i recently came across a concept called microwave writing which im in two minds about. you want to roast a chicken. you can turn on your oven, let it heat up, stick in the chicken and wait an hour until the extreme heat makes the changes that turn it from a raw chicken into a cooked one. or you can put it in a microwave at the right setting and in 20 minutes you have a roast chicken. the oven a long time and wasted alot of energy to do what the microwave did in a short time. the oven needs to heat and cool down. the microwave is on in an instant. a story can either be the oven or the microwave. it's basically saying that there is no room for those distractive narratives or dialogues in a modern novel which i totally disagree with because sometimes you need the reader to forget about something and im not sure of any other way to do it. any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated. thanks in advance
Why write in a microwave? Usually living organic material ah... explodes. PS. I'd liek to know the answer too.
Chicken in a microwave has no taste it is rubbery and has no colour. Chicken in an oven has the smell of flavour, has lots of juicy bits and has a lovely golden brown colour. Something you can savour. I'll take the oven over the speed any day.
Sometimes you need speed though. In an action/fight scene you need to have it over with before the reader becomes bored. At the same time, the times leading up to the fight need to be taken slow, to build suspense and so that when the fight hits the sudden change in speed shows the chaning situation.
I'm with lessa on this one. It sounds like a recipe for dry, unappetizing, and flavorless. It could just be a bad metaphor, though.
i hate to admit it but lordofhats makes the point ive been trying to get through to my buddies...who're now discussing the tenderness of steak. (they're not writers)
Pacing is definitely important. The pace should be consistent with subjective time for the characters. When the characters are being hurtled along by the action, the writing should reflect that rush. Conversly, when they have time to observe details, the writing should follow a more leisurely pace and stretch subjective time as well.
cogito is correct, "pace should be consistent with subjective time". one of my buddies argues that the microwave theory is what works best because people these days want to eat fast food and don't have time to sit over a three course meal, so waiting an hour for a chicken which can be done in 15 seems a no brainer for him.
I'm personally with lessa and Cogito on this. The oven and microwave should be combined, and when we need to cook it well and bring flavor and crisp, i.e. give detail, it turns into an oven and when the action is up we oughta bring the microwave and skim through the scene.
I'm a vegatarian myself, but I get the drift. Microwave? Oven? I think, generally, that pace dictates style. Always a student, though, I've come to appreciate the power of less when it comes to conveying the desired message. In saying that, I accept there must be room for exceptions.
I'm going to say the metaphor is accurate, because what do you have without dialogue and narrative what do you have? Because it certainly isn't a novel. It's like dry tasteless chicken and a melted styrofoam plate filled with condensation. And a sense of emptiness and the feeling you should really fix the stove before having to spend another night eating this crap.
Depends if as a reader you can be bothered to read the 'oven style' build up or if you prefer to get right into the action 'microwave' style. As writers we must not forget that in order to be successful you need readers, whether you think oven or microwave is the way to go is irrelevant. Long winded build ups are drab unless you have a great, hum dinging spicy chicken to back it up.
I believe the concept might have come from this author: http://www.caroclarke.com/microwavewriting.html I think we're taking the metaphor a little too far. I get what Clarke's saying here--if you're writing a thriller, there's no use for a bland behemoth of purple prose. I think the purpose of "Microwave Writing" is to satisfy your reader's craving of "chicken" by zapping it quickly in the microwave, as it were, without having them wade through a three-course meal. However, I agree with Cogito and the others in that a whole novel shouldn't be written in this style. It's just a way to get at the heart of the matter, since you plan later to fill in the other necessary organs. It all depends on style and purpose.
Is stream of consciousness a technique that is used to break someone of their own writer's block? I understand the concept of it, but I feel like someone could just let their mind go to wherever it wants to, and they would eventually just jot down a bunch of sentences, thus breaking the block. Is this a reason why this technique is used? The other thing I'm thinking about is, the consequence for trying to employ this technique while going through a writer's block might be that NOTHING makes sense at all, in any context. If this, the latter, is untrue, then I think I'm in good hands. I just basically am trying to understand this better. Is this an exercise to "cure" writer's block, or just a technique of writing that some authors specialize in?
I've never thought of it as a cure for writer's block. That's actually a really interesting observation. I guess it really depends on the context. A lot of times it's okay to go off on crazy tangents as long as they can somehow tie into what you're trying to say overall. There's a fine line between not making sense because it's poorly written and not making sense because it's perfectly written. It isn't supposed to be easy to follow stream of consciousness, but when the reader finishes reading it he/she should have an understanding of the message. Whether or not he/she understands the literal situation is irrelevant. Anyway, I use it simply because it's fun as hell.
I don't think it's a cure for writer's block. If anything, it's the opposite. Writing in SoC is really hard, especially if you're trying to make sense and be literary. It's really just a technique that some authors are really good at.
I always used it as a tool to get story ideas out and onto a piece of paper. Almost like a liquid brain storm.
My understanding of the stream of consciousness approach to literature is based on my experience with research into the Surrealist movement. The early poetic branch of this movement honed their skills in this method, and it remains one of their most renowned feats of accomplishments. Particular poetic propents of the approach were André Breton and Robert Desnos. Desnos had an accute fascination and talent for the method, before he knew it had a name. He originally worked as a journalist and simply telephoned his pieces for print, without pause and without error, without having written the article before the call. He later became fascinatied with freedom and found an inexhaustible source of it in the subconscious. This led him to exploring stream of consciousness as a productive method of poetry generation. He would sit in a darkened room, alone, and enter what he called a trance like state, before letting his pen run over paper. He thought the freedom the subconscious allowed could be channelled in this manner, and its results would produce worthy poetic imagery. In most cases too, it worked. As an aside, it is worth noting that these trance like states were rarely if at all conducted or acheivable whilst under the influence of narcotics, specifically opium, or alcool. As one would assume, productivity lessened when under their heavy influence. As to whether you could use this device to beat writer's block, would very much depend on your command of your subconcious. If you can command it like the Surrealists claimed to be able, then you could circumnavigate the block. I like to point out here that I always find the central irony of a command of freedom to be rather appealing. If you just intend to write unresearched streams of nonsense, it's likely that when you attempt to work with the data, you may have trouble. In a wider sense however, if you attempt to use stream of consciousness for writing convincing speech, for example, you may have more luck. Spontaneous speech, as could be attainable through this method, could be very profitable indeed. If you interested in the Surrealists or the stream of consciousness in poetry, then it might interest you to look in the Essays theread under Non-Fiction on this site (page 2 I think) where an essay of mine relates to the subject. Kind regards.
Gannon - Thanks so much for your offering. Really helps. Forkfoot - You gonna start it? I would only find that fitting and appropriate. Thanks everyone else.
Freewriting is sitting down for a set period of time, typically ten minutes, and writing continuously without pausing. Too often, it becomes, "I cannot think of anything I cannot think of anything my brain is stuck...." But its purpose is to try to break through Writer's Block. I don't think many writers actually find it toi be a successful strategy, because all it really ends up doing is stresssing you out worse than before. Stream of consciousness is a style of writing in which you still may deliberate over wording, but you try to follow the thought process of yourself as a writer and the characters you portray. In the purest form, you don't go back and edit, but I am not sure how honestly this takes place in practice. Jack Kerouac's On the Road is an example of this writing style, as is a lot of other prose and poetry of the Beat Generation.
I was introduced to it by my creative writing teacher. We do it as a class, as an exercise. I don't use it for writers block, but when I have nothing to write about but want to write. So actually, it is a cure in a way. It's fun, you can end up with a bunch of great ideas, and as a bonus you're writing, which is nice It's also a way to learn more about yourself, and possibly a way to keep a diary. I love reading my old ones I've kept. If your brain happens to start thinking about yourself during one, you'll get the best account of whatever it is.
I don't really view it as a way to get rid of writers block, but it is pretty fun. Its also just interesting to see how you think and how the ideas "stream" out.
As the others say it's usually just a form of writing, one which I don't really care for, myself... As was also mentioned, "freewriting" is usually the name of the method employed by people when they're stuck in writing--they give themselves a certain amount of time and write whatever comes to mind, no matter how senseless. Some people swear by this helping them get started, but for me, it wouldn't work at all. Some people honestly CAN'T just sit there and write whatever random junk comes to mind. I'd literally get stuck TRYING to freewrite. Some of us need more structure and purpose to get any writing done. Even if stream-of-consciousness isn't a typical way to break writer's block, what does it matter? Shouldn't you be willing to try whatever might work, no matter what name it goes by or whether others happen to use it or not? Just be aware that there's no "cure" for writer's block because writer's block isn't one single thing with one single cause. (I'm of the mind that there really is no such thing as writer's block, and it's just a euphemism for various other problems, like not really wanting to write or not wanting to find the time to write, but that's just me.) If one thing doesn't work, be willing to try whatever else there is, but don't expect a magical cureall because there is none. Sometimes all you can do is force yourself to do it.
