This is in some ways an extension of the 'Action vs Internalising' thread. But I thought it should be a separate thread because, at least for me, it's to do more with the actual strengths and weaknesses of the individual writer rather than a particular angle that a writer may choose to come from.

I should perhaps say that I found myself thinking about this tonight in my local pub when I had in fact decided to read something that I was really looking forward to reading. I put the book down and wrote some notes, thinking "Must put this on WriteWords", which is at least (I think) a rung or two up from discussing where England went wrong against Portugal.

Anyway, what was on my mind was a split in skills that I've been noticing in new writers whose manuscripts I've been working on recently. This is not by any means a definitive split, so I'm saying up front that I'm referring to it here purely as a means of discussion. At the moment, I'm seeing it as a division between 'soft' and 'hard' skills, and that does not mean in terms of weak and strong, more perhaps in terms of in-close and the big picture.

I'll try to explain. So far, in the majority of manuscripts I've looked at, writers tends to be strong in one or other of these skills. I'm sure there is the odd natural genius who excels in both, but I suspect that for the majority of writers, there will be a bias towards one or the other.

By 'soft' skills I mean someone who is naturally good at dialogue, humour and character. By 'hard' skills I mean someone who is good at plot, plot arc, structure and infrastructure.

I am convinced that a) the vast majority of writers have a bias to one of these at the expense of the other and b) that if a writer wants to produce a satisfying book, he or she has to work on the side they are weakest at.

Someone who is good at the soft skills tends to produce writing that is a joy to read, at least close in. But if they don't have a strong plot, there will be a tendency for the writing to be a little self-indulgent, e.g. good dialogue for the sake of it, rather than dialogue that moves the plot on, or foreshadows events to come. Someone who is good at the hard skills, by contrast, will write in such a way that the reader certainly knows they are on a structured journey, but what will be missing is the line-by-line joy of sparky dialogue, or narrative humour.

I have to say that what I've also found through working with new authors is that there does tend to be a resistance to dealing with the side they're weaker on. They say they understand the need to develop the aspects lacking in their writing but in practice they often try to find ways round this, e.g. if they're good on soft skills, by editing the dialogue to sound as if it is moving the plot on but in fact is only alluding to it.

Well, that's enough for now. These are thoughts that occurred to me tonight, and I would very much welcome your views.

Terry

Terry,

I don't go with the idea that a strength in one writer's department is at the expense of their skill in others. Nor do I place the abilities you mention under two single headings of 'hard' and 'soft'. Some writers (on WW} are good with sparky dialogue but lack narrative humour.

I have found that dialogue so very often aids and assists the development of the plot and this is used by some writers to great effect and by others not so successfuly so that it becomes an example of 'Show not Tell'.

I do agree that some have a good grasp of specific aspects of writing... I have in mind the skill with which some describe their characters so they quickly become 'real' to the reader. I am still agreeing when I say that some writers do demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in certain areas of writing.

Often these are very difficult to pinpoint but one knows that something is not quite 'right'. I know this is a subjective reaction and one may well read 'changes' suggested by other Members but feel that these add nothing to the original and may well get in the way of the writer's style.

It is very difficult for the writer who looks for improvements to ask the question 'What is wrong?' For obvious reasons by far the majority of comments that one reads on our site are complimentary but hardly constructive and helpful to a writer who asks that question.

Len

Terry, I do appreciate that you are coming from your tutorial background and wide experience in the teaching field. However
I also have the view that writing children's books will have more definitive boundaries of skills and these may be more clearly defined than would be the case with other genre.

Hi Terry,

It makes sense to work on your weakness for balance, but when you think of great or bestselling writers they are all known for their one strength. . . dialogue (revealing character), page-turning plot, humour, setting. Isn’t this their strengths?

As in sport…Thierry Henry’s pace makes him the best striker in the world right now. It’s the same for David Beckham’s free kicks, without them we have seen how dull he is.

I suppose writers are doing the same thing working to their strengths. Or perhaps we are being lazy, doing what comes easily and sticking to it.

Our strengths make us stand out in the pack.

It’s important to know your weakness and improve them but I still say work to your strengths.

Dawn,

Len,

Thanks for your thoughts. As I said, I raised this issue more as a talking point than trying to be definitive. But I'll stick to my guns in one respect: there is evidence that some writers who are particularly gifted in one or two areas can have a tendency to be lazy in others, assuming their strengths will pull them through. I saw an example the other day, where a writer had used a nautical term which admittedly did sound funny in the context she'd put it, but when I asked her what it meant she said she didn't know, she'd just heard it somewhere. In her story, it's spoken by someone who knows all about boats, i.e. she's undermining the integrity of one of her characters by not researching what it means. This is a minor example, but the same writer tends to be lazy about plot, too, which is not so minor.

You raise an interesting question about how to get feedback on what is wrong with one's writing. Where this site is concerned, I guess the writer could spell out that they really do want to know where they need to improve, but I'm not sure everyone would be convinced they're free to say what they think even then. And, as you say, it can be difficult to explain one's gut feelings that something just isn't right.

Children's books possibly do have some more definitive boundaries. Harry Potter aside, one of them tends to be brevity.

Thanks, too, Dawn for your comments. I guess I wasn't referring so much to bestselling writers who are often in a different category where, as you say, playing to one's strength(s) tends to be the name of the game. I'm not sure your footy examples stand up, though. Thierry Henry isn't the best striker in the world just because he's got pace; he's also got great ball control, vision and shooting ability. And who knows which of those he had to work on to bring them up to speed with his more natural talents? As for Beckham, this is probably not the best time to be discussing his abilities. (You must have heard the joke by now – First, the good news: Saddam Hussein has been given the death penalty; now the bad news: David Beckham is taking it.)

I didn't mean don't work at your strengths. But I think you need to work at them in such a way that they improve your weaknesses. For instance, if you're good at dialogue but weak at plot, work at having your characters talk add value and meaning to the plot (as Len says).


Terry

Terry,

a rung or two up from discussing where England went wrong against Portugal

Unlike you, but like Dawn, I believe we can learn a huge amount from successful sportsmen and women. I'm with Dawn that we should play to our strengths. The only problem with that is that it takes some time to identify exactly what those strengthes are.

I'm not saying that we should neglect our weaknesses, as I, for one, am looking to improve all the time. However, to use a tennis metaphor, if you can develop a killer serve, then your backhand becomes irrelevant as you ace your way to victory.

I once spent a long time trying to write a financial thriller, and eventually realised that however hard I worked, I simply do not have the kind of mind that can come up with complex plots. This inability is certainly a 'weakness' in your terms, but having identified I now know to save my efforts for a kind of writing that comes more naturally.

I wish there was the equivalent of the Nick Bolletieri tennis camp fro writing, and that someone had put me in there when I was nine, like the wonderful Maria Sharapova. I think our writing equivalent in the UK would be the UEA MA course. It would be very interesting to hear from people who've been through that what they are taught in this regard.

Adele.

Adele,

When you say that you are not going to work on your financial thriller do you mean your current work? If so, then please do not cease your efforts; this is good writing and can be developed very nicely.

I think we can learn from anyone we respect in his or her field of sport. However any good tennis coach would concentrate on improving your weaker shots but these are generally obvious, so they are easy to identify. However with writing...

May I suggest, Adele, that you consider writing short stories in addition to your novel work.

Terry,

Good example, thank you.

Len

As you say, Terry, there isn't a definitive split, so I don't see that you can divide someone's skills, or lack of, into those catagories. A particular writer may place different emphasis on skills from the whole range of possible ways of doing things, and that characterises their style. Sometimes lack of a particular skill is what makes a writer unique.
Also, dialogue etc. may be doing something other than feeding the main plot. Even if it doesn't move the plot along, it may be defining the characters or underlining themes, so it may be hard to judge what is essential and what is there for decoration, unless you really know the book inside out and know the authors intentions.
On Len's point about feedback, while all of us, I think, do want the kind of criticism that helps us develop our work, all we can do when we comment on the site is to convey how the piece affects us and possibly make suggestions as to how we ourselves might have done otherwise. Writing is not soley a technical business; it's work done by the soul. An overemphasis on technique, on right and wrong, can kill a piece, and an overly critical review can stop someone from writing entirely. No one can learn anything if they don't write any more.

Sharon

Terry, I posted my last piece at the same time as you, not that it changes the substance of my views.

Len, many thanks for your support and concern. The current novel is not a thriller (I know am not capbable of writing a good thriller), and I have no intention of giving up with this. In fact, it is almost finished (yippee!).

When it is completed, I think I may well take up your advice to write some short stories, as it would be a great way to experiment. I was going to write a short non-fiction piece this afternoon about seeing Prince William this morning at the fountain opening in Hyde Park (I live nearby, and it's a beautiful day, that's my excuse for being there!), but if I am to be the Maria Sharapova of writing, I need to focus on the important game (my novel!).

Sharon - hear! hear! I agree with every word.

Back to work now,

Adele.

<Added>

Ok, Timbo may have crashed out in the Wimbledon quarter-finals, but his game has certainly improved in the last year, thanks, I believe, to his new coach Paul Annacone. With better raw material, i.e. Pete Sampras, Annacone got better results, and I think we can learn from his approach to improving one's game (writing or tennis):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/tennis/features/newsid_3813000/3813099.stm

<Added>

I should also add, before anyone who knows me has me committed for being delusional, that I'm not tall, nor blonde, nor seventeen :(

but if I am to be the Maria Sharapova of writing, I need to focus on the important game (my novel!).

Adele, don't tease me like that. Just the namedrop gets me excited.

It’s important to know your weakness and improve them but I still say work to your strengths.

I couldn't agree more, Dawn.

I must have given the wrong impression, but actually I love sporting analogies. The fact that sport is unequivocal, i.e. if you're good you win, means it can be useful for making comparisons in areas where there are perhaps less clear 'winning posts'. However, without being on the inside of what a sportsman or woman actually does to develop their expertise, there can be the danger of picking and choosing what we think is their method that works, rather than what is actually the case. A TV interviewer once said to Bjorn Borg, "Come on, Bjorn, tell us your secret." Borg said, "It's simple: six hours practice a day." You could tell by the interviewer's smile that he didn't believe him.

I've been really interested in everyone's replies, and it's made me try to define better to myself what I was trying to say at the start of this thread. Yes, I agree that you should work to your strengths, and that you can't be good at every aspect of writing, and that if you simply aren't good at a particular genre then leave it alone. But I also think that when a writer works hard to get right all the ingredients that are necessary for his or her particular story, it takes on a resonance, a magical aura that is greater than the some of its parts.

I agree, Sharon, that writing is or should be the work of the soul and not about techique. But I don't think the soul can really sing through the writing unless the writer has gone through the long process of learning the technique so well that he or she can forget it because it is now automatically there and servant to inspiration.

One of my favourite writing 'manuals' has a 'Ten Commandment' page at the back. It is writtten ammusingly but does touch on serious subjects.

One of the commandments is (not verbatim, but something like)

'Thou shall not drop thy characters into a pre-concieved plot lest your work appear contived.'

Or something like. I did have trouble with it to begin with, but now agree wholeheartedly. Obviously, you need a set of base scenarios, but other than that, if you know your characters well enough, just let them get on with it.

In my own head, I confimed the importance of character over plot by noticing that some of my favourite books do appear plotless (but this could just be author skill)

But more importantly, think of all your favourite books and films even. What do you remember about them? More than likely the characters that inhabit that particular world. Not some tricky plot twist. There will be exeptions, but quite rare one I'd imagine. And I do like the odd crime book, but even in these, I feel I know the relevant detective intimtely.

Maybe this is slightly off-topic, but it is one of my own personal hobby-horses. Do feel free to disagree though, as ever, an opinion only.

Darryl

Darryl,

I tend to agree with you about characters not being forced into plot. And I think you're right too that it's characters that remain in the memory rather than plots. An example of the plot flattening the characters, for me, was 'Unwatchable' (or whatever it was called) with Bruce Willis. The plot was so forced and meagre, and the characters so subservient to it, that the director had to try to intimate character by using endless meaningful looks into the distance, and lots of slow walking and talking. I got the impression he was terrified that the characters might actually come to life and start rattling their plot bars causing the whole shaky edifice to collapse.

'If you know your characters well enough, just let them get on with it'. I think maybe this should be 'If you've drawn your characters well enough ... ' After all, everyone knows characters, whether or not they're writers, but how many people can actually bring them alive for strangers?

I don't think that knowing/drawing your characters is just down to writing ability. I believe it's an attribute of someone who's interested in how people work and why they do what they do. It's a bit like the mechanic who is interested in how machines are built, in the fundamentals that make them go, which means he can build anything for any purpose. If a writer can get to understand the mechanics of character – how different types of people work, how they move, what motivates them - then he can build from the inside out, which means the characters can eventually move themselves. By contrast, writers who don't have this mechanic's interest in human character, tend to produce predictable, two-dimensional characters, who often all sound the same when they speak. I don't know, maybe what I'm trying to say is that a fear of understanding may be the root of poor characterisation in some cases.

Terry

Terry,

I'm not sure if it's 'fear' of understanding character. I'm of the opinion, and opinion only, that a lot of people underestimate the power of character.

In films, it seems, that as long as you can fill ninety minutes with cars, guns, and explosions, than that's good enough.

Also, with soaps, the characters, in some cases have had years to enter our psyche, even by an unconscious osmosis kind of thing. Without being intrinsically interesting characters anyway.

Unfortunately it's churlish for me to complain about these things, after all, these 'all action' films and soaps are what is popular, and what the public wants...

I couldn't help but smile when you mentioned the characters in that film bursting from the shackles of an overly contrived plot. That in itself seems a good premise for an interesting book or film.

One of the real pleasures I get from writing, is when I've placed my character in a particular scenario, and begin the dialogue.
I'm never 100% sure what the character is going to say, but once they begin to speak, move about and fidget, it's as though the life is their own. Magical.

Interesting subject.

Darryl

I couldn't help but smile when you mentioned the characters in that film bursting from the shackles of an overly contrived plot. That in itself seems a good premise for an interesting book or film.

'The Well of lost Plots' by Jasper Fforde is a bit like that.
Sharon

Pirandello got there about a century ago with Six Characters in Search of an Author.

Adele.

<Added>

1921 to be precise.

<Added>

Btw, Sharon, that was meant to complement your posting, not to compete with it!