I don't want to embarrass her (I'm assuming she's a she – apologies if I'm wrong), but 'The Tunnel' by Issy is for me a great example of feeling-into-words writing. What I mean is that the writer has a very clear vision and feeling of the scene she's writing, then searches for the words that will convey the same accurately to the reader. The first scene in 'The Tunnel' is very powerful – you can feel yourself flying along with 'the ghost' (we're not sure that's what it is at this stage). But look at how good the word choice is – you smell and see and feel exactly what the POV character does.

The other approach to writing is the opposite: to chuck more and more words into the story void, in the hope that eventually some will stick and the whole thing can move awkwardly forward. I don't want to give examples but many best selling authors adopt this approach. I guess their readers like having everything spelt out for them, and don't want the inconvenience of true feeling and emotional punch.

Issy's story could do with a little pruning here and there but that's normal. The important thing is, she's got a strong emotional core laid down that can be pruned back to, if that makes sense. Rather than having a huge house of cards in words where cutting some of the peripheral stuff will cause the whole thing to collapse.

So, in my view powerful writing stems from connecting to a strong vision/emotion/feeling in oneself, then finding the words that best release it.

Terry

Terry,
I think that most competent writers do both. It is a matter of style as well as being a definitive approach.

In my opinion 'better' writing emerges from the having the emotions, images, feelings etc and then seeking the most appropriate words. However I am sure that there are many readers who find the second approach more to their reading tastes.

I have always felt that a lot of journalists use the second approach, particularly when one is forced to rush to the dictionary to find out what they mean.

However, thank you - I shall certainly read the work by Issy for a compliment from you is a good testimonial.

Len

Len,

You're probably right about journalists. Speaking of which, I'm a member of WriterL, an online forum (which charges a yearly fee about the same as WW) for, mostly, narrative journalists, i.e. those who write story-based pieces, rather than current news-based. I don't often contribute to it since I'm not a journalist, but I find the conversations fascinating and there are often good writing tips to be picked up such as front-loading a sentence with the main image or effect, e.g. 'A bomb exploded last night, destroying an entire office building in Manchester', rather than, 'In Manchester last night, an entire office building was destroyed by an exploding bomb'.

Which is wandering off the thread somewhat but what the hell.

Terry

Terry,
What the hell indeed. That's the way a good blether goes like a stream finding its path. I'm reminded of how I stumbled upon a definition for the difference between academic writing and journalism. While groping my way through a research degree recently, my supervisor eventually gave me the touchstone by criticising an essay I'd written as being journalism rather academic writing. I didn't know what he meant until he said he wanted me to write from the general to the particular and shun the winning turn of phrase or witticism - because that way misinterpretation lies. I was eternally grateful for the rule of thumb which was difficult to put into practice. For the purposes of what I was doing, he was right. Be boring and accurate he commanded, accuracy being the chief aim. So no wonder there's no money in academic publishing, scorn from academics towards the populist writer and mistrust from all of us about the accuracy of the media.

It's taken me nearly two years to unlearn this general to the particular stuff but I've had to do it because, I think, although I'm open to discussion on this, nowhere but in academia and perhaps the law is this style much use.

Front-loading the sentence is a good way of putting it. I'm now trying to write a popular, non-fiction book on my academic topic and it's the hardest thing I've ever done because I need to preserve the accuracy but write entertainlingly as well. Of course it can be done. I know that but boy is this thing about never letting a fact get in the way of a good story tempting to the pen.

Thanks for the recommendation by the way. Enjoyed the piece tremendously.
eliza

Eliza,

Sometimes on WriterL, journalists post one of their stories and I'm often struck by how visual they are, in terms of my mind receiving clear, immediate, pictures of what they're writing about. I think this is why I've always had trouble with academic and literary writing - because usually it doesn't give my mind clear pictures.

Front-loading is really, for me, simply giving the reader's mind what it needs to enjoy the flow of the story, at the time it needs it. Someone put a piece on WW recently where most of her sentences started something like this, 'Driving along the dusty road towards the homestead high in the hills, after a long day in town where everyone seemed to be impatient, surrounded by grazing buffalo ... ' I find this difficult because I can't picture who's driving along the road until after I've had to conjure pictures of dust, town, buffalo, etc. I'm actually picturing a driverless car! This is interesting, in that it might say that academics don't have visual imaginations. Whatever, I believe story-telling is very much about creating moving pictures in the reader's head, and in that respect writers can learn quite a bit from journalists.

Good luck with the book. It sounds as if you have a really engrossing battle on your hands there.

Terry

Terry,
Thanks for the confirmation. I was nodding my head as I read what you've put.

I feel I should sing a little acknowledgement of the tremendous influence on my writing that came from my doing television audio-description a few years back, just to mention it in passing.

It's a relatively new and small area for writers and it can be gruelling and intense, sitting at a screen all day describing the pictures in between breaks in dialogue and significant sound effects. But what's amazing about it is you have to get those images just right because you are communicating word-pictures to people who can't compare them with what's on the screen and who have to trust you to tell them as accurately as possible within some short time constraints. Grammar comes into its own. No driverless cars allowed! And the script you write is vetted very closely so you don't get away with anything.
I used to try to get the tone of a film right too and although they prefer you to keep it simple, sometimes you were writing very poetic passages, especially if you had five seconds to say what was going on in say a nature programme.

But here's a question now I'm here:

I've been uploading fiction to Writewords because I wanted to revive my former style and get back my confidence with that before trying to write this book I'm struggling with. But I keep going off the boil on it, not knowing what approach to take. It could help to get some feedback on a passage or two while I'm stalled like this.
Do you have any thoughts on whether
a WriteWords group can help? I've been assuming as it's non-fiction it can't be accommodated. It's not journalism exactly but you're making me think journalism may well be the right way of looking at it. In other words - would there be any difficulty in taking a popular history subject to the journalism group in your opinion?

Thanks for posting this subject. It's flushing out a lot of dormat brain cells here.

cheers
eliza

Terry,
Thanks for the confirmation. I was nodding my head as I read what you've put.

I feel I should sing a little acknowledgement of the tremendous influence on my writing that came from my doing television audio-description a few years back, just to mention it in passing.

It's a relatively new and small area for writers and it can be gruelling and intense, sitting at a screen all day describing the pictures in between breaks in dialogue and significant sound effects. But what's amazing about it is you have to get those images just right because you are communicating word-pictures to people who can't compare them with what's on the screen and who have to trust you to tell them as accurately as possible within some short time constraints. Grammar comes into its own. No driverless cars allowed! And the script you write is vetted very closely so you don't get away with anything.
I used to try to get the tone of a film right too and although they prefer you to keep it simple, sometimes you were writing very poetic passages, especially if you had five seconds to say what was going on in say a nature programme.

But here's a question now I'm here:

I've been uploading fiction to Writewords because I wanted to revive my former style and get back my confidence with that before trying to write this book I'm struggling with. But I keep going off the boil on it, not knowing what approach to take. It could help to get some feedback on a passage or two while I'm stalled like this.
Do you have any thoughts on whether
a WriteWords group can help? I've been assuming as it's non-fiction it can't be accommodated. It's not journalism exactly but you're making me think journalism may well be the right way of looking at it. In other words - would there be any difficulty in taking a popular history subject to the journalism group in your opinion?

Thanks for posting this subject. It's flushing out a lot of dormat brain cells here.

cheers
eliza


<Added>

Eliza - apologies! Somehow I managed to copy in your posting instead of mine, which is:


Wow! Audio-description sounds like something all writers should practice.

Mind you, I guess there is the element of preference to take into account too. I've always preferred writing that is clear and unambiguous, where the writer's personal 'thing' doesn't intrude on the story. But a lot of people seem to like the mess – sorry, mix – of the actual and the personal. Someone like Salman Rushdie, for instance, actually makes my head hurt. I can't get anything from his stuff other than his enormously self-inflated opinions about everything. But a lot of people seem to enjoy being bludgeoned in that way.

I don't know if the WW journalism group can help you – maybe Richard Brown can give you a view. I'm pretty sure WriterL could help. It's packed with professional journalists and writer/editors like Sol Stein who pop up when a subject grabs them. From what you say, I suspect your quandary would really grab their interest. They're mostly narrative journalists, too, so are more story-oriented perhaps than 'normal' journalists. I'd be happy to look at a piece of your work, too, although I can't offer a journalistic view.

Terry

Terry,
Can you post me the link for WriterL please? It sounds like it might be the very thing. I had wondered about asking Richard so now I shall do that too.

Somehow I'll get my focus back on this thing. I've lost my objectivity somewhere.

And it's very good of you to offer to read bits of it. I wasn't expecting that but I wonder if that might be a key I might try - if I know (in this semi-anonymous way) who I'm writing for I might get off the starting blocks with this a bit better. I'll look at it and borrow you as the prospective reader and if there's a manageable stretch that might bear scrutiny I'll send it along. Don't worry I'll only send a wee bit. I won't abuse your offer I promise. Actually I think I'm just needing the charge of a starting pistol to fire and I'll be off. Probably I need as much input from an editor as I had from my will o the wisp supervisor at uni. It's finding that person - and paying them somehow. At least peer review allows you to give back in kind. It's a wonderfully life affirming exchange.

Thanks for the tip about WriterL. I looked through the previous posts but couldn't see a link - although I could Google it I suppose.

Thanks again
eliza

Eliza,

Link to WriterL:

http://writerl.com/

The home page pretty much sums up what it's about.

Terry

Terry,
I've just discovered the text of this forum discussion (and all the others too I suppose) is Google-able. I know it says "public forum" but I hadn't realised how internationally public. I typed in a search on a subject I'd mentioned to you and up the whole thing came. I wonder if it's just me being dim-witted or if other members are similarly unaware?
what do you think?
eliza

Eliza, just having a browse and spotted this. The only forum not visible to internet search engines is the Lounge. So, if you want to keep something relatively private, post it there. However, having most of the threads visible to browsers is one of the things that draws in new members… so it’s not all bad.

Dee

Dee, Thanks. Yes I quite understand that of course and wouldn't want to change it. From past exchanges with new members I know it's not just me who doesn't realise straight off about the visibility of one's comments. I just came face to face with the difference between theory and practice. Just shows how quick on the uptake I'm not.
cheers
eliza