|
A brief how-to on fiction writing:
Fiction, put simply, is words or pictures that show actors doing things.
There are three parts to that:
1) The words/pictures; the technique of the medium
2) The actors; the characterization
3) The things; the plot and story design
The words and the pictures are basically how good are you at making things slick and polished. Imagine this as your basic mechanics in playing SC2/BW/DOTA/LoL etc.
I'm going to use Neuromancer as an example of excellent, intricate prose:
+ Show Spoiler +Biz here was a constant subliminal hum, and death the accepted punishment for laziness, carelessness, lack of grace, the failure to heed the demands of an intricate protocol. Alone at a table in the Jarre de Th, with the octagon coming on, pinheads of sweat starting from his palms, suddenly aware of each tingling hair on his arms and chest, Case knew that at some point he'd started to play a game with himself, a very ancient one that has no name, a final solitaire. He no longer carried a weapon, no longer took the basic precautions. He ran the fastest, loosest deals on the street, and he had a reputation for being able to get whatever you wanted. A part of him knew that the arc of his self-destruction was glaringly obvious to his customers, who grew steadily fewer, but that same part of him basked in the knowledge that it was only a matter of time. And that was the part of him, smug in its expectation of death, that most hated the thought of Linda Lee. He'd found her, one rainy night, in an arcade. Under bright ghosts burning through a blue haze of cigar- ette smoke, holograms of Wizard's Castle, Tank War Europa, the New York skyline... And now he remembered her that way, her face bathed in restless laser light, features reduced to a code: her cheekbones flaring scarlet as Wizard's Castle burned, forehead drenched with azure when Munich fell to the Tank War, mouth touched with hot gold as a gliding cursor struck sparks from the wall of a skyscraper canyon. He was riding high that night, with a brick of Wage's ketamine on its way to Yokohama and the money already in his pocket. He'd come in out of the warm rain that sizzled across the Ninsei pavement and somehow she'd been singled out for him, one face out of the dozens who stood at the consoles, lost in the game she played. The expression on her face, then, had been the one he'd seen, hours later, on her sleeping face in a portside coffin, her upper lip like the line children draw to represent a bird in flight. Crossing the arcade to stand beside her, high on the deal he'd made, he saw her glance up. Gray eyes rimmed with smudged black paintstick. Eyes of some animal pinned in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle. Their night together stretching into a morning, into tickets at the hoverport and his first trip across the Bay. The rain kept up, falling along Harajuku, beading on her plastic jacket, the children of Tokyo trooping past the famous boutiques in white loafers and clingwrap capes, until she'd stood with him in the midnight clatter of a pachinko parlor and held his hand like a child. It took a month for the gestalt of drugs and tension he moved through to turn those perpetually startled eyes into wells of reflexive need. He'd watched her personality fragment, calving like an iceberg, splinters drifting away, and finally he'd seen the raw need, the hungry armature of addiction. He'd watched her track the next hit with a concentration that reminded him of the mantises they sold in stalls along Shiga, beside tanks of blue mutant carp and crickets caged in bamboo. He stared at the black ring of grounds in his empty cup. It was vibrating with the speed he'd taken. The brown laminate of the tabletop was dull with a patina of tiny scratches. With the dex mounting through his spine he saw the countless random impacts required to create a surface like that. The Jarre was decorated in a dated, nameless style from the previous century, an uneasy blend of Japanese traditional and pale Milanese plas- tics, but everything seemed to wear a subtle film, as though the bad nerves of a million customers had somehow attacked the mirrors and the once glossy plastics, leaving each surface fogged with something that could never be wiped away.
Look at how Gibson is able to weave very different descriptions together--using the contrasting statement
And that was the part of him, smug in its expectation of death, that most hated the thought of Linda Lee.
To tie together Case's deathwish with the love of his (short) life, Linda Lee. More than that, now Gibson can logically put the two descriptive parts next to each other, and use the old trick of "contrasting description" to further burn each detail into our brain.
The actors/characterization are how memorable and heart-wrenching of people you can imagine. This is the part I, myself, struggle the most with, because it's often hard for me to imagine a consistent and compelling but completely virtual human being. But if you can do this without succumbing to split personality disorder, congrats.
Again, I'll use Neuromancer. Case is a very complete, and more than that, consistent personality, but more than that, so is Molly, so is Peter. Amazingly, so is Armitage, and so are Neuromancer and Wintermute, even though they are either constructed personalities or AIs. All of them are within the realm of human understanding and empathy. All of them generate a somewhat consistent emotion from the reader.
The things; the plot and story design are a bit more discrete. They can be broken down thus: Goal: Give all your actors goals.
Case's initiatl goal is to get the mycotoxins out of his brain and start hacking again. Molly's initial goal is to keep Case safe. Later on, they develop two more goals in tandem--loving each other, and also figuring out the real nature of their employer.
Stakes: Make the goals important--what massive end will get done or not get done if character succeeds or fails?
Case's stakes are immense--if he fucks up, he's back on the streets and probably dead from suicide or murder. Molly's stakes are weak--Gibson never properly fleshes out her stakes and that's why (to me) her character felt slightly flat.
Urgency: Make the goals ticking time bombs--something has to keep prodding the characters forward.
Case's sense of urgency is extremely high. If he doesn't finish the job within a set timeframe, then the toxins flood back into him and he's fucked. Molly doesn't, but the "orders from Armitage" keep the plot moving along even with that lack.
Basically, if you can get your prose, your characters, and your plot going in the right direction, then you've got the basics of fiction down, and can start exploring more complicated stuff like themes.
Oh, and also read TV Tropes if you're serious about writing something. Quite honestly the best resource for aspiring writers, ever.
   
|
This strikes as a very limited view on storytelling. It might work like that for TV series or plot-driven literature like Neuromancer, but there is a plethora of genres you have very different goals and methods. Maybe I´m getting this totally wrong, but great literature operates on levels way beyond these narrow and arbitrary categories.
I guess it just rubs me the wrong way, but if anything, never trust a "guide on creative shit". When you have something to say, you can find a way that comes naturally to you. When you require crutches for story-telling, chances are, you don´t have anything relevant/interesting to say and try to bluff your way through.
|
Sure, all this can make a story "good". but what we really want is to make a story "great". To do this you need one thing. Dinosaurs.
|
One of the things that gets me interested in a story is main characters that while are awesome, also have some faults to make them seem more human instead of being a perfect being. While story can be important most of the time its all just rehashes of other stories.
|
On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote:
Oh, and also read TV Tropes if you're serious about writing something. Quite honestly the best resource for aspiring writers, ever.
ahaha! more like the best resource ever!!!!!
|
That excerpt has more commas/paragraph than Tolkein. I thought I was bad about it, holy cow.
|
On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote: Oh, and also read TV Tropes if you're serious about writing something. Quite honestly the best resource for aspiring writers, ever.
Now that's mean. Directing someone to TV Tropes is the best way to have him spend the afternoon on it. How do you expect them to get any actual work done like that? :p
That site is wonderful and horrific at the same time. Rather like wikipedia on crack. Much funnier, though.
|
On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote: Molly's stakes are weak--Gibson never properly fleshes out her stakes and that's why (to me) her character felt slightly flat.
no, they are definitely there and of crucial importance to understanding the novel. It seems arbitrary but that's actually the point:
“So what’s Armitage got dissolving inside you?” “I’m an easy make[…] Anybody any good at what they do, that’s what they are, right? You gotta jack, I gotta tussle.”
Neuromancer 50
HEY ITS OKAY BUT ITS TAKING THE EDGE OF MY GAME, I PAID THE BILL ALREADY. ITS THE WAY IM WIRED I GUESS, WATCH YOUR ASS OKAY? XXX MOLLY
Neuromancer 267
(edit: c.f. Wintermute's compulsion, compared to a salmon)
On November 23 2012 02:23 TheTenthDoc wrote: That excerpt has more commas/paragraph than Tolkein. I thought I was bad about it, holy cow.
I don't think their styles are really comparable in any way
On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote: Case's stakes are immense--if he fucks up, he's back on the streets and probably dead from suicide or murder.
Case doesn't care about that, Case only cares about cyberspace.
On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote: Case is a very complete, and more than that, consistent personality, but more than that, so is Molly, so is Peter. Amazingly, so is Armitage, and so are Neuromancer and Wintermute, even though they are either constructed personalities or AIs. All of them are within the realm of human understanding and empathy. All of them generate a somewhat consistent emotion from the reader.
every character in this novel is essentially a caricature...
|
|
Your definition of "good fiction" is extremely narrow and simplistic. I really hate saying this, but you should probably read some literary theory before even attempting to have a serious discussion on what makes a story "good" -- or, if you have some background in lit theory, you should try to tie it in a whole lot better than what you're doing in this post, or at the very least, show that you have had some exposure to it in the past.
(Note: I don't have a problem with people having an opinion on what makes a piece of fiction good, but I do kind of have a knee-jerk reaction to people trying to pretend to be an authority on what makes a piece of fiction good, especially if they present such a simplistic breakdown of it as the OP does. This really is lit theory territory, and even then, it's difficult to qualify universal "good" vs. "bad," only "good" vs. "bad" by way of [insert school of thought].)
I think you attempt to lay out your criteria, but you basically just say: a.) the prose must be good (highly subjective), b.) the story/story design must be good (highly subjective), c.) the characters must be well-written (highly subjective).
So, really, this isn't a "how-to" guide, as you propose in the first line, because there's no real way to define "good." It varies by reader. Of course, you can generalize that most readers prefer to read grammatically correct prose, but these days, it's even hard to say that. (See: Cormac McCarthy.) You can say that most readers prefer to read interesting protagonists, but ... again, hard to judge. (See: Garth Nix.) What makes a protagonist interesting? Well, whatever it is, it certainly didn't make Sabriel interesting to me, but many people say that Garth Nix is a great author. An interesting plot? Unnecessary. Given that the short story I linked won three prestigious speculative fiction awards, it's clear that an interesting plot isn't even required to make a story "good" for some people.
Additionally, there are not only different ways to read stories, there are different ways to write as well, all of which can produce stories as "good" (by my standards, at least) as the next. You say the following:
Basically, if you can get your prose, your characters, and your plot going in the right direction, then you've got the basics of fiction down, and can start exploring more complicated stuff like themes. Your ingredients are prose, characters, plot. Theme comes later. "Complicated stuff," you say.
Well, yeah, that's certainly workable. But I also know many other writers who start with theme(s), character(s), and setting, and let the interactions of those three develop the plot for them. Prose is determined by characters and their POVs, and POVs are selected to better serve the theme. Theme and characters from this approach are the most important. So, another approach to writing fiction and one that works just as well.
All this to say: if this really were a brief "how-to" on how to write fiction, it'd say two things: "Read more, and write more."
|
On November 23 2012 05:16 Mementoss wrote: you do
. . . . .
:D hee nice one.
Cool read. As someone who puts no faith in his own abilities, I'll take it for what it's worth. Thanks for the blog, and of course: enjoy your Thanksgiving Shady Sands
|
Anybody writing "great literature" doesn't need to read a brief "how-to" on writing.
This is aimed at people who have absolutely no clue about writing fiction.
He is teaching how to add and subtract and you are arguing that multiplication and division are more important.
|
i really like zachary german's eat when you feel sad (excerpts here: http://www.bearparade.com/eatwhenyoufeelsad/) but i think that many people would consider it lacking in well written prose, good characterization, or a compelling plot.
i think that you can get some really interesting and exciting stuff when you deviate from the pattern of "good" writeing.
|
Where am I talking about "great literature," and where do I argue that one element of the story is universally more important than any other? If anything, OP's the one who's overstating the importance of certain elements of a story in his attempt to simplify the creative process. I've shown that many readers actually don't give a shit about "good" plots, characters, or prose (however you qualify "good"), while he spends his entire OP talking about how those three are integral to a "good story."
Then he talks about how one should focus on those three elements when writing a story. I point out there are other ways to approach story-telling and his isn't the only way, yet he presents it as if it's the best method when that is simply not true. The "best method" depends on what kind of story you are writing and what kind of writer you are. If you're writing a mystery, then yeah, plot is damn important. If you're writing a character-focused narrative, then plot merely functions as a backdrop and is of secondary importance. Some stories don't even have plots -- or have nonsensical ones -- and yet can be appreciated from other angles nevertheless. Does that make them "bad" or "good"? Again, it's subjective and depends on what type of reader you are.
Here is a "how-to" on writing fiction: pick up a writing utensil and start writing, or open up a word document and start typing.
|
If I were to condense the essence of good fiction into one criterion, it would be a strong, consistent voice. Almost everything else follows from this.
I'm not so sure I agree with your macro plot theories; readers don't usually care if you take them anywhere as long as they have fun getting there.
|
Babylon: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On November 22 2012 21:03 Daswollvieh wrote: This strikes as a very limited view on storytelling. It might work like that for TV series or plot-driven literature like Neuromancer, but there is a plethora of genres you have very different goals and methods. Maybe I´m getting this totally wrong, but great literature operates on levels way beyond these narrow and arbitrary categories.
I guess it just rubs me the wrong way, but if anything, never trust a "guide on creative shit". When you have something to say, you can find a way that comes naturally to you. When you require crutches for story-telling, chances are, you don´t have anything relevant/interesting to say and try to bluff your way through. On November 23 2012 07:39 Reason wrote: Anybody writing "great literature" doesn't need to read a brief "how-to" on writing.
This is aimed at people who have absolutely no clue about writing fiction.
He is teaching how to add and subtract and you are arguing that multiplication and division are more important. On November 23 2012 08:10 babylon wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Where am I talking about "great literature," and where do I argue that one element of the story is universally more important than any other? If anything, OP's the one who's overstating the importance of certain elements of a story in his attempt to simplify the creative process. I've shown that many readers actually don't give a shit about "good" plots, characters, or prose (however you qualify "good"), while he spends his entire OP talking about how those three are integral to a "good story."
Then he talks about how one should focus on those three elements when writing a story. I point out there are other ways to approach story-telling and his isn't the only way, yet he presents it as if it's the best method when that is simply not true. The "best method" depends on what kind of story you are writing and what kind of writer you are. If you're writing a mystery, then yeah, plot is damn important. If you're writing a character-focused narrative, then plot merely functions as a backdrop and is of secondary importance. Some stories don't even have plots -- or have nonsensical ones -- and yet can be appreciated from other angles nevertheless. Does that make them "bad" or "good"? Again, it's subjective and depends on what type of reader you are.
Here is a "how-to" on writing fiction: pick up a writing utensil and start writing, or open up a word document and start typing. The first response to the OP is what I was referring to specifically, in answer to your questions about great literature and elements being universally more important. However, On November 23 2012 08:10 babylon wrote: Here is a "how-to" on writing fiction: pick up a writing utensil and start writing, or open up a word document and start typing.
This is your "how-to?" May I remind you your opening statement was On November 23 2012 06:31 babylon wrote: Your definition of "good fiction" is extremely narrow and simplistic.
For some reason you think simplifying this basic tutorial even further makes it better when this was your original point of critcism? This isn't a masterclass in writing fiction. He is very simply breaking down a story into the fundamentals. He clearly states On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote: ...if you can get your prose, your characters, and your plot going in the right direction, then you've got the basics of fiction down, and can start exploring more complicated stuff...
If your point is merely "there's more than one way to write good fiction and here are some examples" then why don't you make that point without coming across as arrogant and insulting?
|
United States15275 Posts
I am not touching this subject. It seems the rage has already started.
|
Hah! TVTropes! I knew that's where you got the Uriah Gambit for The Chinest Economy! I also like Kurt Vonnegut's advice on how to write a short story -
1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
4. Every sentence must do one of two things — reveal character or advance the action.
5. Start as close to the end as possible.
6. Be a Sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them-in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
8. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
|
On November 23 2012 08:32 Reason wrote:Babylon: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On November 22 2012 21:03 Daswollvieh wrote: This strikes as a very limited view on storytelling. It might work like that for TV series or plot-driven literature like Neuromancer, but there is a plethora of genres you have very different goals and methods. Maybe I´m getting this totally wrong, but great literature operates on levels way beyond these narrow and arbitrary categories.
I guess it just rubs me the wrong way, but if anything, never trust a "guide on creative shit". When you have something to say, you can find a way that comes naturally to you. When you require crutches for story-telling, chances are, you don´t have anything relevant/interesting to say and try to bluff your way through. On November 23 2012 07:39 Reason wrote: Anybody writing "great literature" doesn't need to read a brief "how-to" on writing.
This is aimed at people who have absolutely no clue about writing fiction.
He is teaching how to add and subtract and you are arguing that multiplication and division are more important. On November 23 2012 08:10 babylon wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Where am I talking about "great literature," and where do I argue that one element of the story is universally more important than any other? If anything, OP's the one who's overstating the importance of certain elements of a story in his attempt to simplify the creative process. I've shown that many readers actually don't give a shit about "good" plots, characters, or prose (however you qualify "good"), while he spends his entire OP talking about how those three are integral to a "good story."
Then he talks about how one should focus on those three elements when writing a story. I point out there are other ways to approach story-telling and his isn't the only way, yet he presents it as if it's the best method when that is simply not true. The "best method" depends on what kind of story you are writing and what kind of writer you are. If you're writing a mystery, then yeah, plot is damn important. If you're writing a character-focused narrative, then plot merely functions as a backdrop and is of secondary importance. Some stories don't even have plots -- or have nonsensical ones -- and yet can be appreciated from other angles nevertheless. Does that make them "bad" or "good"? Again, it's subjective and depends on what type of reader you are.
Here is a "how-to" on writing fiction: pick up a writing utensil and start writing, or open up a word document and start typing. The first response to the OP is what I was referring to specifically, in answer to your questions about great literature and elements being universally more important. However, On November 23 2012 08:10 babylon wrote: Here is a "how-to" on writing fiction: pick up a writing utensil and start writing, or open up a word document and start typing.
This is your "how-to?" May I remind you your opening statement was On November 23 2012 06:31 babylon wrote: Your definition of "good fiction" is extremely narrow and simplistic.
For some reason you think simplifying this basic tutorial even further makes it better when this was your original point of critcism? This isn't a masterclass in writing fiction. He is very simply breaking down a story into the fundamentals. He clearly states On November 22 2012 19:10 Shady Sands wrote: ...if you can get your prose, your characters, and your plot going in the right direction, then you've got the basics of fiction down, and can start exploring more complicated stuff...
If your point is merely "there's more than one way to write good fiction and here are some examples" then why don't you make that point without coming across as arrogant and insulting?
Well, the OP would be a lot less controversial, if it called itself "a simple beginner´s guide for writing" or "one way to approach a story" instead of "what makes a story good". Of course you don´t have to get pissy about it, but when you have a passion for something and are knowledgable in the field, then under-informed know-all attitudes tend to grind you gears. If the post was named "What makes a build good" and was about building SCVs, then marines, then attack at 200, it would get a lot of flames by people, who don´t want to see the SC2, which they´re passionate about and invested in, reduced to a formula that does not do the whole justice.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
babylon is 100% right and people disagreeing with him are 100% wrong.
|
On November 23 2012 17:20 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: babylon is 100% right and people disagreeing with him are 100% wrong. ^ The literary critic in me initially leapt at the chance to question Shady's exhortation of "good" writing after reading the OP; sadly, I found that Babylon had already beaten me to the punch. To describe "good" in the context of written expression with rigor and sufficiency is to accomplish great things in the literary world. I think Shady just spoke with a bit too wide a scope.
|
On November 23 2012 17:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 17:20 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: babylon is 100% right and people disagreeing with him are 100% wrong. ^ The literary critic in me initially leapt at the chance to question Shady's exhortation of "good" writing after reading the OP; sadly, I found that Babylon had already beaten me to the punch. All I'll add is that speaking unequivocally and describing the genesis of "quality" in writing are almost complete strangers.
farva, could you explain what does babylon mean when he implies that grammatically correct prose is going out of fashion (and not necessarily so)? I mean, does it have to do with structuring your sentences and with careful diction, you make your writing evolve into something better (whatever better entails in this situation)?
Goddamn I use parentheses too much.
|
I agree with babylon as well. He isn't simplifying the fiction writing process by telling people to just start writing; it's actually the opposite. Personally, I think fiction should leave a lot of room for experimentation and change, and just take on a free-form style. OP's statements actually remind me of technical writing funnily enough. I'm not saying that having reasons for writing certain things is bad, it's actually really good, but I think that's different from say, requiring the characters or even the plot pursuing a goal. Instead, I think the author should be the one with goals or reasons.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On November 23 2012 17:34 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 17:30 farvacola wrote:On November 23 2012 17:20 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: babylon is 100% right and people disagreeing with him are 100% wrong. ^ The literary critic in me initially leapt at the chance to question Shady's exhortation of "good" writing after reading the OP; sadly, I found that Babylon had already beaten me to the punch. All I'll add is that speaking unequivocally and describing the genesis of "quality" in writing are almost complete strangers. farva, could you explain what does babylon mean when he implies that grammatically correct prose is going out of fashion (and not necessarily so)? I mean, does it have to do with structuring your sentences and with careful diction, you make your writing evolve into something better (whatever better entails in this situation)? Goddamn I use parentheses too much.
You pretty much answered your own question already with the second part, but I guess you can generalize it a bit more.
Grammar is great, amazing, and grammatically correct prose is something everyone should master. However, when you know exactly what you're trying to convey, you just use the words and constructions that accomplish your goals, regardless of "grammar." It's just an issue of saying what you need to say, however you need to say it.
It's not even a recent phenomenon. From Shakespeare inventing words to Joyce redefining our understanding of English, great authors have always shown that rules (once mastered) are meant to be broken.
There is, of course, a difference between confidently expanding horizons and breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules with no deeper thought behind them except for some vague idea of "rebellion." The latter is stupid and is sadly all too common.
|
On November 23 2012 17:34 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 17:30 farvacola wrote:On November 23 2012 17:20 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: babylon is 100% right and people disagreeing with him are 100% wrong. ^ The literary critic in me initially leapt at the chance to question Shady's exhortation of "good" writing after reading the OP; sadly, I found that Babylon had already beaten me to the punch. All I'll add is that speaking unequivocally and describing the genesis of "quality" in writing are almost complete strangers. farva, could you explain what does babylon mean when he implies that grammatically correct prose is going out of fashion (and not necessarily so)? I mean, does it have to do with structuring your sentences and with careful diction, you make your writing evolve into something better (whatever better entails in this situation)? Goddamn I use parentheses too much. In favor of being brief, I'll go with a short hand rule of writing my favorite teacher once taught me. He said that oftentimes the best writers are very observant of the conventional rules of English prose style..........................as they pick and choose which rules to smash, alter, or challenge. In other words, one must know the rules before they begin to break them, but that breaking ends up being perhaps the most significant affect of the persuasive narrative voice, save for particular cases of extreme content or genre indictment. For example, some of my favorite authors, the likes of Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, and Thomas Pynchon, will string together odd phrasing, forgo a comma here or a period there, or even challenge the narrative framework of rising/falling action by interposing and interweaving multiple story lines or perspectives. In the end, these idiosyncrasies become the aspects by which criticism can be levied towards a work and judged accordingly. I suppose here it is worth mentioning the sometimes dramatic divide between popular lit and "good" lit. Stephen King writes with a style of unimaginative drudgery that I find absolutely terrible, and yet, he sells many many books because he has a good thumb on the pulse of the popular American horror imagination.
Edit: ninja'd by da sheep
|
Since this is a topic about art, and since I am an aspiring music producer, I will share some notes I have found on the internet those times my inspiration had abated, but the thirst was still there.
The War of Art - Steven Pressfield
Commentary by Owen Cook "The fuckin' pro, he wakes up every day, let's say he's a writer; he's gonna do his writing today, like every day. Some days the Muse is there; other days it's not. The amateur wants to do it when they're fuckin' feeling it. The pro does it no matter what! The pro knows the art won't give him anything until he gives something to the art."
Anything Worth Doing Is Worth Doing Poorly
by Ken Fong http://www.intervarsity.org/slj/article/2273/0.1 So how do you counter the pervasive voice of self-criticism? Let me share with you another illustration that explains why anything worth doing is worth doing poorly. Dan K. is a world-renowned jazz fusion performer and recording artist. He’s been a special friend for fifteen years. Our worship leaders and I approached him once to ask if he would arrange some of our favorite worship songs so that they’d sound more soulful and jazz-tinged. He first said, “Those songs you sing are rock-based, so it’s not possible to jazz them up. Jazz and soul music are blues-based.” We then asked him to compose some soulful worship songs for us to sing. That’s when he said, “Just write your own songs.” We thought we were being humble when we claimed that none of us were talented enough to write original songs, worship or otherwise. That’s why we were coming to him, a professional songwriter.
Dan shocked us with his Buddha-like response: “All of you can write songs. You just never finish the first verse of the first song you’re trying to write. Before you’ve even gotten to the end of the first stanza, you stop cold because you hate the tune and you think your first verse’s lyrics are infantile and weak. Because you never finish your first song, you never end up finding out which of the songs you’ve written have any potential. Since I’m a professional songwriter, I try to write one new song every day. I didn’t say that I write a great new song every day. I just said that I try to write one song each day. It’s often not until I’ve finished, say, twenty new songs that I’m ready to step back and listen to each one more closely. If I never finish the first song—no matter how poor a song it might turn out to be—I will never write the great song.”
As he finished, I just had to blurt out, “So, anything worth doing is worth doing poorly?” Dan agreed that it was. So you see, one of the best ways to thwart your self-critical voice is to not worry so much about doing something perfectly or not at all. You will never discover the treasures if you don’t first dig a lot of holes with nothing in them.
|
To farva and Sheep,
How do you gauge whether the author understands grammar if the only books of his/her that are published has his own version of grammatical rules? You know, the missing commas, the weirdly structured sentences, and all that Joyce-esque jazz. It seems the only way you can tell is if the work is actually smart to you, or just plain rubbish. So is it all subjective as well? What if someone thinks Joyce is bad because the style is not something that he "gets"?
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On November 23 2012 17:59 Azera wrote: To farva and Sheep,
How do you gauge whether the author understands grammar if the only books of his/her that are published has his own version of grammatical rules? You know, the missing commas, the weirdly structured sentences, and all that Joyce-esque jazz. It seems the only way you can tell is if the work is actually smart to you, or just plain rubbish. So is it all subjective as well? What if someone thinks Joyce is bad because the style is not something that he "gets"?
Because Joyce wrote this:
+ Show Spoiler +The air of the room chilled his shoulders. He stretched himself cautiously along under the sheets and lay down beside his wife. One by one, they were all becoming shades. Better pass boldly into that other world, in the full glory of some passion, than fade and wither dismally with age. He thought of how she who lay beside him had locked in her heart for so many years that image of her lover's eyes when he had told her that he did not wish to live.
Generous tears filled Gabriel's eyes. He had never felt like that himself towards any woman, but he knew that such a feeling must be love. The tears gathered more thickly in his eyes and in the partial darkness he imagined he saw the form of a young man standing under a dripping tree. Other forms were near. His soul had approached that region where dwell the vast hosts of the dead. He was conscious of, but could not apprehend, their wayward and flickering existence. His own identity was fading out into a grey impalpable world: the solid world itself, which these dead had one time reared and lived in, was dissolving and dwindling.
A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubliners
|
Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit)
|
On November 23 2012 17:59 Azera wrote: To farva and Sheep,
How do you gauge whether the author understands grammar if the only books of his/her that are published has his own version of grammatical rules? You know, the missing commas, the weirdly structured sentences, and all that Joyce-esque jazz. It seems the only way you can tell is if the work is actually smart to you, or just plain rubbish. So is it all subjective as well? What if someone thinks Joyce is bad because the style is not something that he "gets"? It's usually when they do it for a particular reason and if that said reason is good enough. Does it make the writing better? How would it be different the correct way vs. the way they did it, and is it better that way? They don't just do it cause they can, they do it for a purpose.
With that said, my experience with fiction writing styles is pretty limited, but it can apply to technical writing as well.
|
On November 23 2012 18:04 Azera wrote: Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit) Certainly, everyone has their critics, though in the case of Joyce, most respectable detractors are hesitant to call his work "bad" as opposed to simply not their cup of tea.
|
On November 23 2012 18:04 Azera wrote: Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit) Lol it sounds like you're a high school student suffering through Ulysses or something
Dont sweat it buddy we've all been there.
To everyone else who has commented on this blog:
1) The title, I agree, is too broad. 2) The actual content of the post rests something along the lines of "a beginner's guide to fiction writing". That's what I meant by putting "good" in quotation marks; I meant something that the vast majority of readers, both literary and non-literary, will consider to be passably decent.
EDIT: + Show Spoiler +Joyce's Ulysses remains one of my most hated novels, ever. I had to parse through its mangled prose in AP Senior English when I was heavily infected with senioritis
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On November 23 2012 18:04 Azera wrote: Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit)
Joyce is actually great example to examine this question with; if you don't want to read a wall of text by Joyce, turn away now.
To elaborate on my Dubliners example, you need to know a little bit about Joyce's evolution as an author throughout his career.
His first major work was the linked Dubliners, a collection of masterfully written short stories with grammatically perfect prose and some of the (in my opinion) most beautiful and haunting sentences in English literature.
Then comes A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in which Joyce examines how language/perception of language changes as the main character ages from youth to manhood. The language becomes more advanced and sophisticated as the main character ages. The opening is conceivably written by a young boy:
"Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the roadmet a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo..."
The ending is noticeably more complex:
"APRIL 26. Mother is putting my new secondhand clothes in order. She prays now, she says, that I may learn in my own life and away from home and friends what the heart is and what it feels. Amen. So be it. Welcome, O life, I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.
APRIL 27. Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead."
Then we have Ulysses, where Joyce begins to break down the walls of conventional grammatical structure (the ending soliloquy consists of ~24000 words, divided into eight "sentences" without any punctuation), to Finnegan's Wake, which reads almost like gibberish.
What convinces me, and the vast majority of readers of Joyce, that his works have value and is not some literary prank of the century, is that we can trace the way his views on language changed through his major works extremely well. We can see exactly how he went from Dubliners to Finnegans Wake, and can discern a logical thought process underlying it. This is not someone who one day decided "grammar sucks, let's write random shit." Dislike/disapproval of Joyce's style is plentiful; however, it is difficult to find substantive criticism of his work that labels it as "bad." Detractors (credible ones) still understand why Joyce is perceived as important by many, and a little basic research into Joyce will reveal at least some of his underlying logic for doing what he did. You will obviously get people who just dismiss Joyce out of personal taste, but again, I stress the difference between substantive criticism and a general dismissal due to preference/ignorance.
Joyce has proven he can write "conventionally," and deliberately chose, over a long career, to "devolve" from proper prose. Nearly a century of literary scholarship have backed his endeavors. That is not to say it's good because everyone says it's good, but because there has yet to be any "real" criticism beyond personal preference.
To summarize, the short answer to your question is no; the long answer is no, with an asterisk.
For full disclosure, I have not yet read the entirety of Ulysses (close though; I aim to change that soon) and have not yet made a substantial headway into Finnegans Wake, so my word on Joyce is nowhere close to authoritative.
|
On November 23 2012 18:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 18:04 Azera wrote: Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit) Joyce is actually great example to examine this question with; if you don't want to read a wall of text by Joyce, turn away now. To elaborate on my Dubliners example, you need to know a little bit about Joyce's evolution as an author throughout his career. His first major work was the linked Dubliners, a collection of masterfully written short stories with grammatically perfect prose and some of the (in my opinion) most beautiful and haunting sentences in English literature. Then comes A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in which Joyce examines how language/perception of language changes as the main character ages from youth to manhood. The language becomes more advanced and sophisticated as the main character ages. The opening is conceivably written by a young boy: "Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the roadmet a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo..." The ending is noticeably more complex: "APRIL 26. Mother is putting my new secondhand clothes in order. She prays now, she says, that I may learn in my own life and away from home and friends what the heart is and what it feels. Amen. So be it. Welcome, O life, I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race. APRIL 27. Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead." Then we have Ulysses, where Joyce begins to break down the walls of conventional grammatical structure (the ending soliloquy consists of ~24000 words, divided into eight "sentences" without any punctuation), to Finnegan's Wake, which reads almost like gibberish. What convinces me, and the vast majority of readers of Joyce, that his works have value and is not some literary prank of the century, is that we can trace the way his views on language changed through his major works extremely well. We can see exactly how he went from Dubliners to Finnegan's Wake, and can discern a logical thought process underlying it. This is not someone who one day decided "grammar sucks, let's write random shit." Dislike/disapproval of Joyce's style is plentiful; however, it is difficult to find substantive criticism of his work that labels it as "bad." Detractors (credible ones) still understand why Joyce is perceived as important by many, and a little basic research into Joyce will reveal at least some of his underlying logic for doing what he did. You will obviously get people who just dismiss Joyce out of personal taste, but again, I stress the difference between substantive criticism and a general dismissal due to preference/ignorance. Joyce has proven he can write "conventionally," and deliberately chose, over a long career, to "devolve" from proper prose. Nearly a century of literary scholarship have backed his endeavors. That is not to say it's good because everyone says it's good, but because there has yet to be any "real" criticism beyond personal preference. To summarize, the short answer to your question is no; the long answer is no, with an asterisk. For full disclosure, I have not yet read the entirety of Ulysses (close though; I aim to change that soon) and have not yet made a substantial headway into Finnegan's Wake, so my word on Joyce is nowhere close to authoritative.
In a sense, it's a little like abstract art. Picasso and Jackson Pollack could both make photorealistic sketches and beautiful imitations of Rembrandt-style oil paintings if they so chose; instead, they "evolved" their skills into a more progressive form, and that, at least, is why critics hold them as great artists.
|
On November 23 2012 18:30 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 18:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On November 23 2012 18:04 Azera wrote: Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit) Joyce is actually great example to examine this question with; if you don't want to read a wall of text by Joyce, turn away now. To elaborate on my Dubliners example, you need to know a little bit about Joyce's evolution as an author throughout his career. His first major work was the linked Dubliners, a collection of masterfully written short stories with grammatically perfect prose and some of the (in my opinion) most beautiful and haunting sentences in English literature. Then comes A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in which Joyce examines how language/perception of language changes as the main character ages from youth to manhood. The language becomes more advanced and sophisticated as the main character ages. The opening is conceivably written by a young boy: "Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the roadmet a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo..." The ending is noticeably more complex: "APRIL 26. Mother is putting my new secondhand clothes in order. She prays now, she says, that I may learn in my own life and away from home and friends what the heart is and what it feels. Amen. So be it. Welcome, O life, I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race. APRIL 27. Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead." Then we have Ulysses, where Joyce begins to break down the walls of conventional grammatical structure (the ending soliloquy consists of ~24000 words, divided into eight "sentences" without any punctuation), to Finnegan's Wake, which reads almost like gibberish. What convinces me, and the vast majority of readers of Joyce, that his works have value and is not some literary prank of the century, is that we can trace the way his views on language changed through his major works extremely well. We can see exactly how he went from Dubliners to Finnegan's Wake, and can discern a logical thought process underlying it. This is not someone who one day decided "grammar sucks, let's write random shit." Dislike/disapproval of Joyce's style is plentiful; however, it is difficult to find substantive criticism of his work that labels it as "bad." Detractors (credible ones) still understand why Joyce is perceived as important by many, and a little basic research into Joyce will reveal at least some of his underlying logic for doing what he did. You will obviously get people who just dismiss Joyce out of personal taste, but again, I stress the difference between substantive criticism and a general dismissal due to preference/ignorance. Joyce has proven he can write "conventionally," and deliberately chose, over a long career, to "devolve" from proper prose. Nearly a century of literary scholarship have backed his endeavors. That is not to say it's good because everyone says it's good, but because there has yet to be any "real" criticism beyond personal preference. To summarize, the short answer to your question is no; the long answer is no, with an asterisk. For full disclosure, I have not yet read the entirety of Ulysses (close though; I aim to change that soon) and have not yet made a substantial headway into Finnegan's Wake, so my word on Joyce is nowhere close to authoritative. In a sense, it's a little like abstract art. Picasso and Jackson Pollack could both make photorealistic sketches and beautiful imitations of Rembrandt-style oil paintings if they so chose; instead, they "evolved" their skills into a more progressive form, and that, at least, is why critics hold them as great artists. It's funny you mention abstract art; many of the trends in literary Modernity can trace their roots to an exhibit of Post-Impressionist art, chiefly by Manet, which took place in London in 1910. Art critic Roger Frye would be the man to organize this show, and his place amongst the Bloomsbury Group (a sort of literary club which included the likes of Woolf and Forster) as a medium of contact between the visual arts and literary worlds would influence a great many Modernist authors. Granted, Joyce was altogether not a part of the Bloomsbury Group (they thought him poor and low-class), but his writing is most certainly influenced by more abstract trends in art of the time.
|
I need awhile to digest this, I'm as confused as I was when farva explained post-modernism to me.
|
On November 23 2012 18:04 Azera wrote: Interesting. Is it possible for someone to put up a convincing argument that James Joyce was actually rubbish and everybody that thinks he's good has only been made to believe that he's good? (I'm not saying that he's shit)
haha, Azer, you're awesome in this thread! Well done posting the vonnegut "rules" for writing fiction.
I am very interested to answer your question.
Yes, it is possible for you, and other people to decide that the writing of james joyce has little value. To write it off as rubbish however, i think is impossible. For example you might appreciate a beethoven symphony as a great artistic achievement but can you explain why, exactly? i would not be surprised if you had trouble explaining how the beethoven symphony has more artistic value than a chart-topping fifty cent rap song (even though it so obviously does)
You may not appreciate joyce. That does not give you any authority. you may speak with authority once you understand the appeal.
If someone tries to tell me Joyce is a bad writer, i will evaluate their reasons. Usually it's easy to dismiss one's reasoning because its plain to see if they have had what i would call "my joyce experiences"
Sometimes I read joyce, and there is no effect. It's big words, descriptions that are vibrant and skillful and yadda yadda but its not effecting me. Sometimes though, it can just... run through me like some strange magical voice that i have never even fathomed was possible. its just hard to describe and it is something you have to see for yourself.
Joyce's diction is different than what many might expect as skillful writing. Someone like Hemingway can describe occurences in the ourside world through precise prose. Joyce is different in my opinion. He is painting pictures of one's inner emotional word with how the *words* *themselves* make you *feel*.
Ok, that was fun. Now I want to side against babylon and carnivorous sheep (as cool as a name as that is) . I liked the guide. It said STORY not GREAT LITERATURE and its just so easy to pick apart anything. You have to start somewhere and those are some nice simple writing goals from someone who can obviously write a story. I see no reason to shit on it.
|
On November 23 2012 17:20 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: babylon is 100% right and people disagreeing with him are 100% wrong. I haven't seen anyone disagree with babylon, would you care to elaborate?
|
On November 23 2012 17:59 Azera wrote: To farva and Sheep,
How do you gauge whether the author understands grammar if the only books of his/her that are published has his own version of grammatical rules? You know, the missing commas, the weirdly structured sentences, and all that Joyce-esque jazz. It seems the only way you can tell is if the work is actually smart to you, or just plain rubbish. So is it all subjective as well? What if someone thinks Joyce is bad because the style is not something that he "gets"?
The way you tell if it's good is if it makes you giggle when you read it (edit: also, most literary critical discourse doesn't really concern itself with aesthetic quality in this day and age, so you won't really find somebody spending much effort trying to argue why Joyce is "good")
you guys ever read beckett? like logical positivism on acid
|
Joyce's Ulysses remains one of my most hated novels, ever. I had to parse through its mangled prose in AP Senior English when I was heavily infected with senioritis I think it is almost impossible to get high school students to enjoy literature. More often than not when introducing them to these novels they develop a lifelong aversion to literature. It is hard to convince a person studying math, science, history etc on a pretty packed schedule on very little sleep (most teenagers want to stay up late and aren't mature enough to know they need to go to bed early to wake up early), that reading anything for 8 hours is good for them. Especially Shakespeare, when it is their first time seeing these words and it just seems like another stupid hurdle full of bullshit. Combine that with the idea that it is already rare enough to have a teacher that can deliver the material properly, and you're pretty much ruined. Instead kids would rather read hackney trash that is easy to grasp because it is rooted in stereotypes and cliches. And maybe that is a phase we all have to go through before we can appreciate something that challenges these cliches and gives us a chance to think.
I think even if your guide had been good you would have received a lot of backlash. Most people are unwilling to accept the idea that they can be taught how to do something artistic. However, I think your guide is not helpful for beginners anyway. It identifies that most stories have characters, plots, and intrigue. It is too broad, and is like writing a guide to StarCraft that says most players utilize micro and macro and tactics to win a game. Well what specific tactic? What specific micro? How does one actually macro? You can't just say "well that's for you to figure out with practice" or else you haven't written a guide at all.
I think I tried responding to this thread twice the other day, deleting what I wrote and thinking "someone is always wrong on the internet, there's no point in getting in a discussion this misunderstood." But that last line about TV tropes keeps nagging at me. It is like you've written a guide advising people to use stereotypes and cliches. That might be something everyone does to start, but it's not where you want to end up... It would be way more helpful to use TV Tropes to identify cliches and purposely avoid them... But that's not at all what you're saying.
|
|
|
|