It could be something like describing hectic action sequences in quick, brief sentences, only describing the most basic impressions the character has under stress. As if you were under a similar stress while writing it, hopefully making the reader pick up on it. I can't point to any specific examples of this one, but I think it's common.
Koontz turns on his serious style during a tense scene, but turns on his comedic style during a light scene. You don't really notice it because it fits the scene.
In my current novel every chapter starts out with a piece of a monologue from the MC. It's nonsensical at first but as things progress it starts making more and more sense until it becomes apart of the conclusion. I just did this to mix things up and it gives some forshadowing without making things cheesy.
hey guys I just wondered how you all write?? I feel like I have recently got lots of ideas, and i jot them down in my writing pad, but then never seem to elaborate on them further. I have lots of ideas, but thats all! Whats people's styles of getting it out of the head and on to the paper so to speak? thanks
Usually I'll have a basic idea, which I'll record in a notebook I keep for that purpose, and then elaborate on it a little. Then eventually, I'll get around to writing it, and most of the actual detail of the story will materialise as I'm writing. I generally write stories in the order that the ideas occur to me, unless I'm writing for something specific, with a deadline (like a contest, or anthology).
Banzai's way is the same as mind. I get an idea, jot it down, and then expand on it later. I add details and some plot elements as I'm writing rather than having the whole thing in my mind before I start.
thanks guys. that is kind of what i have been doing. ill have a fleeting idea whilst driving to work listening to a particular song, and think ooh thats a good idea! but havent really had a great deal of time to elaborate on the ideas yet, due to work constraints, but hopefully soon.
banzai's process is more or less what most serious writers do... the main thing is to start developing the most promising of the ideas you may have and then don't stop, till you have a finished piece of work...
Find whatever works for you. Stephen King starts with just his premise and then discovers the story as he writes. Orson Scott Card planned his novel Ender's Game for two years and then sat down and wrote it in two weeks. They're both extreme examples, but the point is that you just have to find what works for you. As for me, I like a balance between the two. I do some outlining and try to place what I like to think of as milestone "landmarks". My whole story may only consist of three such landmarks--one at the beginning, one at the middle, and one at the end--but they help keep me on track while still allowing me to discover things as I write. It works for me, but may not work for you. Just find what does and stick to it.
I have a similar problem. I come up with lots of ideas but struggle to develop them. My process of finally getting them out of my head is to go for a short walk, get all the ideas in order, shape them and tie them together then when i return to my desk i start to write a rough draft. It's easier said than done however.
If you struggle to write with the ideas on a pad, I suggest you just write. The ideas will come to you and before you know it, you will love every word. When I really want to plan something out, I'll find I can't think about anything. But then, I'll sit down and just start...anywhere, and it will develop. After I'm done, if it's complete you-know-what, I'll either tweak it, edit it, or go the full yard and re-write the wretched thing. I usually end up re-writing. Not extremely eventful, but not horrible, either.
I have hundreds of ideas, but I always always keep a note book with me to scribble notes, poems, drawings of a scene/character down. But rather than just developing each idea independently I put several ideas I've had together, and thus creating a more unique storyline, as plots tangle and unusal charcters become friends or indeed foes. This inturn sparks development and as I approach the end of chapter 5 (each chapter roughly 7000 words) I have 7 notebooks each packed with ideas, a lot I've not used yet, and some I may never use. But it all feeds into just 2-3 storylines as I combine my ideas into a kind of stew. I know this can get messy and you need to always take control and focus on the end point, but as my book progresses I am able to streamline it more and more and know which ideas to throw away and which ideas I can add to the pot.
As already pointed out, Banzai’s idea is what most of us do, and is the same for successful authors, we all have ideas and many of them but the story itself doesn’t flesh out until you are actually writing it, and often you discover that it takes a mind of its own and has little to do with the original ideas you had anyway or has expanded it dramatically, take something like Harry Potter for instance whose original premise was about what it would be like for someone from a normal family to go to a school for magic, Whilst this was included it become so much more than simply a boarding school story in the style of Billy Bunting an co (traditional British literary characters)
Typically I just start writing and let the story develop itself. My novel and the TV pilot I am planning out though. My novel I actually have most of the story in mind already, which is very rare for me. Plus, it will help me write it quicker and easier. I won't fall into the usual trap of writing myself into a corner. The TV pilot is based on an existing novel and it will have investors so I need to have a solid story planned out so not only can the producers present it to them, but it will help in developing future episodes and won't create a convoluted 'Heroes' storyline.
I have always loved Classic Fiction. By this, I don't mean Austen. I read Jekyll and Hyde and was so blown away by the rich vocabulary and gripping originality that I went on to read Frankenstein (now my favourite book) and the Alice Adventures, and I am now torn between The Time Machine and Gulliver's Travels (I tried Dracula, and failed miserably). My point is, do people, in the modern era, really appreciate this sort of writing? Because this is basically my writing style. I've started writing, what I believe to be, a fairly original horror set in the late 1800s. Many people have shown fascination in the plot but is there any point if the general consensus is that publishers, probably, will only sell what makes big bucks, rather than releasing original and maybe provocative? (In the sense that it's not of the Stephanie Meyer calibre: business woman, not artist) If you want to know what the story actually is, then I'll explain and you can judge for yourself. Otherwise, you can probably guess, mid Victorian horror.
I read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde only a few weeks ago and while I absolutely loved the story and understand why it's considered a classic masterpiece, I found the language to be less than appetizing. I would say that I liked the book despite the language, certainly not because of it. There's like... 50 semicolons per page? I don't think many editors would applaud that. You could perhaps choose to pluck things from the style and bring it into a modern perspective - similar to how Tim Burton may use techniques from movies of the 50's but do so in a modern and appetizing way.
Ah yes, the grammar usage was totally different, but that's amendable. In fact one paragraph near the end was one whole sentence of 100 words, and I believe consisted of about three semi-colons. By language or vocabulary, I am meaning more the elegance of the speech.
You have to keep in mind that the vocabulary in those books was a product of the particular literary culture of the time. These were not writers showing off their vocabulary, they were engaging in the voice of the times. So ask yourself why you want to write like that. Do you want to show off that you can write in a classic style, or does it serve a narrative purpose? If your narrator is a 19th Century gentleman, then sure, he can occupy that voice, but if it's just because you have some sort of antiquarian appreciation of what seems like a rich vocabulary compared to today's style, I'd steer clear of writing yourself into a corner.
Writing is an art and craft. It's primary objective is to produce quality stories. Publishing is a business. Businesses must profit to survive. As a writer, you can write what publishers think they can sell profitably, or you can ignore marketability and take a chance on finding a publisher with a market for your stories as YOU wish them to be crafted. Reality often dictates a course somewhere in between if you hope for commercial and artistic success. My advice is write what you enjoy and then see if there is a market for it. If it fails to attract a literary agent or publisher, then you must decide if the story should be changed enough to become marketable. Ultimately, it's YOUR story, but it's THE PUBLISHER'S market.
I have recently purchased and begun to read The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton published in 1921. It received a Pulitzer that year and was the first time a female writer had garnered that honor. I am reading it as a bit of research in class structure and the intricacies involved with that kind of life. The syntax is very convoluted. Whole paragraphs can consists of just one or two sentences. I'm not saying that I am not up to the challenge - I bought the book precisely to get the feel of this kind of life - but it is a bit tedious to read.
I go through this kind of conflict often in my writing. I read a lot of contemporary fiction and a lot of my style draws from what I guess you could loosely call the Postmodern style. But I also love pre-20th century fiction as well, particularly (as with the OP) their use of language. I've never found any 'older' writing particularly difficult to read, but perhaps to an untrained/unaccustomed reader, it may prove a challenge. And, again, it depends so much on genre. If you're writing literary fiction, there's a lot you can get away with if you write well. With genre fiction, and I don't mean this pejoratively, readers (or, perhaps more accurately, publishers) are a lot less receptive to experimental or unorthodox writing styles. So basically, if you write well and have a 'classic' style, there will be a market for it, but the market isn't likely to be huge. Of course, the literary canon is full of writers from the 20th century who write in a relatively antiquated way and have found huge success, so never say never.
in antarctica has nailed the problem, imo... the market for what you propose will be very narrow, if one exists at all nowadays... and you'd have to be an exceptional writer to be able to pull it off and not sound merely pompously pretentious... which doesn't mean you shouldn't try it, if you're really committed to the idea, but you do need to be realistic about it...
I'm with you! I LOVE the classic style of writing. Long drawn out sentences that paint pictures... but there are a few artists today that pull off a similar style and do just fine. I hear it often... "I can't read that persons work. I don't understand it! Why can't they just say that the wind is blowing? I don't need to know every detail!" I'm desperately hoping I can keep my verbose writing style because anything else would be boring to me! Don't give up, Bleakside!
It thrice surfeiting borders of taste and sanity, be assured writing pretentiously is provocative- ah, but regardless of class or of one's art, one must always remember that one lives in the modern age; the mode, the very rhythm of speech has altered beyond recognition; idioms have shifted, twisted, rearranged themselves in quite new and majestic matters; what once was a valid figure of speech now dances across dear reader's mind appallingly, as a perverse cliché; thus should we aspire to write in the form of the modern day, for, disregarding popular ignorance, the world has changed since seventeen hundred. Good-bye!
