Nik, no I don't think it matters what sort either, except to writers themselves. But if someone's in the early stages of learning, and wondering what to do, I think discussions of it can be helpful, so you can make sure you're on the right course for the sort of horse you are.

And the great medieval poet Hoccleve, I've just discovered, was a clerk in the royal Privy Seal Office for thirty years!

Emma

Isn't it great when you discover an interesting little snippet about someone who was famous for something else entirely.

Alex, you've given me something to think about, perhaps that's why I worked with dead people, no need to feel shy with them is there, and their relatives who I arranged the funerals with, were so distresed they didn't know what day it was most of the time, bless them.

Only kidding, I may be shy, but I'm not quite that paranoid!

My job was the best in the world. I trained as an embalmer too for a while, but being only 5ft and about 8 1/2 stone, I wasn't physically strong enough to lift a big body, so gave it up.

Kat

Kat,

Funny story time.

My Mum once told me a story of something that happened to her Dad. He had been drinking at the local pub, and was making his way home after closing time, half-cut. As he walked past the local cemetery, a grave-digger popped up from behind the wall and asked him if he had the time. Needless to say, my granddad didn't stop to give it.


Alex

I've argued on this thread that some sort of training helps most writers become better at what they do, regardless of their background and how they achieve that training.

So, I would be interested to know what people think are the absolute key things they have learned about the technique and craft of writing. If you were pinned against a wall by a scary-looking monkey holding a typewriter and looking for a little help, what two or three absolutely essential bits of advice would you give on technique? What would you say the would-be writer really needed to learn before his writing improved.

It could be something you've learned on a course, something they have gleaned from a book, something a writer once said in a newspaper article, something you've noticed from reading, something you realise is one of your strengths or weaknesses.

A few of mine are:

1. Show Don't Tell. Okay, I know this is an absolute classic standard. I also know there are times when it doesn't apply. But time and again this old chestnut holds true. It is one of those basic building blocks of writing technique that I mentioned earlier in the thread. And I've bagged it so you're going to have to think of something else.

2. Care about your characters. For me, until I really care about my characters, they aren't good enough. And I mean care as in worried about their welfare, care as in getting annoyed with their stupidity or thoughtlessness, care as in knowing how they smell. The mark of a writer who has good technique is that they lift the characters off the page.

3. There are more senses than sight. So many writers are locked into describing scenes in terms of what you can see. When I write I try to describe scenes in terms of noise and smell, with taste and touch being introduced if appropriate. This is not something I have been taught, but I think it makes me a better writer.

Anyone else?

Mmm this one needs a bit of thought.

Use your imagination to the full, there are no limits or boundaries.

Use your descriptive powers to the full to keep your reader interested, Try to make it gripping and attention grabbing.

Make sure you check for correct grammar and spelling, no-one wants to read an illiterate piece.

Can't think of anyting else for the moment, will this do?

Kat

I've rarely had a rule-based approach to any endeavour, and writing is no different. If I have to stop and think of the rules, I'm either missing something really fundamental or I'm being too lazy to think for myself.

The essential thing is to understand what you are trying to achieve with a piece of writing. Keep that in mind, and the story will take shape around it.


Alex

Good extension of the thread, Sibelius.

I'd say, yes absolutely to all of Kat's and Sibelius's and add one rather longer but fundamentally simple point:

Every word should be doing at least two jobs. If it isn't, it isn't earning its keep, and should be evicted in favour of something that does. What I mean is, a word should make the story move on - be functional - but also contribute in terms of one or more of:

sense: is any ambiguity desirable, or not?
immediacy: are sound, smell, feel, taste and emotion exact and not generalised?
sound: rhythm, assonance, change of pace, lilt; what's this word doing to the sentence?
character: is it right and vivid and exact for that person/voice?
imagery: does the simile or metaphor not only describe the thing or situation accurately, but also add something, linking with other images, or suiting the character making it
ideas: does the thing/situation fit into a larger pattern of ideas that you're exploring

These are just possibilities. The point is that, in an ideal world, I dust down every word that I write, to make sure that it's doing all the jobs that a word in that place possibly could. After all, even an 'and' could be a 'but' or a 'so' or a 'therefore'. So, is 'and' the best possible word for that place? If not, what is?

If anyone can reduce that thought to a key, one-sentence principle, I'll buy them an e-drink.

Emma

Alex,

Good story, I could tell you lots of funny stories, it's not all maudlin and sad working for an undertakers, sometimes we would be crying with laughter - not in front of bereaved families I hasten to add.

I'm not generally scared of the dark, but when I very first started in the profession, I used to have to lock up at the end of the day. I would often be on my own as the funeral director was out seeing a family or something.

I had to leave by the back door after making sure the front door was locked and switching out all the lights. The only problem was, to get to the back door I had to go through the mortuary where the bodies were kept.

In the winter when it got dark at 4.00 pm, I used to leave at 5, and when I turned all the lights out, it was pitch black. I used to run like hell through the mortuary with my little heart beating like crazy. I knew there was nothing to harm me, but still, in the back of my mind I used to imagine all sorts. I got used to it eventually.

Sorry for diversing from the serious thread!

I'm off to cook dinner now, bye, 'talk' to you all next week, have a good weekend.

Emma, how about:

Be a wordsmith: forge your words into the story so that they bind it together.


Alex

Alex,

Surely when you come to edit your own work you have to apply some learning to it. There must be standards and techniques you use to ensure that the work is as good as it can be.

I think it's quite revealing that you introduce the word rules, suggesting your perception of technique or craft is something limiting, a strait jacket on your creativity, rather than a foundation from which your imagination can spring.

Surely when you come to edit your own work you have to apply some learning to it

Yes, but if it's stuff I've truly learnt, I won't have to reduce it to a set of rules before applying it. My subconscious mind may well have worked out rules, of a sort, but the result will come through to me as a "feel" for what I'm doing.

It's like speaking a foreign language. If you have to stop and think of the grammatical rules and the vocabulary, you'll never understand half of what's said, and you'll take forever to string a sentence together. To do it properly, you have to think in the language, and that means having a much deeper awareness than holding a set of rules in your conscious mind.


Alex

Is it a case of which comes first? The story or the telling of the story?

I'd say story, every time. Once you've got that down you can go back and edit and trim etc.. That's what redrafting/rewriting's for in my opinion, but I suppose we all do things differently.

Nik.

Nik, you've summed up my approach exactly. I've tried all manner of ways of attacking the writing of a story, and the only one that works for me is to sketch it out as fully as possible, and then go back and polish it afterwards.

I daresay we all apply rules of one sort or another, all based on experience of some kind. Some will be based on things we've read that seemed to work, while others may be based on having tried things ourselves in the past that either did or didn't work (because negative results also teach us). For me, though, having to formulate those rules into words stops me from being able to apply them, because then I suffer from what is sometimes called "paralysis of analysis" (i.e. you're so busy analysing and applying rules, you're not actually achieving anything).


Alex

I agree, Alex, but I must say as well that I'm always pretty consious of the rules as I write even the most sketchiest of outlines. The more you put in to the original bare bones of a draft, the less work you have to do when you come to revising.

Rewriting can be like unravelling a length of twisted and knotted telephone wire, don't you think!

Nik.

Alex,

I think you misunderstand my point.

I'm certainly not advocating that during the initial writing stage you hinder yourself with 'rules'. This is the art bit, the free-flowing fun bit and dare I say the bit that we enjoy the most. Trying to make it all perfect by remembering every bit of advice at this stage would be a ridiculous notion.

The craft bit is where you sit down and polish what you've written in those early drafts. That's when you have to use the lessons you've learned and apply good technique to make the writing better.

Like I say, these aren't rules and this is not a case of referring to a list on the wall to make sure all the boxes are ticked or adhering to some XYZ formula, it's about using knowledge that you've gained to make the end product better.