Self teaching and Critical Thinking

There are many tropes, formulas, rules, and trinkets of advice offered to new writers. I learned to write by writing short stories, each challenging one of these tropes. I recall, being told a story must have a conflict. I challenged this notion by ghosting a four-year-old's first person account of "Me and Mommy in the park."

I also heard that you cannot have a story without dialogue. My strength is dialogue so I endeavoured to see how far I could get without it - apparently its 3,303 words. Writing without narrative is easy for me, I can do 40,000 words - easy. But that's just how play and screenwriters work.

I admit, my career has been derailed in pursuit of writing 'technical merit'. I've had lofty aspirations, many of my goals geared toward how to excel at a particular discipline.

I have developed my own disciplines such as such as sympathetic narration and conch POV technique. There's a 100% chance that I've become bitter and disillusioned because I'm not appreciated for demonstrating a technique, or executing a skill beyond the average reader's comprehension.

Sidebar: this may well contribute toward the 'Arts vs Commerce' debate.

Bygones.

I read a question on this forum about 'description' and instantly thought about the discipline of sympathetic narration. You want to be inside the character's head - right?


(Deleted by mod... all work for review must be posted in the Workshop and only after critique requirements have been met)

 

Conflict can be as simple as the girl who wants a new dress for the dance, and she is from a poor family who cannot afford it. How does she get the new dress?

One thing to remember is that you are the one with the vested interest in the story. It's good to know the rules, and over time one can learn how to break them when needed. Time and rewriting ad infinitum is the best teacher. You are the author. It's up to you. TO YOU.

 

"Must" is a strong word. Stories benefit from conflicts, and it's much harder to write compelling stories without them.

Standard tropes, formulas and narrative devices are ubiquitous for a reason. Like, they're not rules, we just do that stuff because it generally works very well. Anyone who says you have to write that way are basically treating the art of writing as a black box, because they've been told what works but never learned to think about why.

End of the day, it's the result that matter. If people like your story, then you did it right, even if you didn't do it the way you were "supposed" to.

 

It struck me, reading this post, that you have tons of high level experience in writing. Your writing here is perfectly clear and well-presented.

However what also came through to me, from this post anyway, is what seems to have become an almost frantic search for a 'formula that works'. You've been experimenting with lots of ways to approach finding that formula. Experimenting is always good, but not if it replaces what amounts to an inherent feel for (and confidence in) storytelling itself. I may have picked you up wrongly on this—if so, I apologise—but I do hope you'll hear me out.

I don't know how much you actually read, in terms of short stories or novels. You indicate that your writing experience is mostly with screenwriting. It is a different art form to writing novels/short stories.

In a filmed or acted production, which you would be writing for, you get visuals as well as dialogue. You will have actors speaking the lines ...with varying degrees of emphasis. They will break up the dialogue with facial expressions. They will perform actions while they are speaking. They will react physically at time, to what other characters are saying to them. They will move around within the setting, stop occasionally as something changes within the setting (a car passes, a dog comes running up to them, etc.) They may slow down their speech, or speed it up. They may retreat, attack ...all sorts of things outwith what they actually say. And, of course, the setting is also visual ...either the backdrop of a play (plus props) or the filmed environment found in movies and TV productions.

In a novel or short story, ALL you have to work with are words. All these visual cues you are receiving while watching a play or film must be created by the author, with words. They can't all be done with dialogue, no matter how cleverly the dialogue has been written.

It's also useful to realise that dialogue reads really fast ...much faster than it gets spoken in a play or movie. That speed can overrun a reader's attempt to absorb the nuances behind the words, or even—if the dialogue is not well attributed—make the reader lose the thread of who is saying what altogether. NEVER underestimate the speed of dialogue—and don't overestimate its efficiency at telling a complete story either.

Consider how long it takes to simply read through a scene from a known play or film ...then compare it to how long that scene actually takes to play out IN the play or film. You might be really astonished at how much longer the filmed version takes. Why? Because all you're getting in the screenwritten version is the dialogue and a few brief stage directions. In the actual production, you're getting the whole thing. In real time. It's not a matter of word count. X number of narrative words, versus X amount of dialogue, etc. What matters is the overall picture, impression, and emotional engagement that the words create. There isn't any foolproof formula for that. It takes as long as it takes.

I'd say maybe to just relax a bit. Pick up a book that you love. Read it again, and enjoy that feeling of calm engagement you get from a well-written book. You surrender to the spell the author is casting and go with the flow. You emerge at the end feeling as if you've been somewhere and done something outwith your own daily life. It's a clean and exhilarating feeling.

THEN ...go back and start to analyse the thing. How did the writer achieve this? How did the writer begin the story? What sorts of descriptions did the writer include, and HOW were these included? As long narrative passages? As short dialogue 'beats?' A combination of these things? How are the POV character's impressions and thoughts used to center the reader's perspective on the story? Are we supposed to believe the POV character, whose viewpoint we share, or is this an 'unreliable' narrator whose viewpoint we question?

And as far as dialogue goes, HOW is it used? And how does it get broken up?

Do the speakers say what they actually mean? Or are they hinting instead? Are they saying things that directly oppose what they actually think? If so, why? Are they deliberately manipulating other people with their words? Are they afraid they won't be liked if they tell the truth, so they waffle a bit? Is their mind actually on other things, as they are forced into small talk? Dialogue alone won't convey all these nuances—but including the speakers thoughts and feelings (as action beats or narrative accompaniment) certainly will. An actor can—and does, of course—convey these nuances via body language and facial expressions, tone of voice, etc, but a novelist doesn't employ an actor to do this kind of thing. The novelist must indicate these nuances in other ways.

I feel the most successful novelists and short story writers know how to employ ALL the tools in the writer's box, and aren't in the business of eliminating as many as possible, just to see if they can.

Some of these authors seem to create a whole story naturally, but I suspect these are voracious readers. They 'know' what good stories 'sound like' because they've read so many of them. A non-voracious reader—one who gets most of their stories via visual media—won't have this grounding. Therefore they 'learn' writing tricks by reading 'how to' books, taking classes in creative writing, etc. Nothing wrong with these learning aids of course, but I don't think they are enough on their own to make a great writer. I think a great writer must also be a great reader. Somebody who is totally familiar with the media they are using to create their own stories. There may be exceptions to this, but I suspect these exceptions are very few indeed.

Hope this diatribe helps, and doesn't offend! We've all got our own approaches, and I may be totally wrong about yours. This is just my overall thinking on the subjects you raised...

 

Quite the opposite, I am trying to convince myself (and other writers) that there is no magic formula, anything can work - so long as you do it well. But at some point, way down the rabbit hole, you run in the conflict commerce vs art. War and Peace is too long, kinda boring, and could do with a good edit. The Mona Lisa is faded, kinda boring, the model's not that hot - my granddad's old Polaroid can take better pictures. Art is only good because our betters tell it is so. Much of our education is dedicated to convincing us the Hemingway and Dickens are gods.

It is shame the mod deleted the excerpt. It was from a story called "Blind Date", a story about a middle-aged woman who 'meets' a man on the Internet and invites him to her home. If the story were an Olympic dive it would have a degree of difficulty of 3.9. In a similar vein to "Sixth Sense" every line, every description, every action of this story screams, "This woman is blind!" But you'll never see it, you're too hung up on the double-bluff ambiguous nature of the title. Your view is bolstered by your own bias, the path you expect the story to take: how naive is this woman to invite a stranger from the Internet into her home? Protagonist, you in danger girl! And in the finale, during the debate as to whether, knowing this woman is blind, is the suitor still prepared to pursue a relationship her - comes the final, unforeseen twist.

"If she's blind . . . does she know I'm black?"

I executed the story well and deserve to score highly in both technical merit and artistic impression - wait, that's ice skating.

Bygones.

However, the exercise taught me full depths of POV. There are no facts, only the interpretations of information and observations by a character from within their world.

"Johnny, what war did your granddad die in? Vietnam, Korea, World War II?"
"The old war, the one in black and white."

So, while I pursue excellence in various aspects of writing. Sidebar: Did you know: Hispanics struggle with contractions. People from the Indian sub-continent default to the continuous form of any verb. Most European languages do not have a direct translation for the word "Now".

None of this actually matters so long as boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. The zombies are vanquished. Nobody kills a dog . . .

But none of the above is required if Oprah likes your story.

Rant over.

 

Each person develops their own style. A person can write a really good story and no one will like it. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

 

That's very true. However, it's the learning how to do it well that really matters and you need to identify what you mean by "doing it well". What is the end goal?

At the time those things were made though, the particular tastes of the day said that they were saleable. There are lots of works produced that entirely fail at the time and are only looked back on appreciatively down the road. Ultimately, a lot of people call their work "art" because it's not commercially viable. Someone who doesn't care about commercial success wouldn't be showing their work to anyone. They wouldn't be trying to get it published or shown in galleries. They wouldn't be trying to sell it. Art for the sake of art is insanely rare. A lot of things are just dubbed "art" because the creator isn't willing to do what it takes to make it a commercial success. Anyone can scribble on a canvas and call it art. That doesn't make it good.

That's likely because it violated the rules of the forum. I don't know the particulars and don't pretend to, but trying to seek critiques or advice on a particular piece is forbidden except in very specific places. You are obligated to read, understand and follow all of the rules before you post. The mods act when you have done something wrong. Perhaps you ought to ask yourself what it was.

 

This statement is nonsensical. Art and commercial success have become contradictions. In a world where the Kardashians and reality TV rake in all the cash TV art is dead. The best-sellers list is dominated by celebrity memoirs and exposes - no art there.

Your theory is dangerous. What happens when the Harpercollins bean-counters calculate you book would achieve 63% more sales if the hero was white? Particularly in the US, commercial success is achieved by telling the people what they want hear.

 

Practically all the art I've ever consumed has been commercially successful to some degree, otherwise I wouldn't have found out about it.

You realize that there are separate non-fiction and fiction best-sellers lists? Memoirs and exposes don't even dominate the non-fiction list. I enjoy reading memoirs and I don't think there's any reason they can't be art.

 

TV Art is dead? You haven't been watching the right TV. The quality of (successful) drama is better than it's ever been.

 

Surtsey, you making some very bold claims by saying that you're an excellent writer. You also putting a lot of people down. Maybe instead of telling everyone that you're a literary master that nobody appriaciates, you should go submit your work to the workshop, while following the rules, so we can form our own conclusions.

 

Must be contagious

 

Yup. That's why they often have ghost writers, because it's not easy to write a readable and interesting self-reflection of historical events. It's an art as much as a craft. 'Creativity' in 'making up' stories isn't the only measure of literary art, or craft for that matter. And considering the OP is talking about technique and craft in the first place I'm not sure why that excludes non-fiction.

A side note though: Fiction writing is not the only form of writing. There is non-fiction, academic, journalistic, technical, etc. The idea that 'writing' is only 'fiction prose' is very limiting and quite dismissive of all the other forms of writing and writing craft. There is certainly room for the appreciation of technical merit in these forms.

 

Ah! I did obviously pick you up wrongly. Sorry! I guess I mistook your passion for the subject as a 'frantic search.' My mistake.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly agree that there should be no prescribed technique or approach, when it comes to writing. Each author and each reader is unique. Also I believe that 'art' is (at least partly) in the eye of the beholder. I do think it's a good idea, however, to take on board 'when' the antique art was created and who created it and why.

The fact that Jane Austen's style of writing isn't what we would create in a modern work doesn't diminish the impact her writing had at the time, and especially doesn't diminish her view of her own surroundings and issue that concerned her. Austen is not so much 'art' as historical perspective—not only the stories themselves, but her ability to create them with so little support, both in her writing environment and her physical and financial circumstances. She obviously had a very sharp eye, and had something to say about her time and place. I totally admire that. Ditto Mona Lisa (and the few other Da Vinci paintings which have survived his cack-handed attempts at producing his own paints and grounds ...which, for a scientific mind like his, were remarkably poor.) Da Vinci was a controversial artist in his day, not only because of the subjects he chose to paint, but the way he chose to depict them, which, for the most part, was NOT fashionable or particularly geared to please his patrons. He's worth studying, actually. Very interesting fellow.

For me and my own writing, I have one overarching ambition. I do NOT want people to be aware of my writing style as they read my stuff! The very best compliment I ever received from a beta reader, regarding my novel was: "After the first couple of pages I totally forgot you had written it." I firmly believe the best writers are like the best drivers ...you don't notice their technique. You just relax and enjoy the trip. Flashy writers and flashy drivers irritate me. I want to see the result, not the process.

I think that also ties in with my inherent dislike of gimmicks, when it comes to writing—which is why, in general, I'm not crazy about short stories. I don't want the author to 'fool' me. It just leaves me feeling annoyed. Basically I want to trust the author, and put my energy into finding out what happens next, or what happens as a result of what is going on. I don't want to get to the end to discover that what I thought was going on actually wasn't ...because the author cleverly hid it from me in order to achieve a 'surprise.' I know that surprises can cause a moment of huge enlightenment, but in general, I'd rather be given the straight goods, so I can arrive at my own conclusions regarding events. I have had a few experiences where the author fooled me and I thought it was great—but not many. I don't want to think clever author. I want to think great story!

But that's me. I know many here and elsewhere disagree with me. That's life.

 

There is a lot of truth to the statement about Oprah. Knowing that, if the goal is to succeed and to sell books, wouldn't it be logical to direct the majority of one's efforts to writing stories that Oprah will like, rather than pursuing absolute perfection in form (which the majority of readers won't recognize or appreciate anyway)?

 

I believe that often these things are appreciated by the reader, just not in the same way that a writer would, and that's ok. When a reader feels for and connects with a character, they may not understand why they have that reaction or appreciate the technical achievement of how it was done, but they do appreciate the end result. They don't need to know the merits of the writer's technical talent. Having a reader love a piece of work because of the way it rides and handles, and not the fine engineering behind it, is satisfying in itself. And if someone does recognise what's under the hood,that's a great added bonus.

 

I thought these same thoughts and visited my old college creative writing professor to ask these thoughts. He gave me a lesson on how the traditional format of stories came about, with conflicts, and the French, and etc.

My thought is that we're just playing with words. If you define a story by having a conflict, then you define a story by having a conflict. If it has a conflict, you can say a lot more about it, that it has a plot, a traditional narrative structure, etc. If it doesn't have a conflict, you could say that your piece is just a sequence of events, or a large paragraph of sensory details, an experience.

Do whatever you want. Just don't make garbage out of a sense of post-modern challenge the establishment attitude. Make good stuff or new stuff, breaking boundaries if you have to.

 

Oooooh, I like that, the difference between story and experience. An interesting way to think about what the writing is doing.

 

Perhaps life is just a sequence of events, a series of coincidences. Really, what's the difference between real life and a story? "The story of life." People say that everyone has a story, that you can turn anything into a story. Remember that Nicolas Cage movie, Adaptation? A writer is lost and feels he can't find anything in life worth writing about. Another writer says life is full of things worth writing about. Perhaps what a writer is doing is just cutting out sections of a film strip, the best parts.

WRONG.
There is a difference between real life and a story, I believe. I believe this very strongly. Life is the product of an absentee god. People are boring and the products of their environments. Worst of all, the suffering and conflict on this world has no meaning, no purpose. Stories, on the other hand, are crafted. The suffering has purpose, and the characters are often admirable, likeable, or interesting.

I want to be a character, not a real life person. I have crafted myself.

 

...

Jokes aside: take my comment here with a grain of salt as I'm not published beyond short stories and flash fiction; my perception of what's "good" largely comes from the perspective of a reader and enthusiast of literature & history.

I feel this approach to art is a double-headed axe. On one hand, you are right in the commercialization - best example being the movie industry and the music industry, both of which have developed quite the working formulae to mass-produce consumer products. On the other hand, there are certain elements that aid creativity and creation greatly - you should be looking for those on your own, and not read superficial and "basic" writer's advice. Especially for principles that have been consistent in literature for most of the time it has existed, I believe challenging should be done with care and full understanding of why the principle came to be in the first place.

I have recently attended a lecture series held by an artist (of visual art) presenting the evolution of art from classical tragedies to modern abstract art. The underlying psychological principles were quite astonishing as well as certain examples he brought (there was a specific author I forgot the name of who painted classical-looking pieces with symbols, locations and compositions that /didn't actually exist/ and it did trigger a sense of unease and confusion). I feel writing is similar; there are concepts that have fallen apart recently and are being challenged, yet I am unsure whether it is for the better or worse. Is a story better when it contains no dialogue? Is a story superior if it's written without a single character? These are challenges I feel, not techniques.

My preference is innovation within bounds of the established principles and conventions. Twist the conflict, invent a new form of conflict or have interlocking, multiple layers of conflict. Develop a new form of dialogue, portray it in a different way, or write unique interactions but no dialogue at all? I would feel the same thing I do looking at an abstract piece of art after a work of classical art. That I am not enjoying art, but am witnessing the result of a challenge or accomplishment - a different category alltogether.

Unsure how well I phrased my thoughts, that's mostly my take on it anyhow. Now's time to slip back into writing my tried & fried political conflicts and intrigue.

 

I feel that is an unusually nihilistic approach to real life. It might be a difference in our lives but I encounter stories worthy to tell every other day; if nothing more than a joke or a flimsy short story. Sure thing, life doesn't have the luxury of skimming over 20 pages of boring commuting and office work, but our history is so rich with stories, and the present much alike.

 

Well this sounds very post-modern.

 

Oh certainly, there are millions of stories worth telling. Also, I know meaning is found by the interpreter and all that. However, that's not why millions of children were raped and burned alive; it happened just because. In a story, it would have at least been done for a good reason.