|
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.
|
|
|
|