Very interesting thread (definitely a copy, paste and keep one!).

I agree that it would be great to have this kind of discussion more often. I suppose that here (ww) it’s the more micro-level stuff that gets analysed, which is maybe fine for short stories, poetry etc but doesn’t necessarily cover anything like all that’s involved in writing a novel. Although, having said that, I’m finding that people’s comments on other aspects of my work do have an effect on the plot - or, at least threads of it, but then those threads are the plot. I think.

I also feel a lot of time-consuming re-writing could be avoided by we writers discussing technique more.

– I can see what you mean; certainly it’s great to chance upon a thread like this, and I feel I’ve learned loads, and am more aware of the some of the forces at work in a good novel, just by reading the first few posts here. But I think that for some people (well, me!) the whole process of learning to write is going to be incredibly time consuming no matter what, and that you only learn by doing a massive amount of it, with, hopefully, good feedback/help at certain points along the way. That might be entirely personal, though, and may also depend on what kind of writing you’re doing. Or may be rubbish. I think what I’m trying to say, very badly, is, that it would have taken me as long as it has, however much input I had, because you need to go through certain processes to get to certain further points.

Re plot, I read a chicklit book recently (a ‘real’ chicklit book, not something else dressed up as chicklit – there seems to be a lot of that around at the moment), and I thought the writing was pretty dire, especially at the beginning, and the characterisation woeful – hideous stereotypes, or cardboard cut-outs. But the plot hooked me in, and I read the damn thing all the way through, and very quickly. I’m not dissing chicklit, btw,(I like chicklit) just this particular book.

Sorry, have waffled here. Good thread, though

That's interesting about being hooked by a book that it didn't sound like you liked too much. Was it something about the plot itself - as in the fundamentals of what is happening in the book - or was it the pace and reveals (you know, keeping a mystery from you that you have to know the answer to whatever it takes sort of thing) that kept you hooked?

I remember some producer on Dallas said something like - ask a question and refuse to answer it, but almost answer it playing with the audience and string it out as long as you can (the Who Shot JR being a good example). It's amazing how powerful that can be. I remember Eastenders doing it with a tape revealing Sharon's affair with Phil and for MONTHS they found every excuse in the book to have Grant pick up the damned tape and put it in the machine - to be interrupted by a phone-call or whatever. Even though it was soap, it was brilliant because you had the real sense that the programme was in league with the audience and doing the soap thing up to the hilt. Eastenders used to be good at slightly referencing the fact it was a soap.

Sorry, waffle. But I wonder with that classic sense of "page-turneriness" whether it is similar - the asking of a question and the extending out, refusal to reveal the answer.

This might not be relevant to the book you were describing though. But i think it is a technique used by some.

Terry, that's fascinating and something we don't talk about often on WW. I'm a fan of the plot driven story, both in reading and in my own writing. Characters and even scenes are easy enough to visualise, but how it all hangs together is the glue that holds it all together. I view a plot as an exoskeleton on which to hang my themes, as you so rightly say, and I for one simply cannot write if that exoskeleton isn't fully formed.

Of course, things may change in the course of the story, but having that mutable road map makes it easier to achieve cohesion i.e. what happens on the first page is relative to the last, and all points inbetween.

I discussed this with Emma before, but I think a background in drama helps. You get to see the workings of something scene by scene, how everything that occurs is so something else can occur. Cause and effect, a journey from beginning, through middle, to end.
Sometimes I get a little annoyed when something happens in a story that has no relevance to the plot, or even character development. It seems indulgent, counter productive. Other times, a character will pop out of nowhere just to allow a certain plot twist to occur, and to my mind, it is glaringly apparent if not handled correctly. (Sorry, I'm thinking of Order of the Phoenix here, and Hagrid's cousin in the woods. Purely there so he could facilitate the carrying off of Dolores Umbridge, no other visible reason).

Anyway, these are just my thoughts, not the bottom line. I suppose we all write in different ways, but the only thing I can write without a strong plot in mind is my shopping list.

Thanks for raising the subject. Very interesting.

Best

JB

<Added>

how it all hangs together is the glue that holds it all together

Sorry, it's early lol!

Hi Snowy,

i think i've reached a plateau because my first year here at WW i learnt a hell of a lot as i knew nothing about writing, i read books reccommended to me, and i now find the threads coming up cover subjects that have mostly been covered before and are familiar to me - on the whole. I'm certainly not saying i know all the basics, and the occasional thread still teaches me something, but i feel i have reached a level of basic good writing - something my rejection letters tell me - and need to find something to push my writing up to the next level.

I wasn't being self-deprecating, honest - some threads on WW skim over my head because i can't really get my head around what they are saying. A bit like when i first joined the site and heard - for the first time - about POV - several members kindly spelt it out for me - several times!

Poppy, that's one reason why i enjoy some chick lit, the dreadful stereotypes, they are there - in my opinion - to be larger than life and to make you laugh - hopefully! But chick lit is such a broad term,i think the sterotypes appear more in the farcical books by eg Kinsella and Wendy Holden, and less in the so-called chick lit books which deal with issues such as post-natal depression, bereavement etc.

x

Case, that's an interesting point about sterotypes, because they exist and can be great fun when handled correctly. My own genre is full of them too, and my belief is that people enjoy them when done right.

I didn't know what any of these terms were when I joined WW. Took me a while to get my head around POV too, and passive/active voice.

JB

interesting point about sterotypes, because they exist and can be great fun when handled correctly

I think the difference is when it is done knowingly/deliberately. After all comedy would not survive without them.

Casey. That's interesting. What do you think you need for the "higher level" stuff? What kinds of things might help, do you think?

I'll go along with that. Some plots are sterotypes too, though, aren't they? The boy-meets-girl-loses-girl-gets girl back stuff that goes on is everywhere, but transcends mundanity in the right hands. The age-old quest story to a 'dark and distant' land has also been used time and again.

JB

Hmm. I know what you mean, JB, but I'm not sure you'd say those things were stereotypes as such. Though I suppose you might say it had a "stereotypical" plot, but then that would suggest a type of film/book/whatever to be in relation to.

If I were to say some plots were stereotypical I might concentrate more on the specifics. For example I would say that boy meets girl is archetypal, but that the girl works in publishing or media and the boy is a lawyer or something financially secure is the chicklit stereotype (although many chicklit books don't conform to this of course.)

In terms of stereotypes in characters - it is often viewed negatively, but I think the use and the knowingness is the key. You can use them to confirm a very unthinking view of the world, or use them to present a playful questioning view of the world. Lots of good comedy will produce characters who then seem to become stereotypes particularly in sketch comedy - but I think this is often the sign of the comedian observing something that people recognise and boiling it down or blowing it up so the character resonates outwards - like LoadsaMoney or Football Manager or some of the representations in Drop the Dead Donkey, Father Ted, The IT Crowd, The Royle Family. They almost create stereotypes because they seem so recognisable.

Glad i'm not the only one, JB, in fact i'm sure WW comes as a bit of a shock, at first, for new writers joining who previously have only written by the seat of their pants (but we won't get into another dialogue about 'rules', especially without Kate and Emma around;()

Yes, stereotypes and larger-than-life characters can be great fun, Wendy Holden is great with this, still laugh at her eco-warrior who informed his mother-in-law at Xmas dinner that the sprouts had grown in soil laced with the grandchild's poo

Very good question, Snowy.And the answer is that i don't really know. I know from this site and books i've read that i now have a firm hold of the basics (pov, show not tell) and have grown in confidence enough to see these as mere guidelines now - but what next? My first year here i felt a real intellectual buzz, was always posting threads asking questions, often in the technique forum...

Unless the answer is simply more reading and more writing. Must say i certainly don't read enough at the mo...

anyway, waffling now...

x

Actually, Casey, I found the stereotypical, cardboard characters off-putting and deeply irritating; it really was simply wanting to find out what happened that kept me going. And after I read it, I felt , dunno, uncomfortable, and the opposite of edified or something.

But I’ve read books like that before, books that I guess get published because they have that ‘page-turneriness’ quality, that Snowy was talking about. And I think it can be a pretty cheap quality. I’m not sure whether the ‘ask question – extend, refuse to answer – eventually answer’ model applies in all cases of page-turneriness (like that expression) – maybe it does. In the book I read it was present in the form of a subterfuge, and, in fact, the pacing of how all is eventually revealed was pretty well done. But, ultimately it was very unsatisfying because there was no depth to the characters – they weren’t characters - and you just didn’t care what happened to them.

Also, going back to what Casey said, I realized as I went on it was supposed to be a lot lighter than I thought at first, then it worked better, but it never quite worked as a comedy either, because it was dealing with pretty serious themes and so instead of the most stereotypical characters being fun, they veered too much towards being bloody annoying in, say, their selfishness. Also, maybe even in comedy, there has to be something genuinely recognizably, humanly ‘real’ about a character before they can be really funny? dunno. (and I’m running out of adverbs). Just thinking of the MC in the film ‘sideways’ – made me cry with laughter, and this was a character who was clinically depressed and alcoholic - but the treatment wasn’t flippant in any way.

I think it’s the type of book (the one I read) that’s a good example of lack of ‘embeddeness’; hmm, maybe I’m massively over-simplifying here, but all it had was a cheap, plot device to hook the reader, and that was it really; you couldn’t engage with the characters, there was no sharing between author and reader of something human – no journey in any sense. I’m really not explaining what I mean at all here, so I’ll stop!



<Added>

crossed with Snowy and Casey

<Added>

oh - plus Waxy and Snowy again!

We are, as writers, rather spoilt, I think. I mean, average joe can just enjoy a novel for its own sake. Some of the books my hosuemate chooses, and likes, I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. We're like magician's assistants, in that we get to see the backstage stuff that goes into the magic and therefore find it harder to appreciate the tricks.

Snowy, you're right. I think the word 'hackneyed' applies to plot, rather than 'stereotype'. The archetypal storyline is perhaps just what we call it when it's done with panache. I mean, I've read that many books with more or less the same ending, but if the writing's good, it doesn't seem to matter. I think good writing in itself - the use of language and imagery - can also have a 'page turner' quality, even if nothing really seems to happen.

The level at what someone reads is what they enjoy, presumably. I mean, my housemate probably finishes two books a year, if that, so I'm not surprised that she thinks things like DVC are exceptional. I don't mean that condescendingly, I love her to bits, but I'm just illustrating the point that knowledge in any specific art field both enhances your appreciation and also, in some cases, ruins it.

JB

Casey, I think any serious writer has to go through an initial stage of smashing apart everything he's ever done, then gluing the pieces back together so the result is stronger than it was before. We all start from pretty much the same place--passionate to tell stories but with virtually no idea of the techniques involved--then we meet the first 'shock'. This is realising that we don't actually know what we're doing, and that there's a lot to learn. It can happen through having a story critiqued for the first time by someone other than one's mother. Or it can be an agent or editor going through one's book with a highly critical eye. Either way, the result is that the writer realises they have to almost start again.

But I believe there is second shock point which is probably much more powerful yet also more difficult to see. For instance, a writer can, say, get past his editor/agent, do the changes and go on to have a career selling books, after that initial shock. And it could be said, why go further than this? Well, that's a personal choice, but if a writer is more motivated by becoming a good writer than being, say, a famous one, he will seek out the second shock point. This is more of an inner decision, which is to turn one's focus away from the idea of 'making it' to a life-long learning journey. In other words, shock becomes a part of his ongoing approach, not just consolidating work that's okay. Interestingly, I think a writer's drive changes at this point too: he becomes more concerned with quality and long-term improvement. I can honestly say that in my experience of working with new writers' books, one of the most powerful barriers to them becoming better writers is the compunction to become published as soon as possible no matter what. Which is understandable in today's instant-everything culture, but regrettable for writers.

I think a good writer is also a good editor, of his and other people's work. An analogy I have for this is taken from the late 1960s, when I was into slot-car racing. It was a big thing for a while and some of us used to go to this huge 8-lane track in Westcliffe, Essex. I'd saved up for months and bought a top-notch American car which was really fast and my pride and joy. One day we went to the track and there were all these Americans there, who'd just finished a 24 hour race. I put my car on the track and it zoomed off. But, to my horror, this hand reached out and plucked it off. I ran to stop it being nicked, only to find one of the US mechanics had it on its back, adjusting something with a tiny screwdriver. He had this fantastic box of miniature tools, bottles of oil and stuff I didn't recognise. He only spent a few seconds on my car, didn't say a word, just smiled and put it back on the track. After I started it again, I soon found its performance had improved by at least fifty per cent.

He was tired but he'd seen my car and automatically knew it could be better, and how to make it so. He'd learnt all the rules--how an engine works and how to maintain it, etc--to the point where they gave way to something that to outsiders looks like a magical instinct. And it is--but an achievable one, given the talent and passion is there, too, of course. I think a good writer/editor does exactly the same when he looks at a page of text.

I understand people's resistance to 'rules'. I think what they don't like--rightly so--is when someone who doesn't have that magic is trying to build a rigid ladder of regulations that they might one day be able to climb up. But with the magic mechanic, it's more a case of working backwards, when someone notices the magic and asks him how it's done. He has to work out himself how exactly he does it and then come up with some guidelines that his enquirer can usefully follow (even though he doesn't need to follow them himself any more). Which is for me, incidentally, the difference between one-size-fits-all teaching and mentoring.

Terry

Terry, I think the above is one of the most relevant things you've ever written, considering my present situation.

the writer realises they have to almost start again

Yes! And it is a shock indeed! Once you overcome it though, you hopefully begin to forget about glory and fame, and start thinking, as you say, of how to deliver the best work you can. When meeting at the beginning of the month with the agent, it would be fair to say that more sensitive bodies than I may not have withstood the savaging of my manuscript. The upshot of the meeting was 'you have a damn fine book in there...somewhere'. Now, considering I've already rewritten it twice, and edited it three times (it's moved from comedy, to Biblical epic, and is now on its way to being something entirely different), this was probably the biggest blow to my pride as a writer so far. But I'm good at listening, if nothing else. At least when the outrage subsides.

I was asked what I enjoy most about the art, and told to momentarily forget about success. Nominations are distracting and a false economy in terms of the art itself. At its heart, what was the story I wanted to tell? I'm telling it, the agent said, but in completely the wrong way.
I smarted, and then was very surprised to still be offered a contract!

I can honestly say that 99% of all the advice I've received from the industry has, in time, proved to be more than correct. More like astoundingly insightful. I came home from that meeting, knives in hand, and began - not another edit - but a fullblown rewrite and restructure. I do it because I love it, first and foremost, but it only took to the end of the first revised chapter to see exactly what the book could be, and to feel chagrined for my original denials.
It's a monumental project, but I didn't get into this for money, nor because I'm afraid of the challenge. I've been asked to revel in my art again, and that is what I am doing. I've come too far to turn back now.

I don't feel downcast anymore, but enlightened and grateful. The book I sent to the agent is not the book I really want in the world, and I'm fortunate enough to have professional support and the chance to remake the novel in another way. It's like trial by fire, but what comes out is maybe a jewel. Of course, I know even then that will not be the end of it, but each trial brings us closer to tapping the vein of the true art, I believe, and therein lies the thrill.

Best

JB

<Added>

*relevant thing you've ever written in these forums, I hasten to add. ;)

JB, that's interesting. I thought agents were only interested in things that they saw as pretty much publishable as they were. Is that not so, do you think, or was yours an unusual case?

JB, good for you. Sounds like you're happily on the track of becoming the best writer you can be. It also sounds as if you've found an agent who is focused more on helping you improve than simply getting your name on a cover. I know you know only too well, that the genre you've chosen to write in is not really awash with dosh (the odd megastar aside), so developing a distinctive voice and connecting with what is a fantastically well-informed readership is surely the best way to go.

The shocks I was talking about apply to pretty much anything, really, that we want to go beyond amateur at; which, amounts to starting again, not quite from scratch but certainly a lot further back than we thought we'd have to go. But with writing, it's maybe a bit more of a shock simply because writing technique is invisible when it's good, and in our culture not really so noticeable when it's bad, not like someone singing out of tune would be anyway.

Terry