I went over Dubliners last night and noticed some things. Joyce seems to show sometimes, sometimes he tells. In some cases he stops the story dead to make a point, or even go off on a tangent. Never more than a line or two, but it adds so much more to the story.
When I was looking up first lines for Lobster, I noticed the same things with Hemingway, McCarthy, Faulkner and a few others. In most cases they blended showing and telling at the same time. Faulkner, especially will go off out of nowhere just to make a point.
"It's all now you see. Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago. For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably....." <---this keeps going and going and going.
I have been binge reading essays lately. I like most of them, but they do seem stuck on this submerged 'I', on the body, word economy type writing.
In your opinion, When is alright to drop these rules for the sake of character development. When can on the body get redundant? In some cases these techniques can sacrifice deeper story telling and character development (just my opinion)
Thoughts?
Side note: I am curious how some of the greats would be reviewed in the workshop since they don't go along with prevailing litreactor dogma....
In my opinion, every technique you learn is another tool your literary toolbox. So long as what you do furthers the story or develops a character, then it's acceptable. Jose Saramago (sp?) hardly uses punctuation in Blindness, but it's still a beautifully written book. Everyone's critique here is opinion. If I read something and it didn't work for me, it's just my opinion. Doesn't mean that it won't work for somebody else. In the end, use the techniques you're most comfortable with. A beautiful painting is still beautiful, regardless if the artist used a fine brush or threw buckets of paint on the canvas.
"every technique you learn is another tool your literary toolbox"
Yes. And you just have to learn when you need your hammer and when you need your saw. That's what is great about the workshop. People give you opinions and you start to see what instances are better suited for which tool.
The workshop can be a huge resource, but like any other community of any other sort of course Litreactor has it's own preferred methodology and dogma.
It doesn't mean that the stylistic choices are wrong, but they are style choices and you will have to evaluate them on an individual basis.
Now, remember on the other hand that Joyce, Hemmingway, and Faulkner weren't competing with 3D HD movies. The style that is popular on LR is a very modern one, influenced by that sort of stuff because if you ask ten people if they would rather read a book or go watch Pirranahs in 3D most of them would invest their free time in the latter. The emphasis on sensation, to me, is an attempt to court a modern audience.
Which does not mean that prior writers are wrong with their stylistic choices, it simply reflects a change in culture. Sure, you can talk about the Civil War like Faulkner did, but when you are trying to sell books to people who don't even know who won the Civil War then you'd be better off giving them some nice sensations.
I love "The Metamorphosis." It's one of my favorite stories of all time. Go back and reread it and try to imagine what the workshop would think of it. Ask yourself, does Kafka even use a single on the body sensation?
I guess I am trying to write as good as possible. Something, something words.
Thinking, should I show here? Should I unpack this? Does this stop the story? Maybe I should expand out and check other essays outside the LitR archive or something.
Go back and reread it and try to imagine what the workshop would think of it. Ask yourself, does Kafka even use a single on the body sensation?"
Yeah, that's what I have been wondering.
It doesn't mean that the stylistic choices are wrong, but they are style choices and you will have to evaluate them on an individual basis."
Concur
it simply reflects a change in culture"
I have never once in my life been comfortble following anyone or anything. I think that is my issue here. I sort of chafe under too many restrictions or someones elses rules, however I am just not sure where to go with it. I know how I like to write and it isn't for everyone. I just read an essay/article the other day about drafting, he says his key to second, third, fourth drafts is reviews. I generally get pretty good reviews, I am just wondering if it is because I subscribe to a set tecnnique or because my writing is good.
I am feeling a little restricted currently with tools I use and I am also mindful some of the devices I want to use aren't things that would go over well in the workshop. There is no question my writing has improved since workshopping and reading everything available, I just want to go a step further with it and feel a little boxed in.
I think I am thinking too much.
Yeah, don't consider it dogma. Those are techniques, not rules, and they don't work for everybody all the time. Otherwise everybody would be churning out the same beige kinda stories that's as good toilet paper as it is reading material.
When to show and when to tell is probably something that can only be explored in the context of your own style, or is one of those things that actually destinguishes you as having a style. Show when what you're showing is important, tell when the action you're getting to needs that preface to be more effective. Or just put in everything that matters to the story and leave the rest out. Don't even think if it's showing or telling. Outgrow the lesson.
I guess I am trying to write as good as possible.
heh.
I sort of chafe under too many restrictions or someones elses rules
Yeah, but you aren't trying to sell stories to people who review them in the workshop. C.R.E.A.M. That's what you have to be worried about, not about placating some writing community.
I'm using my own example because it's the best I know. This is telling:
"Fresh out of two years in the pen for biting off a cop’s nose, there were two things Mac wanted to do; spring his little brother Dinky from the looney bin and make some fast cash. Mac could have gotten out of the pen after nine months, but that would have meant going on parole, and parole was for pussies. He had no intention of going back to prison, and he just wasn’t the type cut out for a real job. Nope, he needed a bad job bad, and fast."
There's no showing there, but you want to read more. After a start like that, there had better be some showing going on very quick like. The point is that if you tell something, make it lively, interesting, compelling. Use it sparingly, but when used right, it can be very effective.
I think the rule is a pretty simple one, you show when you need to show and you tell when telling works. Ha! If only it were so easy to spot those before you have other people read it.
As for the on the body, I like it. I love Hemingway, I do. Man...but I like reading and writing from the body now that I've sort of got a grasp on it. I think the trick is to use those on the body sensations when they communicate something else. I mean, no one needs a paragraph on what it is like to chew pizza, if it doesn't have much to do with the story. But going on the body when someone is raging, and working that into their thought process and emotions...I think that's pretty great.
I will say I am not completely sold on submerging the I in first person pieces. That's me. But you know you take what works for you and you leave the rest. Sometimes deciding that you are going to ignore a piece of advice is just as helpful as getting advice you really like.
I think it might be black and white thinking that is the problem here. There aren't any rules, just theories. Some of them work for one piece and totally don't apply to another.
As Shunryu Suzuki says:
"Not always so." This is the secret of the teaching. It may be so, but it is not always so. Without being caught by words or rules, without too many preconceived ideas, we actually do something, we apply our teaching.
As for the problem of show vs. tell, I usually find this a problem of length.
In the short stories I enjoy the most, the story takes place in one or two scenes. Almost everything is shown. They are very direct and harsh. Instead of telling me, I prefer them to hint at the past. If they tell, I like them give me a very short and well-worded sentence that tells.
In novels, I don't mind telling as much. It's usually dropped in casually and periodically throughout the showing. It is usually character or setting specific and highlights a point.
In short stories, it can completetly derail a story for a few paragraphs or a whole page. Since I love ~2,500 word stories, this is too much time (not that I don't like longer or shorter stories (black and white thinking), but 2,500 is my sweet spot in general).
Chuck's essay #7: Nuts and Bolts: “Big Voice” Versus “Little Voice” does a good job of detailing its use in novels.
The reason the greats are great is because they knew how to write 'properly', and abandoned it in favor of telling the story in the way it made sense to them. Here in the workshop there are many examples (myself included) of throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks type stylism. Stylism needs a base to stand on, otherwise its just wanking. Ignore culture, ignore timeframe, ignore everything but the voice that tells you to write every day. Refine that voice and I guarantee you will be surprised at how it turns out.
Great example Bob!
I will say I am not completely sold on submerging the I in first person pieces.
The key to that, again, is being subtle. I think it's more about trying to get rid of the fifteen uses of "I" in the first paragraph of a first-person story and to vary sentence structure. Chuck says 'Keep that camera pointed away from yourself for as long as possible.' I think it's the 'as possible' that's really important. Chuck's example (Guts) is a story about two other people before it's a story about the narrator, so that's a special case.
Then there are stories like The Harvest, by Amy Hempel. If you can write this good well, you make the goddamn rules.
Excellent topic. This is the best discussion I've read in these forums.
I've always hated that "show don't tell" rule. It perplexes me. I'm trying to tell a story after all, not show a story (that would be cinema).
But I do understand the notion that you shouldn't write: "The girl was sad." (That is telling) But rather, write: "After the tears pooled on her lower eyelids, they overflowed and ran down her cheeks." (That is more visual and showing)
But doing that sort of thing (showing) becomes too heavy (or even to corny) after a while, so sometimes, just to move the story along, one should just write: "The girl was sad" and get on with it. Maybe only dwell on the subject or scene (unpack it) if it's an important part of the story's narrative or theme. ?
That's how I like to think of it anyway.
Sometimes you want the train to slow down so you can look at the details on the box cars and examine them. Other times you want the train to speed by so you can enjoy the simple experience of it passing.
Howie--I get it, and I see that more often than not it works exceedingly well. I just wonder about voice driven pieces and what happens to them when we try to apply the same rules to them?
But then that goes back to the "not always so", and what I mentioned about doing what works when it works, and not doing it when it doesn't.
Besides, don't we all think we are good enough to make our own rules? Haha. I know more often than not, I do, then I show it to someone else and they politely point out all the rules I've broken, and I realize that I still have a way to go.
@Howie, I think my only problem with Big Voice is I write in third person. Nearly always that is. I don't like reading or writing in first person. It's weird. I've done it before....just me though. Big voice to me always comes close to breaking the fourth wall as well. I could have it totally wrong. I guess there could be third person examples of Big Voice, "this isn't how it's supposed to be, he thought."
Generally I do telling in very short bursts and I think perhaps too short in some cases. On the body is even tougher objectively. It's a very personal descriptive style. Maybe I should strive for balance and subtlety instead of all or nothing and consider context, short v. long. I think that TOTALLY makes sense. This would also help me figure out what the most important stuff I want to communicate.
I do like the 'black and white' quote though. I think some of us struggle with that.
@Jeff
The reason the greats are great is because they knew how to write 'properly', and abandoned it in favor of telling the story in the way it made sense to them."
Great point. I couldn't have said it better. I think it was just they had a foundation and THEN built their own thing. Claude Monet among other impressionist artists were classically trained in realism and such. At the annual Salons their works were great, but not amazing. The impressionist movement started, with it's emphasis on the 'now' and playing with light and then they weren't invited to the Salons anymore. Or relegated to the corners. Now, years later, they're considered brilliant and most folks will say it's because they had the foundation to build on.
@Clutch, agreed.
I'm trying to tell a story after all, not show a story"
Good points. Some things you just have to tell and going all over board with how it feels to take a shit is boring after awhile. Nick made the point of saying it is was just a culture thing. A movie on paper sort of thing, in a way I think that cheapens the craft if done wrong. Chuck did it well, but we don't need Chuck clones.
There are a lot of good points here - and i mostly agree with Howie's way of thinking.
The only thing i would add to this (and i think its been said already, but so what) is this:
Learn it all, practice it all, but when it comes to actually writing a story... Forget it all and live in that fully realized situation/setting/pov - do not think. Thinking is what you do after its done and you plan to revise
I'm so glad you started this thread! Just last night I read a short story in a new collection and i loved the story, but it was mostly all "tell." There wasn't even any dialogue. See i love the show not tell rule. It has helped me so much. But this writer did it all tell. I was baffled. I know writing is from your own style and heart, but i kind of want a few rules to work! Your post came at the right time for me. I needed to hear all these comments.
Here's a bunch of vague statements that I could really expound on if the need arises. And yes, they are my opinion and they are wholely varialbe given whatever context may arise. This damn thread has been bugging me today.
@ Bob's example - you laid out a bunch of backstory and Internal POC - that's cool, but... 1) there is no frame of reference for the reader to grab hold of - no image, no setting, no POV presence. I'd say that all this telling is taking the easy way out - work this info in as you properly introduce us to the POV and get him moving from point A to point B.
@ Howie - 'Keep the camera pointed away as much as possible' - I'd say good fiction has a variable aspect to this in regards to camera focus - objective, internal, back and forth. and then at the end - at the freakin crescendo - you've said everything that needs said and you can keep the camera pointed away for the fruition of the plot in bang bang bang pacing.
@ Clutch / Everybody - Try to tell without showing the telling. (Like hiding the candlelight in the corner - but you can still the what's in the room). I'd call that hiding the magician behind the curtain.
example - 1. intro the character 'Mac still smelled like prison.' - there - you have a character and some internal thought process - the reader is anchored just a little to the guy named Mac. then you follow it with... 'It must be the cheap laundry detergent they used.' That does some more internal - to get the reader a little more anchored. then. 'That was why everybody looked at him funny as he walked down the street on his way to the Cheery Faces Mental hospital to spring his little brother Dinky from the place.' now we got him moving to a specific place - action. end of paragraph.
@ Sparrow - The voice driven pieces - this made me think of the balancing act of the internal / external camera from my Howie comment - voice driven would be more internal - does that mean you are telling? - I think it depends.
@ Matt - 3rd person Big Voice (talking to the reader) - why can't you do this? from the example above - would you call that big voice - I established Mac as POV right off - you know it's his head in which we reside - so any statement will be attributed to him. I'm gonna expound some.
example 1a.
Mac still smelled like prison. It must be the cheap laundry detergent they used. That was why everybody looked at him funny as he walked down the street on his way to the Cheery Faces Mental hospital to spring his little brother Dinky from the place.
He'd bit off a cop's nose two years ago and had done his time for the crime. He'd even lost a tooth to the fucking pig's buddies when they'd beat the shit out of him for what he'd did.
So, his smile was a little gaped now. It didn't matter. He could smell the piss in the alley and the fumes from the cars zipping down the road. Hell, he could smell the fear of the people as he crossed their path. That shithole cop couldn't smell nothing.
I'd say - 1) I got Mac's POV established - 2) got him moving to get his brother - 3) did some Big Voice in the third person. And yeah - the writing is rough shit - so what - it was from the hip.
Anywho - great food for thought - the variability associated with all of this is so freaking fun. Practice, Practice, Practice....
Great example Fritz, but it's still telling.
The gate slid open and the warden stepped into view. Mac grabbed his paper sack and crossed the line.
"Somebody coming to get you?" asked the warden.
The gate clanged shut behind him. Two years for a nine month rap for biting off a cop's nose. Parole was for pussies. Now he was free. "Nope," he said, looking into the warden's eyes.
"Think Fossey is going to be looking for you?"
"Naw. Besides, I'll hear the snot dripping out of that hole in her face if she comes walking up behind me."
"She got her nose fixed. Your baby brother Dinky got his nose broke the other day with a chair. Crazy shit at the nut house."
Mac clinched the paper sack tighter, grit his teeth. First thing, spring Dinky out of the looney bin. Second, make some money. Nothing else mattered, not even this piece of crap bugging him for the past two years. He walked past the warden, ignoring his outstretched hand.
"Keep your shit together, Mac," said the warden. Mac had no intention of keeping his shit together. No sir, he needed a bad job bad, and fast.
Crude, but that is showing. You see the warden, hear the gate shut, feel Mac's anger in his fist and teeth. I could of said he was pissed at the warden, but why tell it when I can show it?
I managed to keep most of the points I made in my earlier post. The point is there are a million ways to break that passage down, all of them correct. But ultimately, I wanted to get all that stuff out of the way and set a certain kind of language in my reader's ears. I wanted them to hear the voice first, then show Mac walking down the highway, wondering when the car he knew was coming would pull up next to him.
Good shit Bob.
Dialogue is an awesome way to facebump the reader into the middle of the narrative - no better way to get him/her right there with you.
hell man - I think both ways you wrote that up work depending on what you're after and what follows.
Damn craft is like skinning a cat - there's a lot of ways to do it, and it takes a lot of practice, so... gotta love it.
hell #2 - you could do different types of show...
The gaurd on duty handed Mac a yellow envelope full of old possessions. The warden stuck out his hand. Mac walked past him and into the street beyond. The gate clanged at his back.
That's pure action
or you could go heavy on description - get all bradbury in showing the water stained walls and rusty ceilings, an pictures of naked girls on the walls, and indigo tatooing on the gangs watching him leave, through in a gold tooth or two.
You could have made a big deal of the weather or setting or foreshadowing - It rained, the ground squished, yatta yatta yatta. IDK.
There are so many variables - It's the balance of it all. Practice Practice Practice.
Good thread.
@Fritz - Chuck says 'Keep that camera pointed away from yourself for as long as possible.'
It's the essay about submerging the "I", so by 'yourself' he means the narrator. And I think mostly he means at the beginning of the story. But it's not always so. It may be so, but it's not always so.
I like making threads that makes people say "This damn thread has been bugging me today." It's a good thing.
Learn it all, practice it all,"
Good point.
Forget it all and live in that fully realized situation/setting/pov - do not think. Thinking is what you do after its done and you plan to revise"
I have been thinking too much.
@Cove, glad it helped!
@Wolf, good example with the 'smell of prison' it doesn't seem like telling at all. Though, I am not sure you could use Chucks rant thing in it....could you? I have made the mistake of transposing stuff into the telling I think.
I suppose this is the closest I come to big voice. Most of the time it is just POV/Setting/action/conflict, but on occasion I'll just go off with stuff like this. **still a rough draft and unedited and part of a novel**
They walked for two days and the heat built around them. On the third day, they parted company with little more than a backward glance and Calyb was alone again. He walked past the rail station where he left them and limped out towards the setting sun burning red on the horizon.
He was paradoxically worried and comforted by being alone. It was then he heard God most clear. He sat in the grass and watched as the sun drifted in its endless cycle in the sky, nearing completion but never ending.
The Earth would continue its circle spanning all incomprehensible time and never consider the days, the hours, the seconds of any man. If there was a God he figured, he’d washed his hands of his creation long ago. He could still feel His presence in the deepest way possible. It whispered around him and lodged itself within him. Intangible and alone.
He made camp in a small clearing at the foot of the Allegheny. He laid under a soft blue moon and watched the sparks and embers of his fire drift upward past the leaves into the shimmering twilight. They blazed hot and orange for a time and then faded into the blackness. He slept."
Too much?
@Bob and Fritz- I have never liked excessive dialogue and view explaining too much through dialogue as lazy. Could you show some examples of tell through people speaking that sounds natural?
@Howie, I think I am going to reread the voice essay again today. I feel like there is a point I missed in it, thanks for posting.
@Everyone, thanks for all the great points! I hope this helps someone besides me!
@Bob and Fritz- I have never liked excessive dialogue and view explaining too much through dialogue as lazy. Could you show some examples of tell through people speaking that sounds natural?
Probably not, at least for me. I use dialogue as a means of advancing the plot, so my characters are going to explain just enough so I don't bore the reader with heavy exposition. My stories are filled with people who communicate with one another, with dialogue as the means for that communication. I've learned that the BEST way to tell your reader something is through dialogue.
The gate slid open and the warden stepped into view. Mac grabbed his paper sack and crossed the line.
"Somebody coming to get you?" asked the warden.
The gate clanged shut behind him. Two years for a nine month rap for biting off a cop's nose. Parole was for pussies. Now he was free. "Nope," he said, looking into the warden's eyes. Mac wondered if Fossey was going to be looking for him, looking for revenge.
The warden told him yesterday that his baby brother Dinky got his nose broke the other day with a chair. Crazy shit at the nut house. Mac clinched the paper sack tighter, grit his teeth. First thing, spring Dinky out of the looney bin. Second, make some money. Nothing else mattered, not even this piece of crap bugging him for the past two years. He walked past the warden, ignoring his outstretched hand.
"Keep your shit together, Mac," said the warden. Mac had no intention of keeping his shit together. No sir, he needed a bad job bad, and fast.
See how stilted that sounds? Why go into what the warden told him yesterday? Using dialogue makes it more concise and realistic. That way, I avoid the infodump in the passage and get on with the story. If you feel dialogue is excessive and lazy, then it is the words you're choosing that may be excessive and lazy. Dialogue serves one purpose in fiction, to advance the plot.
See that just seemed awkward to me and it's just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. It is just too much for me and I probably would have reordered it.
The door slammed behind him, metal on metal. He walked to the line, ignoring the outstretched hand of the warden.
"Keep your shit together, Mac"
He nodded.
The warden handed him a paper sack. He looked through it for a moment and then met the wardens eyes again. Nine months for biting a cops nose is bull shit, he thought. He gripped his bag, gritting his teeth.
"You have any plans?"
"Find a job and help a friend out."
The warden nodded. "Anything else?"
"No."
"Anyone waiting for you?"
"I don't know." Fossy, he thought. Fossy might be coming for him, looking for revenge.
Or something like that. It's just me though. It's possible I have it all wrong too. I am a little too sparse at times, so maybe I should dial that back and give a little more, it would give a little more depth.
That was a great exhange Matt, written in more your style than mine. That's another point, that telling vs. showing relates directly to the author's style, which is something we've all been hitting on here all along, just maybe not as directly. You may have a minimalist style that relys more on exposition than action, or just the opposite. You may use dialogue as means to advance the plot, but maybe not as much as someone else. Using dialogue is part of my style, it may not be part of yours. Be willing to do things different than what you're used to doing to improve your fiction.
Be willing to do things different than what you're used to doing to improve your fiction."
Exactly. I started writing with info dumps and excessive details and Didacticism, then slowly that evolved into other types. It seems to fit. The reason why I started this thread and the others is to see multiple opinions, outside essays and my own amateur theories.
Well that and add as much depth as possible to my characters. One way I thought was telling and using big voice. Good stuff Bob! You're the man!
variety is the spice of life
Matt I do things much as you do - I play around with all the little nuanced things - see what they do, how they interact, how they worlk - to me, that's the way to learn - learn by doing - read about a technique - practice that technique - et al, infinity...
And completely out in left field - as per Bob's example - I keep getting hung up on this crazy bit of backstory of Mac biting off a cop's nose... If I were writing it and the damn nose thing kept sticking out.... I'd take that as a sign that I'm starting my story in the wrong spot (freaking actionate it and let the reader see Mac bite the nose off) - and if I didn't want to do that cause I think it's too far removed from where I'm going with my story... well then that little nugget of backstory gets thrown in the delete pile because it is not relevant to the narrative.
and Matt - I'm with you on dialogue - It feels like a tell to me - Lazy.
@ Howie - haven't read the essay, but yeah - a good piece of fiction = the reader can't see the narrator at all.
@ Matt - Man - you are almost there - I think it is a trust thing in your POV - the whole 'he thought' and the overuse of pronouns means (to me) that you aren't in the head of the POV enough.
example:
'Fritz turned off the TV, stuck his finger in his nose, and dug around for all he was worth. God made noses to be picked. Dust particles were just the perfect little dudes. The way they joined together to make boogers was pure beauty to the slightly overgrown fingernail.
Not to mention that there were more nerves in the fingers. That made it better to truly feel the booger as it rolled between thumb and forefinger.
He pulled out his finger and blew his nose a little. But, not too much. Oh no, didn't want to blow the booger completely out. It wasn't as cool to pick it off his shirt....'
Ah hell - I don't think I'm making my point very well. -
MATT'S EXAMPLE
The door slammed behind him, metal on metal. He walked to the line, ignoring the outstretched hand of the warden.
"Keep your shit together, Mac"
He nodded.
The warden handed him a paper sack. He looked through it for a moment and then met the wardens eyes again. Nine months for biting a cops nose is bull shit,
he thought. He gripped his bag, gritting his teeth."You have any plans?"
"Find a job and help a friend out."
The warden nodded. "Anything else?"
"No."
"Anyone waiting for you?"
"I don't know."
Fossy, he thought. Fossy might be coming for him, looking for revenge.
There - that feels better - the reader knows we are in Mac's head - you don't need all the tags.
Anywho - awesome - love it.
I tell you what. I was reading over what's been posted since I left, thinking about how I might respond. I realized, fuck! I'm just postulating. I can talk about writing all day (and sometimes do) but when it comes down to it, I don't know, intellectually, what I am doing. My writing "ritual" is sitting down and vomiting words on the page and hoping they make sense. All the "craft" comes in on the rewrites and I often need more experienced, or at least more intellectually adept writers to hold my hand through that stuff.
Just reading Fragile Things by Neil Gaiman. Gaiman is all tell. And yet people love this dude.
I love Neil Gaiman. I don't think he's all tell. A Study in Emerald from Fragile Things is one of my favorite short stories by him. Being written in the style of Conan Doyle, it does have a lot of telling in it though. Maybe not the best example.
He does a lot of telling in between the dialogue and showing, but he seems to do it just the right amount to charm my pants off.
Here are some of his stories online: Neil Gaiman short stories.
How to Talk to Girls at Parties has a lot of mixing showing and telling. He transitions from dialogue to telling to dialogue to setting really well in the first page. He also shows the characters walking down the street by using dialogue when he has them discuss where the party is.
Where did my pants go?
Matt I do things much as you do - I play around with all the little nuanced things - see what they do, how they interact, how they worlk - to me, that's the way to learn - learn by doing - read about a technique - practice that technique - et al, infinity..."
Well, I have started to try and starve the reader, that way they hang on to everything I give them and then lull them with prose. Thanks for the compliment though!
I think it is a trust thing in your POV"
It's possible, but people get confused with tags and such. I've even gotten shit in the workshop for keeping my tags too sparse. I hate dialogue tags, thought tags ect. Clearly someone is speaking already so I substitute with body language or social indicators. Just me though.
I can talk about writing all day (and sometimes do) but when it comes down to it, I don't know, intellectually, what I am doing.
@Renee-- I think that is anyone. If you got theories or thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
All the "craft" comes in on the rewrites"
That seems to be universal. I however make the mistake of wanting things to be perfect in the first draft. Never going to happen, which is why I get stuck.
but he seems to do it just the right amount to charm my pants off."
Maybe it is matter of length and what you say. I have seen some folks go off on tangents and it ruins everything. Cold Mountain was a prime example. At one point, the women go to town and a prisoner starts talking and the whole chapter turns into a cluster fuck back story. Where as some folks stop things dead, but it works.
In the essay he goes out of his way to say it works in short burst, which seems to be the case from what I can tell. It seems to be the case in things I've read. Everything sprinkled around, nothing longer than a paragraph. I think ignoring it altogether is a disaster too.
I found your pants!
All the "craft" comes in on the rewrites
Is that really true, though? Seriously, look at your roughs now vs. your roughs from two years ago. I'd be willing to bet a coke (a' cola) that what you write now is closer to the goal that what you wrote before. As we practice this stuff, including the submitting and rewriting, we further internalize our lessons of craft and have better access to them in the initial writing. That's one of the reasons we have to do the rewrites, though. If we're not going in there and actively digging out our issues with technique, we never force ourselves to abandon the weaker aspects of our writing.
I think that's true. That we internalize the lessons. I know I was talking last night about how the "problems" with my writing are so much harder now then they were when I started. When you are making beginner mistakes - which I still am, don't get me wrong - they are things that take time, but you can conquer readily. The farther in you get, the mistakes or problems become harder to "fix". If you say you are "good enough" or actually keep working, this is the difference between great writers and very good ones.
My biggest problem at the moment - in my own eyes - is going deeper into a character and getting beyond the superficial things and seeing the really awful ugly things underneath, and then showing that to the reader without pulling back. It's hard for me. I don't always like it. When the character becomes real to me, I feel almost guilty about exposing their bare secrets to the world. Because I'm a crazy person. But it's something I work on. Not being a crazy person - I don't work on that.
I never think of it as exposing my character's secrets, though, probably, I think my characters are what other people dislike most about my stories anyway, but at those moments I see it more as exposing parts of me, places to slip in all my own horrible secrets. Then I'm confronting a character flaw in the story that I don't really want to, is too embarrassing or painful if I were confronting it myself, so they can confront that for me. They can feel that embarrassment, or that hideousness instead of me, but it doesn't really read as embarrassing to me after I put it in. So in that way it makes the characters real and it kind of keeps me honest and makes the story/these people important. Maybe that's another way to think about it.
"They can feel that embarrassment, or that hideousness instead of me, but it doesn't really read as embarrassing to me after I put it in."
That's smart. The thing about me...if I'm watching American Idol on television and Simon is really giving someone a good chewing about how awful they are, I have to look away. I can't look at their face. So that's probably one reason I am so squeamish. I have trouble not taking the emotions on myself I guess.