He uses it in other works as well. Actually, some reviewers have said that they liked this approach in Blindness but not in his other books. I've never read his other books, so I can't judge for myself. But given that he's highly praised by several important critics (he even won the Nobel), I'd wager that this technique works well in everything else he has written.
@Wreybies : So true. I have a fan-girl moment every time Nabokov or Murakami are mentioned Haven't read Delaney yet, what would you recommend as a good starting point?
Nova is a good start, or Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand. Nova is a quick read and in it Delany will acquaint you with a number of archetypes that are infrastructural to many of his novels. The man with only one shoe. The nail-bitten man. The blind man. Many of his stories carry an internal mythology of people.
Sounds like those editors do not enjoy your diction. I find it hard to question editors when you lack credibility.
OK, so I'm currently reading a horror book called Snowblind by Christopher Golden and I'm not really sure what to call his style of writing. Essentially, it's about a group of people facing a supernatural blizzard (well, more like there's a spirit/ghost/demon inside the blizzard, I'm still in the first chapter) much like the one that claimed their loved ones twelve years ago. Well, he spends four chapters (I checked) in the past building up the horrors of the first blizzard before jumping forward to modern times where the actual story begins. Effectively, you could almost interpret those four chapters to be the 'prologue'. It also doesn't help that the blurb on the front cover flap pretty much spoils the first four chapters by revealing who lived and who died during the first blizzard. I'm also reminded of another supernatural horror book I read (of which I can't remember the name of now, sadly) where it jumped back and forth between 1914 and present times. My question is, what would you call this style of writing? Is it normal in supernatural horror novels to spend some time in the past before jumping forward in the present, or to jump back and forth between the past and the present? Why do some authors choose to do this? Doesn't it disrupt the flow of the story? Thoughts?
It's quite common in storytelling. I was reminded of "Fried Green Tomatoes" by an earlier post today, and that was told in two different time frames - though the present acted more as a frame for the past story. Lovecraft's "The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward", if I remember, tells its story in multiple times. King's "It" does, too. It certainly *can* create problems with the flow - more from the reader getting confused with the time frame of the passage they are reading, and with which people and events are happening in a particular time. However, telling a story in multiple locations has similar difficulties. -Frank
I have written a novel that does that. It starts in the present, then jumps back five weeks. The entire novel is a flashback, which culminates when you finally catch up to where you started. To further complicate things, there is another story that is also told via flashbacks. A parallel tale which evolves separately, even though it is connected to the main plot. It is not confusing though, since the two stories are separated by a century. All the plot lines finish at the same place and time however, and you experience the starting point again, but this time you know more, you understand more and you see more. The climax occurs, going beyond the beginning of the novel. It was not difficult to create the multithreaded aspect, but since the story has not been beta read by very many people, it is hard to know if it was a successful technique. Personally, I am all in favour, although to reference the original post, four chapters is a bit long winded to set the scene. I would have thought one chapter would have been sufficient for this purpose. Unless, of course, they are very short chapters. For me, that would likely be 25-30K. Quite a chunk just to establish the premise!
@FrankABlissett - True. I just find it a bit irksome because you get so invested with the characters, so involved with whatever's going on with them but then the author halts everything and sends you forward in time. This book, at least, has the same characters as before, just twelve years later, so the blow is softer. The book I mentioned in which I couldn't remember the title was less so. It cut off the 1914 chapter right when the emotions were at their highest with the family frantic about their daughter's disappearance, to the modern times with two high school kids in a beat up truck getting drunk and listening to music. Not that it's a bad thing to jump back and forth. That said, at least she did indicate the year when we jumped back to 1914. @Mike Kobernus - I'm of the same mindset. Those four chapters could be easily condensed into one chapter, and I'm tempted to skip forward to where the story actually begins (on Page 55 in my copy.) I guess what I'm saying is that if done well, I don't mind time skips. But if it cuts off in the middle of an emotionally charged scene to something completely unrelated, or the 'past' drags out for far longer than it really should just to build up the background, I get miffed at it.
Right - I hate books where I'm constantly having to skip back to remember just what's going on. I'm not the best at remembering names, so I've come to accept it when dealing with books that have lots of characters, but it does tend to pull me out of the story. -Frank
I am an active Role player and so I tend to delve right into the characters head and let the readers know exactly what the motive is for the character. For which tense and person I use, I vary between books. Sometimes it's first person present, first person past and sometimes it's third person past. It really depends on my mood and how the characters speak to me.
Do you ever wonder if your style is crimping your ability to write a certain story? I don't know if it's nerves ( and with me it definitely could be - I tend to start and stall with novels) but I started writing a historical romance novel the other day. Something I've been thinking about for years. Now, granted it's not a typical romance novel, it's humorous, almost spoofy. The mc is an arrogant, short, thief and the love angle takes a back seat to the character's growth as he's made to become humble in the Canadian backwoods as a maple syrup farmer & fur trader. However, five pages in and it feels extremely raw. Maybe it's cause I'm out of my element but having read a few romances they're style is more flow-y. Mine feels like it's lumping along as if Vonnegut decided to write a romance without changing his style. Try as I might to smooth sentences out, I can't seem to smother my style. I'm considering abandoning the story - terrified to put in three months of work only to have it be virtually unreadable. Anyone else experience this?
I'd say five pages is not much of a sample size. Besides, do you really want your writing to read like a "typical" anything? Might be a whole new take on the genre. Why not keep at it for a while - say, the 25,000 word mark - before taking stock?
First off, sounds like an excellent premise. Your ideas are always delightfully quirky, Peach I do wonder that if some stories are not better suited for a particular writer than others. I always wonder if there are inherently "harder" stories to pursue than others. Do you think it might be possible to pump out the physical events now, from start to finish, then go back, see what it looks like, and worry about the style in the drafts to come? I do agree its nice to have some style in the first draft, because ultimately, the story is only half important if even that, so maybe you just need to be inspired in the right way. Maybe you need to become the thief ~_~
Don't be terrified of putting three months of work in. Whatever you end up with can be changed and re-written in later drafts. You might find that as the story progresses, you'll find the right 'voice', and analysing the successful novels and learning from them can be of great help early on. Most established writers probably wish they had the polished style when they were writing their first big ideas, but everyone has to start somewhere.
Thanks everyone for the encouragement! I could be doing what I usually do when I start a novel freeze up with doubts and fear. Maybe I just need to face it and keep going. Beginnings are always a bit rough anyway. MilesTro - I might post a snippet in the workshop- Maybe not the beginning piece though that's the roughest.
I do not believe there is any harder types of novels to writer because we have a saying for it: "A writer writes what he knows", meaning I am an avid fantasy reader and practice and read articles on creating something in the genre. Sure, I could try writing horror, but my knowledge of the style is much smaller and odds are my fantasy style won't mesh as well as it requires something different. So, if you're writing outside your norm, it's only natural to feel out of place or write in a way that doesn't quite capture what you want as you simply don't have the experience. If you know nothing of philosophy, good luck trying to write a philosophy driven story like Atlas Shrugged or Thus Spoke Zarathustra the same way a mechanical engineer won't necessarily succeed in software engineering, two different disciplines in the same field. There's also probably a hint of self-doubt playing a part in it, it's easy to recoil at the unknown and at uncertainity when it's so much safer and familiar to do the same thing like before. Keep trying, if it's something that excites you, odds are you can pull it off well enough but need time to adjust. Like sleeping in a new house where the stairs creak and keep you awake, just gotta get used it.
I would suggest before you spend more time writing, learn more about how to write. Most new writers just start writing without first training... Here is the only book you will need; Stein on Writing by Sol Stein ISBN 0-312-25421
Are you dissatisfied with it because you're comparing it with other stuff you've read in the genre? Maybe that "rawness" is just your unique spin on it. I'm finishing up a story for this important contest I'm in and it's been a tough ride. It's in third person, which is no problem but I think it's going to turn into the longest story I've written in third person. I start to lose that voice sometimes as I'm writing and have to really focus on what angle things are being seen. I'm sure this has to do with me being most comfortable writing in 1st person. I started to question whether I could write a really long piece in third person or if it would just exhaust me. I know I could never write a romance and if I did it would be packed full of dry humor.
Thanks for the recommendation Domenicp - but I have read Stein on Writing. I've even read a few of Stein's books they're quite good - a lot better than some of the other published authors that write how-to-write books. I have to say honestly though, that I've never come across a writing book that would make me think this is all I need. I wish there was it would make things so much easier. But who knows maybe it is for someone else. You're supposed to keep me humble 123! Lol I probably am too busy comparing my stuff to other stuff I've read - which is always a doomed situation. Good luck with your piece! A good trick I stumbled across to write in third when you're not used to it, is to write it in first person and then 'translate it' into third, it's also a good way to keep voice in your work. That's what I'm going for I just hope I can reign in the humor for a few serious moments and the love scenes of course. But knowing me I'll probably turn those into farce. Love in a birch bark canoe shooting down the rapids - lol.
Interesting idea. I may try this on the next one (though I'll make sure it's a short one in case I can't make it work. Thanks for the tip @peachalulu
Your welcome! It's a major pain-in-the-butt for big projects, I tried it for a novel, and it was extremely time consuming but it's not bad for a short story if you have the patience.
Don't let your story/idea be defined by a particular style. I know I've said in the past that certain styles are better for certain ideas, but that just goes to show you how ignorant I am. Two writers with two completely different styles could both write about a particular topic and produce great works. It's just that we don't get to see that done very often. I guess my point here is to change the way you think about this. Just because certain styles aren't used in certain genres doesn't mean the end product will be bad. To use your example, you must believe that Vonnegut could write good romance without changing his style if he wanted to. Write with that same mentality.
If you're interested in your story, keep trying! You've already taken the biggest step towards solving your problem, which is to recognize there's a problem in the first place. That said, don't think your style is necessarily a problem. I've run into this kind of situation before, and I liken it to trying to sing a song. I hear the song in my head sung by someone else - usually whoever I learned it from - but there's no point in trying to sound like them because I just can't. My voice is mine and I'm stuck with it - I'll never be Elton John or Neil Young or Jim Morrison. If I sing a song, it's going to sound like me. The thing I have to understand is that that's not necessarily a bad thing. I usually manage to find an approach to the song that works for my voice - I change keys, slow it down or speed it up, do it acoustic instead of electric, etc. I find a way in. It doesn't always work, but when it does, I have something new and beautiful in its own way.
