The art of the story

Those creative moments, when I wake up in the middle of the night, silently slip out to the kitchen, grab paper and pen and write two A4 pages about a completely new story's plot with full of notes of scenes I literally see inside my head. Then I sleep back and in the morning read that two pages in horror as they look totally alien to me: "Man, I remember that I wrote this, but how? Why?"

 

Poking holes into scenes before writing, in my head, before I sit down and write. Mulling things over, changing parameters, playing around with possibilities, and the moment when it all slots into place.
Writing, when my fingers type stuff with double meanings—and I'm only aware of what I typed after I've written it.
Editing, when a page starts to look like a cohesive thing, not just like random words and clunky sentences

 

The really dark, harrowing, painful moments that make me cry; when their demons all catch up with them and they spend a good long while just crying as they realize everything is their fault. Hopeless, numb, empty, pain that claws right at your soul. That's the best thing in the world to write. Yeah, I like writing first kisses, I like writing the porn that doesn't make it into the actual book. But what I genuinely love to write is the absolute bottom where the characters love each other so much and it just doesn't matter, there's no way out, no other answer, there's just an infinite sea of blackness under their feet. The best one being the guy she loves accidentally raping her. That is easily the most intense and harrowing thing I've ever written and it's just the most wonderful thing. It's so sad.

 

Writing dialogue and action.

 

My favourite part is getting it out of my head and onto the paper.

Then I can sleep.

 

Just scrolled down and Liked half the comments in the thread!

I love the characters. Because most of my stuff is set in boarding schools (except for the one that's set at a day school) I come up with a bunch of them - twenty or so - who are all in the heroine's inner circle of friends, and then some stick and some don't and end up being bit-parts (because there are going to be other kids in the year.) But every time I create these, I spend all this time thinking up who she is, what she looks like, what she does for fun (the extent to which I do this depending on how heavily they feature in the story), and I get to know them like best friends. I always love it when I see or hear something that reminds me of them, like one of my heroine's favourite songs being played on the radio.

And as I said, most of my stories are set in boarding schools, so there's always that scene where the heroine gets settled in, admires her new uniform, meets everyone and learns the culture of the school. For some reason, they're always so much fun to write.

 

Dialogue, particularly between two people who are clever and attracted to each other.
The absolute best, however, is those moments where the story writes itself, veering off into a place you hadn't planned and winds up being brilliant. It doesn't happen often but is absolute magic when it does.

 

In short, my fantasy (The Alkorian Legends) is a “so there I was” tale told by Mishu Jerni 30 years after the main story; starting off in a school cafeteria with her assistant-teacher and three of her students. The kids are young, with the oldest being twelve.

My plan was to have the kids and the assistant-teacher serve as a sort of audience surrogate. I guess the best way to describe it is liken to the kid and the grandpa in The Princess Bride, how every so often we’re taken out of the story so the kid and his grandpa can have a discussion about what they just read.

Thing is, how would I execute it properly? Here’s an example:

Say Mishu is describing a scene where a character is being ganged up on and tortured by thugs. She describes herself as being a few yards away, itching to grab her daggers and fight them off to save the victim. Then the narrative cuts off as one of the younger children starts bawling because (1) the scene is violent and he’s, like, six, and (2) he’s all “Why are they being so mean!?”

As Mishu tries to calm him down, the other two kids butt in with:
Kid #1: “So when does he break free and kick ass? Also, yeah, why are they doing that?”
Kid #2: “Were you not paying attention? Obviously because of xyz. Besides, I’m sure he got out — Mishu was there with her daggers, right? Miss Jerni, what happened next? Did you save him?”
Kid #1: “I think he did it himself. C’mon, you said he was a tough guy, right? He wouldn’t let them walk on him like this!”
Mishu Jerni: “Well...”

<back to narrative where Mishu and the victim team up to kick ass.>

The idea is that because this is a story being told, no doubt her audience would want to ask questions, etc. Thing is, I’m worried it might wreck the narrative flow, or at least treat the readers like they’re stupid because the characters are just restating what they’ve literally just read or figured out.

I also wanted to do this because I wanted to keep the characterization of the kids and the assistant, to insert light worldbuilding, quick character development, or as a breather to give readers time to digest.

Thoughts?

 

Ooh, sounds cool! I've never tried writing like that, so the only advice I can give is to study other things with this style. As far as movies go, there's The Book Of Life that does this, while also giving the present characters interesting personalities. I'm don't believe I've read anything with this style either, so I'm no help there. But your premise sounds very interesting and you should continue with it!

 

First thoughts.
Interesting, probably tricky.
Very tricky.

As you said the kids can't just repeat what the narrator has said. You actually need them to tell the story (sortof).

I used to read stories for my children. I read almost every evening for many years. They could totally ruin a story with their interruptions and questions.

*

I am writing a short story about a story teller sitting in an oriental bazaar. In the mornings he is telling stories for the children. It was to difficult to have them interrupt him all the time. Instead he keeps them on a short leach. But he interacts with them, and asks them questions.

You might try for a few sentences to let Mishu be in command and actively involved the kids. That way it's possible to get a less interupted story (maybe?)

Anyhow good luck.

 

So we've always seen stories revisited. Remakes, reboots, competing interpretations, etc.

It doesn't only happen with fictional stories that are changed to fit contemporary times and get new audiences, but also in nonfiction stories.

There is a new movie about the battle of the sexes. That movie also came out in 2011 with other actors.

I'm fascinated with historical events such as the Lincoln Assassination and the Bay of Pigs invasion. I could, through massive research, write some decent alternate history.

Or, I could write a movie or a novel describing these events straight up. But how would you decide when is a good time to do that? And what would a new version contribute?

I don't know what the book and movie "Killing Lincoln" brought us that the book and movie "The Day Lincoln Was Shot" didn't. And I don't know what my own book or play could bring, if I choose to tell that story straight up, without any alternate history spin of events.

Well, at least I'm not rebooting Spiderman

 

Depends what you want to achieve with writing; if you just write for pleasure you shouldn’t worry too much about what you could bring in but rather focus what you enjoy writing, if you want to make a living with it I won’t be able to give any tips as it’s not my field of expertise .

So imo, write to your hearts content!

 

Very often, a revisited story - such as the Titanic - focuses on different characters who are swept up in the historical event.

 

People like old stories retold. I do. A new perspective is nice, but it isn't necessary.

 

How much trust do you put in a story while you are writing it? As writers can we trust that our work won't steer us wrong? I don't think it matter it you are a planner or a pantser. Do you trust or have faith in the story and I guess you as a writer? Should writer's strive to have this kind of relationship with their work? What sort of difference if any does something like this make?

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I don't trust my story, because my story isn't autonomous. Everything the story is, is dictated by me. My story can't steer me wrong. I'm steering it. I trust myself as a writer because that's all I can do if I ever hope to finish anything with any kind of pride.

 

I have a similar relationship with my work as I do with the laundry that I'm neglecting to put away. It's a thing with none of its own agency and which I have full control over making happen. The laundry ain't gonna put itself away; the story ain't gonna write itself. I trust that that will remain the same, just like I trust that if an errant sock slips out of my hand, gravity will make it hit the floor.

I do have some amount of trust in my subconscious, because I know that's where a lot of the work is actually done - a lot of behind-the-scenes processing that comes out as 'creativity'. Maybe that's what you mean. But even then, if I visualize the relationship I have with my subconscious, it's something like me and my doppelganger, both with shivs, staring each other down across a table and sometimes chasing each other but always equidistant.

So ... no?

 

That's an interesting question. When character and plotpoints come together, feel logic and open up for interesting conflict, while still being a good romp, that's when I start trusting that a story will lead me wisely. I am in charge of course, but there are certain things characters and plot will point towards early in the story that excites me and makes me trust the path I'm on.

I trust myself more as a plot/character-developer than I trust myself as a writer during the revision part though. Getting the voice, tone and descriptions the way I like it; that's the real swamp, and I lose faith in myself there a lot. But having faith in the story makes me write it quicker, because if I stopped at every single turn and thought about a hundred different ways that could go, I'd never finish. And I'd probably go nuts in the process. So, the initial trust is a kind of gut-feeling that it will all come together story-wise. But if we never have any doubts at all about our work, I think it will be hard to grow as writers and storytellers.

 

Is this a plotter/pantser discussion or something else?

I disagree with most of the posts so far--I think. I'm definitely not steering my story down a clear road. I'm not clearly seeing past the illumination from my own headlights. I choose a moment, at this point usually a moment with a starting point fairly clearly defined by another moment, and I write a scene, a scene that as far as I can tell has been percolating in my subconscious until it was ready to come to a boil.

And I repeat that. And, yes, I trust that process, at least for a while. Them I look at those scenes after they've cooled down and solidified, and I may tweak them and make course corrections and character adjustments, big and small. And that goes into the subconscious percolator for another round.

So most of the work seems to be subconscious. And, yeah, I'm trusting that.

Will it end up working? I don't know. But I can dimly see an ending, and there's a decent plot structure leading up to it, so I'm pretty happy.

 

I'm back for more.

If I write like ChickenFreak and let my subconscious direct the story as I'm writing it, then I have consciously given up some of my agency. If I write from my conscious thoughts and make every word deliberate, I retain my agency. But to say that our work can steer us wrong implies that the story is in direct conflict with ones agency, which to me, is silly.

At the end of the day, whether I write from my conscious or unconscious mind, the story comes from me. It is through my actions that the story materializes. To say a story can steer the writer wrong is to say that a story possesses agency outside of the writer, and that that agency can be at direct odds with the writer's agency.

But if I write through the subconscious, I've consciously let go of my agency and have no justification for feeling misled. If I write through the conscious, I retain my agency and have no justification for feeling misled.

A story cannot steer a writer "wrong". It's not as if I'm chronicling the lives of people that exist outside of my head. To give the power of your story over to the story itself is a paradoxical notion that results in endless fruitless attempts to finish a story. If I write something I don't like, I fix it. My relationships with my stories are uniform: I am in charge, and they do what I say.

 

I think you need to differentiate between commercial success, and writing because you just want to write. For commercial writing, because you want to become a renowned author and want to make a living off it, I think a writer needs to be in control of where the story is going to. The story needs to be marketable, and feeding off a given readership.

But it's no secret that I'm not writing for commercial success. For me, the story is in control. I know what I want to tell, the theme if you like, and I'll do it whichever way my subconscious shows me to make that happen. My subconscious is only an agency to tell me which way to tell my story will make the theme most effective. It's not giving up agency, it's me all over. So yes, I 'trust' my story. I've faith in myself.

 

I think that some of the issue here is taking a metaphor literally. Treating the story as a separate entity from the storyteller is, IMO, a metaphor, and potentially a useful one. The conscious, planning, executive-function mind is not necessarily the most creative mind. So a writer might set out to deliberately give responsibility for the story to other parts of the mind, and a metaphor that paints those other parts as "other" may be useful.

I don't use that metaphor, precisely; in my metaphor there's more than one of me, one working in the light of day, and one or several others working in a dark back room full of toys and art supplies and a transporter to other worlds.

But it's all metaphor. My possibly incorrect interpretation of the subject of this thread is if, and how, we release the story from conscious deliberate control and let less clearly visible processes drive it. And when we do so, how we deal with trusting those processes, and how and when we correct and redirect them.

 

That could be my issue. I tend to take things literally. If the question is how we release the story from conscious deliberate control, and how we trust and guide the story from that point forward...well I have no idea. I gotta think about that.

 

If that is the question, I can only come back to my 'chasing myself around a table with a knife' thing. My subconscious? That guy's just throwing spaghetti at the wall. My writing has become much better since I stopped listenin' to'em and took responsibility for consciously curating the things that I write.

That said I'm also put off by the "should a writer ..." thing, because we all get to work in different ways and I don't think there'a any One True Method - other people can let their subconscious drive and that's cool, but I only let mine work back-end and I make very conscious and considered determinations about what I actually write. And that's what you should all aspire to, and what every writer should strive for, because it's what I do. Yeah.

In seriousness, I've seen way too many writers try to dodge responsibility for trite, shitty, harmful writing by saying "it's just how it came to me" etc, and that shit drives me up the wall, so I'm in the same boat here as Moose up above - even if it's subconsciously, this is a thing that you, no one else, is making. Even if you let your subconscious dictate it, it's your subconscious, not the Writing Fairy.

So obviously there are multiple points here that frustrate me, so I'm just going to stop talking