Welcome
Here you'll find the rantings of a blogging fool and sometimes writer. My more personal posts, including progress reports on my various writing projects, are Friends Only. General posts on writing are Public. Please see my user profile for my other LJs and my friending policy, and browse through the sidebar for nifty goodies and useful info.
Writing only leads to more writing. (Colette)
Visitors from 1/30/05:
"Stop worrying about the dumb stuff. It drains your energy. It diverts your attention. It gives you a really good reason to NOT do what you really need to do -- write the best damn book you can write. See, if you're busy obsessing over what font to use you don't have to wrestle the hairy POV beast to the mat, do you."
The rest is funny and fun to read.
- Feeling:
content - Listening:oldies tv
"It's not a science. It's an art and a sometimes it's a craft. The most important thing (and I know I say this a lot but it's true, or at least it's true for me) is finishing things, because that's when you find out if they worked or not. The rest of the time it's just hoping. And if you stop writing when a promising beginning runs out of steam, maybe you need something more in the planning stages. Or maybe you just need to soldier madly onward and see what Chance and Necessity (the mother, it must be remembered, of invention) provide."
I like this because it doesn't assume one way. He has what works for him, mostly, but he allows that there are other ways of working and having things work.
- Feeling:
busy
1. What was the best advice re: writing you ever got?
2. What was the worst advice re: writing you ever got?
I think folks can figure out my answer to 1.) was to ignore what didn't work for me and try to find what does. For 2.), I'd have to say, it's a tie between outlining and write everyday. Writing everyday was a particular frustration and in an odd way, helpful, because I discovered I'm a burst writer.
- Feeling: chipper
- Listening:classic rock radio
* Outline your story.
* Write every day.
* Have a page or word-count goal.
* Have a specific place to write.
* Write character biographies.
I really liked:
"I'm addressing these issues because writers ask about them, and many writers who are working hard to learn how to do this take the advice of "experts" seriously. But writing is so idiosyncratic that one author's aid can be another's handcuffs."
Amen. It's always nice when someone gets it, as in gets the point I keep trying to make about newbies not knowing any better and experts wielding more power as authorities than they realize. Rhamey is a writer and editor and his blog is well worth the read.
- Feeling: chipper
- Listening:Mets/Diamonbacks game
So in going back, I copied the post into WordPad and discovered two things. The first was that it was longer than I'd first thought, if possible. It might qualify as a chapter in a book, and it's still too long to bother reading, but the second thing was this that leaped out:
"Like Shelly, I reached a point at which I didn't like what I was writing all that much, and the first thing I did was to question why my writing wasn't working. Obviously their method is right, so the problem must have been me."
I might've said something along those lines, but I think, as usual, he missed my intent and a few other things. I didn't stop liking my writing. I stopped trying to go pro because I thought I wasn't good enough, because I couldn't do the things the how-to books and the writing teacher from hell (hmmmm... maybe I should start referring her to WTFH and the class as the WCFH) said I should, since they and she should know (because who was I, newbie writer, to question the experts) what was needed or the best way to get published. And who doesn't want to do things the best way if it'll increase your chance for success.
And yeah, I didn't like what I was trying to write, because I was trying to write a romance, which supposedly, was a quick way to break in as a pro back then, according to the WTFH who wrote romances. Romance writing was so not my thing, so when I quit the class, I gave up that monstrosity of a ms.
I retreated to the safe realm of fanfic, not because I stopped liking my writing and it wasn't working, but because it was how to get back to my love of writing and my love of my writing. So, in an odd way, yes, Patrick's experience was like mine, yet so very not. I didn't stop and question anything. I gave up and went back to having fun, where the only criticism I'd get is "You didn't use Illya enough." This doesn't count the time a friend slapped me because, in my last UNCLE zine, I named characters for MFU fan writers and unfortunately, I named the villain for her. Yes, she slapped me at a fan con (SpyCon in NJ many years ago), in the lobby, in full view of many people who were asking WTF. But I digress.
And yes, I tried to write by the "rules" and whatevers and those methods didn't work for me. I couldn't outline for shit. But that didn't make me think outlining was the right way to write, so something must be wrong with me. It made me think, fuck outlining, I guess I'll never be a pro writer. That difference might be a subtle one, to people like Patrick and maybe others, but to me, it's huge.
I'm redoing those old MFU stories, stripping them of their UNCLE references and working them into prequels to my spy series based on my MFU fanfic. Based in the sense that I expanded the universe, redid UNCLE in my image, changed the characters, and added a lot of my own. Now I have 3 other folks writing them with me and they've brought in lots of more new characters. And in rereading those old stories, I still like them. I see the flaws and am revising a lot as I go, dropping things, rewording other things, but the stories hold up, much more than I would've guessed after 20-25 years.
Even now, I'll pull off one of my spy story volumes to check something we've written and find myself caught up in the words. I know which are mine, which are J1's and J2's in the stories we wrote together, and I manage to impress myself all over with a turn of a phrase. I have "I wrote that? Cool" moments.
I never doubted my writing. I doubted my ability to ever get pro published for fiction (I have a non-fiction writing credit from the mid-'80s and some uncredited bits from earlier). There's a difference. A big difference. To me, anyway.
Oh, and I also noticed Patrick has blogged about an interview with Patricia Wrede from last year, a name I've never seen him blog about til I've mentioned her repeatedly on my comments on his blog. So, now he's discovered what we AOL and rasfc folks have known for years. She's one wise writer. But there was so much missing there and I was amused by comments that her advice will work for some folks and not others, which given that her advice IME has always been about things working for some people and not others, well, this sounds a bit obvious, but whatever. It can't hurt to spread the word, no matter what the form or forum. And I still have a dozen or more printouts of her posts. Wish I'd printed the Patricia/Steve Perry back and forth on show vs. tell. It was a writing clinic unto itself, but back then, I didn't fully appreciate how quickly things could vanish on AOL when they redid the folders.
Oh, and thanks everyone for the anniversary congrats. The 21st year of marriage is going fine so far. And for folks getting this via feeds, sorry if it appears a lot; I keep finding things to fix.
- Feeling:
calm - Listening:classic rock radio
Revising to clean up grammar, spelling, punctuation, overused words, is about writing clearly and efficiently. It's not solely part of writing creatively. As I've said over and over, the suggestion that there are rules, with or without quote marks around them, has harmed many writers...
[re: dealing with writers who hold onto a scene because it follows some rule they've learned, even if it was just made as a suggestion, because they think they should, even when the scene isn't working] And I dealt with that mentality, my own and that of other writers in my 15 years editing fanfic, plus another 10 years editing the interactive stories I write. People get such strong, unworkable ideas from "experts" who suggested something that worked for them, because of course that should mean it should work for everyone. That's how they see it, anyway.
And:
[I]t took me 10 lost years to "consider" why I hate those rules. It took someone convincing me there's another way, for me to realize I actually might be able to be a pro writer. If not for her, I wouldn't even by trying now.
And I'll add that I didn't reject the advice. I thought they were all right and I was the one who was wrong. That my writing stunk and I'd never be anything better than a fanfic writer. I realized Patricia was right because her words resonated with me and made me see why I was hating my writing. Because other people had given me reason to simply by suggesting things that could never work for me.
And I'm passionate about it, cuz I try to help people avoid losing as much time as I did out of insecurity and low self-esteem about their writing. Same as Patricia did and continues to do on usenet.
In the quote above, to clarify, Patrick suggested I didn't reject all advice, but that I was willing to listen to someone, ie Patricia. That I took the time to consider why I rejected the advice. Which of course is a misreading of my statements. As in my answers to comments in the previous posts on this and to repeat because it is so important, I didn't reject rules. I felt as if the rules rejected me, telling me I wasn't good enough because I couldn't follow them, because they weren't working for me. Patricia's advice, (and she wasn't the only one giving it, just the best known, was something I was very willing to hear. Here was a successful writer whose work I'd heard of, telling me it was okay if I couldn't follow the so-called rules. Talk about liberating.
Patrick said that different writers use the words differently, that one person's conventions are another's rules, hence the quote marks. Well, duh. That was part of my point. When these words are used so interchangeably, they lose a lot of meaning and you can't know how people will take them, or how much to heart.
At work, we're undergoing a process of reorganization that includes rewriting all policies and procedures. I'm learning a new vocabulary, one with clear, exacting definitions for Policies, Regulations (what commonly are known as rules), Procedures, and Guidelines.
- Policies: Why we do what we do. In writing, this could be vaguely associated by your goals or themes, if you work that way. If not, then it's not relevant, unless someone can suggest something.
- Regulations/Rules: What we are required to do by those policies. This can relate to the laws of science governing how things work in a hard science story or simply making sure your fantasy magic system is consistent. They can also include conventions of genre. If the policy is to write clearly in an accepted manner, then the rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation could be stuck here. They could also be independent of this organizational structure.
- Procedures: The step-by-step tasks that tell us how to follow the regulations. For writers who strictly adhere to an outline, this might be equivalent.
- Guidelines: The best practice to achieve the Policies and Regulations. Suggestions. For writers who use outlines, but don't strictly follow them, the outline could be considered a guideline. You could use them as a road map yet still take interesting detours and maybe or maybe not end up at the original destination. Or perhaps, there is no set destination at the start and you see the map bits at a time.
Clearly, the above items could be useful to some writers, but that isn't a given. A writer could ignore the whole thing and do just fine.
As I see it, writers often shoot themselves in the foot collectively by using terminology willy nilly. Sure, discussing terms when everyone has something a bit different in mind can be fun and educational, but it can also impede conversations. Many times on AOL's writers' boards and on rasfc, I remember times when people had to stop and explain how they were using pov terminology. Tight third equals intimate third equals... ad nauseum. Turned out one time, three people who thought they were disagreeing with each other were really saying the same thing in different words.
We use words. We play with words. We intend them to express certain ideas. At the least, when we use words that can be perceived differently, it behooves us to state our usage upfront, for clarification. Better, would be to find a better word, one that the majority understand and perceive similarly. We would do better if we make the words work for us, not stand in the way of comprehension. I'll even go so far as to say we should do that, because this isn't a matter of creative writing, but clear communication and a rule wouldn't hurt there at all.
One thing I have noticed is how different venues attract writers who are often in agreement. The bigger the pool of participants, the more varied the opinions. One reason I enjoy reading rasfc, though I don't post much, is the wide variety of opinions and arguments. But AOL's boards have only a small group now, and most are like-minded enough to keep discussion to a minimum of yeah, me, too comments.
And on various writers' journals, people tend to flock together. Patrick attracts folks who agree with him, ditto other writers whose blogs I read, and I have the same here to an extent. People like Lee Goldberg, who seem to discuss certain topics like fanfic just to start a disagreement are a whole different issue.
But I do like variety, which is why I've friended so many writers here. I'm thrilled with the variety of opinions and experiences I've been encountering. And I hope folks feel comfortable enough to add their opinions here, be they pro or con. All I ask is that we're all clear about what we're saying and that we have a concensus of the terminology we use so we understand each other.
Writing creatively and writing about writing creatively seem to require different methods.
- Feeling:
blah - Listening:oldies internet radio
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dsgood posted something in response to my last post, and this is the comment I left in response:
Oh, I figured out why the how-to-write books didn't work for me. They didn't match my process. I can't break down my writing like that. Well, I can look at things more consciously now, having written for another 15 plus years since then and having encountered some excellent online discussions about writing, and by working with collaborators and/or in interactive writing groups over the last decade. But 20 years ago? No, I couldn't begin to comprehend why those books and that class were frustrating the heck out of me. All I knew was that I got very discouraged.
My unconscious mind seems to do linear very well, because when I start writing, things come in order and I'm not consciously doing that. When I do consciously work on a plotline, I'm all over the place, drawing diagrams to figure out allies and enemies, etc. And at 52, I'm still discovering things about my mental processes. I'm logical and creative at the same time, which leads to precise art. I don't like using rough edges, for ex and asymmetry and have to force myself to do it for variety. I'm shuddering just thinking about it. I also tend to see negative space as well as the positive space when I do art and I suspect my writing follows some similar mental process of fill in the blanks.
I liked it enough to want to keep it here, tagged and memoried. (It's a word, now, okay?)
- Feeling: sleepy
- Listening:baseball game
Something I saw on a non-LJ writer's blog, yet another iteration of a longstanding disagreement I've had with people who post such things, first mentions "rules," and that the poster didn't believe every writer should follow them all the time, but that it was good to know the reason for the conventions and that if you know the boundaries, you can decide when to cross them. First, I'll post my comments on that blog, then I'll add a few thoughts.
I said: And I've never suggested you think all writers should follow the "rules." My disagreement has always been with the suggestion that these so-called "rules" even exist, because too many people, especially newbies, take them far too seriously and many of them, myself included, get hurt by that. I lost 10 years of trying to write for a pro market. While I wrote fanfic and learned, I regret I had to wait those 10 years til I happened upon AOL's writers boards and the very wise, very experienced, pro writer Patricia Wrede, whose sensible advice (From her I learned the only rule to writing is to actually write something.) set me free.
Then I said: Putting quotation marks around the word "rules" doesn't change the power it has over many people. And rules are not the same as conventions. And conventions change from genre to genre and many types of writing barely have conventions if at all.
Now I'll say: Look at the words being equated, given what appears to be equal weight — rules, conventions, boundaries. These things often have little or nothing to do with each other.
I don't know why things exist in books nor do I care. I don't have things like that in my head when I write. Knowing rule X or convention Y or boundary Z are the farthest things from my mind when I write or even when I revise. I can never remember things like that and consciously, I don't think beyond the story. Sure, I learned basic rules of grammar, spelling, and puncutation, things I don't consider part of creative writing, but part of something larger under which creative writing falls. I learned them in school and by some sort of mental osmosis, I guess. I still make up my own "rules" of paragraphing because I can never remember what I was taught re: where to start new ones. I do remember to indent them. I just paragraph according to what feels right to me, same as I break up scenes and chapters and pick povs, etc.
I do pay attention to my characters and story. Does it make sense? Are the characters in character? Are they likeable when I want them to be or unlikeable when that's the desired result? Are the surprising plot twists really surprising, and if not, maybe they don't need to be, that sort of thing.
The point is, I don't need to know what and why. I'm not that kind of writer. I don't want things like that holding me back, making me self-conscious. I can't write with the reader in mind for the same reason. I self-censor when I do. In 25 years of writing by the seat of my pants, having eschewed all the attempts to learn rules and conventions or guidelines or whatevers, I've written probably a couple of hundred stories in thousdands of pages that people, albeit a small group, have enjoyed.
What will get me to the next level, I feel, the magical realm of paid, published writer will not be learning conventions and knowing when to break them. It will be writing at a higher level, having the words be compelling to read. And that, as I said yesterday, for me, comes with practice and being edited.
- Feeling: blah
- Listening:Mets baseball game
- Feeling:
contemplative
The Snowflake Process for Writing a Novel
Here's what I had to say with some snipping to pull out direct responses to other people that would make no sense here without them. And yes, I've posted some of this stuff here before, but it bears repeating, I think.
This might be useful to some folks, not to others, and not to me. His timeframe for each step is a bit much. I don't know such things as obstacles to the characters til I write the story.
What really gets me annoyed (mostly things said over at that other board where we first "met," but I've heard it elsewhere, too) is when people tell me that outlining first (with scenes listed or not) would save me the time I "waste" by having to keep tossing what I write that doesn't work. And no matter how much I explain that I could write any number of outlines, it won't make a difference. I still will either lose interest in writing the thing cuz I already worked it all out or worse, the outline would be a big waste of time, itself cuz it would have the same flaws the drafts I write have.
I can't work out the story til I know the characters and put them into the story to do their thing. I would control the outline, which never works right (yeah, I did try that years ago), but the characters control the drafts. And that was where my first 2 drafts of the WIP went awry: I was trying to exert some control over it. In other words, I was thinking too much. Of course, there was a problem with the protagonist, too, but I never would have seen that in a neat little outline, but I sure saw it after writing 60,000 words (just didn't want to admit it the first time through).
I accept that writers often spend more time on something than other writers would or do. To those of us spending the time doing what we need to, which is part of the learning process for us re: our story, it's necessary. To an observer who doesn't work that way, it looks like we're wasting time. Why does everything need to be efficient and cost effective? Why do so many people seem to treat this as a business model? For me, writing isn't business. Trying to sell it, is.
For me, I rarely have an actual story I want to write. I write to discover a story. I start with characters, setting, plot, with plot being anything from a germ of an idea that's part of the setting to a what if question to Deb, my collaborator, wrote a line about a disaster during the colonization of Mars on the timeline leading up to the story we'd been writing and put on hold due to her health problems and I thought it sounded intriguing so I figured I could try writing it, having nothing more to work with than this statement: (year, which I ended up changing), Blood Plain disaster. At least we'd already worked out how cities were being built on Mars so I had a place to start, a way a disaster could occur--cave-in!
So I had setting (Mars) and plot idea (cave-in). Then I needed characters and I started with a guy whose parents were killed in the disaster and I figured there would need to be an investigation, so I created the investigators. I knew there were corporate and military folks, from our universe's structure, so I created the relevant ones. I spent a lot of time on characters, ended up added another 8 or so by the time I finished the 3 (and first complete) draft, and ended up tossing or relegating to bystander status another 4 characters I originally thought would be important but they didn't work out when I was writing. I didn't know what/who had caused the cave-in til I was well into the second draft (I couldn't decide during draft 1, which was due to problems with the protag and my own interference).
That's how I write. I call it organic. Each piece leads to the next and I have to write it for it to work. Outlining isn't enough. In many ways, my draft is my outline, just very long (110,000 words for the WIR).
And in answer to someone asking why I disliked people with writing plans, I said:
There is no right or wrong, just what works for you. To be honest, I wish I'd accepted that I needed to adjust the protag after the first draft, not after the second. But live and learn. He was a good character, but not right for that story, yet the changes were minor. I made him a bit more self-righteous, altered details in his background--he went from being the son of spies who didn't want to be a spy to the son of spies who had been a spy and quit cuz he hated it. But that meant he had the expertise to do what was needed and could drive the action forward where his first version was too much the cerebral bystander and that was BORING. It also was getting me nowhere.
But then, I create characters in general form and develop them during the writing of the story. That's how I learn about them, seeing them in action. Not everyone works that way or wants to. :)
- Feeling:
cranky
>It's like driving a car at night. You never see further than your headlights,
>but you can make the whole trip that way.
>
>- E. L. Doctorow
I've been doing some thinking about this, in terms of questions on the AOL board re: how you know which way, when you get to the end, roads having signs, etc.
And for me, it's not that there are no road signs. They just don't happen to say the sorts of things one would find on an outline. Those headlights illuminate for me signs that say, "Keep going this way." Occasionally, one might say, "Wrong way, go back," or "Don't turn this way." But I don't know why that would be. I just trust those signs to be right. And at some point, I reach a sign that says, "The End."
And I had to learn to trust them, meaning, I had to learn to trust my instincts, my process, my internal editor.
Now if I can only shake this cold that's been annoying me since the weekend, I'll be happy.
- Feeling: blah
I consider it a function of the place losing so many posters and all their variant voices and experiences, but that doesn't explain it, not really. Why would so many folks who feel and work the way I do leave and the one who remain, for the most part, are the opposite and pigheaded about it, too? Doesn't that defy the odds? Or does AOL simply appeal to people who can't see more than one way. And this tendency of these narrow-minded writers deciding that anything they don't understand is stupid, silly, not worth doing is just driving me batshit.
I'll keep AOL for the email and the journals with their ftp space, but more and more, I feel alienated from the writing community there. Here's what happened.
A discussion got underway in the Fiction writers area re: process and whether or not people outline. (Sound familiar?) I don't recall the start point, because it was of no consequence at the time, but the follow-up was.
One guy — let's call him W — (why is it almost invariably men who dig in like this?) posed 2 questions (Okay, I remember the start point. A non-fiction writer asked if folks know the ending before they start writing, and a few related questions) in response to the post referenced parenthetically (ooo, big words). He asked, if you don't know the ending,
A. How do you know how to reach it, and
B. How do you know when you get there?
I, and a couple of other people, answered that we just know. I said I write to find out the ending. If things are going astray, I just know and change things, and so on, stuff I've said here before. The follow-ups got heated. W, who writes non-fiction type stuff, scripts, and has interest I believe in writing novels, thought our answers and process were silly, that they didn't make sense. X, who has been a belligerant jerk for many years now, piped up about a certain someone (of course he would never name names — and no, it wasn't me; we'll get to me in a bit — who was an example of a writer who started a novel without planning it (assumed by me to mean outline, since I had my suspicions re: who he was referring to) and ended up with 400K words and wondering where it was all going and if there would ever be an end to it. And if he was talking about the writer I think he was talking about, that is one gigantic mispresentation of what happened, never mind that she learned a lot about herself and her process and about writing during that time and still had more than he has.
See, X, for all his bluster and know-it-all-ness, hasn't actually, to my knowledge (since he's never told us anything) finished a novel or a draft of a novel. In fact, in recent years, he has ceased to discuss his WIP (is it even a WIP or is it a WIStasis?), a military SF tale as I recall. Oh-kay. What an expert. We're all to the better for his board participation. (Yeah, you can barf now; I'll be joining you. :) )
But wait. X wasn't done. No, he still had me to skewer. At least, I suspect he meant me. It's hard to tell sometimes. Y had brought up an example of his own, A, a newbie working on what seems to be an incredibly long fantasy that is barely half done and who posted about it on the SF/F board. Lots of folks jumped on her, including me initially, re: its length (first, we had to get her to do a word count, because her page count made no sense). She's got in the neighbhorhood of 160,000 words so far and apparently needs to get it written. Advice filled the board re: revising, including some useful and not so useful examples of tightening the prose. She would have none of it. Them's her words and they can't be changed. Right now, publication is not her goal. Writing it is. I told her to write it, then she can worry about revising, or splitting it into 2 or 3 books, later if she wants to aim for publication. That didn't sit well with X and Y. Or even with Z, a pro writer of, I believe, horror novels I haven't read who can be as rule-driven and "should"-driven as the unpublished horde of outlining writers on AOL. And the poor woman started to get discouraged and that cut right through me. I've been where she is, doubting her writing ability. We emailed a bit, and I told her to not worry about advice she didn't like, not til she needs it. What she needs now is to discover if she can finish the draft, write a complete story, and experience the sense of statisfaction and accomplishment that comes with that. She clearly isn't a revise as you go kind of gal.
So now, X tells Y, on the Fiction board, that his example won't mean anything to a "certain person" unless Y can get the writer in his example to come tell us herself. Now, A doesn't post on that board and I said in SF/F that we can't really know how someone wrote a book unless they tell us. I never said, to my recollection, that heresay evidence wouldn't be sufficient in such cases. Upshot is, I know he meant me, not A. He had to get the dig in on a board where the original issue hadn't appeared.
So B posts that she read of a writer who described her process as driving at night without street lamps and only the headlights illuminating the way. You can't see the way to the destination, but you can see to keep driving. This is something I know has been discussed somewhere else recently (though I can't recall where) and I like it. But W, X, and Y tried to poke holes in the logic, because they don't get it. They mentioned needing to be able to read maps and signs and to have enough oil, etc (outline, plans). While the point is, you can drive without anything but those lights on the car, because there are signs that tell you "Ending ahead, keep going." They simply don't tell you where or what that ending is.
End of rant, vent, whatever. You may now resume normal activities. heh
- Feeling: pissed off
I'd rather be a little fish is a big pond (the size of rasfc, for ex, where mine is but a little voice and where my opinions are shared by someone, or even many someones, else) than a big fish in a little pond. I don't crave the attention. I don't need to win. I just get so bothered when a writer, who may or may not have talent, gets discouraged when bombarded with advice she's not ready for, especially when she thinks it's coming from people more expert than her (never mind that only one of the people giving that advice is a published author of novels; the others are a wannabe, and a couple of writers of short fiction who have seen modest success at best). One of her recent posts about feeling discouraged damn near tore my heart out because it could've been me 15 years ago, when I felt that way about writing. And when the advice is coming at her with such a heavy hand (the theory of tough love because editors will be ruthless, don'tcha know), I feel the sting, too.
Maybe she needs to get the story out and then can consider her next steps. If someone's not ready to hear something, ramming it down their throats tends to be counter productive. I came close to jumping back in today, but didn't. I've said my piece and have nothing more I can add (wouldn't want to be tiresome to anyone with my repititions, as per someone's post in that thread).
And here's another thing I've noticed that bugs me. In surfing some writers blogs, I've noticed that advice I gave folks that was dismissed is considered helpful when it comes from someone else. But if my name had been attached to those words, I'm reasonably certain the word "helpful," or words of similar sentiment would not be uttered or typed.
What really bugs me, I suppose, is that I know better. Been there, done that too many times to not know better. My screen name, certain words typed equals the knee-jerk response, and when it comes from someone who previously lauded my advice or asked me to write up something about blogs for his website, it particularly irks me. And yet, I let myself be lulled into thinking this time will be different, or this group (the Commonwords fiasco) will be different.
I suppose one could say it must be me, because I'm the common denominator, after all, and maybe that's so. But it's not across the board and I know there are people who agree with me. So I've pulled back on AOL's boards and pulled out of Commonwords and if that means I don't offer my help to people in either place, that's just the way it is. My ego is fine, thanks. It doesn't need for me to be queen of the boards or newsgroup or whatever for its health. These blogs of mine and the small yet enthusiastic readership for my self-published spy stories are enough of an ego boost.
In an aside, for you book lovers out there, I started a book meme on my reading blog: Shelly's Book Shelf.
Cross posted to my other writing blog because I'm that ticked.
- Feeling: annoyed
I got a moderator's email telling me I was posting too frequently and repeating things (something I could say about half the people who post). Nevermind that I don't usually remember what I've said previously or that I tend to be a bit wordy. I tried very hard to snip as much as possible and keep to the topic at hand. I was also skipping entire threads that didn't interest me. And in some ways, as is often the case with me, it was the fun of a new thing. I'm sure my posting would have tapered off considerably after another month or so as other new things caught my attention.
The moderator also told me I took it too personally and was being defensive or making people feel defensive about process or some such. I didn't read the letter carefully after the first few lines which made up my mind. I have never gotten such a letter before and feel that as long as I'm following the rules, I should be able to say what I have to say, which leads me to think someone complained and in that case, I didn't feel wanted and I don't stay where I'm not wanted. I tend to be a bit enthusiastic about making the point re: exceptions and fussing about people using "should" and "must" and "rules" when it comes to writing, because, as I've said before, those are the things that cost me 6 years of trying to write for a pro market. I won't rehash that now.
I thought the whole idea of the list was to share ideas and thoughts and I guess since someone feels I'm repeating myself, that I said all I have to say there, so it's time to move on. And so I am. I'll continue to post about my writing here and about writing in general over on http://prestoimp.blogspot.com and to cross post any interesting links and so on.
It was fun while it lasted. And I don't take message boards or listservs or whatevers online personally. I learned the folly of that many years ago. :)
So, if you want to discuss writing with me, the comments field is open for business. On both of my writing blogs.
- Feeling: relieved
Patrick had something to say about my entry here. I didn't go read it, so I can't comment on it, but one of my "spy" friends has been so entertained by the whole exchange that she's been reading his journal for me. Way to go, A. She's not on AOL nor does she have an LJ or any other blog. I really need to up the pressure on her to start one. She also writes and has so much good stuff to say about writing. But so far, she's been resistent. I think she's afraid she'll get addicted the way I have. But she's been reading Patrick's journals and has alerted me to what he's been saying, and yeah, I went and commented, mostly so he'd know I know what he's saying, but the hell with it. He can have the last word on his journals cuz they're his journals and I'll happily continue having the last word here.
So anyway, Deb, my collaborator, and I had an interesting discussion about the whole thing Saturday night. I wanted her take on it because I value her opinions on writing more than nearly anyone. I read to her over the phone all of the blog entries by Patrick and myself, even my less than shining moments, and I had to tell her to stop interrupting cuz she was getting more worked up about the issue than I was (and she's Christian, so the Yiddish words are just words to her). What she said was, "But they're not English!" Uh, yeah, exactly. It was good to have that affirmation, that she sees it the same way I do, and not because we've been friends for 16 years and writing partners for the last 10 (because we have had plenty of arguments over politics and writing, tho not that much on writing, anymore), but because we view the issue in the same way. And for both of us, the frustration of having one's explanations constantly and consistently misunderstood.... well, it's hard to not keep trying, but even I can recognize that I'm just wasting pixels over this. Which doesn't mean I won't continue to discuss the issue or anything else I think is of interest or that is interesting to me. I just won't be wasting the pixels on his journal, so I told D, thanks but no thanks. I don't want the updates, anymore.
One thing that's gotten my attention, that I'll probably go into more depth over on Presto Speaks! is people posting opening scenes or paragraphs and asking for feedback, and when the comments are along the lines of: Nothing is happening so far, OR questions about the content, they get defensive. My favorite response is: But that's explained later. Well, that's all well and good, but unless you give me a reason to read more, I won't be reading that explanation. So either make that opening more interesting without giving the details you aren't ready to give or start with them. Or something. If an author needs to explain or feels the need to explain, then perhaps something is missing in the prose.
- Feeling: pensive
Actually, I needed a break before I draft TA DA! the last 4 scenes in what I now affectionately refer to as the &%^#@ WIP, so I looked at some What Iffers' blogs and his was one of them. Oops. And I found a post almost wholly devoted to, uh, me.
See, he had a feature he called "Weird Word Wednesday" and I commented that it was offensive when he included two perfectly fine Yiddish words in the recent edition of this feature. Nevermind that I'm Jewish and Yiddish is common to me, not that I understand all that much of it. I would have found it equally offensive if the words had been Japanese or Russian or.... hmmmm.... I think he did include zeitgeist at one point, a word I wouldn't call "weird," either. And since he quoted, in paraphrase form, my emails and comments to him, I, for review purposes here under fair use, quote him here.
"... She has argued that a writer should always be careful of the words he uses,
and should always be aware of possible alternative perceptions of those words by
others. A writer must watch his words closely and it should matter to him how
others interpret what he writes. She's absolutely right about that."
So far, so good."
I have argued that if writers must be willing to accept the fact that their
words might be misinterpreted, readers must be willing to accept the possibility
that their own interpretation could be other than intended."
Huh? The writer's intent is not my concern as a reader. My concern is what's on the page. I don't care if the writer beat his wife or donated regularly to charity. I don't care if he thought he was writing a space opera with no theme beyond good triumphs over evil or he was aiming for the great American novel that explores the nature of good/evil, God/Devil, family, relationships, and the merits of capitalism vs socialism. If it's not on the page, I'm not gonna see it. And I tend to see less theme and intent than a lot of other readers.
Readers bring their own biases to a work. When we do book discussion groups as discussion leaders in the library, we're not supposed to bring them into the discussion. We're not supposed to bring in our knowledge of the setting or time period. We aren't supposed to mention history or culture or writing technique. We're supposed to work with what's on the page. And while, as a reader, if I know any of that, it enhances my reading experience, the book still should stand on its own, by virtue of the words on the page.
It's not for me to misinterpret. It's for the writer to write as clearly as possible and hope for the best. I remember Patricia Wrede, many times on AOL's SFF writers board, telling of the time she talked to someone who'd read one of her books and proceded to tell her what it was about. Which was news to her. She'd thought she'd just written a story, no theme in mind.
And you can take the same story and give it to a dozen readers and you will get more than one "interpretation" or impression of what it's about. I've had some wonderful discussions about books I've read both online and in-person and have been amazed and fascinated by some of the things people have read into a book that I didn't, and vice versa. Are any of us "wrong" because we didn't get what the author might've intended? That would be a "no." Resoundingly so."If readers can accept this fact and move on, there should be no reason why they shouldn't be willing to continue reading other people's viewpoints. If readers aren't willing to accept that they misinterpreted what a writer meant, then by all means they should withdraw themselves from what that particular writer has to say."
The reason I stopped reading that blog regularly is because the blogger and I have butted heads on too many issues and if I'm not comfortable commenting, why bother reading, and because despite all my attempts to explain my position, he doesn't seem to get it, based on comments like the following.
"I certainly didn't mean to imply that there is something wrong with words of
Yiddish origin; I like hearing Yiddish words, actually, because they are
interesting to me. The simple fact is that there are plenty of people who have
not been exposed to Yiddish in their lives. To them, those words are uncommon,
unusual. They're not bad, they're not inappropriate, but they are outside of
those people's vocabulary."
Except that his audience potentially could be anyone in the world, including a whole lot of people for whom Yiddish words are neither "weird" nor "unusual," and to say these are "weird" or "unusual," when they are merely in a language other than English, is offensvie to some folks no matter what the intent."I realize that some people are more sensitive than others when it comes to their heritage and/or faith. The reader indicated that she objected to the use of the word weird the first time I used it as well, but didn't make issue of it until I included the two Yiddish words."
I'm not one of them. I'm not sensitve on this issue and to be honest, I personally don't give a shit what he calls the words he puts up. I pointed out that it could be considered offensive and that I found it so, but it's no biggie to me. I won't go hide in a corner or cry even crocodile tears over it. And I didn't make issue of it before the Yiddish words were used because, to be honest, I often just skim the word and grammar posts but this one caught my eye with the Yiddish words. Which gets back to my point. ANY non-English word would be "unusual" to English speakers, so what's the point using them in a list of English words? Why not just post words from a Yiddish or Hebrew or Russian or German or French dictionary and be done with it?
And if I was really sensitive, I might take offense at his posting excerpts not only from the few comments I made on his journal to this point, but also from my private emails to him, which I believe is against AOL's TOS, but I'm not inclined to bother checking because, well, I don't give a shit. I said those words and I stand by them.
"I am more sensitive than most when it comes to being accused of being
discriminatory. It irks me. And when my explanation of my so-called offensive
remark seems to carry no weight, when my motives aren't believed or when a
reader is unwilling to accept the spirit of my work and move on, it irks me even
more. When it is suggested that I have little to no regard for other people's
feelings, quite frankly, it pisses me off."
Again, not what I was saying, over and over ad nauseum. Intent was never the issue. The use of "unusual" (and yes, I know what the word "weird" means, but I also know its connotations, and that was another argument we had not worth going into here) for non-English words is the issue. It can be offensive and it's problematic and there's no reason to designate them as such. He changed the name, finally. So why couldn't he just do it the first time and avoid all the tsimmes.
When I agreed to join Andrea's What Iffers group, I did so reluctantly. I'm not one for writing groups, but this was mostly innocuous and unobtrusive. Sure, there were exercises, most of which I left for others to do. And occasionally, I posted the rah-rah you go, girl or you go, guy posts on the members' journals. But it's too much to keep up with and to be honest, it's just not for me. I'll leave the links up for now in the Blogger version of this blog, but I'll no longer consider myself a member. Trying to formalize a support system might work for some folks, but I prefer the occasional posting on rasfc or reading what the folks I've put in my LJ Friends have to say, and maybe I'll comment on some of that. Butmy participation in What If? has been pretty much bupkiss lately and so, I formally end my association with it. And if any What Iffers reading this care to remove my link from their journals, they should feel free to do so. Sorry it didn't work out and all that.
- Feeling: amused
Deb used me as an example. She told our mutual friend that I had been working on my WIP for 5 years now (well, really, it's been three years writing-wise, the other two years being spent on a different project that I've put aside, and I did take 6 months off to do other things, but why pick nits) and that I'd tossed the second half (80 pages of 10 pt single-spaced text) twice and was now approximately 20 scenes from The End. The mutual friend found this inspiring and has been on a writing tear, it seems.
Another thing Deb explained to her was something I've talked to Deb about: finding what works, what process forms the foundation for the writing for you. You can't know what will work til you try it and if it doesn't, you try other things til something clicks. I learned that from some wise people on message boards, especially Patricia Wrede, and I've tried to make a point to pass on that wise advice.
Deb never thought about process per se. She has her way of writing, which involves outlining. She was stunned upon finding out, when we started writing together, that I don't outline in advance, that I don't think things through to the end until I'm almost at the end (like now, with the last 25 or so scenes revealing themselves to me when I was up to them, because the story can now, finally, unlike in the earlier drafts, go only one way — which is something I know, but I hope the reader doesn't figure out too soon.
So we've spent a lot of time talking about process, which means we've learned a lot from each other and about ourselves and our own processes as well as the variety out there. And I've gotten to pass forward the good advice I've received and now it's been passed forward yet again by Deb.
And that's why I made myself a nuisance to some people on AOL's writers boards before deciding to pull back a lot because it wasn't worth the arguing. Some people are so set in their process, they see outlining as the be-all, end-all, that they think I'm arguing against it. Nothng could be more wrong. If outlining works for you, outline outline outline. But if it doesn't, don't get discouraged. You might, like me, be a write-as-you-go writer. And that's okay, too. No publisher will ever ask you how you wrote your book. They care only that it be good and worth publishing
And that's why I have this blog and will continue to pass forward the wisdom I received, the wisdom that got me thinking that yes, I can do this, that I'm not doomed to never be more than a fan fic writer (which would be fine if that was all I wanted for my writing, but it's not). Because if one person benefits, then it's worth it. And now, someone has and it feels good. If only she'd read it here, but I'll take the victories where I get them. And I'm looking forward to reading the results.
- Feeling: pleased
I'm sure the What-Iffers will continue visiting here, Shelly. I'd hate to think anyone would snub ANYone just because they don't share the same opinions. I've always maintained that you share sound advice here and at your websites, not to mention all of the resources you link to. That's not going to change, is it?
I'll be doing what I've always done, tho I won't be updating the website as often and I won't put up links that don't interest me. The lack of real interest in the site based on the few answers I got to my survey led me to realize there's no reason to put up links in the interest of anticipating what people might want if I'm not also interested in them. If I have indication in the future that folks want links to other things, and I sense they're actually using the site, then I'll go back to looking for all sorts of good stuff.
[me: ... when I read this advice (that rules exist and can be broken), I sense a foundation process at work. Learn the rules so you can break them. To me, that means a conscious, well-thought out writing process. ]
Not so in my case, although I wish it was. It'd be nice to go into a project without feeling like I was flying by the seat of my pants. For me, winging it is all well and good, as long as I can follow SOME structure.
And that's fine, for you and probably a lot of other people. My collaborator loves structure. She sees it in her sleep. She sees it in all writing, even mine. But I don't. And that's not about rules. To me, that's process. Make your own rules if you want, but they aren't THE rules. :) And I need to just write, no thought about ahead structure. I structure subconsciously, it seems. I don't see the structure, but DC assures me it's there.
I've taken several writing courses, but I'll be the first to admit that I learned the most ABOUT the process of writing by critiquing other's work and by having my own critiqued. And then ... by writing. And reading. But I don't think that I would feel as comfortable in MY skills as a writer if I didn't know and understand some of the rules about writing. Off the top of my head, I'd say learning about passivity has been the most important "rule" I've learned as a writer. It was one of the toughest to learn, but one of the easiest to change. It's also one of the first things I notice in other's writing.
I've never critiqued anyone. I have edited folks, for over 15 years, for fan fic. And the passive voice can be a powerful tool, when used well. I've read some nice passive voice, mood type pieces that were very evocative.
In providing someone with a critique where I talk about passive voice, I am able to explain the difference between SHOWING and TELLING -- one of the biggest pitfalls a writer faces.
This is another of my hot button topics. After being mostly an observer many years ago, and still regretting not making printouts, of the debate between Steve Perry and Patricia Wrede on the old Writers Club Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers message boards re: show vs tell, I learned that it means different things to different people and each has its place. You don't necessarily want to show everything. Sometimes, you want to skip things or summarize them by telling.
ANYTHING is a pitfall if the writer lacks the skill to pull it off. For many, understanding will help, but for some of us, we don't need to understand. We go by instinct, what SOUNDS right to us and we usually have a good enough inner ear. Whether an editor or agent will agree is another matter. :)
Now I could probably write my critique or feedback intelligently enough without having knowledge of passive voice or show versus tell based on what I, as an avid reader and writer believes looks the best. However, having knowledge of the rule, having written in the passive voice and telling instead of showing, and then learning how to write in present tense with verve, and learning how to show what's happening instead of telling ... well, for me, it adds an extra ring of truth. (Ack! Run on sentence! But I'm gonna break that rule anyway.)
Call it rule breaking if you want, but that's just you writing in your style to me. And what you describe, to me, is not about knowing rules that you would then explain, but having an understanding of TECHNIQUES.
... [ME: Written communication skills are across the board for fiction, non-fiction, writing letters, writing advertising copy. The idea is to communicate. If you fail to do that, it could be because the message is lost in bad grammar, poor spelling, lack of punctuation, and lousy sentence structure.And those tools, those rules, can be applied to fiction.]
I'm glad you added that last line because creative writing is also a form of communication.
And I have been saying that, tho some folks seem to be ignoring it. And I'm still not calling them RULES of creative writing. I'm calling them TOOLS, a few among many, TECHNIQUES that can aid a writer in the construction of effective fiction.
We still have to clearly communicate our ideas so readers won't be dumped out of the story and left to wonder what we meant by this or that.
Well, what dumps out one reader won't the next reader. And some readers care about that and others, like me, don't. A momentary glitch here and there in grammar or punctuation won't bother me much. Get the facts wrong more than 3 times, and I'm likely to stop reading. And I don't try to communicate IDEAS so much as my STORIES.
[ME: I don't use fragments because I know the rule about sentences and have decided to break it. I write them because they sound better to me.]
Same here. (Fragments are accepted in today's writing.)
They're not by everyone, but it was only the first example that came to mind. I could easily substitute run-ons, misspellings, or incorrect grammar, and the same would apply. The point is not that I use them, but the reason I do has nothing to do with knowing what they are or that anyone considers them rules.
But ... will a newbie know what a sentence fragment is?
To me, that's irrelevant. What matters is: Does the sentence or fragment sound right to the writer? Does it do/convey what he or she intends it to do/convey? Knowing what it is will matter only when he or she wishes to discuss it with someone.
You may say it's not necessary for him to know what it is as long as he knows how to write it. Some people are born with innate writing talent and won't need to learn writing rules because they already write prose that feels like a warm breeze against your face.I wasn't one of them. I like having the rules around. They've helped more than hindered me.
And some people aren't born with the skills and they still don't need to learn rules of writing fiction to do it. They just need a good inner ear and to develop their internal editor. It's doable. It's been done. And if someone like Patricia Wrede, with her close to 25 years of supporting herself with her fiction says so, it's good enough for me.
And for the record, my early prose sucked big time. None of it was innate. I learned the tools in school: grammar, spelling, punctuation. Again, these are tools, with their own rules, but they aren't rules in and of themselves when it comes to fiction. So I started writing fiction seriously in 1980 -- fan fic -- and I got better the more I did it. And DC edited me 10 or so years later and I learned a lot from that. I never learned FICTION WRITING RULES. I did try to learn them from How-to-Write books and got confused because the experts all contradicted each other. So much for the one and only rules.
Writers work out their own process, their own rules if they need them. More power to them. But don't tell newbies thems the rules, cuz they ain't. Not by a longshot.
MORE LINKS
Might as well add these in, especially for writers of science fiction. It's more a page on a site and the site's main URL actually.
BBC Get Writing.
Stephen Baxter on Writing Science Fiction.
- Feeling:
determined
But see, to me, aside from the whole logic problem I have with having rules only to break them, there's a real "have your cake and eat it too" issue going on with that. There's also an underlying assumption or two or twenty in that advice. The advice assumes that people work the same way, even while the folks offering up the advice say people have their own ways to write. To me, when I read this advice, I sense a foundation process at work. Learn the rules so you can break them. To me, that means a conscious, well-thought out writing process. The story is planned, the author works out the details, figures out what pov, what rules can or should be broken and in what way, then proceeds to write. And I don't write that way. Many writers I know don't write that way, and yes, I count fan fic writers in there. If they're writing stories other people read, they don't need to be professionals to be called writers, in my not so modest opinion. Their skill as writers is another issue, of course.
Another assumption is that you need to know these magical rules first, that studying is required, or how else will you learn those rules? Well, I never really studied writing. I just learned by doing and by being edited. Which brings me back to the issue of writing vs creative writing, the itsy bitsy distinction no one in What Iffers so far seems to be making.
Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are rules of language. Language has a structure, a syntax, a physical representation in accepted lines called letters of the alphabet. Written communication -- I'll say that word again: COMMUNICATION -- requires using those rules. If not used, then communication sufferes. And communication seems generational. Sure, I know IMO and BTW (in my opinion, by the way) when I see them, and I've learned to recognize the more esoteric codes as YMMV (your mileage may vary), but sometimes, I see internet communication between folks under 25 and I think they're using a new language and perhaps they are, for all the shortcuts to English. Makes me wonder what internet French or German looks like.
Written communication skills are across the board for fiction, non-fiction, writing letters, writing advertising copy. The idea is to communicate. If you fail to do that, it could be because the message is lost in bad grammar, poor spelling, lack of punctuation, and lousy sentence structure.
And those tools, those rules, can be applied to fiction. And probably will work better than not using them. But I still view them as tools, same as any other writing tool, to be used as needed by the writer for a given writing project. They are not rules of creative writing.
One reason I make such a fuss about this is because newbies, and I speak from my own experience as a newbie too many years ago, often don't know how to weigh advice. They don't yet know how to decide what to listen to and what to disgard. They don't yet know that even Mr. Famous Writer's advice might not apply to them and that it is OKAY if it doesn't. That there's nothing wrong with them if they can't write that way. When someone viewed as an authority says "These are the rules, use what will work for you, these rules won't work for anyone," usually what's heard is "These are the rules," and the rest is so much noise.
Because newbies are often looking for the magic formula and if it worked for Mr. Famous Author, it should work for them.
I've just seen too much crap written by fan fic writers trying to adhere to rules that just don't work for them, rules that yield stilted or lifeless prose, rules that bury the story in a structure too heavy for it. Sometimes, they're so worried about the rules, they forget to have some fun with the words and write the f'in story. I've even had fan fic edited by writers/editors who got the idea that the rules are the rules, who wanted to strip my stories of adverbs and adjectives which are deemed weak or to try to remove all the passive sentences and the sentence fragments.
And I don't use fragments because I know the rule about sentences and have decided to break it. I write them because they sound better to me. And I will not stop in my railing against the rules when applied to creative writing. I think they can be as harmful as they might be useful. I'd rather people just learn how to hone their skills and learn to write effectively, meaning that they learn by playing with the prose, how to say what they want, evoke emotions or make the reader think, whatever works for them.
So here's a rule for you: Write what works. You'll know what that is by the fact that it works. And you'll learn how to recognize it over time with lots of practice.
This rant means obviously, that I'm not in agreement with the What Iffers who have spoken out on this and I will probably not be commenting on their journals except perhaps to offers kudos or support as appropriate. If you want to see what they have to say on the subject, their journals are under the What If logo in the sidebar on the BlogSpot version of this blog. Unfortunately, one is private and accessible to only the group members, so I have only his main journal listed. And now I'll be wondering if any of them will continue to visit Presto Speaks! Their view is a well accepted view and this issue has been argued for years and years online, but I'll stick to my view. It helped me fight off the discouragement I felt when I couldn't write the way I thought I was supposed to. And I'll continue to speak my mind about writing here.
- Feeling: aggravated
I guess it's no surprise anymore that Writing Rules is one of my hot button topics. One thing that bugs me is when someone says: These are the rules, this is what you should do, yadda yadda yadda.... and then they qualify it with a disclaimer, such as: Your mileage may vary, this may or may not work for you, and so on. And that's a mixed message. This is what you should do, except when, you know, you can't or don't wanna. Huh?
Related to this is: "Rules are made to be broken." I hate that. Why have rules if you can break them, or more confusing, should break them in the right situations? And who says when that is? And that leads to: "You have to learn the rules first so you can learn when and how to break them." So now there could be rules regarding breaking other rules. Gotcha. Talk about confusing.
And that's where I start foaming at the mouth. I don't like being told it's all right for me to break the rules. Well, thank ya kindly, but I'm not breaking rules. There are no writing rules to break. I do differentiate between rules of grammar, punctuation, spelling and "rules" of creative writing. The former apply to all writing, creative or not. They form the basis of written communication and grammar applies to all forms of communication.
But creative writing is a whole 'nother critter where grammar, spelling, and punctuation are tools, along with plotting, structure, outlines, character bios, and anything else a writer of fiction might use to attain a finished story. Use them wisely and use them well, but use only the ones that are necessary for your story. Of course, if you insist on dropping all punctuation, for ex (or frex, as folks on rasfc like to say), you'll have to deal with the fact that most if not all readers will find the work incomprehensible. And what works for one author might not for another or not even for that author for a different story. Learning how to control those tools and how to wield them skillfully is what ultimately separates the published writer from the pack of wannabes. That and luck, of course. Yes, with the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts hitting slush piles across the globe, luck is definitely a factor.
A final thought on the Rules subject, for now. Aside from all the contradictions and confusions in the rules, I always had trouble with how obvious yet nebulous they could seem. Maybe it's because I don't extrapolate well when it comes to fiction, but reading or hearing such advice as: "don't build tension in a straight line, but include moments of levity" is rather specific, even if I might not be able to figure out how to do it. But reading that a good thriller should have increasing suspense tells me nothing about how to do it. Yet it makes sense, right? A thriller should thrill, as suspense should have suspense. A mystery should have a mystery. A romance should have someone in love.
And then you can get so bogged down by these "rules" or advice, that you forget to be creative. You cut all the non-saids and remove all adverbs because someone said they should be avoided (never mind that someone else said they can spice up flat prose) and you might end up with something lifeless.
My advice is to write. Then when you edit/revise, you can see if you're overdoing it with any words or phrases, if you have unneeded words dragging things down, then delete a bunch or most if you think the result will be an improvement. Learn to trust your internal editor, by doing. And don't let your internal editor interfere with your internal writer. Unless, of course, you're like me and you edit as you go. heh
Outlines....
I might go into this in more detail at some point, but appropos of the Rules discussion, I thought I'd mention them here. When I write solo, I don't outline. When I write with collaborators, I use some form of outline -- sometimes, no more than a scene list -- so we can coordinate. Usually, I'm not the one working out the details, so it's not an issue for me. But for those solo efforts, I need to write first to figure out the story. I need to immerse myself in the characters to learn what they'll do and think in the story situations. My characters control the story. When I tried it the other way, well, I have some awful drafts to show for the effort.
My process has earned some comments over the years on writers message boards that I waste time that way. I write a draft, discover it doesn't work, and have to start over. I'm on my third draft (the other two weren't completed) for my WIP and I only now have figured out the whole story. What a waste of 2 years, right?
Uh, no. I could have outlined the story first. The outline would have resembled a first draft so I could see all that would happen in the scene. But since I wouldn't be going into character much for an outline, if the character is off (as happened with the protagonist in the WIP), I wouldn't know it yet. I'd write the outline/draft thingy, and then write the story and then discover, oops, it's not working. And I would have "wasted" the time, anyway.
Except it's all part of the process, the learning about the character and story part for me. It's how I work and it's never a waste of time.
Interesting Looking Websites....
Someone posted this link on rasfc. It looks good so I'm posting it here. I'll be adding it to ImPRESS Books' Writing Links page at some piont in the near future.
The Grand List of Overused Science Fiction Cliches.
This also might be of interest to folks: Science Fiction Romance Newsletter.
- Feeling: contemplative
But then I found the AOL writers boards, with wise professionals like Patricia Wrede who scoffed at rules. People who helped me see that rules could be a hindrance same as not knowing rules can be. And so, while I appreciate the need to have basic writing skills -- to know the difference between verbs and nouns, adverbs and adjectives and what the heck articles and prepostions are -- that's not about creative writing. That's just about knowing the tools that are good to have when trying to construct fiction, whether you do that intuitively, same as I do, or you painstakingly work it all out first.
So, with the intent of being helpful and passing on the wisdom passed on to me, I offer these "Rules." They come in categories.
MUST (There is only one in this category.)
- String words together in some fashion in tangible form (paper, computer file). At some point, writers must write.
SHOULDs
- The words you use should convey what you want to convey to the reader. If
more than half the readers get it, you probably did fine, but the first reader
is the editor or agent, and they must get what you have to say or no one else
will get the chance to read those words of yours.
- You should do the first thing in this category in a way that makes people
keep reading. If you hope to sell your fiction, this is pretty much a
given.
- It's a good idea to be grammatical, except when you don't want to be, ie in dialogue or first person narration.
- It is a good idea tho if you aren't grammatical, that your prose is easily comprehended by your readers.
- You proably should use proper spelling except as in the cases re: being grammatical. You'll want to be careful here, tho. You wouldn't want an editor to think you're illiterate. That's not usually how manuscripts get sold.
- It's a good idea to write about characters and have them do things or have things happen to them.
- You might want to do one or more of the following in each scene:
- Move the story/plot forward.
- Develop character.
- Provide backstory/background info.
That's all I can think of for the moment. Words are things we play with as writers. If I've said this before, it's worth repeating here: One of my friends love stringing them together into poems and puns. I enjoy stringing them together for a novel to find out what happens next. There's a whole lot in between, just waiting for us to take a chance.
The caution is always: Is it publishable? if that's your goal. But thinking if you learn the rules and follow them, or figure out when you can best break them, won't necessarily lead to publishable writing. Because bottom line is: Did you do it well? With skill? With flair? Did you write something other people will want to read and will pay to read?
Rules of creative writing? Bah, humbug.
- Feeling:
bitchy
plotz (verb) fall down dead right now note Usage: "oy, after all that shopping I'm about to plotz" Or "Ham and cheese sandwiches? If your grandfather weren't already dead, he'd plotz."
So anyway, I thought I'd talk about plots a bit, though I'm sure I've touched on this before, but the Google search of this site says no, so here goes.
A new blogger and published author, Teresa Williams-Author http://journals.aol.com/theresarrt7/The
So I suggest that since most people pretty much agree that there are no more than 3-7 (maybe up to 10) distinct plot types (the number varies depending on who you ask), it is possible that myths use these because that's what's available. (I won't go into her contention that mythology is built into us; that's more philosophical than I want to get here and I don't really believe it anyway, though I suppose our brains could be hardwired to be receptive to mythology; current research is looking for a neurological construct for religion, after all.)
The plots I feel are separate types, which can be used in combination, variation, or modification:
Romance or Love Story (aka Boy meets Girl -- there are plenty of variations, and in a way, a human's love for a pet could be put here, your basic "Lassie" story, though I'm willing to be persuaded that this is a separate item.)
Good vs. Evil (covers a lot of territory)
Whodunit? (aka the mystery)
Man (or Woman) vs Nature (Nothing like a good storm or earthquake story to get the juices flowing. A variation could be post-Apocalypse stories.)
Revenge
The Quest
Coming of Age
Now, of course, that leaves us with the character archetypes, which I admittedly, don't really know because if we studied this in school, I either wasn't there, had fallen asleep, or have forgotten everything. But I think again, it's a chicken/egg kind of thing. Are they archetypes that we all or most of us are programmed genetically to recognize when we encounter them, are we trained to recognize them, or do they exist because that's what someone came up with in the days of cave writing and other early writers could recognize a good thing when their readers liked it? Do they endure because they're embedded in our minds physically or because they happen to be the only game in town, the basic underpinnings.
Now, we can suppose that those basic underpinnings represent some truth(s) we're programmed to recognize and relate to -- beauty, truth, good, evil, etc, going back to such texts as the Bible. And I do get symbolism. But I also know that symbols can vary culturally and that not everyone gets a symbol's (understood) meaning.
Sometimes, it's a matter of trying to tease out the potential, the ability to do or feel or sense something from the thing itself. Nature and nurture are, as we're learning, more complex than we ever thought, and until someone finds an actual physical, neurological or genetic mechanism for a behavior or ability or feeling or sensation, there's no way to know for sure where it comes from or how it works. And environment is more than just what your parents and teachers do to influence you; it includes the chemicals you're exposed to in the womb -- though some of this might be genetically determined. Complicated. And I believe every trait outside of the most simple, like how many fingers and toes (not counting environmentally influenced mutations) or hair color or an inherited disease, is a combination and figuring out what percentage of the trait is one vs the other is still to be determined.
And what does that do for the writer? I said I wasn't going to get philosophical but I guess I did, anyway. heh. If a writer wants to work with myth and archetype, does he or she need to know how the brain processes them, if it's innate or not? And if they form the basics of plotting and characters, do writers need to be aware of this?
As I see it, if you need to work that way, great. Plan it all out. But if you're like me, that will only muddy the water, complicate and confuse something that comes as naturally as breathing. All I care about is telling a good story. I don't seek to include inner truths, though if they're in there or if a reader finds them, that's really nice. But I also know that a writer can plan it all out, work consciously with myth and archetype and a reader like me will miss it entirely, and all we'll remember is whether or not we liked the story and characters. And if they made us feel something. Because to me, that's the bottom line -- did the reader enjoy my writing? Were they glad they read it? Would they want to read more? And it doesn't matter what process I used to get the writing done and the work to the reader.
I'd love to hear of any plots you think I've missed, that can't be considered a variation of one of the above, or you can leave character archetypes in the comments. Maybe I'll find some on my own for another entry
- Feeling: accomplished
Way back when, I read in a how-to-write book that it was best to avoid flashbacks at all cost. That one should work into the current narrative any past event that is needed. Flashback was the device of last resort. Flashbacks, however, are fairly popular, and I enjoy writing them, especially as dream (or nightmare) sequences.
Someone suggested one type of flashback that works well is starting ahead (prologue or chapter 1, scene 1), then flashing back and writing the events that lead up to the opening scene. Someone else pointed out that is starting in media res, or in the middle. It's a good technique if you can pull it off, ie pick the right place to jump in and make the scenes leading back up to it worth reading.
But I don't consider that a flashback. Rather, I consider it telling the story out of sequence, or, in a bizarre way, it's almost as if the opening is a flashforward since it is just one scene, and the following scenes leading up to it are in regular sequence. And of course, writing out of sequence doesn't need to be just the opening scene. Joseph Heller played with the concept very effectively in Catch-22 and Joseph Wambaugh did it in one of his books, but I don't really recall which one offhand.
A number of books I've read recently tell stories in two parallel time frames, past and present. Some of course have been in different centuries with different characters, but Guy Burt, a British writer, plays with that kind of sequencing in The Hole and Sophie; both are psychological suspense and the technique works well in building tension as the reader is pulled in and out of the past where the major event happened to the present framing sequences. Mary Lawson did it too in Crow Lake, as the narrator in the present tells about her childhood, in alternating scenes/time periods.
I wouldn't consider any of these to be traditional flashbacks. To me, flashbacks are 1 or 2 scenes, maybe a few more, that break a chronological narrative to bring in a past event that is crucial for the reader to know at that point.
Even Dennis Lehane plays with sequence and narrative in both Shutter Island and Mystic River, tho not all of the past sequences are presented as actual scenes, but as memories and in a way, straddle the fence between writing out of order and using flashbacks.
And many flashbacks aren't necessary. The actual scene might not be all that interesting or can go on too long. What I often do is pull out bits of dialogue--from a fight, for ex--or a remembered image--from the past event and sprinkle that into the present as a memory. If the actual event, with all the detail, is necessary, and it won't work in a retelling, then I'll do a straight flashback. Which might be simply a scene with some framing device or a dream sequence, depending what will work in the story and for the character(s). It always come down, I think, to what the writer can make work. What I can write skillfully, someone else might not and I know other writers can do some types of scenes much better than I can.
I think traditional flashbacks lose their effectiveness if used too often, so I try to save them for things with some emotional impact and place them where I can get the most mileage out of them. I want them to really matter.
- Feeling: contemplative
First lines are not quite the first imrpession. That's the title, the author perhaps if the name is familiar, the cover design. The first line is more the entryway once you've gotten in the front door. Is it welcoming? Exciting? Interesting? Or is it a dump? I tend to assume most if not all first lines will be good. After all, they're the ones the author probably put the most thought into, revised the most, etc., especially if a new writer because he or she heard that the first line needs to be great. Never mind that the ones that follow better be good, too, in order for an editor to want to acquire it.
But because I love the first line game as much as anyone -- and I know I've posted this before, maybe on a message board -- here are some of my favs:
He drank alone. (entire first paragraph, John Steakley's Armor)
Harry cut through the morning rush-hour crowd like a shark fin through water. (Rain Fall by Barry Eisler)
Once you get past the overall irony of the situation, you realize that killing a guy in the middle of his own health club has a lot to reommend it. (entire first paragraph, Eisler's Hard Rain)
The gem-colored dream shattered, and left the kid gaping on the street. (Psion by Joan Vinge)
Someone was after me. (Catspaw by Joan Vinge)
Everybody has one thing they keep, one thing that matters to them more than anything else. (The Pickup Artist by Terry Bisson)
Jeff Winston ws on the phone with his wife when he died. (entire first paragraph, Replay by Ken Grimwood)
Isserley always drove straight past a hitch-hiker when she first saw him, to give herself time to size him up. (Michael Faber's Under the Skin)
The dead man's journey began above Honolulu, in one of the teashouses that orbit the city like hidden satellites. (Floating City by Pamela Ball)
There are a lot of others, but most were too long for me to want to type.
And I'll fess up. Except for a few where I recalled loving the first line, I was pulling books off the shelves almost at random. This is a game I could play all night and into tomorrow and have played it many times. Once, over the phone, my collaborator on the Mars books and I spent a couple of hours reading first lines to each other from our favorite books. And if we'd both read them, the last lines, too. Last lines can be as much fun to look at in such isolation. And of course, there's the classic Dahlgren by Samuel Delaney in which the first sentence is the continuation of the last sentence, making for a circular book. I don't have it anymore so I can't easily get the line to put here, but it was much talked about when it came out a few decades ago.
And what is really fascinating to me about this exercise is that many books I looked at, because the books themselves are memorable, the first lines were so-so or average, or good but have no real impact by themselves. It was the first page, first chapter, story, prose, the whole book that made an impact, all the pieces adding up to form something wonderful, and negating the first line needs to make the best impression theory. I think the first line shouldn't turn off a reader, and should be just good enough for the reader (ie editor) to want to read the second, and then the third. They're all building blocks, one leading to the next, forming a whole greater than any one part in isolation.
It's an interesting exercise and one the What Iffers might like to try. And it can be played at home! If you do, blog about it and post your link here (or on Patrick's What Iffer blog) so the rest of us can take a look and see what made an impact on you. And see if what happened with me -- that many of my favorite books didn't have such memorable first lines -- is true for you, too.
- Feeling: contemplative
I don't do them.
Well, not ahead of time. I write as I go, so to keep track of what's in each scene, I outline as I go. Using an idea someone posted on AOL's SFF (Science Fiction and Fantasy) boards a while back, probably Patricia Wrede, I use Excel. I have columns for: chapter #, scene #, pov character, main action in the scene, any major revelations in the scene and who learns it, anything else that would be something I'd need to know for the story. For my WIP, I have a column for what the "bad guys" are doing behind the scenes, so when I need to use them, I'll know what the current state is of their nefarious plans.
And to make it easier to see, I color code the pov characters for their pov scenes, so I can see at a glance how each is distributed. I suppose one could use colors in the actual file (in whichever program for whatever outline one is making), but I use highlighters on the hardcopy so I don't need to use up the cartridges for the color printer. I have lots and lots of highlighters, all the colors I could find.
I don't outline ahead of time because that would require that I figure out what will happen and how things end. I might have an idea of the ending at some point during the writing, but I don't know all that middle stuff til I get to it or get close, maybe a scene or two away. If I worked it out ahead of time, I'd lose interest in writing it. Which gets back to the "why do you write?" question. I write for two reasons as I believe I've said here: to get the stories out of my head and to find out how they end.
Other writers love figuring it out, outlining, then filling in the details. Some writers need outlines in some form as a crutch, anchor, aid, etc. Patricia Wrede has often talked about her process of writing an outline, writing three chapters, tossing the no-longer relevant outline, writing a new outline, writing the next three chapters, tossing the no-longer relevant outline, writing a new outline, writing the next three chapters, and repeating the process as often as needed before she's close enough to the end to not need it.
Some writers, like I mostly do, write linearly, ie, in order. I can deviate a bit if I'm following one pov, then go back to catch up scenes with another pov character, but I've been doing that less and less over the years.
Some writers write out of order, then fill in the stuff in between, while others work backward. I've heard of some mystery writers who do that. In many cases, the way the writer writes, the order of things, is likely to be a factor in how much they need or want to outline. In a way, my first draft can be considered a very dense, very detailed outline as it's where I put the story together. And while I create general character bios, I also fill in details about them in the writing, flesh them out, learn more about them, and that leads to the story. They develop together in a way, and I wouldn't have that extra understanding of them if I outlined first.
Some writers feel doing a draft as I do is a time-waster, that if I--or any non-outliner--would simply plan things out in advance, we could avoid a lot of messy revision, tossing of scenes, etc. I feel making an outline--for me--is the time-waster, as the few times I did outline way back when, I never stuck to the things. And I'd still have to take time writing the story, and revising, etc. So why not just plunge in.
Which makes it interesting when I write with a collaborator who outlines and actually insists on it, as my science fiction collaborator does. She needs to plan out the whole story, and will outline a few chapters ahead of the writing. If someone else does all that work, I don't, which means, for some unfathomable reason answerable somewhere deep in my personality, I guess, I can write my "assigned" scenes without a problem. The burden of thought and planning isn't mine and I can just relax and enjoy the actual writing.
So, outline if you want or must. I have nothing against the things. But if they don't work for you, don't sweat it. Just find what does work, the thing that leads you to a finished draft, because that's where the real "fun" begins: revising, editing, proofing. Which is a whole 'nother topic. And as varied in approaches as this one.
- Feeling:
creative
