Yes, I think so. But only if the person breaking the rules KNOWS what the rules are in the first place. Otherwise there is a danger that rule-breaking becomes little more than an arbitrary and often uninformed exercise in protest - one that loses its (it’s) potency in the process.
In the case of art, for instance, Kandinsky showed he could draw superb academic portraits before finding his mature style, and Picasso was a consummate draftsman. Their innate talent both informed and validated their departures into expressionism, cubism, abstraction and the like. And in the case of the written word James Joyce had already proved he was a polished stylist well before he wrote Ulysses, a work that tested every rule there was and which is now considered one of the finest books written in the English language.
But let’s not forget, either, that when it comes to writing, successful departures from the so-called rules are ultimately reliant on a writer’s innate capacity to tell a story. It has been claimed with good reason that writing cannot be taught without this bedrock attribute. Likewise, shifting norms generated by pioneering stylists around style, format and treatment continue to advance the rules themselves.
The final judgement, however, must surely rest not with publishers and reviewers, nor with the judges of literary prizes, but with the reading public and the impact a work has in the longer term. Time tells. Rule breaking involves taking bold and imaginative risks, but it is the role of the reader that remains the decisive constant.
Comentarios