Storytelling v. Writing

I do like what he says in his intro, and have used that line before to argue against people who seem a bit too Swain-obsessed.

But, really, if MRUs aren't a formula, aren't a rigid way of structuring all work, don't they essentially boil down to "make your characters do things that make sense in a given situation", which is probably just common sense?

Maybe we can take it from a different direction - what was the flaw in your work that was addressed when you discovered MRUs and started using them?

 

You almost always know the POV character's motivation before the action, right? The POV character can encounter characters performing actions which he (and by extension, the reader) doesn't know the motivation behind. I can't think of anything I've read recently where the POV character's motivation was unknown.

 

Oh, read Steven Erikson’s Malazan books, as an example.

 

I'll have to check it out.

 

I would think it could easily happen quite early in a book, before we have background information on the MC.

But also, there are books that don't HAVE POV characters. If I'm writing something in omniscient, I might very well only describe a character's actions without diving into his brain, and I might not describe the stimuli that led to the actions. Swain in general seems to believe that close POV is the only POV (I'm not sure he ever says this, but a lot of his advice only makes sense in the context of close POV).

 

I think that people frequently do things without knowing why. So, no, I don't agree that we'd reliably have a motivation for the POV character, and even when we do have one, I don't agree that we'd always want to explain it or even point to it. Certainly in distant third person, that information would be frequently unavailable. In close third person, it would more often, but not always, be available.

People even more frequently lie to themselves about their motivations, but in that scenario at least we'd have something to put into the "why" slot.

 

I took a look at the first few pages of recent Amazon best sellers (have I gushed lately about how useful the Look Inside feature is?), and got a few new ideas on the topic (of MRUs... we seem to have left writing vs storytelling well behind...)

From Home (https://www.amazon.com/Home-Myron-Bolitar-Harlan-Coben-ebook/dp/B01COJUGOE): I saw a character who was refusing to respond to the stimuli of the situation. He had the motivation (he saw a kid he's been searching for since forever) hat urged one response (running to get the kid) but had a deeper motivation (he wants to find the OTHER kid who disappeared at the same time) so he had a deeper response (staying still and watching). I'm not sure these layers are contemplated within the MRU format?

And then in the same scene the character feels a motivation (sees men attacking a kid) and engages in what seems, to me, to be a grossly disproportionate response (murders the three men). I don't understand why that happened. There must have been some other motivation (something from the past, something that made the motivation stronger for him, or that makes the response not seem like such a big deal to him). I can't see how this fits into the logic of the MRU structure, but I am INTRIGUED. The lack of immediate clarity makes me want to learn more. (for reals - I'm probably going to buy this book!)

The next one I looked at is, amusingly, called The Storyteller's Secret. (https://www.amazon.com/Storytellers-Secret-Novel-Sejal-Badani-ebook/dp/B07415PPP1). Huh. If I really squint I can maybe see MRUs, but really it all comes down to an unstated M (the woman really, really wants to have a baby, but is that actually a motivation in itself? It seems like a response to something, to me, but we aren't told what it's a response to) and by the end the man says he doesn't (which seems like a response, but the motivation isn't crystal clear...) Damn. I might have to read this one. Because I want to FIND OUT the whys.

Then I Will Never Leave You (https://www.amazon.com/I-Will-Never-Leave-You-ebook/dp/B079P4H229): another rejected response - the baby has a fever, but the mom is told not to worry, so she doesn't do anything. I guess you could break this down into a smaller series of MRUs? Fever (M), Expression of concern (R); Told not to worry (M), does nothing (R). Then a lot of backstory - are MRUs supposed to apply to backstory? And then a twist! Ooh! I might want to read this one, too! Good twist! But it means that my interpretations of the earlier MRU series aren't entirely accurate? Well, I guess the MRUs still are, but the framework I thought we were operating under is different. And, again, it's this surprise that intrigues me...

And Hotel Sacher (https://www.amazon.com/Hotel-Sacher-Novel-Rodica-Doehnert-ebook/dp/B079MC631J): Opens with a recipe. I'm gonna say no MRUs. Then a prologue. Yay. I don't see MRUs in the prologue - it's from a fairly distant POV, with Death and Love personified, and... I don't know why either one is doing any damn thing. Then the main story, and I still have no idea of what's going on. I guess I could find some MRUs for tiny little bits, but they don't seem to be part of the overall sweep of things. There's a sense of destiny at work, I guess, with Love and Death involved, and the feeling that things are happening just because this is what happened? No motivations possible, if everything is predetermined. Interesting.

Damn, though. That's four books I kinda want to read! This has been an expensive investigation...

 

As simply put as possible? It helps cut down exposition and text that is otherwise fat. It also helps anchor the story from the protagonist's POV.

 

So... does this mean you provide ONLY elements of MRUs? Is that how it helps you cut down on the extra stuff?

I can see this. Again, of course, we don't always WANT our stories anchored to the protagonist's POV... but I can see how it would be useful if that was the goal.

 

Of course not. It's just a framework.

 

I can see how MRUs could help catch apparently illogical behavior that isn't intended by the author to look illogical.

"Why did the doorman physically attack your character?"
"Because that left the door unguarded and I need that for the next scene."
"No. I mean, if you asked the doorman why he attacked your character, what would he say?"

But in that context I would consider them a tool to use for the short term, until the author stops making that mistake.

 

I think you can learn a lot more by reading literature than reading how-to books. So many people seem to think the opposite (I'm talking in general not just this thread). So many people who want to write fail regardless of how many how-to books they read. And so many are also going to fail who read literature, but they will take more away from their reading experience. Reading is an important part of my life and that goes beyond writing, but I think that's where you learn how to write. I wish we were discussing Balzac more than this sure-fire method to success. Who know it could be so simple? Balzac, maybe not so simple. I'm just saying that if we submerge ourselves in excellence, some of it will where off on us. I don't think this same sort of excellence is in how-to books.

 

I agree with you, mostly. I've bought some how-to books and didn't find them very useful. Occasionally, they have presented flat out wrong advice.

The best ones for me have been the memoir writing books where authors talk about their experiences writing (though I can't get enough of that shit, so I come here). Anyway, the most useful bit I've ever found was the editing example from King's "On Writing."


I'm sure a lot of people learned to do this in college, or maybe sooner, but I never did. It was eye opening for me.

 

Now, now...

 

I don't really see how it helps you write lean, then...?

 

First draft is the vomit stage, 2nd draft is refining plot and content. Generally, in the 3rd draft I like to go through and check that things are happening and that they make sense. Being able to see the (often invisible) thread of MRUs, to me, is a good sign that I'm carrying on with the story and not getting bogged down and that the narrative is specific to that protagonist.

 

Not him (Swain) again...

Actually I just read the linked article written by Ms Weiland, and I think MRUs would fall into my category of 'Useful writing concepts you might want to know about and pay attention to, but they're certainly not rules.' It is a good idea to pay attention to progression, and you probably don't want to unwittingly get the cart before the horse. But sometimes you WILL want to get the horse pushing the cart.

Her example (paraphrased) : I danced like a lunatic on the lawn after Kelsey agreed to marry me. According to MRUs, this is a mistake. However, this might be exactly the effect you're going for—if the dancing on the lawn is the main thrust of the idea you're portraying just then. The next sentence might be: The little boy next door screamed and fell off his bike when he saw me prancing around and waving my jacket in the air. His mother came running out of their house to give me hell for scaring her darling child.

After Kelsey agreed to marry me, I danced like a lunatic on the lawn is the 'correct' MRU. However, it's stressing the importance of Kelsey agreeing to the marriage, while the dancing is just a sideline. The next sentence might be: Kelsey laughed, but she also insisted I stop prancing around and set a date, then and there. It's a subtle difference.

Yeah, you should be aware of what you're doing, but you can do whatever works best for YOUR story and for the nuances you are trying to convey.

 

That's exactly right. I think the MRU mechanics is petty straight forward and I would say it offers a logical approach to telling a story--this happened, then this was how I reacted. That obviously obviously obviously doesn't mean you have to follow that format but if you believe it's logical then when you do go against it, you at least understand what it is you're doing.

To me writing is part art, part science. There's nothing wrong with having frameworks with which to operate from.

 

lol the fact that a good story trumps how it is transcribed ought to be obvious!

I mean, most people (and I assume that includes readers) are not speaking from a dictionary and thesaurus lol.

 

I think good writing goes well beyond dictionary and thesaurus use.

I would say that Shakespeare, for example, is famous for his writing, not his storytelling - some of his stories are quite nice, but others are unoriginal and/or uninspiring. It's his words that have made his reputation.

There are other, more modern examples, of course. But Shakespeare's a humdinger. lol.

 

Shakespeare is unique, and while I may be wrong, I've heard his writing was actually the vernacular of his time. So while it may sound high-brow to a crowd of would-be intellectuals, it was actually the low-brow of its time.

What really endears him to eternity is the themes. Romeo and Juliet. There's a simple theme (lustful yearning that's dangerous), and a complicated them (why are we fighting anymore?). And then there's Hamlet ("dad's dead, mom's a slut, uncle's a dick, and my gut tells me my uncle killed my dad but I don't want to kill him without being absolutely certain he was the murderer") and King Lear (an aging man who was responsible before he was wise, and thus has to pick up the pieces of his own bad end).

Shakespeare's not popular because he gives people headaches in English class; he's popular because his themes are very deep and easily translatable into the real world.

Complicated writing (admittedly "complicated and obscure"=/="good", though effectively it does since "prose" tends to involve unnatural language) is not creativity; it's verbal masturbation (and it doesn't even have a happy ending).

Deep, glorious, internally-consistent (Good) story could be written in broken English but so long as it's comprehensible, it's almost by-definition good.

That being said, it's obviously best to have some decent writing (as in the act itself, not the actual creativity) as it gives more variety in describing things, people and of course more variety in portraying various types of people (whether they be people who naturally think in four-syllable words, people who speak mostly jargon, or people who speak normally--and the various types of "normally" lol). And, adding to what I put in parenthesis, it also helps to be able to write from the mindset of the given character. A neurotic old woman will naturally think/speak/feel very differently than a confident and stoic young man. Or a highly sophistic old man compared to a straightforward woman. Etc. etc.

Point is, good story is the most important thing. No one pays money just to jack off to endless strings of "prose". However it naturally helps to have a good grasp on the English language so to be able to mentally transition from one type of character to another and speak as them convincingly.

 

It kinda depends on what you think the starting point of the conversation is, as far as prose over story.

I think I wrote and polished 1.5 novels and half a dozen short stories before I wrote anything that someone said they liked, and I was actively studying grammar and prose the whole time.

 

I think the fact that these are stage plays has something to do with that as well.

 

lol you were doing something wrong then! All that work (well, may have been just for fun as a kid. Assuming you said "polished" and not "published) for nothing!

I'm hardly a success story since I don't have anything published. However I do have some unverifiable anecdotes. -P)

Back when I was in middle school I was bored to tears. "Read a book"? No! Write a book! I got all these notebooks begging to be filled...

And so eventually, in High School, I shared with some peers. Namely 3. Two (both female) liked it. One loved them, finishing 600 notebook pages worth over a weekend. One (male) thought I just concocted a replacement for the sleeping pill lol...

And so for the last 4 years I've been working on my first serious novel. My first draft was done 2 years ago. Now I'm writing the revision and then I'm going to be putting in the other major clique of PoVs afterwards. I expect to be done in 2 years.

Point is, I couldn't even spell properly as a kid and I enjoyed some praise. Now I'm a lot better at that, and a lot wiser than I used to be. Now I'm quite optimistic since my elders really enjoyed the first-and-a-half draft of some 700,000 words I had written. I even cut out 300,000 since I really didn't like parts of what I originally wrote so I gutted it (thus leaving a big empty middle). And even then, I got some honest praise and surprisingly little criticism. The only criticism I received was maybe there was an excess of cursing. And it took him a while to come up with that. Meanwhile when I asked about specific areas, I got a lot of praise and questions as to how I even came up with it all in the first place.

Now, as I said, these are just anecdotes so hardly proof of anything. But the article does confirm my own experiences.