All I will say is that "publication" by money-seeking industrialist is not the pinnacle of writing. Not all writing sells. Had LOTR been written as it is in today's world, I'm sure few publishers would touch it. Not because it's bad, but because it is a monster of a book and probably wouldn't be a huge seller in today's market. The "logic" that is being put forth is that "if the writing were good it would be selling, and if the method worked publishers would look for writers using it." It is simply not so black and white. Publishers look for the return. Twilight is a perfect example. It was published because it would sell. And sell it did! Was the writing good? Many would suggest the writing to be mediocre at best. And as for the story and characters? Not too engaging. But the buying market enjoyed the entire series and that's what mattered to publishers. There are also many writers here of many different backgrounds, at many different levels in their writing "careers." It is impossible--or at least illogical--to say what "has worked" for someone else or what hasn't without really knowing them. It is true, every story has certain key elements and there are some true and tested methods to creating these elements within the story. However, unless one wishes to publish some odd 75 novels, it is not essential to find a formula for works that will sell every time. Those kinds of books are a dime-a-dozen. Every work should be it's own, and every writer should follow their creativity. That does not conflict with learning to create the best work possible, just by whose standards one is measuring what is "the best."
Your Asimov quote is out of line. Suggesting that your knowledge is the only knowledge, and your path to that knowledge is the only way to acquire knowledge, is incorrect. You are telling us that if we do not follow your advice, we will wallow in ignorance for the rest of our days. This is simply not true. @JayG, nobody is suggesting that writers don't need to master craft. But there are many crafts in writing, and many ways to master them. You come across like a music teacher who teaches that the only style of music is heavy metal, so all our guitars have to be cranked up to eleven, our amps must distort and feed back, our drums have to thunder, and our vocals have to scream. Some of us, though, are interested in learning classical guitar, which requires, not only different techniques, but an entirely different instrument. But we still recognize that we must practice our craft and master it. It's just not the craft that you recognize. Sure, the market for our music may be smaller that for the heavy metal you promote, but that doesn't mean the market doesn't exist. And that doesn't mean the craft doesn't exist, or that we who seek to master it are content to be "ignorant." Much of what I've read in Swain's book is trivially obvious to anyone who has read more than a few novels. He doesn't say much that's new to me. My problem with him is that he insists on doing thing X at time Y or else the reader will close the book. He makes the same mistake you do - you don't seem to be aware that there is a huge variety of readers out there, and many of them are very patient, luxuriating in a beautiful, slow setup to a story, happily drifting away in the dream the writer is creating for them, accepting philosophical challenges in place of action or romance, delighting in innovative science-fiction concepts or historical information or anything else of interest the writer has to offer. You seem to think the best books are those that keep the reader turning the pages frantically until finally they reach the end, exhausted. I prefer books that make me stop, every page or three, and stare off into space for a while, digesting what I've been reading and reveling in paths of thought I've never traveled before. If I'm engaged in a fascinating book, the slower I read it, the happier I am. I am not the reader who will close the book if half a sentence isn't in free indirect style. Heavy metal isn't everything. I'm a folksinger. Others are classical players. Some play jazz, some play funk, some rap. It's not all the same thing, and it's not all the same audience.
You keep bringing this up. Okay, fine! The first paragraph isn't usually indented! But we're interested in writing, not formatting.
If only I had that kind of balance with something other than my words. As you mentioned, balance is the key. And that is not only so in writing. Everything functions on balance, as I see it. I hate to look at things dualistically, in partitions of absolutely right versus absolutely wrong. The world is not black and white... but 50 shades of grey... lol! Sorry, couldn't help the bad humor. >_< But you get my point. You learn more when you choose your own stance than by simply following a side. Most often there is some truth or validity in both opposing forces. In this case, Jay is right in that study is necessary to become great at anything. But as a Teacher (or soon to be at least), I have to recognize that everyone has their own methods of learning. I've had classmates who could only learn in lab or who could only learn by reading the book. I've also had classmates who needed more mentoring. My point is that everyone, regardless of what they are studying, should study widely and in a way that works for them. BTW walking the fence is a pretty easy with some practice. It's an art.
One thing I've always lived by is, when you become stagnant in a career, relationship, or life, you've already decided that it is over and you have to find something new. If you really love doing something, you need to realize that you have to keep learning something new everyday. Learn from your failures, stay humble in success, and you can't go wrong.
@Andrae Smith Hi, I sometimes wonder about the idea that we all learn differently, not that we don't, and I used to lean in the that direction, but now I'm starting to think that a lot of people have only learned to learn in a limited number of ways. That time spent on how to learn in new ways may be better than time spent learning a specific subject.
Well, golly, if three of your friends never heard of the man that sure proves, uhh...that they never heard of him. You probably never heard of Sol Stein, but he did achieve a bit of success, and his comment on that is: “Readers don’t notice point-of-view errors. They simply sense that the writing is bad.” Those "Suits" make their living by providing readers with a product that's good enough that they'll will pay money they had to earn to read it. And they have done that for hundreds of years. It's called the publishing industry, and they produced all the books you enjoyed reading. Disparaging them, teachers, and successful writers doesn't absolve you of learning what it is you're trying to do, if you hope to please those same readers. Readers are not going to cut you any slack and ignore what they see as poor writing just because you choose not to learn what they want. And that says what? They'll accept a shopping list if you send it. You self'-released work. So what? A kindergartener can do the same if daddy helps them with the signup. Yet you expect to be treated with the same deference, and have your opinions taken just as seriously as someone who makes their living through their writing. Why? Not why should you do it, but why should people accept that and treat you any differently than those who are being rejected because they're too lazy to learn their craft? Choice or laziness, the result is the same, isn't it? Self-releasing your work gives no more validity to it than being rejected. It's your political choice to remain ignorant? Well I sure can't argue with logic like that. No. You don't. You've taken no steps to learn what readers respond to and what they don't. You reject learning the craft that has been steadily developed over hundreds of years—the craft that is dedicated to improving the reader's experience. Publishers don't have standards they make up. They're actively seeking writing that will sell in numbers enough to keep them in business. And because it is their profession they have extensively studied what readers do ad don't react to. But you reject that for "political reasons." I don't doubt that your intent is to please the reader but intent dribbles off our words at the keyboard. The reader gets only the words, minus the craft that could have aided you in choosing and arranging them for maximum impact. You really need to do your homework. She self-published that book and only when it began to sell in numbers did the publishers approach her. If you think publishers should be public service organizations and publish only what you deem acceptable, you're not going to get a sympathetic ear. Hasn't it occurred to you that you're hoping to please those same customers. Only you're trying to do it without even the craft that James possessed. And certainly, in the fact that it motivated Gilbert Godfry to read an excerpt from it, it was worth the writing. Had you done your research you would know that there is no word "alot." You would also know that creative writing courses don't teach writing technique. No way in hell will you learn fiction writing for the printed word when the people critiquing your assignments are as ignorant as you are. Perhaps there are some good ones, but I've never found one worth attending. You do understand, I hope, that the word ignorant means lacking knowledge, not that you're stupid. And at the moment you not only lack knowledge of the craft of writing, you're militant about not learning it. And if you've not heard of Jack Bickham's books you're ignorant of them. My comment was that your ignorance of the novels he wrote had no bearing on either his success or his fitness to teach writing. I'm ignorant of your resume, does that make it any more or less valid. Of course not. The purpose of the thesaurus isn't to find an alternate word, but to find exactly the right word. And in this case the word was exactly right.
mmm... dat's wisdom right der, sonny. @Fitzroy Zeph I agree with you there. We should devote more time to researching new teaching methods as well as new material. In a similar way that there is rarely one way to learn, there is rarely one way to teach. Right now, our system is based on lecture, homework, examination. It is tried and tested (forgive any pun there) and it is yielding the results that were desired, overall. However, it doesn't benefit everyone that way. I argue a more comprehensive and practical/engaging education. Don't just spend money on improving math and science tech. and not teach students how to think AND apply the math concepts. Don't just throw Shakespeare at students and not present it with any cultural relevance. Regardless of what it is one is studying, one should be able to study in whatever way will get them to produce their best results and retain as much of the information as possible-- that is, by giving them a deeper and fuller understanding of the material. As to how one does this, I am not sure, but I'm dedicated to learning between now and when I have a class of my own to run.
@JayG This is exactly the attitude that people don't like and don't respond well to. If you expect to persuade anybody you've got to be more understanding, or at least sympathetic than this. At this point, you are being a bit rude and condescending. It's fine for you to have your own view, but you have your head wrapped to tightly in your educated ego, you talk like some holier-than-thou Godsend to those who already understand exactly what you're saying. You can't tell @Alesia that his method is not working for him if it is serving his purpose. He's made clear he is writing for himself and for his readers. It is enough to disagree, but to talk down to him and so many others here is unfair and unappreciated. You can tote all you want that you're just speaking the truth by all accounts, but at some point you have to realize that you're talking to other adults (many of us at least) and have no right to make assumptions of anyone here and to berate and belittle them no matter whether or not they agree with you. You hardly know anyone here. Regardless of whether or not you are "right" there is a such thing as etiquette, which should be considered when posting. Alesia's last post was a clear "Get off my case, get out of my ear, I've heard you a thousand times now and I'm tired of this debate." (not literally of course) The fact of the matter is, once you've had your say so, there is no point in beating people into agreement. I am no moral authority, and certainly no Moderator, but I believe there are some lines that can't be crossed. This one was pointed out already. Being published does not, by virtue, make you an authority to talk down to anyone here.
A generic statement. And, you're assuming that the techniques taught are only useful to "hacks." It's no longer available online, but a list of the people who attended those writing seminars read like a who's who of American literature at the time they were in operation, not a few pulp fiction writers. And if you read the many pages of comments on Swain's Amazon page you don't see only one type or genre writer. Perhaps if you would point to a style of modern mainstream writing you feel doesn't use the structure taught at the various universities you would make the point better than with "not all" which could refer to fifty percent or one percent. Published in 1952, in the style of the time. I remember trying to read it at the time. It read like a prettily written history book and I never reached chapter three. Today, sent in by a new writer it would probably be rejected. And we're trying to sell our work today. The same goes for Hemingway. If you want to discuss writing today use today's examples. Has no bearing. Inform without entertaining and you'll fail your audition because a reader views becoming informed a plus, but being entertained a necessity. And, you're not taking into account why I mentioned it. Look at almost anything posted in the workshop and you'll find that half or more of the entries are a chronicle of plot points written in the nonfiction style we all learn in school because when we begin to write our stories that's all we know. And those writers are consciously doing that because they believe that it's Story, with that capital S that readers seek to learn more about. It's why they ladle in info-dumps and backstory. The other half of the entries are transcriptions of the narrator speaking the story aloud, but that's another problem. We're not writing fairy tales so it doesn't apply. We're trying to make the reading so real that the reader takes the situation personally. If you've ever stopped reading to fantasize what you would do next were you living the protagonist's life you've just paid a complement to the author. As silly as it sounds, a reader comes to us to worry. Give them a story about a nice man who meets a nice lady, marries her, and has a comfortable life and nice children and the reader will toss the book across the room. But make that seemingly mild mannered nice man secretly a spy. Have his wife bored and ripe for having an affair, and you get the plot of True Lies. And that, people can live. To do that requires scene goals and scenes laid out with a knowledge of a scene's structure, and how a scene differs from a scene in film. In other words, the craft of the professional fiction writer.
I don't expect to persuade anyone, only to provide facts they can verify for themselves. If your goal is to write for publication and you're not willing to invest a few days study and a bit of cash to learn the profession you hope to practice the results will be the same as they would were you to want to practice any other profession. Everyone wants to be a writer. But damn few are willing to do the work necessary to become one. . If by saying that knowledge is necessary as if I know for a fact that it's true, I suppose I am. And I'm being unfair to mention that so many of the NYT best selling writers took the time to become proficient in their craft. But I tell you what you need to know not what you want to hear. And everything I advise is something that actually works in the real world, not my personal opinion. The simple fact is that we spend twelve years of our lives in school learning a general skill that's designed for nonfiction applications. So we come to writing with knowledge and writing skills that can not produce a readable story. Were that not true new high school grads would make up the bulk of new writers. So if telling hopeful writers that fact is condescending I intend to go on being so. Writing is a profession. And like any profession it has things that must be learned, not guessed at. We all come to fiction believing that a scene is the action that takes place in one setting, because that's what it is on stage or in film. We have no clue that scenes on the page almost always end in disaster. We're ignorant of the three questions a reader wants answered quickly on entering any scene. And almost every posting for critique, on any writing site reflects that. I know that because it was my business to know what publishers would say no to and why. Writing is a difficult and demanding profession. Not one in a thousand who reach the point of querying makes it. And the vast majority of them fail because they are not even aware of the fact that there are elements of craft that can an should be learned. When I post a piece of advice that comes from a teacher of fiction for the printed word many people jump up and say I'm wrong. But when I ask if the method they espouse has worked for them, and yielded a publisher's contract, the answer is almost invariably no. And then they call me condescending. But right. We're all adults. So we shouldn't have to pander to egos when we're talking about a profession, and what it takes to be successful, because editors don't give a damn how we feel. They reject most work—about 75%—before the end of the first paragraph because by that time it's obvious that they're dealing with an amateur (their term, not mine). Those are the people who have learned no craft, mostly because no one like me ever told them it was necessary, and why. Of the rest only 3% are deemed to be writing on a professional level, and you can bet that those people did more than sit at the keyboard fumbling, and asking others who know no more about what they need to do than they do. So, do you want to be in that 3%? If so, you're lucky you ran into a bastard like me, who knew to tell you to check out Jack Bickham's Scene and Structure from your local library to pick up some of the basics.
There are some people that learn from advice like yours. It is similar to going to a church where the preacher yells about fire and brimstone, and that the world is about to end, and you better get right with God. Then the church gets quiet and everyone starts to profess their sins. Then there are churches where the preacher will talk about nobody being perfect, but that's okay. He might raise his voice once or twice, usually to make a point that God loves all people, and then once again he returns to his praise of love and everyone being forgiving of one another. There are places and methods that everyone prefers, and it is your right, and our privilege to have it here, but I don't think it is condescending, just inappropriate for some, and a tool for others. I'm not a fire and brimstone type of learner, I prefer strokes instead of strikes, and love instead of fear. Sometimes the 'real world' is important, but we shouldn't let it put up a wall between us and our dreams.
Again, it's not the message it's the tone, attitude, and presentation. Put simply, no one disagrees that one must study the craft. That is not being disputed. What is being disputed is how one studies and who one studies. It's okay to have differences, what is not okay is to assume that everyone who disagrees is ignorant, rebellious and/or unsuccessful. Well you can assume what you will, but It would be appreciated if we could all be respectful towards one another in our posts. Period. If someone is offended because you called them ignorant, or assumed too much about them so to call them out of character o to misrepresent them, the right thing to do would be to correct that, or at least not blatantly do it again. What is being done by @JayG is essentially the same thing you complain about Ginger Doing in other threads, @Lewdog. Agree or disagree with the message and hard truth, it is rude to intentionally say something to put down other forum members, especially after they've made it clear that they aren't interested in conversation with you. Last time, I apologized privately, this time I will not. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to say or how to say it, but I'm arguing respect for the people we talk to. If we someone isn't interested in your opinion, have the courtesy not to talk down to them for disagreeing. Make your point and move on, especially in a thread that's primarily about something else. This topic has been debated to death between the same three people, we should know by now none of them are budging. Yet here it is again and it is detracting from the thread and causing unnecessary friction. The sensible thing would be to put it to rest from here. There is nothing more to say between the three main parties in this dispute.
@Andrae Smith, I don't deny some of the points you are saying, but you have to agree that the message is also a hard pill to swallow. People wouldn't be here if they didn't want to be a writer, and having someone tell them that only 3% of the people who write end up becoming a professional isn't exactly a Hallmark card message to get back, so automatically you're already going to have a negative tone. So maybe it is time to move on. Everyone grab your yoga mats and do the downward facing dog position.
@Lewdog I admit it is hard material, but I typically do a good job of accepting reality when confronted with it, even if the tone is hard. I think we all just need to remember to set boundaries. For now, I think I'll just go to bed. I'll yoga tomorrow night. Got dat French class at 9 AM.
Pretty much, and with that I am going to make my exit from this debate... Well said. And by the way, the word "alot" is as heavily debated as this topic. Some believe the word doesn't exist period, and that it is a misspelling of a lot. Another group says it is a legitimate contraction of a lot. Not to mention, the word has been published before, so either Jay is wrong, or there are some pretty mediocre editors in his beloved publishing industry.
OK, so I took a look through Bickham's The 38 Most Common Fiction Mistakes (I figured I might as well research him if I'm going to argue against him), and to be honest I wasn't very impressed. Some of the rules, like don't make excuses and don't worry about what readers will think, are examples of some of the advice you'll find here on WF. Other things like are fairly obvious, like researching stuff you don't know. One of the things that stuck out is his 7 step process to writing a tension-building scene. This is the kind of stuff I was talking about earlier. He seems to believe that there's only 1 way to write an action scene or a scene that builds tension. This type of thinking could be dangerous for someone just starting out and could lead to formulaic writing. Bickham also seems like the type of writer who values action above all else, and that type of writing isn't for everyone.
I suppose for a man writing a how-to text about writing, you can't blame him for that. The 'show, don't tell' rule has been iron-clad in publishing for years. There's no point misleading your buyers if you are writing a book of that kind.
It looks to me like you think that tension only comes in one form. All books have tension. They have rising tension. Eventually the tension is released and the main idea of the story is resolved, for good or bad, whatever that was. This is what I take away from that sort of "lesson", not the exact specifics. How can there not be a billion ways to word a scene to a acquire tension? How can you expect a billion examples?
So you'll really show me. You won't take the time to learn the craft that publishers feel you need to know, and be a success in spite of that. Unlike the other 999 who follow that approach and get only rejects, your natural talent for writing will carry the day. Sounds like a plan. Personally, I don't try to tell the people offering me advice how to go about it. I look at how well the advice works for the one giving it.
But Columbus nearly killed his entire crew because he wouldn't listen that the maps were wrong. He was just lucky he stumbled upon America or the whole ship would've starved! And the world is flat thing is a myth. People in the middle ages believed in a round earth, and I believe even people before them. The flat earth myth was invented - I think actually by some Christian extremist, though I'm not sure - in order to discredit scientists in the 19th or 20th century? Again, don't remember specifically now but google it - there's a huge wiki article on it. Btw, love your phrase "who's to say what is written in blood?" Anyway, to contribute to the whole conversation - creative writing how-to books and classes have their value, but to say you learn nothing from reading and writing is absurd. The thing people are against here is not the idea of learning the craft, or even of learning from professionals and university tutors and how-to books - the thing we're in disagreement over is that it's the ONLY way. Surely it is one of the ways that one should take to supplement on-going reading and writing? Surely none of these things should be neglected, but my impression is @JayG seems to promote learning from how-to books and university professors is the only necessary thing. Perhaps does JayG mean that one should always learn from how-to books and go to workshops/conferences led by published authors and other creative writing tutors AS WELL AS reading and writing when they learn? Because if that is the case, I don't disagree and I think most people on here would actually agree with you. What baffles me though is why you seem to think nobody other than yourself practice the craft and learn from reading how-to books and absorbing perhaps theories of creative writing and writing structure? (that is the impression you give, and that's an impression built from a variety of posts I've read across the forum by you) I know from having been on this forum for some time that plenty of people here have read plenty of how-to books and been on workshops and conferences. Perhaps a good analogy would be this - you seem to favour comparing writing with sciences, so I'll use one too. Let's take a doctor. You cannot be a doctor without studying 5-6 years (depending on which country you study in), taking numerous exams and even after graduation to go on being supervised. Doctors are, of course, expected to do lifelong learning and continue to have exams long after they've qualified to ensure they're up to date with current medicinal research and practices. In this regard, you would compare it with learning the craft of creative writing by studying books and going to classes led by trusted professionals, am I right? But you also cannot be a doctor without observing other doctors - what do you think labs and hospital residencies are, taken even during the course of the degree, and also after? You watch other doctors and how they deal with things, here's where you learn the nuances not shown in books and theories and exams. In this regard, I will compare it to reading literary works of high quality. You also cannot be a doctor without practice. Again, residencies and then later as a junior doctor, all those hospital placements - what are they for? Without this hands-on practice, one cannot be a doctor. Between a graduate doctor and a doctor who's been in the field for 20 years, whom do you trust more? The more experienced one, of course. Why? They've learnt the same things from books, from trusted, professional tutors, from observations, from other doctors. They know the same things. Why should we trust the one who've been around for 20 years over the graduate? Because the one who's been around for 20 years has had hands-on experience - he knows the nuances, the ins and outs, the subtle things not taught in books or lecture theatres or even simply by observing. He has wisdom that cannot be obtained in books - wisdom that allows him to make the right judgement in grey areas, when things are not certain and no longer black and white. Wisdom that a graduate doesn't have, because they don't have the hands-on experience. So, hands-on experience, whenever you manage to find it, is of immense value. It would be wrong to say it is of "higher" value - but it is certainly of immense value. In this regard, I would compare it with the act of writing. So I don't disagree that you should learn from professionals and books and have some structure to your learning and absorb other professionals' analysis. I agree with you here. What I disagree with is the implication that writing and reading are of no value and that one can learn nothing from it. It is like saying a graduate learns nothing from their hospital placements, from observations, from actually treating a patient under supervision. It's just not true. It is my assumption that perhaps you are simply frustrated that aspiring writers like ourselves all highlight the importance of reading and writing to the neglect of learning from books and tutors, inclining us towards the other extreme (say, a self-professed doctor who doesn't have the degree lol). And perhaps that's why you come on a little aggressive sometimes? I think if you stop assuming that nearly everyone on here is more ignorant than you are, you might find that actually, a lot of people here don't disagree with you. However, you write in a very confrontational attitude, and the truth is, you're not the voice of God - you might think you're right and maybe you very much are, but you cannot make people submit. You cannot make people agree. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God come to die for your sins and resurrect again, and I would say I am absolutely right - that does not give me the right to try and shove it down your throat, especially not in a way that sounds condescending. I thoroughly believe in what one of the verses say in the book of Proverbs (yes, I'm gonna quote the Bible at you now) - that is: Gentleness can break bones. I find myself more inclined to listen to those who are gentle, that's just me. If you speak truth, people will see it. If you speak truth and people ignore it, it's their problem. We're all here to learn and we're all learning *together* - unless you've published a few books that sold well (not even bestseller, not even trad-pub either as long as you sold well), you yourself are not a professional and you're learning with us. (unless, of course, you do have well-received books under your name?) So let's not pretend we all have everything figured out - you haven't either, and neither have I, and nor have many people on this forum. It's why we're here. EDIT: Crikey I wrote a bloody essay! So sorry... but it's too long to go back and edit.
No, I think the exact opposite. I'm not saying that we should have many examples, but here's Bickham's "recipe" for good conflict (from the book I mentioned earlier): 1. You make sure two characters are involved. 2. You give them opposing goals. 3. You put them onstage now. 4. You make sure both are motivated to struggle now. In his other book, Elements of Writing Fiction, he says that stories follow a scene-sequel-scene-sequel format, where the scene advances the plot in some way and the sequel describes how the character reacts to the scene. I can't speak for everyone, but this sort of formulaic writing isn't going to work for me.
Uhm no, I'm telling you that you are a person that tells it like it is and shoves realism in people's faces. Some people act positively to that and either decide they aren't as dedicated to writing as they need to be in order to become a professional writer, while others take it as a challenge to prove people like you wrong and do everything they need to do in order to give it their best shot. Personally I react better and give my best work when I am pushed with rewards and positive reinforcement, and not the way you present it. I'm trying to have a regular conversation here, no need to get a negative tone with me on this?
You also have to look at what the advice produces. I've read Bickham he's good. But he's also helping authors along the vein of Sue Grafton, Dean Kootz, Joy Fielding - which is great if that is your style. Not so great if your ambition is a little broader in tastes.
