not originally created to be a book, and was instead drawn from Rand’s prior lectures, this book impeccably allows readers to view writing through her unique eyes. Likewise, the way in which Rand breaks down the purpose of every single thing she does is a breath of fresh air. The tenets within this book will make readers ruminate upon a much more precise type of writing, one that functions on a deeper level. Such profound depth and meaning is usually missing from most modern fiction books, which is a shame since much more could be achieved if people employed different skills.

The Art Of Nonfiction is a terrific read in its totality. The book is a veritable treasure trove of insights. Couple this book with such classics such as The Element Of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White, gather a bit of inspiration with The War Of Art by Steven Pressfield, and sprinkle a bit of The Art Of Description by Mark Doty, and one has the veritable seeds for success in writing.

___________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] Ayn Rand, The Art Of Fiction, p. 142.
[2] Ibid., 143.
[3] Ibid., 143.

This was interesting in a couple of ways, the first was to see Rand's perspective, which shows through very clearly.

The second was the comparison of different writings. I think there is a ton here to take away from this short read and it is certainly worth the read. It is the idea of thinking about thinking and being deliberate in writing that I really enjoyed.

I always love a good book on writing. This was.... interesting.... If you love to write or you teach writing, there are some ideas to get from this. Two things, though: 1. She certainly thinks highly of herself (and doesn't hesitate to name authors she perceives are below her standards [the writing community is far more supportive these days, I'd say]); 2. I'd recommend many other writing books before this one: ON WRITING by Stephen King... anything by Roy Peter Clark... SAVE THE CAT... STORY GENIUS.

Ok im kind of done with giving books star ratings. Like what am i rating? Enjoyment? Value i gained from the book? An objective assessment of value? Artistry? How much I agree with the content of the book?

Respectively, to the above questions: 5/5, 5/5, 4/5, N/A, 3/5

What’s hard for me here is often the books I agree with least have the most value to me.

Great discussion of art as a 'dance between the abstract and the concrete'

Rand is an unusual personality, and her strong opinions make this book a very interesting read. There is a lot of good advice, but told in the 'this is the only way to write' style. Worth reading.

I don't particularly like Ayn Rand's novels and I fundamentally disagree with her on a political and philosophical level but I found her theories on storytelling engaging and thoughtful. It was exactly the right thing to read at the moment because I have been quite worn out be trite, light novels and her exacting and near fanatical preoccupation with rationality and thematic focus was refreshing. This is one of the few craft books that is useful and interesting for readers and reviewers as well as novelists. The discussion of examples from her own work and that of other eminent writers is really clever, especially when she re-writes and then compares examples showing why some writing works and why other writing fails. The conversational tone makes the fairly dense subject matter easily- read.

Not knowing a lot about Ayn Rand I’ve decided to read one more book for “young writers”. This book is formed as a series of home lectures in her own home during the late 1950s. And this book is a transcription of tapes. I can’t say I didn’t like it at all, BUT the most annoying thing in this book is that Ayn Rand thinks she is the best writer…

Enjoyed this immensely. My only criticism of this is Ayn Rand using her own novels’ characters to justify, explain, illustrate and draw conclusions. This left me with the feeling that Rand is stealthily defending her work, hero’s and themes. This would have been perfect if Rand used less examples of her own work.

In this book, we get a glimpse into Ayn Rand's writing process, her views on literature, and ego. She gives insightful outlooks on literary devices and the art of crafting the novel and provides examples from her own works and those of others to back them up. Although I find it distasteful to compare your own works to those of others (most of them given as examples as to what not to do), I appreciate her use examples to back up her arguments.

Since this book is actually an edited version of an informal course given by Ayn Rand in 1958, I can't really say much about the writing, though I do find the tone rather arrogant. Through her words, you are told that she is the best writer of her day, that her works are objectively better than those of great writers, and anyone who disagrees with her literary philosophy just has a bad or untrained taste in fiction. This book gives me the impression that she thinks that her way is the way and that people who choose different paths are doing it wrong. That being said, this book does make her come off as someone who has quite a narrow perspective (Which is why it is not surprising when in the last chapter she said: “I read a novel for the purpose of seeing the kind of people I would want to see in real life and living through the kind of experience I would want to live through.”).

However, given the context that she gave the course to people who admire her, all the self-praising are to be expected. Unfortunately, I made a mistake by reading this book without reading her other books first, so I can’t really judge whether her claims on the greatness of her books can be justified or not. I also didn’t know anything about her before reading this book, so I can’t really judge whether it’s the editor that is making her sound arrogant or whether she is really arrogant.

Nonetheless, I still don’t think it very wise to claim that your books are objectively better than other great works (reading is a relatively subjective activity) and to scoff at certain types of novels.

Ultimately, I can't agree with everything she says here, but this still holds as a valuable resource for writers and readers. If you are a fan of Ayn Rand and/or are curious about her writing methods, I would definitely recommend this for you.

[Edit: I have given this an extra star after realising how much this book affects my writing. I guess the tone does work and I do agree with a lot of the techniques for my own writing.]

Terry Goodkind told me to buy and read this book.
So I did.
Now I recommend other writers do the same.
Period.