for me writing is a lightning bolt moment. these do happen more if you write every day and you have habits, but its still just a bolt from the blue. for me, it starts with a character name. some weird part of me can picture a whole person from a name.
of course, sometimes it starts with a scene. this is most common if i have not been writing for a while. the best way to get writing again (for me, anyhow) is to set a scene, to jabber about a storm, or a diner, or who the fuck knows. the canary yellow first page of WAR DANCES that vibrates with each pull of a tension headache. just whatever.
very rarely do i start a blank page with a fully formed idea.
Showing posts with label write. Show all posts
Showing posts with label write. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Stylized Destruction
Literature, or more precisely 'literary fiction' has no real set of rules. There is, though there is the vague notion that it should be about people coping with something, and not the event itself. Literary fiction defies classification. If you can explain to someone what kind of story you're reading (or writing) in a sentence, then you, my friend are likely in some genre or another. Literary fiction defies cliché. The literary author can take something cliché, like the amnesiac story arch, and manage to make it his own.
Literary fiction exists to break the rules, by sacrificing technical perfection to achieve a voice that is the author's own. You could compare two literary authors and tell the difference, almost instantly from one to the other. On the reverse, comparing two 'bestsellers', or, one, and a piece of dime-store smut, and that difference in voice most assuredly goes the way of the dinosaur.
Literary fiction also tends not to offer closure, in the traditional sense, but rather a pragmatic, functional ending where the players continue their lives, better or worse, for the experiences they have encountered in the story.
The literary author is recognized, sometimes more for his stylized destruction, than anything. When looking at Raymond Carver, for example, it is impossible not to notice how blunt and cold his descriptions are, or how his characters relate to one another. But at the same time, that is what makes a Carver story so distinct to Carver. Almost everything that does not need to be said is cut away, and what is left is barebones story. When this is compared to someone like Tolkien, the difference is immediate. Tolkien spends pages and pages describing a field, or a sword, or a lake, or a mole on someone's ass.
Some literary authors take this a step further and eliminate whole sections of the language. Adverbs, and pronouns are common enemies of this writer, for example. An adverb is something that the literary author destroys to create voice. People can do things stupidly, we all would agree, but the literary author cares more about what that looks like, or smells like, or sounds like. What is stupidly really saying about this action, or this person? The personal pronoun “I” is often eliminated from first-person writing because it can act as a speed bump, every time a reader hits it, he is removed from the story and the disbelief the author has created for him. Cliché expressions, such as 'wringing your hands' may also be cut away in the name of explaining them physically.
You might also see these writers use a lot of comparison. Everything is something else. The moonlight is the color of ice cubes, maybe. This puts the reader more into the story, and also makes their picture unique to them. The writer might go further though, and incorporate a body part. A foot, or penis or something of that sort, so that the color of ice cubes effects a specific skin tone. This might also further differ the reader's picture.
Physical descriptions of the characters are also kept to a minimum by some literary authors. All of this is to keep the reader picturing. The literary author has no need to describe a person's whole wardrobe, or every curl of their hair, or the exact shade of green their eyes might be.
So, that about covers it. Wouldn't you say?
Literary fiction exists to break the rules, by sacrificing technical perfection to achieve a voice that is the author's own. You could compare two literary authors and tell the difference, almost instantly from one to the other. On the reverse, comparing two 'bestsellers', or, one, and a piece of dime-store smut, and that difference in voice most assuredly goes the way of the dinosaur.
Literary fiction also tends not to offer closure, in the traditional sense, but rather a pragmatic, functional ending where the players continue their lives, better or worse, for the experiences they have encountered in the story.
The literary author is recognized, sometimes more for his stylized destruction, than anything. When looking at Raymond Carver, for example, it is impossible not to notice how blunt and cold his descriptions are, or how his characters relate to one another. But at the same time, that is what makes a Carver story so distinct to Carver. Almost everything that does not need to be said is cut away, and what is left is barebones story. When this is compared to someone like Tolkien, the difference is immediate. Tolkien spends pages and pages describing a field, or a sword, or a lake, or a mole on someone's ass.
Some literary authors take this a step further and eliminate whole sections of the language. Adverbs, and pronouns are common enemies of this writer, for example. An adverb is something that the literary author destroys to create voice. People can do things stupidly, we all would agree, but the literary author cares more about what that looks like, or smells like, or sounds like. What is stupidly really saying about this action, or this person? The personal pronoun “I” is often eliminated from first-person writing because it can act as a speed bump, every time a reader hits it, he is removed from the story and the disbelief the author has created for him. Cliché expressions, such as 'wringing your hands' may also be cut away in the name of explaining them physically.
You might also see these writers use a lot of comparison. Everything is something else. The moonlight is the color of ice cubes, maybe. This puts the reader more into the story, and also makes their picture unique to them. The writer might go further though, and incorporate a body part. A foot, or penis or something of that sort, so that the color of ice cubes effects a specific skin tone. This might also further differ the reader's picture.
Physical descriptions of the characters are also kept to a minimum by some literary authors. All of this is to keep the reader picturing. The literary author has no need to describe a person's whole wardrobe, or every curl of their hair, or the exact shade of green their eyes might be.
So, that about covers it. Wouldn't you say?
Friday, September 4, 2009
making dialogue do the work
Every now and then I'm going to say shit that people are going to disagree with. This is probably going to be one of those things.
Just like with making places real. The way people talk makes them real. If someone leaves out the letter g a lot. As in leavin' or fuckin' you as a reader are going to see them in a different way, because you are attributing them with an accent based on the way they're talking. When you make such assumptions, some of the societal stereotypes built around people with the accent you have given this character will also become true.
But wait, there's more. Dialogue and back and forth can be used to paint scenes as well. Isn't that cool? Too often in writing, especially in class settings, people rely far too much on exposition. The big voice adjectives that tell us what everything looks like. There is not anything wrong with this approach. Almost all writers do this. Why not be different though? Take this semi-formed idea from this morning. The location isn't fully fleshed out, but you can see what I'm getting at. A better example, maybe after some food.
Fifty Bucks. He says. Fifty fucking dollars, Man. Didn't your fucking mother teach you to read. There is no more than fifty goddamned dollars in here. Not counting the penny cup, there. He points at the gun. Put that shit down. You won't kill me for a fucking video game and some fucking pennies.
Frank pushes the end of the thirty-eight further over the counter. The clerk looks at him, eyes traveling back and forth between the dark opening of the revolver and the dark holes in the center of Frank's eyes. The clerk, he smiles. It's not even loaded is it, you idiot shit? You don't think I don't have a Remington twelve gauge back here? Maybe I got a Smith & Wesson three-fifty-seven back here under the Swisher Sweets.
The clerk glances my way. He's not so smart is he? Did he even get you a gun? He's leaving you to the crows, Kid.
He thumbs the hammer back; says he's seen this shitty movie before. This asshole doesn't have shit back there. If he had firepower back there we wouldn't be having this talk. Besides, he isn't getting near enough money to shoot someone. I used to work at one of these slushy stands. Frank says this, laughing. They tell you to just give people the stupid money. Your life is worth more than what's in the store. Blah, blah, blah. Anyone willing to knock over a fucking glorified snack bar might be willing to put a few cents worth of lead into your face. It's all the same propaganda, Dude. It's all scare tactics. There's more than fifty bucks. They got a safe hidden behind that cigarette rack. The poster behind it never changes. Why? You aren't supposed to notice. Just hiding in plain sight. Right there is enough money from selling beef jerky to get us to Mexico.
Just like with making places real. The way people talk makes them real. If someone leaves out the letter g a lot. As in leavin' or fuckin' you as a reader are going to see them in a different way, because you are attributing them with an accent based on the way they're talking. When you make such assumptions, some of the societal stereotypes built around people with the accent you have given this character will also become true.
But wait, there's more. Dialogue and back and forth can be used to paint scenes as well. Isn't that cool? Too often in writing, especially in class settings, people rely far too much on exposition. The big voice adjectives that tell us what everything looks like. There is not anything wrong with this approach. Almost all writers do this. Why not be different though? Take this semi-formed idea from this morning. The location isn't fully fleshed out, but you can see what I'm getting at. A better example, maybe after some food.
Fifty Bucks. He says. Fifty fucking dollars, Man. Didn't your fucking mother teach you to read. There is no more than fifty goddamned dollars in here. Not counting the penny cup, there. He points at the gun. Put that shit down. You won't kill me for a fucking video game and some fucking pennies.
Frank pushes the end of the thirty-eight further over the counter. The clerk looks at him, eyes traveling back and forth between the dark opening of the revolver and the dark holes in the center of Frank's eyes. The clerk, he smiles. It's not even loaded is it, you idiot shit? You don't think I don't have a Remington twelve gauge back here? Maybe I got a Smith & Wesson three-fifty-seven back here under the Swisher Sweets.
The clerk glances my way. He's not so smart is he? Did he even get you a gun? He's leaving you to the crows, Kid.
He thumbs the hammer back; says he's seen this shitty movie before. This asshole doesn't have shit back there. If he had firepower back there we wouldn't be having this talk. Besides, he isn't getting near enough money to shoot someone. I used to work at one of these slushy stands. Frank says this, laughing. They tell you to just give people the stupid money. Your life is worth more than what's in the store. Blah, blah, blah. Anyone willing to knock over a fucking glorified snack bar might be willing to put a few cents worth of lead into your face. It's all the same propaganda, Dude. It's all scare tactics. There's more than fifty bucks. They got a safe hidden behind that cigarette rack. The poster behind it never changes. Why? You aren't supposed to notice. Just hiding in plain sight. Right there is enough money from selling beef jerky to get us to Mexico.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Thoughts on Reluctant Narration Prompt
Now, let's talk about what we learned doing this. For most people this is hard to do, so if it pissed you off don't worry. In some styles of writing the amount of times the writer says “I” directly correlates to their competence. If this isn't for you then it isn't for you. I do this, right now, exclusively, and that is part of why this project is happening.
The main problem with this I see is that your character is instantly relegated to the role of follower. He is always going to be the second banana to a more interesting character (like Tyler Durden from “Fight Club”) not to say that this result is not without merit, but it gets worse. Instead of toadying to charismatic like Durden, your narrator's role in the story could potentially become the worthless and incompetent camera man from any horrible first person movie you can think of. The worst I can think of is “Cloverfield”. Don't write that. No one wants to read that shit.
Of course, if you do this well, your character can cruise through every scene and say “me, me, me, you fucker!” and be in every scene like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” and do it without a blazing neon sign pointing at him, and establishing his authority at the beginning of ever paragraph or sentence.
A great book that makes this point is Dermaphoria by Craig Clevenger.
The main problem with this I see is that your character is instantly relegated to the role of follower. He is always going to be the second banana to a more interesting character (like Tyler Durden from “Fight Club”) not to say that this result is not without merit, but it gets worse. Instead of toadying to charismatic like Durden, your narrator's role in the story could potentially become the worthless and incompetent camera man from any horrible first person movie you can think of. The worst I can think of is “Cloverfield”. Don't write that. No one wants to read that shit.
Of course, if you do this well, your character can cruise through every scene and say “me, me, me, you fucker!” and be in every scene like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” and do it without a blazing neon sign pointing at him, and establishing his authority at the beginning of ever paragraph or sentence.
A great book that makes this point is Dermaphoria by Craig Clevenger.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
3 A.M. Epiphany
So, I gave this new endeavor some additional thought, and decided that random ranting is fun, but it isn't going to serve my purposes very well. They for sure will not do it alone. Doing it alone is boring anyway.
Since writer's block and my distinct lack of motivation is what brings us here for the first part of this very not thought through idea, I am going to start where the English major in me would have you start as a writer.
Prompts.
I have chosen The 3 A.M. Epiphany by Brian Kitely. It can be purchased at this link, if you want to do this with me. http://www.amazon.com/3-AM-Epiphany-Brian-Kiteley/dp/1582973512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249769788&sr=8-1
The activities in this book start out easy, and anyone should be able to get going with them, and feel accomplishment by doing them, and yet they aren't bull shit either. No describing numb feelings or explaining your favorite color to blind people who happen to be sadists.
Starting today, it's my goal to do one of these a day, and at least talk about how it works or doesn't. No opinion yet on whether or not the finished prompts should be posted here. I will take comments on that one.
We'll see how long it takes to get my own writing coming out, working this way, I mean. Decisions will be made at that point how this project will unfold, but it will continue.
Since writer's block and my distinct lack of motivation is what brings us here for the first part of this very not thought through idea, I am going to start where the English major in me would have you start as a writer.
Prompts.
I have chosen The 3 A.M. Epiphany by Brian Kitely. It can be purchased at this link, if you want to do this with me. http://www.amazon.com/3-AM-Epiphany-Brian-Kiteley/dp/1582973512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249769788&sr=8-1
The activities in this book start out easy, and anyone should be able to get going with them, and feel accomplishment by doing them, and yet they aren't bull shit either. No describing numb feelings or explaining your favorite color to blind people who happen to be sadists.
Starting today, it's my goal to do one of these a day, and at least talk about how it works or doesn't. No opinion yet on whether or not the finished prompts should be posted here. I will take comments on that one.
We'll see how long it takes to get my own writing coming out, working this way, I mean. Decisions will be made at that point how this project will unfold, but it will continue.
It starts
My name is not William Pitts, and I may or may not know what the fuck I am talking about or spouting as truth. What I will say is this is going to be a ride for everyone involved. You, me, my girlfriend, my family, and my pets.
It appears at this point that finishing things is not my strong point, and for that matter, neither is talking about myself. Having said this, what's happening here is more or less doomed to failure. Here's the deal: I intend to get myself writing by ranting at random, and with as much honesty about my writing education as I can muster.
There is no game plan for this, and I have no idea what you will see, if you see anything at all. After all, why would you read this? This out of the sea of people talking about themselves.
From underneath the 12 by 12 Mondrian on my celling, for now, until something else comes out of my fingers, goodnight.
It appears at this point that finishing things is not my strong point, and for that matter, neither is talking about myself. Having said this, what's happening here is more or less doomed to failure. Here's the deal: I intend to get myself writing by ranting at random, and with as much honesty about my writing education as I can muster.
There is no game plan for this, and I have no idea what you will see, if you see anything at all. After all, why would you read this? This out of the sea of people talking about themselves.
From underneath the 12 by 12 Mondrian on my celling, for now, until something else comes out of my fingers, goodnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)