A Treatise (Sort of) on Clever

I’m having a conversation with a friend who happens to be an indie filmmaker. I had just viewed his latest project. You should go give his YouTube channel a view.

His work is layered with little details to which he commented about his need to balance story and those fine details that created a sort of second dimension. The word clever was thrown around a bit.

This made me recall the many times that I’ve told myself: I’m not clever enough to be considered a great/talented writer. Yeah, the self-depreciating dialog is strong in this one. *pointing at self*

I decided to review the catalog of writers I’ve enjoyed in a sort of subjective experiment. Were all of them suitably clever, as I see the word? Is every work they publish of the caliber of wit and observation, as I see it in my head.

Sometime it’s very unfair to put upon ourselves lavish standards. Aiming high and constant self-improvement is a noble endeavor but just maybe the measuring tape in our minds is a little too skewed?

So here’s the Tea: not every successful writer (or creative person) is clever. Sometimes maybe, just maybe, the writer (creator) in question is just highly imaginative.

Of Hellraiser fame.

Like dear Clive Barker here. He has quite the catalog of horror writing/film making. I’ve read a few of his books (and I highly encourage anyone reading this blog to read Books of Blood…after the blog post). I haven’t seen anything particularly clever about his work. Most of the time it’s just so damn far out there and that’s the appeal. I enjoy a lot of his work just the same. It’s…juicy, with plenty of twists and moments that make you wonder: such bizarre circumstances could actually happen. I like that. I enjoy being lost in his version of worlds. Creepy appeals too. Creepy, but not particularly clever.

I don’t need to say his name. You already know.

I may get flayed for this but this guy, the Stephen King, is not exactly clever in my eyes. He is vastly prolific. He’s highly imaginative. I respect the volume of work that he produces. I’m in awe of it, in fact. He doesn’t fall into my view of clever. Oh, he has opened up so many worlds that are deep, unsettling at times, and entertaining on so many levels. Still: not clever.

If you don’t know, you should. I started with The Poisonwood Bible

How about I share with you my version of clever?
This is terrible for a writer to say, but I’m not entirely sure how to encapsulate the vision I have of clever. So examples! Barbara Kingslover…she is clever. Her writing feels elevated. That isn’t to say that literature is of higher quality than commercial fiction. Not so. Her voice, her settings, her stories, just feel a certain kind of luscious. To me, that luxe is an aspect of clever. I guess what she brings, versus what Barker brings is a type of insight vs. his unleashed storytelling.

A man steeped in clever

The other shade of clever is going to the witty version, probably what most people think when they hear the word.
I don’t often find myself snapping lines that elicit amused chuckles. Johnathan L. Howard has written some witty (read: clever) stuff. I find myself charmed by the characters and dialog in his Johannes Cabal series. Some writers just have the knack to work with charm and amusement the way some artists work in clay and paints. That is clever!

So, I may not excavate the sort of insight that Kingslover does with her characters and settings. I may not craft charming, chuckle-inducing dialog like Howard, but I can find in myself the worlds imagined and unleash them like Barker and King.