Writing therapy

[c.e.lawson]

Since I have a raging head cold today and the Benadryl isn't helping my writing any, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about perceived specific problem areas within our own writing. Whoever wants to participate can identify one of their own weak areas, and maybe other wise writers can give some advice or tricks to improve on that. Any takers?

I'll start. :o One of the issues I see in my writing is a lack of inventiveness in how I say things. Not the story itself or the characters (I hope!), but the actual words. For instance, I'll use phrases like "her heart pounded" or "tall and broad-shouldered", and I have a lack of figurative language. In my WIP, it took me until well into my second chapter to write my first simile, and then it was "Her carefully prepared speech had slipped from her brain like water through a sieve." Wow...creative! (not)

The funny thing is, this is one of the things I've been self-conscious of since I began showing my work to others, but I've not been called on it. (People are so nice.) Yet it seems glaring to me.

So how might I work to improve this? Exercises on figurative language? Any authors you might recommend me reading to see how they do it? (And yes, I've already told myself simply to try to write better, LOL! It's not for lack of trying, really. :)

So that's one of my issues.

Anyone else want to join in?

c.e.

[lfraser]

You know, when I look back at some of the stuff I wrote a couple of years ago, I am struck by how much figurative languge I used -- and it's not necessarily good. A lot of it comes across as overblown. I suspect that's a mistake a lot of begining writers make. There is no need to use high-falutin' language.

When I'm reading these days I spend quite a bit of time actually looking at the writing. For instance, I'm re-reading George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones series, and while it's high fantasy, he doesn't constantly rely on figurative imagery and language to tell his story. He uses, for the most part, very simple language to tell his story. But because he's a pro, he uses that simple language deftly. That's the skill I'm trying to learn.

[joyce]

You know, when I look back at some of the stuff I wrote a couple of years ago, I am struck by how much figurative languge I used -- and it's not necessarily good. A lot of it comes across as overblown. I suspect that's a mistake a lot of begining writers make. There is no need to use high-falutin' language.

When I'm reading these days I spend quite a bit of time actually looking at the writing. For instance, I'm re-reading George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones series, and while it's high fantasy, he doesn't constantly rely on figurative imagery and language to tell his story. He uses, for the most part, very simple language to tell his story. But because he's a pro, he uses that simple language deftly. That's the skill I'm trying to learn.

This is me, too much figurative language. I'm overly descriptive when I describe things while talking, so I think this carries over in my writing. I've been told I write like I talk. I never realized it was a bad thing until I entered this board. Now I'm trying to find a happy medium between keeping it simple and still letting a little of my figurative language flow. Actually is was quite depressing learning I needed to change up my style.

[avid-dreamer]

I think my weakest area is the dialogue. I'm naturally not a very talkative person - usually in my thoughts when I'm around others and I find that comes out in my characters. So I struggle with my dialogue scenes. Sometimes I have to act the entire scene out and write each item down. I kinda learned not to do that in public - people think I'm nuts:D

[sneakers145]

I've found that less is more in terms of narrative and dialogue. I've gone back to some of my favorite books, to scenes that were so vivid and memorable, to see how the author did that. And what strikes me is how simple the language is, how little there is, and how much our minds really fill in the blanks.

As a beginning writer I thought I had to show every nuance of a scene, every tilt of the head, every purse of the lips, as well as be more descriptive in my scene setting. I've had to learn how to be ruthless in my pruning, and how 'less is more.'

[PeeDee]

C.E. Even if it seems glaring to you, don't worry about it. If no one's calling you on it, it may not be a big deal. It's like a tiny discolored spot on your carpet that's driving you slowly mad, and you have no idea why none of your guests can see the damn things.

And one thing to remember about any part of your writing that makes you hesitant: Don't dismiss it too quickly (though I don't think you are). I'd bet good money that you could come back to the story in six months, a year, ten years, and read good parts and bad parts....and I bet the bad parts won't be the ones you spot now.

Sometimes I write scenes that seem like absolute garbage. And when I go back through to edit, I never quite remember which of these scenes were so awful.

The writer's mind is a good thing, but if you're not careful, it can try to eat itself and your writing. So keep an eye on it. (Or take more drugs. One or the other!)

[PeeDee]

I like figurative language when it's used well. Jack London, Charles Dickens, Herman Melville, J.R.R. Tolkien, Ray Bradbury....beautiful, soaring, powerful stuff.

Beyond them? I very rarely like it.

I think you may be right in that it's a beginning writer's mistake, because I see it there a lot, when I'm in Editor Mode and reading slushpiles. You just know that some writer was really proud of writing the black clouds moved in over the town like an avenging angel. Holy crap. That's some powerful imagery for just trying to say "it's going to rain in the background of this scene."

It's useful in the right places, detrimental in the wrong places.

George Martin does a good job for exactly the reasons you say.

Right now, I'm writing a Roman novel which relies on a lot of the language common to a fantasy novel, just because the time period is similar (meaning, they can hardly hop in a Cadillac or anything). But what I'm trying hard to do is pull my influences from different places. I'm writing fantasy filtered through John Steinbeck rather than Tolkien. Through Elmore Leonard rather than Rudyard Kipling. You see what I mean?

It's actually a challenge and a delight, to try and take a fantasy work and strip the language into something that's not high-falutin' fantasy language.

You know, when I look back at some of the stuff I wrote a couple of years ago, I am struck by how much figurative languge I used -- and it's not necessarily good. A lot of it comes across as overblown. I suspect that's a mistake a lot of begining writers make. There is no need to use high-falutin' language.

When I'm reading these days I spend quite a bit of time actually looking at the writing. For instance, I'm re-reading George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones series, and while it's high fantasy, he doesn't constantly rely on figurative imagery and language to tell his story. He uses, for the most part, very simple language to tell his story. But because he's a pro, he uses that simple language deftly. That's the skill I'm trying to learn.

[Wraith]

The writer's mind is a good thing, but if you're not careful, it can try to eat itself and your writing.
That is so precise! Eat itself. Yeah. That's exactly what my mind is trying to do.

'Bout figurative lanuage, I suggest to leave it like that while you're writing the first drafts, if you feel like describing things in a cliche, do it; and then when you rewrite you'll notice and you can think more on it and choose your wording carefully. If you do it while actually writing you're likely to ruin the flow. I used to have the same problem (heart-pounding and what not) with situations I haven't been through, when the first thing at hand is a cliche. What I do now is let my imagination run free and I come up with a lot of strange similes, some of which are ridiculous and will get cut, and others which I had no idea I could think about and which will stay. So these are the two ways that work for me. :)

I have too many problems in my writing to identify just one, but I think my worst is POV. I switch it too often, used to head-hop until recently, and can never realise whether writing mainstream/literary allows me to juggle with it or not. Right now I'm pressing on the best I can, trying to switch only when needed and to keep it clear; but it's hard because almost all of my characters have their own story which sometimes demands a POV fragment. I'm slowly improving, though; browsing past threads on this has helped a lot.

[Azraelsbane]

When I first started writing I used way too much figurative language. Then I realized less was more (at least in my main genre).

As for what I need to work on now, definitely setting/description. I know a lot of people go overboard on this, but I'm just the opposite. I give a few things here and there, but I think I often leave the reader lacking. Thing is, I know exactly what my setting looks like, I just suck at writing description that isn't 1) full of flowery prose or 2) unbelievably frickin' boring. ;)

[PeeDee]

Wraith,

Yeah, I agree with you, for the most part. I would advise a writer to be as figurative as need be, and then consider it and strip it in the re-write. Personally, I do that sort of thing in the first draft, but that's just me. (I do the vast majority of my work in the first draft).

I'm also happy that you're browsing past threads. I think more people could use to do that. So many things have been discussed at length through here, you can find all sorts of things with a little digging.

Even head-hopping, done right, can work. It's that "done right" which is key. Charles de Lint, for example head-hops wildly. As with all things writerly, if it works, then who cares?

[PeeDee]

As for what I need to work on now, definitely setting/description. I know a lot of people go overboard on this, but I'm just the opposite. I give a few things here and there, but I think I often leave the reader lacking. Thing is, I know exactly what my setting looks like, I just suck at writing description that isn't 1) full of flowery prose or 2) unbelievably frickin' boring. ;)

I think we're a bit similar on this problem: I also know exactly how my scenes look (down to the tiniest detail; it's just something that turns up in my head) but I tend to underdescribe them. Sometimes, it's just because the story is busy happening and I don't have a place to stop and talk about the scene. Sometimes, I just don't want to. This is actually something I go back and add in when I'm doing my second draft, in bits and pieces.

[c.e.lawson]

LOL, the last thing I expected was to be told "Don't worry about it."

lfraser - 'using simple language deftly' - I'm going to tuck that phrase away in a safe place and remember it. Thanks.

sneakers145 - excellent point about remembering to let readers fill in the blanks. I probably over stage-direct at times.

PeeDee - You're telling me not to worry about it, and then you effortlessly use a wonderful simile about the carpet that illustrates your point perfectly. :) THAT'S what I want to do! I love your example about the black clouds moving in. OK - I do take your point and it was very well made. Thank you.

Wraith - wonderful point about trying to get this type of stuff into first drafts. You're SO right - I've spent lots of time trying to come up with just the right phrase during the first draft, and all that does is slow or stop the flow. No problem in tagging my cliches to fix later! Thanks!

So, to those who responded, I can see your points about overblown writing, and I'm feeling a little better now, so thanks! (This site is great.) But some people seem to have a knack for writing completely fresh turns of a phrase that can just blow me away because they're just...perfect. And different. Maybe they've struggled for days trying to come up with those exact words. (Yeah - I'll stick with that opinion. :))

[Carrie R.]

I'll start. :o One of the issues I see in my writing is a lack of inventiveness in how I say things. Not the story itself or the characters (I hope!), but the actual words. For instance, I'll use phrases like "her heart pounded" or "tall and broad-shouldered", and I have a lack of figurative language.

Hey C.E. -- I think it's really easy to use phrases like "her heart pounded" or "tall and broad-shouldered" because that's what we read all the time. Sometimes, you just use those descriptions because they work and get the point across. But if the description really matters, what I try to do is spend time putting myself in the scene. My heart has pounded before -- what did it feel like? What were the sensations? Every time I write a sensation (either physical feeling or emotion), I try to think back to when I've experienced it and try to write what it really feels like.

To me, this is something that can make the writing really pop and can make the reader really understand how the character feels. At the same time, I think it's easy to over-do this and so I only use it when it's important. Hope that made sense :)

[Wraith]

Wraith,

Yeah, I agree with you, for the most part. I would advise a writer to be as figurative as need be, and then consider it and strip it in the re-write. Personally, I do that sort of thing in the first draft, but that's just me. (I do the vast majority of my work in the first draft).

I'm also happy that you're browsing past threads. I think more people could use to do that. So many things have been discussed at length through here, you can find all sorts of things with a little digging.

Even head-hopping, done right, can work. It's that "done right" which is key. Charles de Lint, for example head-hops wildly. As with all things writerly, if it works, then who cares?
Yes, especially when the figurative language is powerful, there's no need for a lot of it. For me, in the rewrites, it's a matter of improving description and removing everything redundant, everything that's not worth mentioning. I'm learning how to describe atmosphere when I seem to describe settings, because that's what I like in books I read and it's dealt with much faster. Also, when I say exactly what I mean, the way I see it in my head (which is sometimes pretty hard), I avoid cliches as well as exaggerated imagery.

On the head-hopping thing, you really think it can work? Wow, I thought it was the hell of writerdom. I'm terrible at seeing techniques in my fav books so I don't know if I ever saw it done right, but what you're saying gives me new hope. I try hard to avoid it, but there's one scene where i like it and i felt so guilty because of that. Also, one question - because the limit between 3rd limited and omniscient is a bit fuzzy for me - in 3rd limited can you show something the character can't see/doesn't necessarily notice? Because otherwise it'd be sort of like 1st person. I'm so clueless. :D

C.E., I'm glad I could be of help! I've had that happen, getting stuck because I thought too much on a word :)

[Kudra]

My weakest area, I think, is vocabulary. English is a second language to me, so even though I know I speak (and write) it better than most native speakers, it sometimes feels like I've missed out.

[scarletpeaches]

My weakness is perhaps stimulating only one of the senses at a time. I sometimes get it into my head, "I haven't appealed to the reader's sense of smell for a while!" and tend to that, then forget about sight, sound, touch and taste. Of course, you can't have a 100% constant sensory novel - you have to have exposition sometimes, or dialogue, or backstory that doesn't quite seem as stimulating but it's something I could work on.

I think I'm good at dialogue. I know how to shave it right down and only put in the essentials. But my sensory stimulation could use some work.

[lfraser]

It's actually a challenge and a delight, to try and take a fantasy work and strip the language into something that's not high-falutin' fantasy language.

That's the greatest difficulty I'm having at the moment. It's just too darned easy to use verbal puffery when writing a fantasy.

I'm still at the point where my writing is influenced by what I'm reading -- not consciously of course, but it happens. I can tell which authors I was reading when I wrote certain portions of my WIP. That being the case, and since it seems unavoidable, I made a conscious decision to read George Martin while I'm writing my male character so that the writing comes out clear and simple. Since the chapter I'm writing right now is the very first one in the WIP, I'm hoping that when I'm editing (some time around the year 2009 at the rate I'm going) I'll pick up on that simplicity right from the start and apply it to the entire...novel (I always hesitate to use that word to describe my WIP. It seems so presumptuous.)

I should add that seeing the influence of other writers in my work is not a bad thing. It means I'm learning. The problem is consistency.

[PastMidnight]

Dialogue is definitely one of my weaknesses. Man, do I struggle with that! I think that I'm better with sensory description.

On a shallow level, I have a weakness for using the word 'that' excessively, as has been pointed out in SYW recently. :D It drives me nuts, because it's one of those things that I don't notice myself in my writing.

[KTC]

I struggle with THAT too. Think is, I don't struggle with it while I'm writing. I don't even realize I do it. What I do do is a FIND on THAT and decide on an individual basis whether or not to keep them. I am always shocked by how many there are. The think is...I don't slow my writing to keep them on a minimum. I always do the THAT search right before going to the editing process, right after finishing the first draft.

[PeeDee]

Something about this thread just makes me compulsively want to reply to it, even though it isn't Come to Pete For Therapy . Hm. :)

LOL, the last thing I expected was to be told "Don't worry about it."

So many writing problems are caused by over-thinking when you can solve them by writing. In writing, you don't need to puff up your chest and march head-on at the problem. It's one of the few places in life where you can actually serve yourself better by running away. See a problem in Chapter 2? Quick, write your way through to the end of the book! I bet when you come back and find a problem, it will not seem so large, so impossible, and sometimes...it won't even be the problem you were looking for.

lfraser - 'using simple language deftly' - I'm going to tuck that phrase away in a safe place and remember it. Thanks.

It's a very wise phrase and, I think, that if you look through a great deal of literature, you can find that this is carried out well. My favorite example is John Steinbeck. His books are beautiful and poetic and languid and...yet...if you get down into the actual mechanical bits of it, you find that he uses very simple sentence structure and repetition of words to great effect. He writes extremely simply. But if you're just reading it, you don't spot that. Unless I look closely at the parts, John Steinbeck reads like Jack London or Rudyard Kipling (all three men make me feel like I'm a six year old writing in crayon).

sneakers145 - excellent point about remembering to let readers fill in the blanks. I probably over stage-direct at times.

Another one of my favorite examples that I've used elsewhere on these forums. I was discussing description of the environment when I made use of it, but I think that it fills in here too. It is this:

At the beginning of a stage play, someone does not come out and make the audience pay attention to the set pieces, discuss how long they took to build, talk about what shades of red they used, what shades of green, discuss how they have fixed the set pieces to wheels for easy set changing, and so on. No, the lights go down, the curtain comes up, you get quiet, people come onto the stage...and a story happens. (Or, if it's your local college character study, then shit happens). It's an important thing to carry over to your fiction. I try my hardest.

PeeDee - You're telling me not to worry about it, and then you effortlessly use a wonderful simile about the carpet that illustrates your point perfectly. :) THAT'S what I want to do! I love your example about the black clouds moving in. OK - I do take your point and it was very well made. Thank you.

The example about the black clouds moving in is a phrase that I came up with when I was ten years old. I was hugely proud of it, and I used it casually in conversation, because I was trying to emphasise that I Was A Very Important Writer. My mom congratulated me on the creative phrase and I, very proud, began to talk like that around other people because I was very impressed.

A lot of adults complimented me to my mother, saying that I was well spoken. But increasingly, I was more and more uncomfortable. This wasn't how I talked and I recognized the dishonesty of it even then. It's like wearing fake glasses to school because you want to look like one of the smart kids.

I adore comparisons -- such as the carpet reference -- because I can explain to you what I mean and the feeling I'm trying to convey easier than I can just by spelling it out. I always have been able to. If you ever listen to me argue (which I don't do often, publically or on these forums) you would note that I frequently make comparisons to support my point.

My point here is twofold. First, I try to speak plainly and simply, because if I speak long and languid and poetically...it's boring. It's like talking to someone who can only speak in press releases and political speeches.

Second, comparisons are wonderful ways of connecting an obscure meaning with an obvious meaning and thus sharing a feeling between the two. But too many of them wind up sharing too many feelings without ever explaining anything. And I can't explain it better than that without a comparison, which I'm not going to use.

Wraith - wonderful point about trying to get this type of stuff into first drafts. You're SO right - I've spent lots of time trying to come up with just the right phrase during the first draft, and all that does is slow or stop the flow. No problem in tagging my cliches to fix later! Thanks!


Wraith is absolutely right: When in the first draft, run away from your problems. Focus on writing forward. Some writers fix their problems and do their work in the first draft. I do. But the problem is, when you (a general "you") hear about it, perhaps it inclines you to try and do that too. Maybe it makes it a bit lazy and dishonest to do your better work in your second draft, your third draft. You know? The problem is, it's not dishonest, it's just how different writers work. There are pros and cons. For example, if I don't do my best work in the first draft and produce something that's polished...then I am much more paralyzed in the second draft.



On the head-hopping thing, you really think it can work? Wow, I thought it was the hell of writerdom. I'm terrible at seeing techniques in my fav books so I don't know if I ever saw it done right, but what you're saying gives me new hope. I try hard to avoid it, but there's one scene where i like it and i felt so guilty because of that. Also, one question - because the limit between 3rd limited and omniscient is a bit fuzzy for me - in 3rd limited can you show something the character can't see/doesn't necessarily notice? Because otherwise it'd be sort of like 1st person. I'm so clueless. :D


The thing about "writerdom" is its a lot of nonsense. Maybe I'll catch flak for this, but I really like this thread and I'm being inordinately honest. Listen: Anything you can make work....is fine, and works.

BUT...as someone once said "Before you can be properly eccentric, you must know the rules." And that's true. Just because Charles de Lint can make head-hopping work doesn't mean it's a good idea, doesn't mean it won't be confusing for everyone else. It's like jumping right into sword swallowing without learning the throat techniques. It's a bad idea. (ALthough on the writing end, it's less bloody).


That's the greatest difficulty I'm having at the moment. It's just too darned easy to use verbal puffery when writing a fantasy.

It is. It really is. Part of the reason is, if you've read other fantasy works, it infuses so much of it. Plus, you can't use strictly modern language. Your fantasy novel can't sound like it was written by a Boston gangster...

...or can it? And why not? True, you can't always use the most modern of terminology, but that's no reason for every line to sound like a bad translation of Shakespeare.

I think that it would be wonderful to read a fantasy novel, as if written by John Steinbeck. and what about the language of Rudyard Kipling, whom I already mentioned? Beautiful stuff, but not complex and fluffy. Read Tolkien closely and you find that he really uses a simple language too. So often, they were using the language they were speaking. The problem comes when WE, a hundred years later, try to use the language they were speaking. It's as awkward as someone who barely speaks English writing an english novel. It may read fine, but it reads stiff.

I'm still at the point where my writing is influenced by what I'm reading -- not consciously of course, but it happens. I can tell which authors I was reading when I wrote certain portions of my WIP. That being the case, and since it seems unavoidable, I made a conscious decision to read George Martin while I'm writing my male character so that the writing comes out clear and simple. Since the chapter I'm writing right now is the very first one in the WIP, I'm hoping that when I'm editing (some time around the year 2009 at the rate I'm going) I'll pick up on that simplicity right from the start and apply it to the entire...novel (I always hesitate to use that word to describe my WIP. It seems so presumptuous.)

I should add that seeing the influence of other writers in my work is not a bad thing. It means I'm learning. The problem is consistency.

Don't worry about the consistency, or the influence. They're both something that every writer deals with. I don't think there's a need to deal with it. Eventually, it all blends together into the whacky stew that eventually settles into your own writing style. There's nothing you can do about it...but you can be conscious about it.

When writing your male fantasy character, why not read Ernest Hemingway? See if he starts to sound like someone out of Farewell to Arms. Why not read Raymond Chandler? Sure, you're going to come out influenced, but you can steer that your own way.

And mostly, don't worry about it. I think that applies to so much writing: Don't worry about it, just keep going forward. The problems will mend themselves magically behind you. Does that seem implausible? Sure. But it's true, as far as it goes.

[lfraser]

When writing your male fantasy character, why not read Ernest Hemingway? See if he starts to sound like someone out of Farewell to Arms. Why not read Raymond Chandler? Sure, you're going to come out influenced, but you can steer that your own way.

Funny thing is, I re-read Farewell to Arms quite recently, and The Sun Also Rises (which is one of my favourite books).

In an earlier post in this thread I was going to say that (and now I'm wiping sweat off my fevered brow in relief that I didn't) if my fantasy writing came out sounding like Hemmingway, it would not be such a good thing, but then I remembered The Snows of Kilimanjaro and A Clean, Well Lighted Place and realized that being influenced by writing like that could be nothing less than wonderful when writing a fantasy novel, because my story is not a sword and sorcery action adventure; it's about people living in difficult times and struggling with themselves and although that sounds rather grandiose and I probably won't be able to carry it off, there's no reason not to use Hemingway or Steinbeck or even Elmore Leonard as influences.

But I do think you also have to read widely in your own genre to understand it.

[PastMidnight]

At the beginning of a stage play, someone does not come out and make the audience pay attention to the set pieces, discuss how long they took to build, talk about what shades of red they used, what shades of green, discuss how they have fixed the set pieces to wheels for easy set changing, and so on. No, the lights go down, the curtain comes up, you get quiet, people come onto the stage...and a story happens.


What an excellent, excellent comparison, PeeDee. If I had a dedicated writing area in my flat, I would print this out and hang it there as a reminder. Your analogy is clear and succinct, a perfect example in itself of how figurative language should be used. It tells me much more than the oft-repeated advice to 'just start with the action'.

[Sunkissed27f]

I found myself one night, while writing my 1st WIP, just staring at the computer screen.
Why?
I was trying to describe a scene in exaggerating detail.
I wanted my scenes to be 3-d to readers, no matter what.

After 30 minutes of rewriting a paragraph, I pushed the keyboard away in disgust and didn't touch it for almost a week.
I read a book, watched some tv, and then read another book.
In the 2nd book I came across a paragraph that resemble closely what I was trying to say in my WIP.
The paragraph was simple, but hit every one of my senses and it led me on a tiny adventure.
Less is sometimes more.
After that I began to write brief descriptive paragraphs, not overloading the adjectives.
At editing, I would look at what I wrote and THEN I would change anything that didn't give me a clear enough picture.
I want my readers to be able to use their imagination, and all I need to do is nudge them along on their journey, not take their hand and point out every "black, stormy, menacing, rain cloud" on the horizon.

[joyce]

Oh the great adjective......an addiction I'm trying so very hard to get over. I know that is what is wrong with my first novel, the damn adjectives! I've set it aside for now, one day I will return to it and fix it. Now I have two other WIP's and I'm paying more attention to the adjective flaw I have. I'm trying no longer to take up space describing what every pimple looked like on the man's face. When I work on my other WIP's I keep trying to remember that less is more.

[PeeDee]

I do absolutely agree that you need to read within your genre in order to write well there. HOwever, I think that it's important that one of the things you're realizing is that you don't have to write like that. I mean, you've already read that, why retread it again, you know?

So while I think it's important to read your genre, I think it's important to read widely and then meld the two. To say What would have happened if "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" had been set in Middle-Earth?

I keep coming back to this idea: What if The Grapes of Wrath was set in a traditional fantasy sort of world, during a Great War (like the War in Middle-Earth, you see.) What would happen with this family? And what if it were written stripped-down, like Steinbeck? Or Peter Straub? What if?

It's a delight. It can elevate a mundane idea into something much more.

Funny thing is, I re-read Farewell to Arms quite recently, and The Sun Also Rises (which is one of my favourite books).

In an earlier post in this thread I was going to say that (and now I'm wiping sweat off my fevered brow in relief that I didn't) if my fantasy writing came out sounding like Hemmingway, it would not be such a good thing, but then I remembered The Snows of Kilimanjaro and A Clean, Well Lighted Place and realized that being influenced by writing like that could be nothing less than wonderful when writing a fantasy novel, because my story is not a sword and sorcery action adventure; it's about people living in difficult times and struggling with themselves and although that sounds rather grandiose and I probably won't be able to carry it off, there's no reason not to use Hemingway or Steinbeck or even Elmore Leonard as influences.

But I do think you also have to read widely in your own genre to understand it.

[JoNightshade]

So, to those who responded, I can see your points about overblown writing, and I'm feeling a little better now, so thanks! (This site is great.) But some people seem to have a knack for writing completely fresh turns of a phrase that can just blow me away because they're just...perfect. And different. Maybe they've struggled for days trying to come up with those exact words. (Yeah - I'll stick with that opinion. :))

A writer friend of mine simply excels at figurative language. She could cut herself and she would bleed metaphors. Her writing is ethereal and highly symbolic and very literary.

I am not like her. I can appreciate figurative language all I want, but I suck at writing it. I worried about this for a while and tried to improve, but then I realized something: My brain just doesn't work that way. I'm not a figurative person. I'm down to earth, straightforward, and my primary goal in any writing is to communicate something effectively. So my prose is sparse and simple.

I'd love to be a Bradbury, but the truth is I'm more of a Steinbeck.

Then I realized, what if Steinbeck had spent all his time worrying about the fact that he wasn't a Bradbury? I love Steinbeck for who he is. So I need to accept my own writing for what it is... and it's not figurative. I think sometimes we have the highest appreciation for things we can't do well. Because I wasn't good at figurative language, it assumed this huge importance for me. But it's just another tool in writing, like any other. If you can use it, so be it. If you can get the job done some other way, go for it.

Hmmm, what are my current issues? The one I was worrying about last night was complexity. I have this huge novel I'm trying to cut down and it seems like I always bite off more than I can chew. In some sense I think that's good, because it stretches me, but in another sense... I have so many threads going in and out that I worry my major themes are getting lost. At this point everything is so intertwined I can't pull it apart without having the whole structure collapse, so I think I have to just deal with it for this novel. Maybe in the next one I will try to be more simple...

[PeeDee]

I'd love to be a Bradbury, but the truth is I'm more of a Steinbeck.

Then I realized, what if Steinbeck had spent all his time worrying about the fact that he wasn't a Bradbury? I love Steinbeck for who he is. So I need to accept my own writing for what it is... and it's not figurative. I think sometimes we have the highest appreciation for things we can't do well. Because I wasn't good at figurative language, it assumed this huge importance for me. But it's just another tool in writing, like any other. If you can use it, so be it. If you can get the job done some other way, go for it.


This is an important thing to realize. While I adore the work of, for example, Jack London (when the man uses fierce metaphor, it's just stunning), but I'm not him. Like you, I'm more along the lines of Steinbeck. (I think. I'm probably really not.)

I love metaphorical writing, but sometimes I think you can tell someone who doesn't have a literary flowing powerful style...but who is trying to write that way. If you can't, then don't. Write as you know how. Mean what you write, don't be embarrassed of what you write. I think that's the really important bit, in the end.

(I think I am talking too much in this thread.)

[JoniBGoode]

I'll start. :o One of the issues I see in my writing is a lack of inventiveness in how I say things. Not the story itself or the characters (I hope!), but the actual words. For instance, I'll use phrases like "her heart pounded" or "tall and broad-shouldered", and I have a lack of figurative language. In my WIP, it took me until well into my second chapter to write my first simile, and then it was "Her carefully prepared speech had slipped from her brain like water through a sieve." Wow...creative! (not)


Not to be mean, but if your readers aren't calling you on this...find better Beta readers.

A writing teacher once told me "anytime you write in phrases that you've heard before, you're using cliches, which is a mistake." His point was that good writing results when we put individual words together in unique ways.

My suggestion: go ahead and write the cliches in the first draft. Then, go back and find a more unique way to express it. Instead of water through a sieve...snowflakes on a bonfire? Or whatever works for you, and for that character. As far as the broad shoulders, it helps me sometimes to go to the mall or burger joint, find an actual person, and come up with a unique description for him or her.

My biggest problem, and it's a biggie: I try the mental telepathy approach to writing. I forget that the reader knows less about these characters than I do, and I need to give the reader enough info. Instead, I write an ice cube and expect them to figure out what the iceberg looks like. Ugly.

For example, I recently wrote a short story where a guy is trying to pick up a girl in a bookstore. He thinks that she is reading either Madame Bovary or the latest paperback James D. MacDonald scifi novel. I expected the reader to realize that those two books look nothing alike, which suggests that he can't see the book at all, and is actually developing an elaborate fantasy of what this girl is like. Naturally, nobody but me got the joke! AAArrrrgh!!

[PeeDee]

Not to be mean, but if your readers aren't calling you on this...find better Beta readers.

...Or there's nothing wrong there. If you see a problem that the reader doesn't, it usually means that you're just seeing too much. When working on a project, the first thing that goes is a writer's perspective. I've written stuff I thought was just awful awful awful...and no one's commented on it.

Anyway, beta readers are just unpaid volunteers who read your work, so it's not up to them to succeed or fail beyond being readers. That's all you need. Thankfully, writing doesn't have to pass a Board Review.

A writing teacher once told me "anytime you write in phrases that you've heard before, you're using cliches, which is a mistake." His point was that good writing results when we put individual words together in unique ways.

My suggestion: go ahead and write the cliches in the first draft. Then, go back and find a more unique way to express it. Instead of water through a sieve...snowflakes on a bonfire? Or whatever works for you, and for that character. As far as the broad shoulders, it helps me sometimes to go to the mall or burger joint, find an actual person, and come up with a unique description for him or her.



That just sounds like a writing teacher. Sigh. I wonder if something in the requirements for being a writer teacher says "You must use X number of blanket statements a year."

I'm very much in favor of putting individual words together in unique ways...BUT...what if you don't do it right? Like so many other aspects of writing, if you do it right then it's wonderful and exhilarating and a brilliant thing for the reader (witness: P.G. Wodehouse). But what if you do it wrong? Stephen King offered up the baffling phrase he sat by the body and waited for police as patient as a man waiting for a turkey sandwich.

What? What? Stephen King closed the book he was reading which contained that phrase. I would have looked up and gone "duh-huh?" and it would have taken me out of the story.

Cliched phrases are like adverbs. Too many, you drown your story. But trying to desperately substitute other words in their place (for example: replacing "he said lovingly" with "he ejaculated"). Too off-the-wall a phrase and your reader is pulled out of the story.

[a_sharp]

This was originally a PM to the OP, who suggested I post it. So here goes. I hope others may find it useful.

--------------

We all suffer this dearth of the well-turned phrase to one extent or another.

To add color to your vocabulary try writing poetry. Any kind will do, it doesn't matter whether it's free verse or iambic pentameter. What poetry does for me is it forces me to consider using words with economy. It doesn't work if I break the meter or cadence. Writing poems also slows me down, so that I'm not automatically rattling off the first dreck that comes to mind.

If writing poetry seems too tough a go at first, then read some, any poet, any style. You'll get a feel for turns of words.

One of my all-time favorite exercises happened at work years ago, when someone brought in a game of magnetized word blocks you could stick on the office refrigerator door. I spent about 20 minutes assembling and having fun with it and was so pleased, I kept the result!

Another exercise is to write EXACTLY 100 words on any subject without repeating a single word. Yes, boys and girls, it can be done.

The thing is, the words are in your head, you just can't pull them out when you want. The point of word exercises is to form internal speech habits that, with time, become as reflex as our copy-cat repetition of cliches. This is one of my issues with TV. It is so subliminally stultifying that it cripples our inner poet.

You're a physician, right? Your profession is tangled up in a very specific argot involving physiological and chemical and biotechnical terms that are probably part of your daily vocabulary and even your casual expression. I had the same to a lesser degree as a computer analyst--the acronyms and corporate lingo were very difficult to shut off at will when I sat down to write fiction. The poetry helped a lot.
--------------

I should add that I came into poetry late in life, and I don't consider mine worthy of publication. Rather, it helps with what I really want published, my fiction.

[lfraser]

And to the OP -- sometimes the heart does pound. Mind does, when I try to fall asleep at night. Pound is exactly the right word to describe what my heart is doing (and believe me, it's damned loud -- I sleep with ear plugs, which magnifies the sound). Why be afraid to use it if that's what you want to say? Of course, if hearts are pounding away on every other page, then you've got a problem.

Someone said recently, on this board, that certain phrases are almost invisible, and although they're unoriginal, they get the message across clearly. I did a "comonly used phrase" count on a few pages of a book recently -- one I would consider to be a good one -- and found four.

[Joycecwilliams]

I'm still at the point where my writing is influenced by what I'm reading -- not consciously of course, but it happens. .

I don't think this has to do with your growth as a writer, I went to seminar where Jane Yoland gave a talk and she said she never reads fiction, if she is writing fiction or non fiction when she is writing non fiction, because it seeps in.

[J. R. Tomlin]

Hmmm The problems in my writing seem to me to be a matter of going up a grade. I no longer overuse "crutch" words like then. I never used adverbs much and use a minimum of adjectives. I write fairly decent dialogue, I've been told. I generally get a pretty good balance between narration and action, although my writing started out excessively "spare". I used to resist putting in any description at all. :D So it's not bad.

But it all needs to be better. Not just ok but really good. And it's hard to do (for me anyway) to push your writing up a notch.

[Joycecwilliams]

One writing exercise I do is to re-write my story in words of one syllable. I know that sounds simplistic, however think about it. Coffee is a two syllable word... you would need to find another way to word the story.. maybe cup of Joe, or black muck in a mug. I found the exercise totally refreshing.

[PeeDee]

I don't think this has to do with your growth as a writer, I went to seminar where Jane Yoland gave a talk and she said she never reads fiction, if she is writing fiction or non fiction when she is writing non fiction, because it seeps in.

That's fine and good, but plenty of writers -- everyone from Ray Bradbury, to Stephen King, to Neil Gaiman, to Terry Pratchett just to think of a few interviews I've read off the top of my head -- talk about the developmental stage of writing where you tend to lean toward the authors you read, and the emphasis is on the fact that there's nothing wrong with that. And there really isn't.

You write like Bradbury for a bit, before moving on to write like John Creasey, but there are pieces of Bradbury that will remain in the back of your mind. It does all eventually melt together to form your own writing style, and that's fine. What forms will be a result of what you read, who you are, and where you've come from, and that's how it should be.

When I'm writing fiction, and I'm working on a hard part -- ninety percent of my Rome novel, for example -- I tend to get stuck in grooves. I'll read the same book or two over and over again. I can have them memorized and just be reading random bits from them, but I somehow can't read anything new. It's just my mind processing. I'm not copying anything from those books into my novel (particularly since I seem to read Pratchett, and he's certainly not turning up in my Rome novel), it's just my mind working.

It's not a bad case, reading non-fiction while writing fiction, or the other way around. But I can't see it doing it out of fear of contamination.

[PeeDee]

Hmmm The problems in my writing seem to me to be a matter of going up a grade. I no longer overuse "crutch" words like then. I never used adverbs much and use a minimum of adjectives. I write fairly decent dialogue, I've been told. I generally get a pretty good balance between narration and action, although my writing started out excessively "spare". I used to resist putting in any description at all. :D So it's not bad.

But it all needs to be better. Not just ok but really good. And it's hard to do (for me anyway) to push your writing up a notch.

It's also fun and exciting. You can feel your writing skills, your brain, and your manuscript sort of unlocking. It's like unfolding wings you didn't know you had and flexing them a little bit. It's a joy.

[Judg]

I think the poetry suggestion is fantastic. I've been hitting my old poetry books lately (and a couple of new ones) and being just swept away.

Oh as I was young and easy in the mercy of his means
Time held me green and dying
Though I sang in my chains like the sea.

I am falling in love again with the incredible beauty of language in the hands of a master.

... My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!

Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here
Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion
Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!

It is helping me become more conscious of my own language, not in a negative, fearful way, but in a joyful, savouring-the-experience kind of way.

Gr-r-r — there go, my heart's abhorrence!
Water your damned flower-pots, do!
If hate killed men, Brother Lawrence,
God's blood, would not mine kill you!
What? your myrtle-bush wants trimming?
Oh, that rose has prior claims —
Needs its leaden vase filled brimming?
Hell dry you up with its flames!

[c.e.lawson]

Wow. I have found the comments on this thread to be interesting and helpful and wise in so many ways. But of course I've been nothing but impressed by the people on this site since I've joined. Thank you all for taking the time to share some of your wisdom and experience. I hope I didn't miss anybody with the reps!

And PeeDee - psychotherapists out in my town can make 150 or more an hour. Ouch. Send me the bill, and I'll start putting Grandma's sterling silver up for auction. ;) But really - thank you so much for your insight and encouragement.

So how about we keep plugging away at this wonderful craft?

c.e.

[a_sharp]

I remember a poem by A. E. Housman that was an overnight assignment in a college lit. course. I had never been interested in poetry before, but I started looking for what he was really saying and wrote it down for the paper.

Then I took another look and saw an entirely new layer to it. So I added that. And then I found more stuff, and suddenly it was 1:00 am and I had to quit. I got an A+ on the paper, but it was the first time I got an appreciation for the value of poetry.

That teacher, by the way, said that poetry should be spoken, not read, in order to get the meaning. I suppose that's why we have audible poetry "readings."

[PeeDee]

That teacher, by the way, said that poetry should be spoken, not read, in order to get the meaning. I suppose that's why we have audible poetry "readings."

On that, a teacher and I agree on something. Poetry should absolutely be spoken. I think that you lose whole worlds of meaning when you just read Robert Frost, or e.e. cummings, or Walt Whitman to yourself.

And of course, then you don't get to sing Emily Rose poems to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas" which can be done with very nearly every single poem by her... :)

[ccarver30]

I feel like I need more description. I have a clear idea in MY head, but I need to write it down so OTHERS can have a similar picture.
Also, my 19th century women don't adhere to many rules of their time- a possible problem in the conceivable dept.

[Wraith]

The thing about "writerdom" is its a lot of nonsense. Maybe I'll catch flak for this, but I really like this thread and I'm being inordinately honest. Listen: Anything you can make work....is fine, and works.

BUT...as someone once said "Before you can be properly eccentric, you must know the rules." And that's true. Just because Charles de Lint can make head-hopping work doesn't mean it's a good idea, doesn't mean it won't be confusing for everyone else. It's like jumping right into sword swallowing without learning the throat techniques. It's a bad idea. (ALthough on the writing end, it's less bloody).
Yeah, you're right. It's just like surreal painting - you can always tell when a painting has distorted figures and skewed proportions because the painter couldn't do otherwise, or because he meant it and wanted to convey something through it. In that last case, they usually know the rules and also know when to break them. I used to be all against rules in writing, but I realised it's a good thing to know them if only to break them deftly - and in the end it does help to say what you mean: weed out all cliches and redundancies and leave you more conscious of your own voice. Of course the day I start worrying about what is accepted or not in writing, just for the sake of it, is the day I'm no longer a writer at all; but so far wondering about these things has only helped me realise what effects certain techniques have. And bloody or not, I don't like head-hopping :D

I feel like I need more description. I have a clear idea in MY head, but I need to write it down so OTHERS can have a similar picture.
That's one of the hardest things to do. Imo, the important thing is to realise you don't need to describe in detail to give your reader that image. Let them add to it, fill in the specific details, while through a fitting phrase you put them right there, in the atmosphere of that place/thing. While reading, just like in life, we all relate everything to subconscious images we already have. Sometimes a book makes you discover pictures you never thought you had in your mind (that's what LotR did to me - I felt like it took me in a forgotten part of my unconscious, not just in the mind of the writer). Reading the same words you and I will imagine slightly different things; that's why they say the reader is the second writer. But as long as all these have the same feeling and atmosphere, as long as they make the reader feel your emotion in their own mind, that's accomplished description to me. And that can be anything from long, beautifully-crafted passages to lack of description in itself. I think in a book a setting is never a mere setting - and if it is it's probably not worth describing anyway. But that's just imo :)

On the other thing with the 19th century, I have no clue how far you can stretch facts in historical novels. If they're strong characters it's probably ok; I imagine that even then women found their way around the rules when they needed to. :D

[jannawrites]

What a great, helpful thread! You all have good thoughts.

I tend to agree with the less is more school of thought, but when my goal is to... here it comes, that dreaded phrase... show vs. tell, it's hard to find a happy medium between the simple/effective and descriptive/engaging. I've been told I have a knack for describing scenes so that the reader feels like they were there,but I don't want to make the mistake of being too wordy, too flowy.

Which, in a way, brings me to my recently discovered issue: I'm a Word Nerd. It was recently pointed out that I use words in my novel, say, in dialogue, that most people don't bring up in casual conversation. Big words. Multiple-syllable words. Words that jar the phrasing... Bad Nerd! I'm trying to quit.

[Zelenka]

My main problem is with plot, I think, and with endings in particular. No matter how hard I try to get a great climax to the plot, I seem to get lost along the way. I've tried all sorts of methods of writing outlines, and I've tried writing freefall without notes at all, and the results were exactly the same. It's quite hard to describe but the plot, no matter how good it sounds when I write it as an outline, never feels natural to me when I write it.

I just hope that doesn't mean I'm doomed as a writer.
Jess

[Nateskate]

Since I have a raging head cold today and the Benadryl isn't helping my writing any, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about perceived specific problem areas within our own writing. Whoever wants to participate can identify one of their own weak areas, and maybe other wise writers can give some advice or tricks to improve on that. Any takers?

I'll start. :o One of the issues I see in my writing is a lack of inventiveness in how I say things. Not the story itself or the characters (I hope!), but the actual words. For instance, I'll use phrases like "her heart pounded" or "tall and broad-shouldered", and I have a lack of figurative language. In my WIP, it took me until well into my second chapter to write my first simile, and then it was "Her carefully prepared speech had slipped from her brain like water through a sieve." Wow...creative! (not)

The funny thing is, this is one of the things I've been self-conscious of since I began showing my work to others, but I've not been called on it. (People are so nice.) Yet it seems glaring to me.

So how might I work to improve this? Exercises on figurative language? Any authors you might recommend me reading to see how they do it? (And yes, I've already told myself simply to try to write better, LOL! It's not for lack of trying, really. :)

So that's one of my issues.

Anyone else want to join in?

c.e.

This is not easy, but for a time, think only in metaphors and allegories. It's something that requires practice. But an apple is never an apple, truth is never a book definition. I was once in a restaurant with my son and I said, "How would you describe this room in a novel?" I was actually practicing in real time, because the trick was to get my mind to stretch.

Lol, the obvious, which wasn't as easy as it seems, was to read "old". I'd read Mark Twain and think, "I love the way he said that!" Or read Tolkien's description of Morder, which I think is brilliant.

[WVWriterGirl]

Traveling. I know y'all are talking about concepts more esoteric that this, but it's the one sticking point in any of my work that I just can't seem to get beyond. Characters need to get from Point A to Point B to move the story along, but I find the exercise of travel tedious and boring. What can I do to make it more appealing for me to write, and in turn, more appealing for others to read?

[lkp]

wvwritergirl, I know what you mean! I just cut an entire chapter out of my novel at the suggestion of my agent because all they were doing was having a little conversation here, and then drifting down the river, having another conversation there, and then drifting some more.
I moved the essential conversations and meetings to different parts of the ms, cut out all the travelling and just said at the end of the previous chapter that they were going from A to B to C and it was going to take longer than they wanted. The next chapter begins at B.

[qdsb]

And of course, then you don't get to sing Emily Rose poems to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas" which can be done with very nearly every single poem by her... :)

Did you mean "Emily Dickinson"? Because I absolutely relied on that "Yellow Rose" melody when I took my GRE English lit exam for grad school! Pretty sure it helped me get at least one Dickinson question right. :)

[PeeDee]

I did mean Emily Dickinson. Duh. It was early, I had no tea, I was a vegetable with internet access. :)

[JoNightshade]

Traveling. I know y'all are talking about concepts more esoteric that this, but it's the one sticking point in any of my work that I just can't seem to get beyond. Characters need to get from Point A to Point B to move the story along, but I find the exercise of travel tedious and boring. What can I do to make it more appealing for me to write, and in turn, more appealing for others to read?

I just cut these parts out. I figure the reader can pick it up. If it's that hard to figure out, I'll give a one-sentence summary that tells how they got from A to B.

I was having a hissy fit the other night because I (this was in another thread) had characters A, B, and C in one spot and characters D and E in another. I needed A, B, and D to end up together and C and E to end up together... without having E see A and B. Okay, that's confusing. What I ended up doing was just ignoring the whole problem. It turned out like this:

Scene with A B and C ends.

"After A and B took C back into the house, they went to find D." Scene with A, B, and D.

Scene with C and E.

I didn't even address the fact that it would be difficult for A and B to see D without passing E. Nobody will ever notice.

[qdsb]

Re: figurative language. My suggestion would be to read, read, read. I'm in the middle of reading Frazier's Cold Mountain, and I highly recommend it for a lesson in effective use of figurative language and metaphor. He employs such unusual adjectives and metaphors, but they really work to create powerful images. (I'm not even halfway through so it's possible he goes overboard, but we'll see.)

What I have the most trouble with, I think, is just plain ol' depth...gravitas. One of my dear, close, most beloved beta readers tends to end up with the same constructive crit..."It's good, but it seems...well...kinda slight."

I mean, I can work on selecting more effective nouns and verbs to avoid piling on weaker adjectives and adverbs. I can tighten dialogue. I can play around with different plot ideas and characters. I can figure out different ways to put words together and describe actions and build plots...But how does one add Depth? Ugh.

[PeeDee]

I mean, I can work on selecting more effective nouns and verbs to avoid piling on weaker adjectives and adverbs. I can tighten dialogue. I can play around with different plot ideas and characters. I can figure out different ways to put words together and describe actions and build plots...But how does one add Depth? Ugh.

I've tried to answer the questions in this thread to the best of my ability (even though it wasn't really asked for) but...oof. I have no idea on that one. Or rather, I probably have several ideas, but I'll have to stew on it for awhile before I have anything useful to tell you.

It DOES give me something interesting to think about, though. I'll probably come up with something useful several days after it's done being discussed... :)

[Soccer Mom]

For me, depth is something more organic and intrinsic to the story. You can use all your writerly skills to craft your story well, but the depth comes from the story itself. Are the characters alive? Do they face meaninful risk? Is the conflict realistic and exciting?

[mscelina]

Depth for me comes in the different layers a writer adds to their characters and plot. It's a sensory experience, an emotional experience, a visual experience. It's what takes the story to the point where a movie unfolds in the reader's mind. It's what you have left when you prune away the fluff, the bare skin stretched over the skeleton of your story that gives it texture and richness.

Yeah, it's the stuff I have to put back after my first rewrite.

[c.e.lawson]

Re: figurative language. My suggestion would be to read, read, read. I'm in the middle of reading Frazier's Cold Mountain, and I highly recommend it for a lesson in effective use of figurative language and metaphor. He employs such unusual adjectives and metaphors, but they really work to create powerful images. (I'm not even halfway through so it's possible he goes overboard, but we'll see.)

What I have the most trouble with, I think, is just plain ol' depth...gravitas. One of my dear, close, most beloved beta readers tends to end up with the same constructive crit..."It's good, but it seems...well...kinda slight."

I mean, I can work on selecting more effective nouns and verbs to avoid piling on weaker adjectives and adverbs. I can tighten dialogue. I can play around with different plot ideas and characters. I can figure out different ways to put words together and describe actions and build plots...But how does one add Depth? Ugh.

Fascinating question, qdsb. For me, to give a story depth would be related in some way to making sure it has some underlying meaningful theme, in addition to the plot, action and characters. Your characters' behaviors, the events and the structure of the story all serve to support/enhance/illustrate this theme. It's not simply a story that shows stuff happening (although of course it does), but it tells us something beyond the events and the people in the story. Something bigger. Where the various components of the story add up to something beyond the surface that we can relate to. Does that make sense? That's part of it for me, anyway.

I'm currently writing historical fiction, and Steven Pressfield discusses theme relating to historical fiction in this article in Solander:
http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org/solander/theme_character.htm

Good luck,

c.e.

[PeeDee]

Paddy Chayevsky said this about writing a play: “Once I figure out what the theme of the work is, I type it out in one sentence and tape it to the front of my typewriter. After that, nothing goes into the play that isn’t on that theme.”

I think that just reshaped my whole entire novel, all by itself.

THat's a wonderful article, C.E. What I'm writing with my Rome novel is closer to historical fiction than anything else. That's the first article that's spoken directly to what I'm working on. Thanks.

[c.e.lawson]

I think that just reshaped my whole entire novel, all by itself.

THat's a wonderful article, C.E. What I'm writing with my Rome novel is closer to historical fiction than anything else. That's the first article that's spoken directly to what I'm working on. Thanks.

Oh my gosh, PeeDee - I'm SO glad I did something you might find even remotely helpful, after all of the wonderful advice I received from you over the past 24 hours. You should try hanging out with us over in the Historical threads - I'm working on ancient Sparta, and there's another writer there working on one heck of an ancient Rome novel. And we've got monthly challenges of scenes from WIPs in the SYW historical. It's been a fascinating experience for me. People there are quite knowledgeable about this genre.

c.e.

[PeeDee]

....I didn't even know it was there. I didn't know we had a historical section, but this is why I dig AW: I've been here for years and not known that, and now I'm happily on my way to explore.

And that article was wonderful. I've just printed it out for safekeeping, and bits (like that quote I posted) are scribbled on post-it notes and stuck next to my computer. :)

*ambles off in search of Historical wossnames*

Oh my gosh, PeeDee - I'm SO glad I did something you might find even remotely helpful, after all of the wonderful advice I received from you over the past 24 hours. You should try hanging out with us over in the Historical threads - I'm working on ancient Sparta, and there's another writer there working on one heck of an ancient Rome novel. And we've got monthly challenges of scenes from WIPs in the SYW historical. It's been a fascinating experience for me. People there are quite knowledgeable about this genre.

c.e.

[PastMidnight]

What a great link, c.e.! Thanks for sharing!

[JoNightshade]

I think maybe DEPTH was the issue I was struggling with in terms of complexity. I'm trying to write something with gravity, with themes that SAY SOMETHING, but in a sense I almost have too many. Or to me, it feels like they're not connected enough. I don't want the theme to take over my work, but at the same time I feel like I'm somewhere in between Story and Meaning. Is this a good balance? I have no idea. I don't want to go to heavy, but I don't want to chuck it out altogether.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, do I? :)

[PastMidnight]

Oh, I hear you, Jo, but am afraid that I don't have any advice, as I struggle with this too. In this revision, I've been tossing out subplots that were only originally added to make the story more 'meaningful'. I'm realizing now that it is more meaningful without the extra bits, because the reader can concentrate on the story I am trying to tell without getting bogged down in the parts where I was trying to be clever or literary. I'm trying to start with a clean, simple base of a story and then see where I can add on layers of meaning.

[a_sharp]

Oh my gosh, PeeDee - I'm SO glad I did something you might find even remotely helpful, after all of the wonderful advice I received from you over the past 24 hours. You should try hanging out with us over in the Historical threads - I'm working on ancient Sparta, and there's another writer there working on one heck of an ancient Rome novel. And we've got monthly challenges of scenes from WIPs in the SYW historical. It's been a fascinating experience for me. People there are quite knowledgeable about this genre.

c.e.

Second the motion. Come on over to Histerical. We're also under SYW with some truly excellent work and crits. Oops, I see C. E. already pointed that out. Jump in anyway.

[Ava Jarvis]

In my WIP, it took me until well into my second chapter to write my first simile, and then it was "Her carefully prepared speech had slipped from her brain like water through a sieve." Wow...creative! (not)

First of all, it's not bad to not use a simile until chapter two. Second, it's good that you recognize it's a cliche; that means in the rewrite, you'll know to fix it. Third, sometimes a simile is over the top. Actually, lots of times a simile is over the top.

Tightening up the language (removing the helper verb, for instance, and choosing a more appropriate and specific word) will help more than a simile, I think, especially in this case.

"Her carefully prepared speech vanished from her mind."

Similes are useful, however, in some cases. Perhaps you're trying to draw out tension... then they can be useful, along with other techniques for focusing in. But it seems unlikely here (though I don't know the context, so I could easily be wrong).

Even if you have useless similes, though, they can be pruned out in the rewrite. It's more important that you write through the first draft with passion and feeling, immersed and all that.

I'd argue that similes can be popped into the rewrite just as easy as removing the useless ones. I've done that. The best similes echo the context around them, even chapters before (as irony) or chapters after (as foreshadowing). I would go on the spare side... it saves trying to grab things from the air, because the first thing you grab is very likely a cliche.

The funny thing is, this is one of the things I've been self-conscious of since I began showing my work to others, but I've not been called on it. (People are so nice.) Yet it seems glaring to me.

You'll fix it later, then. :) I will sometimes mark out cliches, but to tell the truth, cliches are not the worst problem in the world. A good passage usually carries me over cliches. Unless there are WAY too many of them.

As for exercises... I suggest doing critiques and beta reads. This will teach you how to examine writing more closely, which lets you learn and reinforce lessons, such as cliches and similes (when they are missing, you notice; when there's too many, you also notice).

I do absolutely agree that you need to read within your genre in order to write well there. HOwever, I think that it's important that one of the things you're realizing is that you don't have to write like that. I mean, you've already read that, why retread it again, you know?

Reading within the genre is necessary not so much to reuse the formula, but to learn a) the language and mores and stereotypes (my favorite is from P.I. fiction, the Psycho Sidekick), b) the audience, c) what *has* been done, so that you'll learn what "fresh" means in the genre. Because to get through the slush pile, you need to be fresh.

But yes, everyone should read widely, even into areas you wouldn't normally go. These days I eat a lot of non-fiction.

My writing problems are pretty severe. My technique is fairly okay, but my plot and characters are not. That's a waaaay tougher (and deeper) problem to solve.

[Ava Jarvis]

I'd love to be a Bradbury, but the truth is I'm more of a Steinbeck.

Then I realized, what if Steinbeck had spent all his time worrying about the fact that he wasn't a Bradbury? I love Steinbeck for who he is. So I need to accept my own writing for what it is... and it's not figurative.


This is one of the best pieces of advice, I think. :)


To add color to your vocabulary try writing poetry. Any kind will do, it doesn't matter whether it's free verse or iambic pentameter. What poetry does for me is it forces me to consider using words with economy. It doesn't work if I break the meter or cadence. Writing poems also slows me down, so that I'm not automatically rattling off the first dreck that comes to mind.


That's very excellent advice!

(On the 100 words, I also Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/) a moderate amount. You have 140 letters to say what you want to say. It's helped cut down on my wordiness too....)


That teacher, by the way, said that poetry should be spoken, not read, in order to get the meaning. I suppose that's why we have audible poetry "readings."
On that, a teacher and I agree on something. Poetry should absolutely be spoken. I think that you lose whole worlds of meaning when you just read Robert Frost, or e.e. cummings, or Walt Whitman to yourself.

Tolkien also loses something when he's not read out loud. My favorite way to listen to Lord of the Rings is via audiobook.


I mean, I can work on selecting more effective nouns and verbs to avoid piling on weaker adjectives and adverbs. I can tighten dialogue. I can play around with different plot ideas and characters. I can figure out different ways to put words together and describe actions and build plots...But how does one add Depth? Ugh.

I think maybe DEPTH was the issue I was struggling with in terms of complexity. I'm trying to write something with gravity, with themes that SAY SOMETHING, but in a sense I almost have too many. Or to me, it feels like they're not connected enough. I don't want the theme to take over my work, but at the same time I feel like I'm somewhere in between Story and Meaning. Is this a good balance?


Here is some advice I've picked up from random books (_How to Write a Damn Good Novel_, Bell's _Plot & Structure_, Swain's _Techniques of the Selling Writer_).

a. Pick one theme. The most important one. The one that drives everything else. Frey calls it the premise. The others use 'theme'.

b. Now you can focus on that theme. Trim out stuff that doesn't support the theme. Yeah, I know, it sounds like it's lightening the work, but hang on for c.

c. Add stuff that supports the theme. You are effectively adding layers. Instead of distributing your weight thinly among many themes (even conflicting ones), focus on weighing down on one focused theme.

Weirdly enough, when you go back and read books you've enjoyed the most, they tend to do the above. Even in Harry Potter, throughout all seven volumes, the main theme that always came back to haunt the characters was about dealing with death.

Sub-themes can definitely be there, but one overdriving main theme---and it doesn't have to be obvious, it can be, and is probably best being, subtle---will work. And if you have sub-themes, try not to have too many, and try not to contradict the main theme. (Anti-examples still support the main theme.)

I am horrible at plotting, so I try to scrap up every morsel I can find on the subject.

[Ava Jarvis]

Oh, there is at least one technique I have problems with. Wordiness and run-on sentences!

[qdsb]

I think maybe DEPTH was the issue I was struggling with in terms of complexity. I'm trying to write something with gravity, with themes that SAY SOMETHING, but in a sense I almost have too many. Or to me, it feels like they're not connected enough. I don't want the theme to take over my work, but at the same time I feel like I'm somewhere in between Story and Meaning. Is this a good balance? I have no idea. I don't want to go to heavy, but I don't want to chuck it out altogether.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, do I? :)

YES YES YES!

That helps flesh out the Depth thing I'm talking about.

I "have" underlying themes, and some of the details I use are meant to symbolize those themes. (For instance, in one of my "literary" short stories, a couple has "Happy Family"--a Chinese entree--for dinner. It's ironical, and the story goes on to depict a disconnected couple going through the motions.)

I do try to layer, but I guess I don't do it very well...yet. I don't know if I effectively communicate Meaning through the Story. It's definitely tough to dance the fine line between subtle and heavy-handed when it comes to thematic elements.

Thanks for all the responses. And thanks, c.e., for that great link...I keep meaning to join the HNS since one of my current WIPs is a historical (and I do have themes in mind! :) ). :)