How very weird - considering even in the bible the earth is mentioned as being round. He must have missed that part - lol
In your particular example, syringe is better because it's not obvious by context that the needle is not a sewing needle. I'm learning to trust my readers more too - I just read a book called The Maze Runner and I got so pissed off that every couple of pages the author has to remind me that the MC has lost his memories - and not just in passing either, the author spends an entire paragraph on it! Then I realised I think I do exactly the same thing in my own novel... because I'm so afraid my readers will forget about my character's scars. (every chapter or so my MC rubs his palms and reminds himself of the shame those scars bring lol) Maybe that's the point. I think - from what I remember of the wiki article anyway - that there was a row between scientists and creationist Christians, or something. The Christians were trying to show how scientists had been wrong in the past - example that scientists allegedly taught that the world was flat. The fact that this myth pervades is actually an embarrassment for us Christians, not the scientists!!
Nonsense. In this thread alone it's been said more then a few times that it's optional, or that it will be learned by simply studying existing novels, or...or... Trying to figure it out yourself, or talking to people who know no more about the profession than you do is not, by any stretch of imagination, studying. There is no profession I know if where you can simply fumble around trying whatever comes to mind and end up an accredited professional. Do you know of any? Hell, the vast majority of people posting in the various online venues think they learned to write in school, without realizing that they learned a set of general writing skills appropriate only to writing reports, essays, and letters. And the vast majority of people arguing that studying craft is unnecessary have-not-been-published. You would think that there would be people weighing in, saying, "Jay, I have had three contracts with such and such a publisher and all I did was sit down at the keyboard and type." The fact that it's not happening, and that the strongest opponents to study have not achieved publication should have told you something meaningful. Look at yourself. obviously, you believe that taking classes, attending workshops, and reading books from people like Bickham, Swain, and Stein is unnecessary. Has that worked for you? Because if it hasn't, and you've been at it for more than a year you might want to reexamine those methods. I've looked at your work. I didn't critique because you would probably take it as a "revenge" review. I certainly can't say anything bad about your writing, because the approach is pretty much that f the majority of people who post their work on lineāthe compositional style we learned in high school English classes. So you have lots of company. Personally, I don't care if you never crack a book, or join a writing group. It hurts me not at all, and leaves space on the shelves for someone who is willing to do the necessary preparation. I will say, though, that in twenty-five years no one who has insisted that they need only read novels and write; no one who I've critiqued their work and said they need to learn craft, has ever come back to say that they sold he work as it was. But over all, I really have to ask: given that you have not yet achieved success in having a publisher offer a contract, in what way are you qualified to dictate how information on writing craft should be presented? Like many you confuse the word ignorant and stupid. The question isn't if I said that a person was ignorant about something, it's if they were. And in this case they were. Of more importance, you are not carrying the words "moderator" under your name, so it isn't your job to lecture me, or anyone, on what's acceptable to you. This is a writers forum. If you have something to say about writing let's discuss it. If you feel you have access to something more useful to a write than the sources I suggest bring it up and we'll discuss it, because I don't know about you, I've not leaned a thing from people who agree with me. And since writing is a journey, not a destination, I expect to keep on learning. But that being said, attacking me, my behavior, and my way of speaking is not remotely connected to a literary discussion, and I'd appreciate it if you would remember that. If you have a personal issue with me there is a perfectly good mail system on this site.
Not to derail the thread Mckk but I never take anything the Christians did eons ago as too much of an embarrassment - more like a learning curve. Considering some were fed to the lions - everyone had their bad moments in history. To Jay - There's so many professional people out of work it's not funny. You can't just write by craft there has to be something more. Books with no form and sloppy errors won't sell but if there's something there someone will work to make it publishable just like perfectly written, somewhat error-free manuscripts get rejected daily. Craft is very important but you can't just go about your writing as though you're building a house of cards with everything in place.
That's not something I ever said and I'd appreciate it if you would stop making up words and attributing them to me. It's not debated in either the publisher's office or in English class. What's your point?
Except that when you look at those "broader tastes" in what's being published today, you see that the structure of a scene matches what's being taught in the courses and books. Scene and sequel, rising tension, scene goals, the three questions a reader needs answered when entering a scene, placing cause before effect, motivation/response, point of view, etc., are all in play. Where it isn't is in the vast majority of writing by people saying, "I'll get everything I need by reading novels." How much sense does it make for someone to: a) Read novels in the hope of analyzing how to successfully write, while at the same time saying they aren't interested in reading what successful authors say they need to know? b) Saying that there is no need to research/learn what publishers and teachers feel is necessary knowledge, while at the same time discussing how to write with people whose knowledge is no greater than their own, and getting advice on the fitness of their work for publication from people unable to sell their work to a publisher. You forget that at the beginning of virtually any book on writing one of the first things said is that they're not giving a series of rules, and that expecting to find that magic formula to writing isn't realistic. Yet over and over we have people talking about the "rules" in such books and courses. One has to wonder how much information someone will get if they're reading with a set of preconceived notions as to what they'll find.
As far a scene/sequel/scene I'm sure if you read into it you'll see that scenes and sequels can vary dramatically in size and content and sequels can be skipped in order to get to an important scene. There is no formula. As for the conflict recipe I don't see any other way either. In my mind there is no reason a second character can't be the ocean or a mountain or an addiction or a god or dog. If they are exactly on side in every detail it will make for pretty boring reading unless you are setting up for something later. Call it whatever you want but they are on stage in that they occupy space in your book. And yes they will somehow struggle with each other. It may be a subtle little dance while two people are trying to decide to cheat on their spouses or it may be a knock 'em out drag 'em around fist fight. Perhaps if you could explain your methods that would help understand. I'm not here to just argue, although it may seem like it. If you have some tricks, let me know. If you are planning a completely different structure, I'd like to hear about it too. It's just every book I have recently read seems to fall into a structure that is somehow explained by this basic method. Edit: One thing that bugs me about these books is the lack of similar terms so you can quickly pick up where one author is covering similar ground.
Nobody ever said that YOU said it. @Andrae Smith was saying that he thought I was tired of the debate and telling YOU to in essence shut the fuck up. And I was, so I replied that he was indeed correct and that I was making my exit from this thread. Then why have I seen it in published works from such publishing houses as Random House, Dial, Bantam Books, and Madhen Mediaworks? Also, in elementary school, all the way up to freshman year in high school, my spelling book had the word listed as "alot," along with a creative writing teacher who said this in college, keeping in mind that formal education is an absolute must: "A lot is something you put a house on. Alot is much of one thing, and Allot is to distribute something." Jack Bickham published his first novel 55+ years ago. That says to me that he learned his skills (he must have learned from someone right?) probably close to sixty years ago. That said, Scene And Structure was written and published in 1993, twenty-one years ago. If we are discussing writing today, what makes twenty year old techniques any more relevant than fifty, or even hundred year old techniques? In that case, shouldn't you be citing a how-to book that was written within the last five years or so? Hasn't the industry changed since 1993 to a point where this manual could be considered obsolete? No matter how you slice it, by your own logic, Bickham's books and techniques are out of date. Also, why is it that masterful works of art like Hemingway, Twain, Dickens, and East Of Eden have stood the test of time, are still in print today, and are selling, yet as far as I can tell, Bickham's work is largely out of print and forgotten, aside from a few people who grew up in his generation? I think what happened here is, you read Bickham's advice, followed it, happened to get extremely lucky, and as a result have developed the steadfast opinion the Bickham's knowledge is the only knowledge. Hell, I probably would too if someone told me to do something and by chance it worked out in a positive fashion. arĀ·roĀ·gant adjective\Ėer-É-gÉnt, Ėa-rÉ-\ 1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogantofficial> 2 : showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <an arrogant reply> -Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 13th Edition
The funny thing here is that so many folks in this thread argue for a need to study the classics, which in itself is a good idea, quoting Hemingway and Nabokov etc. yet you say Bickham and his techniques are now outdated. Except, as it has been pointed out numerous times, they aren't his techniques, nor are they Swain's or anyone else's. They just compiled a good compendium or two about what seems to work in writing fiction. You guys are a riot. Someone could lead you to the fountain of youth and you'd argue against it's merit. This is another non sequitur. There are thousands of amazing teachers and professors who take it upon themselves to explicate ideas out our surroundings, then pass that information onto their students. It would be impossible for every teacher to somehow prove themselves the undisputed masters in all facets of their chosen fields. Yes, you can fully understand the structure of fiction and not be able to write as you can understand all the instrumentation on an airplane and not be able to fly. However as I understand it, the guy still managed to publish quite a few novels, certainly not classics, but really, how many classics are there? Not many. How many of the best couches in sport were the at the very top of their field?
Before I even started writing, I read a lot, and eventually I developed my own tastes. When I started writing, I asked myself why I liked the books I did. What was it that made the book good? But I also learned about the subtle details. For example, Dostoevsky handles his characters differently than Faulkner. For Dostoevsky, characters are embodiments of ideologies. So the way he writes his characters works great in that context, but it may not work as well for what Faulkner is trying to achieve. So I came to understand that how you write depends on several things. Is my focus more on the characters? On a central theme? On a particular event? These are the types of questions I ask when I start writing a piece. When I first started writing, after I had figured out what I was trying to achieve with my piece, I would emulate a writer (or writers) who was trying to achieve the same thing. To use the previous example, if I wanted my characters to represent an idea, I would emulate Dostoevsky. Over time I came to develop my own way of doing things, but the influence of the writers I learned from is definitely there; it's just not as obvious. This next bit I obsess over because I like reading poetry. I like to think about word choice a lot. For example, when I'm reading Nabokov, who uses a lot of uncommon words, I look at why he chose a hard word instead of an easy one. Given the context, why is the harder word better? I also look at word order. "He ran quickly" reads differently than "He quickly ran." I understand that everyone may not be as obsessive about this stuff, but at the very least, I think we as writers should pay closer attention to a piece than a casual reader. That's basically my thought process on the whole thing.
*sigh* @JayG... All I can say in response to your blatant stab is this: Luke 6:27-31, 35, & 36 At this point, none of this really matters. You and I are but two people in a world of 6 billion+. It doesn't matter that our energies clash. There are more beautiful things in this life, more deserving of the attention I gave this response. You are entitled to your opinion of me and my work. The truth is, you slander and misrepresent me. But what can I expect from a total stranger. You don't know me, what I know, or what I'm about, thus your words fall empty, devoid of meaning, and stripped of purpose. I don't need to explain myself, but I'll let you know someone will stand up for peace, respect, and effective communication whenever it's necessary. Regarding writing, my advice as an educator to anyone wishing to learn is this: Learn techniques, not formula. Understand form and function. Study grammar and styles. Master the elements of a story. And do it all in the way that produces the best results in your comprehension and application. Learn to think like a writer, not to write like fiction-programmed computer. Even in maths and sciences, formulas are less important--necessary, but less conducive to true application and understanding-- than the concepts that drive them. Acquire the tools and build a study craft, oh creator of this thing called fiction. Above all else, never stop learning, but keep an open ear to hear good advice, especially if it makes you a little uncomfortable. It is in the challenge that we learn perspective and achieve possibility.
. Right above where you placed the words into a quote box it said, "JayG said: So it turns out that you said it. Let me make it clear: Do not misquote me, and do not make up things and claim I said them. So now you, who claim to hate publishers and not care what they do, are claiming that you record the publisher's name every time you see the word "alot." First you misquote me. Then you lie about it. Now you're making up crap about publishers? Most publishers today use the Chicago manual of style and it does not support "alot." Nor does any dictionary. But feel free to point out a few of the many books you claim are littered with the word.
So having published a book is the only criteria for knowing how to write and being able to tell everyone else how they should be doing it? Every published author is a fountain of knowledge and wisdom and we should only listen to what they have to say? Absolutely no one else knows a damn thing about writing. If you weren't so busy trying to prove that you know everything and others know nothing, you might realize that NO ONE IS SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO STUDY THE CRAFT OF WRITING. But that would mean actually paying attention to what others are saying. Putting you on ignore. Might as well as you apparently have only one thing you can talk about (and nothing you actually want to discuss).
What does that mean? And how does such a dismissive statement negate what I said? I am not assuming the techniques taught are only useful to hacks. As I said in another post, all writers need to master their craft. Of course. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is arguing that ignorance is the path to success (however you may define success). All we are saying is that there are many types of craft, many types of virtuosity, many kinds of storytelling, and they all have value. Swain, Bickham, JayG, et al recommend only one kind, and we think literature would be the poorer if everyone wrote according to the guidelines they recommend. The only one in the first page or two I scanned who was published was a writer of Harlequin Romances. Please don't back off your point into vagueness by using such evasions as "the structure taught at the various universities." We're talking specifically about the advice you give, based on the contents of Swain's and Bickham's books. Published in 1952, and still in print. Still selling. Still read. A wonderful novel by one of America's most beloved writers, a writer who won the Pulitzer, the National Book Award, and the Nobel Prize. Same with Hemingway's book. Still in print, still selling, 85 years after its initial publication. If these works were rejected by publishers today, I fear for the state of the publishing industry, and by extension, for the state of American literature. On the other hand, we still have guys like Pynchon and DeLillo. And T.C. Boyle. And other, younger writers are coming along. All is not lost. I love East of Eden. You couldn't make it to chapter three. Thank you for demonstrating my central point: we are different kinds of reader! What you look for in a novel is not what I look for. The techniques you preach would not produce an East of Eden, and I would dearly love to write a novel like that. Has every bearing. Is chock full of bearing. You should take time to read what you're responding to. I said informing and entertaining are not mutually exclusive. That means you can do both at once. Obviously. Therefore, I was not discussing informing without entertaining, no matter how hard you try to convince me that I was. I was just looking at the short story in the current issue of the New Yorker (20 Jan. 2014, "A Mistake" by Akhil Sharma). It is all "telling." The first-person narrator is relating the story from a distance. It works fine - we, the readers, are not intended to ever put ourselves in the position of the protagonist, yet the story still works. It contains some beautiful (and sometimes funny) writing. In other words, the narrator "speaking the story aloud" is not always a problem. Ever read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness? You missed the point. I was merely saying that fiction can work, and work well, without the reader taking the situation personally. Or, to put it better, without the writer using free indirect style to force the reader into that position.
Sorry to be a grammar nazi but just because the typo is a really funny one. It's "coaches" - couches are sofas
I've PM'd the mods with a request to put this topic out of its misery once and for all along with putting certain members on my block list.
Blocks work great but the topic is valid. If you're tired of it, just ignore it. I can't recall seeing anything about having to reply to every post.
The topic is indeed valid, and people have been debating it reasonably and without personal rancor (for the most part). If it deteriorates into a shitfest, we'll have to close it, but it's nowhere near there yet.
Sometimes yes, but not always - Ergodic literature isn't really interested in a linear read. House of Leaves bucks structure. I've read and loved a ya author called Francesca Lia Block - her prose is brilliant but her plots are at times - non existent. There's no real reason to read on accept you're in love with the language. One 'goal' of the book was a whether or not a girl would find a boyfriend but she was so independent it didn't really matter if she did or not. Reading her is like dancing in a club. It's an experience of words. Had she focused more on structure she might've turned out an edgy Judy Blume, nothing more. I'm probably not the best person for this discussion though, I love Joy Fielding, Richard Laymon - writers that plot well, and craft a pretty mean, lean book but I'm more interested in writers that buck conventional form. I'm excited to see where the next level of writing is going.
I'm not sure what's worse, when everyone is in complete agreement or complete disagreement. It gets a bit argumentative, but many good points have been made. All in a day's education.
P.s. although I've read Bickham and liked many of his points if every writer just sticks to Bickham or other structural pseudo-manuals, the world will never see another James Joyce.
