Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Let's not be passive about this
I'm confused when my various tutors tell me not to use a passive voice.
In the long-gone heady days of my English teaching, I understood the passive voice to be like this:
'The water was heated until it boiled.'
'She was given a fantastic send-off when she retired.'
However, I seem to cross the line from active to passive, in my writing, when I use 'was' or 'were' in a sentence, e.g.
'He was an important man.'
'She was weary of it all and it all seemed insurmountable.'
Why, in fiction writing are these constructions seen as 'passive' and how do you avoid them?
In the long-gone heady days of my English teaching, I understood the passive voice to be like this:
'The water was heated until it boiled.'
'She was given a fantastic send-off when she retired.'
However, I seem to cross the line from active to passive, in my writing, when I use 'was' or 'were' in a sentence, e.g.
'He was an important man.'
'She was weary of it all and it all seemed insurmountable.'
Why, in fiction writing are these constructions seen as 'passive' and how do you avoid them?
Comments
It [all] wearied her...
==
here are some tips I copied from somewhere
Passive verbs
Too many passive verbs slow and weaken a narrative with wordinesstighten and strengthen your sentences by naming who did what. This is where your list of creative writing tips will help. Add is, was, were, am, and are to your personal checklist and change as many passive verbs as possible to the active form.
Not: The papers were laid on the desk.
But: Morgan laid the papers on the desk.
Not: What was most worrying to her...
But: What most worried her...
Passive Verbs: Avoid Them (and still use "was")
Creative writing instructors tend to get obsessive about removing passive verbs from fiction.
I've harped on this subject so much I have occasionally caused students to agonize over how to avoid using "was" and other forms of "to be" completely. So let me be clear: You needn't banish every was, were, am, are and is from your writing. Instead, learn when to use these verbs and when not to.
Various forms of "To be" verbs are necessary as linking verbs. I used one in the previous sentence to link the subject of the sentence (verbs) to an adjective describing it (necessary). For example:
* He is hungry.
* She was thirsty.
* The train was late.
However, both passive verbs and the continuous verb form cause problems for writers.
We call a verb passive when a writer uses a "to be" verb to place the focus on the object of the sentence, rather than on the subject.
Too many passive verbs clutter writing and weaken sentences. The result is dull writing. Efficient, active verbs reduce wordiness and create more powerful sentences. For example:
Passive: Pizzas are eaten after most games.
Active: We eat pizza after most games.
Passive: There are too many people who want to go.
Active: Too many people want to go.
Passive: He is liked by most people.
Active: Most people like him.
Passive: I was taught by Professor Gibbons.
Active: Professor Gibbons taught me.
Inexperienced writers also tend to overuse the continuous verb form, which may weaken and slow writing. Often the past or present tense would make writing crisper. For example:
Continuous: She was wearing a purple jacket so he would recognize her.
Past: She wore a purple jacket so he would recognize her.
Continuous: He was going to eat before he left.
Past: He planned to eat before he left.
To correctly use the continuous tense, use it only when the action is necessarily ongoing. For example:
Correct: I was walking the dog when the car hit the tree.
Incorrect: I walked the dog when the car hit the tree.
Correct: She was talking on the phone when I dropped by.
Incorrect: She talked on the phone when I dropped by.
The past tense in either of these examples would change the meaning of the sentence, and the past continuous works better. Tip: Notice that the word "when" often accompanies the correct use of the continuous form because something interrupts the action.
Questions also correctly use the continuous verb form:
Correct: Are you planning to drive with us?
Correct: Is he coming with you or me?
Correct: Was I supposed to meet you at 6:30 or 7:00?
If you know the difference between these verb forms, you may use "was" with confidence when necessary and avoid incorrectly using passive or continuous forms.
I eventually found an article which clarified things a bit for me - it may be on Talkback. (I'll see if I can find it.) It's more an apologetic way of speaking. A sort of would-you-mind-doing-this rather than please do this. Er ... pretty much how I speak. :)
To find the relevant bit (it's a long article), use Edit; Find on this page; and type Scottish
http://www.themorningnews.org/article/annie-dillard-and-the-writing-life
I have added the other points to my final edit check list and I shall work on making my writing style crisper.
Thank you for taking so much trouble to answer my query.
Sure. Here are some more from the same source. [Two posts]
=====
Adverbs
Do a search for "ly" and edit as many adverbs as possible. The strongest, most powerful writing uses few adverbs because adverbs assist weak verbs, which should be replaced with stronger, more accurate verbs.
Not: He spoke softly and gently.
But: He whispered.
Another way to resolve the "adverb problem" is to rewrite the sentence.
Not: He wrote magnificently, and his essays gained the respect of all.
But: He wrote magnificent essays, respected by all.
Action/reaction
Write actions and their reactions in chronological order.
Not: She read the letter after she opened it.
But: She opened the letter and read it.
Begin at left margin
It is customary to begin a story or novel at the left margin, and to return to the left margin for each new chapter or scene. Leave one extra space between scenes.
Begin to
Don't have characters "begin to" do things. Have them take direct action.
Not: They began to speak
But: They spoke...
Crying, sobbing and tears
Crying, sobbing, and tears are considered clich
For more natural dialogue, write in short sentences, use contractions, forgo pleasantries, and compress your dialogue. Edit dialogue to its barest essentials, and dont overuse names.
Not: "Well hello there, Jackie. What a pleasure it is to see you again. I was just wondering, Jackie, if I would ever see you again on this trip or if I would have to wait until we got back to London to give you a call."
But: "Jackie! I wondered if I'd see you again."
More tension in dialogue also makes it snappier and more interesting. Use the following techniques to increase tension:
1. Have characters talk at cross purposes, so that one character either misunderstands or is purposely nonresponsive.
Not: "Did Tom find Jack?"
"Yes, I think he did."
But: "Did Tom find Jack?"
"Nobody gets up as early as Jack." Or: "Were you looking for him, too?'
2. Avoid direct responses in favour of oblique ones.
Not: "What time were you there?"
"Eight oclock."
But: "What time were you there?"
"The time is irrelevant. The better question is what can we do about it?"
Going to be
Wordy. Use "will" instead.
Not: She is going to be angry.
Better: She will be angry.
one more post
One way to make writing more polished and sophisticated is to use only occasional participial phrases. There is nothing ungrammatical about a properly placed participial phrase, but beginning writers tend to overuse them. Instead, separate the ideas into two sentences, or use conjunctions to join them.
Not: Lifting heavy tires all day, he wrenched his back.
But: His job requires him to lift heavy tires all day. Thats how he wrenched his back.
Not: Jogging down the street, he saw Shirley and her daughter get into a car.
But: He jogged down the street and saw Shirley and her daughter get into a car.
Im not going to
This is wordy. Write I wont instead.
Indenting dialogue
Create a new paragraph when dialogue changes from one character to another. You may add the character's thoughts and actions after their dialogue without beginning a new paragraph.
Intensifiers
These are the words placed before adjectives and adverbs in an attempt to intensify an effect. Search for such words as very, so, quite, extremely, really, and absolutely. We're very hungry. Thank you so much. The play was extremely good, etc. Removing them almost always improves the sentence.
Internalization
Showing a character's thoughts through internalizations often helps resolve the problem of too much telling.
Not: Alice felt frustrated by their slowness because she needed to be home in ten minutes.
But: Alice checked her watch again. She had to be home in ten minutes. Why wouldn't he get on with the lecture?
It
Be specific and name the "it" wherever possible.
Italicizing internalizations
Use italics sparingly. They're seldom needed for internalizations. You never use quotation marks around thoughts, so readers will understand that the internalization is not spoken. Also, don't have characters speak thoughts to themselves, in the first person, as if another character were present.
Not: "I've got myself in a real jam this time. But there's a wall up ahead. Maybe I can climb it and get out, but I sure hope there are no dogs on the other side."
But: Burt massaged his forehead. He'd got himself in a jam this time. Maybe he could climb the wall and get out, presuming there were no dogs on the other side.
Knew
This is another one of those times when you can cut right to the action.
Not: He knew she'd be right over.
But: She'd be right over.
Name repetition
People don't often repeat names in real life, so they shouldn't in dialogue.
Overwriting
Remove extraneous details. If you want a character to get in his car and drive away, don't have him insert the key in the lock, twist it, lift the door handle, open the door, and sit. Have him start the car and drive away.
Qualifiers
Like intensifiers, these words qualify adjectives and verbs. Look for such words as just, sort of, quite, somewhat, usually, always, and never. Theyre unnecessary. Let them proliferate, if they must, as you write the first draft, but weed them out in the second.
Repetition
Don't repeat words in close proximity unless you do it for deliberate effect. Find a synonym for one of them.
Not: "Okay, I'll meet you at your place." She placed the receiver back in its cradle...
But: "Okay, I'll meet you at your place." She set the receiver back in its cradle...
Saw/sees that
Wordy and unnecessary.
Not: He saw that she crossed the street.
But: She crossed the street.
Seem
Not: The fruit seemed ripe so he ate it.
But: He bit into the ripe pear.
Not: The car seemed to bounce along the road.
But: The car bounced along the rutted road.
Speaker attributions
If you remove unnecessary speaker attributions, you can also eliminate the "ing" constructions that often follow. For a more polished feel, eliminate as many speaker attributions as possible, and only use them if not using them will confuse readers. Show who speaks through character action, and when you do need a speaker attribution, stick to "said," and "asked." Never use speaker attributions as verbs meant to convey action. Keep action separate.
Not: "Take it," Betty said, pushing the book on him.
But: Betty pushed the book on him. "Take it."
Not: "I like it that way," Joe coughed, laughing and winking.
But: "I like it that way." Joe laughed and winked at her.
Thinker's attributions
Don't use "thinker's attributions" in the third person limited POV. If a character internalizes (interior monologue), the context lets readers know his words are thought, not spoken.
Not: I've got him now, Tom thought.
But: Tom struggled with his fishing line. There he is, I've got him now.
Things
Always edit the word "thing" or "things" and replace with a more specific word.
One way to make writing more polished and sophisticated is to use only occasional participial phrases. There is nothing ungrammatical about a properly placed participial phrase, but beginning writers tend to overuse them. Instead, separate the ideas into two sentences, or use conjunctions to join them.
Not: Lifting heavy tires all day, he wrenched his back.
But: His job requires him to lift heavy tires all day. Thats how he wrenched his back.
Not: Jogging down the street, he saw Shirley and her daughter get into a car.
But: He jogged down the street and saw Shirley and her daughter get into a car.
Im not going to
This is wordy. Write I wont instead.
Indenting dialogue
Create a new paragraph when dialogue changes from one character to another. You may add the character's thoughts and actions after their dialogue without beginning a new paragraph.
Intensifiers
These are the words placed before adjectives and adverbs in an attempt to intensify an effect. Search for such words as very, so, quite, extremely, really, and absolutely. We're very hungry. Thank you so much. The play was extremely good, etc. Removing them almost always improves the sentence.
Internalization
Showing a character's thoughts through internalizations often helps resolve the problem of too much telling.
Not: Alice felt frustrated by their slowness because she needed to be home in ten minutes.
But: Alice checked her watch again. She had to be home in ten minutes. Why wouldn't he get on with the lecture?
It
Be specific and name the "it" wherever possible.
Italicizing internalizations
Use italics sparingly. They're seldom needed for internalizations. You never use quotation marks around thoughts, so readers will understand that the internalization is not spoken. Also, don't have characters speak thoughts to themselves, in the first person, as if another character were present.
Not: "I've got myself in a real jam this time. But there's a wall up ahead. Maybe I can climb it and get out, but I sure hope there are no dogs on the other side."
But: Burt massaged his forehead. He'd got himself in a jam this time. Maybe he could climb the wall and get out, presuming there were no dogs on the other side.
Knew
This is another one of those times when you can cut right to the action.
Not: He knew she'd be right over.
But: She'd be right over.
Name repetition
People don't often repeat names in real life, so they shouldn't in dialogue.
Overwriting
Remove extraneous details. If you want a character to get in his car and drive away, don't have him insert the key in the lock, twist it, lift the door handle, open the door, and sit. Have him start the car and drive away.
Qualifiers
Like intensifiers, these words qualify adjectives and verbs. Look for such words as just, sort of, quite, somewhat, usually, always, and never. Theyre unnecessary. Let them proliferate, if they must, as you write the first draft, but weed them out in the second.
Repetition
Don't repeat words in close proximity unless you do it for deliberate effect. Find a synonym for one of them.
Not: "Okay, I'll meet you at your place." She placed the receiver back in its cradle...
But: "Okay, I'll meet you at your place." She set the receiver back in its cradle...
Saw/sees that
Wordy and unnecessary.
Not: He saw that she crossed the street.
But: She crossed the street.
Seem
Not: The fruit seemed ripe so he ate it.
But: He bit into the ripe pear.
Not: The car seemed to bounce along the road.
But: The car bounced along the rutted road.
Speaker attributions
If you remove unnecessary speaker attributions, you can also eliminate the "ing" constructions that often follow. For a more polished feel, eliminate as many speaker attributions as possible, and only use them if not using them will confuse readers. Show who speaks through character action, and when you do need a speaker attribution, stick to "said," and "asked." Never use speaker attributions as verbs meant to convey action. Keep action separate.
Not: "Take it," Betty said, pushing the book on him.
But: Betty pushed the book on him. "Take it."
Not: "I like it that way," Joe coughed, laughing and winking.
But: "I like it that way." Joe laughed and winked at her.
Thinker's attributions
Don't use "thinker's attributions" in the third person limited POV. If a character internalizes (interior monologue), the context lets readers know his words are thought, not spoken.
Not: I've got him now, Tom thought.
But: Tom struggled with his fishing line. There he is, I've got him now.
Things
Always edit the word "thing" or "things" and replace with a more specific word.
Would it be ok to print your lesson out so I can pin it to my my wall,
a wonderful reference for me to learn from.
I have got some back story and inevitably, the correct tense is past perfect, e.g.
'I had worked so hard at that marriage.'
'She had been a good friend to me.'
but it looks so clumsy. Is it permitted, once you have made the switch into back story, to continue it in simple past? Here's an extract from my novel and I have put the 'hads' I'd like to delete in square brackets. e.g.
I [ had] told her about the latest mini-flock of emails which had landed in my mailbox earlier that week, telling me I hadnt got a single interview. They each [had] ended with a bland statement saying it was nothing to do with my abilities as a whatever-it-was and theyd had more suitable candidates. How bleak my future [had] seemed to me. My imagination[ had] failed to populate it with plans.
Is there a way of writing back story without using clunky past tenses?
Pluperfect - Not sure whether this is strictly OK, but I've sometimes put 'had' once and then switched to the ordinary past tense. As long as it's clear, it shouldn't be a problem. But make sure you're not 'telling' too much.
I shall edit my back story with your strategy in mind, Jay. I'll let you know if it works.
There is nothing wrong with the use of passive voice - the guideline is simply wrong. I urge everybody to think about what they are trying to achieve. Good novels vary in pace and focus. The most important thing to consider is 'Did the writer want to come across the way they did'. Passive voice is natural for most story-tellers. Obviously, if you are writing a fast-paced thriller . . . the less passive the better. Passive voice is fantastic for openings, indeed it brilliant for setting voice and tone in the 'are you sitting comfortably' way.
I don't want to hijack this thread but . . .
Typically.
For thirty-six years Mrs Gwendaline Thomas had lived her life the best way she was able. Although barren, she had been a good wife to Joshua. She had stood before God and sworn, 'until death do us part'. She had taken her vows in good faith, and she had suffered for it. Joshua found occasion to discipline his wife on many occasions. Some evenings, after consuming whisky, he would slap her and tell her that she had brought same to his name. A man has god-given right to discipline his wife with an open palm. On Gwendaline's thirty-sixth birthday Joshua had lost his temper. He had beaten Gwendaline severely, with anger in his clenched fist, and he had caused her to be blind. Gwendaline had spoken to the Lord begging forgiveness because she could no longer honour her word.
- To this point is probably about as much as I'd write (or read). But I'm not in doubt as to why the author has written this opening this way. And on a personal note the voice of the opening sets so many parameters and a strong narrative voice. The next paragraph will change, the author will probably switch to Gwendaline's POV or simply drop the passive voice and detail an action scene detailing Joshua's death.
- Rule 51a says that you are allowed to disagree with me.
IMHO you wouldn't get an opening of back story past an editor of today, especially not an American one (see Anne Mini's blog).
Technically you are right, I am sure, MS, but I invoke Rule 51a and assure you that each one of my editors would frown on that, unless it was carefully positioned in the right place in the narrative. I think the success of back story is purely down to where you place it. Donald Maass advises to kick it right to the back of the book.
Sarah Duncan doesn't like back story at all, and won't use it.
These are all award winning writers/editors/teachers.
They would all tell you that what is acceptable today is dictated by contemporary readers' tastes, and who are we to argue with readers, unless of course we are only writing for ourselves, in which case, it's a private journal for which this kind of scrutiny is irrelevant.
BILLY RAY COBB was the younger and smaller of the two rednecks. At twenty-three he was already a three-year veteran of the state penitentiary at Parchman. Possession, with intent to sell. He was a lean, tough little punk who had survived prison by somehow maintaining a ready supply of drugs that he sold and sometimes gave to the blacks and the guards for protection. In the year since his release he had continued to prosper, and his small-time narcotics business had elevated him to the position of one of the more affluent rednecks in Ford County. He was a businessman, with employees, obligations, deals, everything but taxes. Down at the Ford place in Clanton he was known as the last man in recent history to pay cash for a new pickup truck. Sixteen thousand cash, for a custom-built, four-wheel drive, canary yellow, luxury Ford pickup. The fancy chrome wheels and mudgrip racing tires had been received in a business deal. The rebel flag hanging across the rear window had been stolen by Cobb from a drunken fraternity boy at an Ole Miss football game.
- Personally, I find this awful. It's dry. I find it almost juvenile.
But it's John Grisham. I'm gonna have to say, John Grisham trumps Donald Maass. (Is he Canadian).
And I have observed in another place. Those books written by the book - seem to receive the harshest reviews from Harper Collins.
This is the link
http://www.be-a-better-writer.com/creative-writing-tips.html
I think it is an American site.
It is a guide for what kind of writing they want - every editor/publication has their own demands/style.
But the tips/guide are useful to bear in mind to cut down on wordiness. They suggest, for instance, when your story is ready to sub, rewrite it using only 50% of the word count! A good exercise.
As Michael suggested, different stories need a different tone/mood. However, there are some good generals tips which we can/should heed when editing.
As far as pluperfect tense is concerned - its a bugger! I get mixed up myself sometimes. It is a bit cumbersome and clangy. I think that once the reader - once you have established clearly - that we are now in plu perfect, you can go into ordinary past tense, and if necessary remind the reader in those times at that time/in those days/this was when [some well known event] was happening Problems arise when author switches too often without warning - Ive read things on sites where it is difficult to know what is going on and suspect the writer has lost track.
There are lots of examples, but in Brideshead Revisited for example, Charles Ryder, an Army Officer, finds himself encamped in 1942 near a mansion [Brideshead]. He knew the family.
Then were into plu perfect past for a while, back to 1924 - but once in, we go back to ordinary past tense. It wouldnt read comfortably otherwise, but I think we are reminded occasionally by the narrator that he is REMEMBERING this.
I strongly believe that story-tellers inherently *know* what they are doing without quite understanding.
e.g. It was explained to me that use a classic framework in many of my novels, in order to stretch the possibilities of the plot, and the extend belief. (I had no idea). Effectively I plant a 'get out of jail free' clause in the opening of the novel. If I was more skilled the technique would be closer aligned to tense and POV.
I often start with a character contemplating or reflecting in the first chapter. I then switch scenes. The story starts during the second chapter. At a subliminal level, you may never know whether the story exists as fact, or the story exists in the mind of the character depicted in the first chapter. At any point during the story you can return to the first chapter - or not. For this reason, I ignore the labels, backstory or flashback.
Since learning that I do this, I have noticed how popular and effective it is. Look at the structure of Forrest Gump [film] - technically the first 70% is backstory. From sitting on the bench he narrates to the present, and then when he finds out he can walk to his location, the story moves on from there.
Rule 51a is still in effect.
On the subject of starting a story in the second chapter I wouldn't know. The reason for this is if I read a book like that I'd never reach the second chapter. I don't want my novels to be ambiguous and vague either. Fair enough if you need the technique of unreliable narration to underpin the story to make it work, but if not it's just a gimmick. I want to be challenged at times and I want to be asked to fill in the blanks too. But I don't see why I should put in too much work, to me that's just lazy writing and the author slacking off from his duty.
Please tell me how you know that 'backstory' exists while you are reading it. The truth is backstory doesn't really exist. The expression 'backstory' is a dated relic from 50's US screenwriting.
I like to think that the world is a little more intelligent nowadays.
In the simple tales of good versus evil - explanations were not required.
Princes were handsome and married princesses.
Indians were bad.
Dragons were bad.
Germans were bad.
Faeries were good.
How these people got this way was irrelevant.
Shakespeare tried his best to take us out of his mindset.
Intelligent readers need to know WHY and HOW a character behaves in the way they do, otherwise the character becomes a STEREOTYPE. In many modern tales, the backstory is the story, and the story is a mere catalyst.
???????????????
Isn't that what I just said?
Isn't that what I just said? [/quote]
No. Backstory and Flashbacks don't actually existing in literature.
Technically speaking, any character past tense thought is a flashback. Screenwriting convention dictates it as a flashback if you are required to show the thought, requiring a new scene.
Similarly, 'infodump' is the same, an applied label to a badly handled event. Once you write something beyond a trinket, most of these 'guidelines' fall to bits.
Question:
The structure of 'Absolution' is as follows.
Five characters get into circumstances where they are required to leave their existing lives in search of pastures new. They will join two other characters in the new life. Between the seven of them, they will commit all seven deadly sins, and they will be judged.
Where do you start the story? You cannot weave in backstory, there are too many characters to drip in backstory.
How would you do it?
My greatest fear is that with prior knowledge of technique - the story wouldn't have been written in the first place.
I don't understand what you actually mean by that. Are you saying the devices don't exist or that the labels are insufficient? I think you maybe getting too close to the magnifying glass on this. Of course you can weave backstory into the narrative and the most skilful writers do. As you said about your example you can't weave in backstory. Why not?
One of the great things about these devices is it allows the writer and reader to access the story more quickly which grips the interest and motivates to read on. Backstory can be dripped in with just a line or two, in dual meaning dialogue, symbolism and reaction.
Flashback also exists and although you are correct in saying all characters in past tense are in a sort of flash back. But again they are not. They may be living in the past tense but even though it is past tense to us it is present tense to the characters. So if they need to jump back in time it is a flash in to the past. A jump cut or a smooth transition will tell us where and why we are there and bring us back into the narrative tense again.
I'm not sure if this is what you mean. But if we are to argue about the labels and tags we give to devices and techniques then that's wasting time on pettiness. If you are saying you don't see the need for them then that's a fair point and your opinion.
When seven destinies converge on the same critical path; beware the consequences of the seven sins. . .
[All of this is backstory]
A confused woman's marriage fails, her husband leaves for pastures new.
A young girl wishes ill of her lover. Mysteriously, moments later he is dead. The girl skips town.
An African-American takes revenge for his cousin's murder, after which, he is forced to flee the country.
A Hispanic prostitute faces death but is saved by a stranger. She wants to start afresh.
A barrister loses his job after rumours pertaining to drug use. He launches a new career in the underworld.
An English woman blames her father for her mother's death. She cannot move on without retribution.
A corrupt police officer takes things too far. He must face alternative justice.
[the following line is 'story'].
These seven people will meet. - There will be war and conflict. - There will be sin and retribution. - There will be closure and finally, there will be judgement.
"Six sins the Lord doth hate, go for seven, you'll just fuck him off."
"No seremos exonerados nos quemaremos todos en el infierno."
- Please tell me how you'd structure this story?
That's a question about style and everybody will have a different answer. This is why we each have favourite writers.
I don't see any problem with introducing backstory into what you have listed above though. There are several methods which you could use such as interweaving stories, starting some at the point of conflict and the next at point of reaction to the conflict in their scene. Your story above is all about revolution and reactionary propulsive journeys. So we can either start at why they are moving, look back at why they moved or witness the catalyst of movement.
As I said you could alternate this to build a less diminishing returning arc. If it was me and you are asking for my personal opinion of how I would do it then I'd opt for a hyper dimensional narrative. I believe that to have so many characters all pushed into the same direction there must be a kinetic movement. So you shouldn't isolate them but have them as part of the same body of energy that is heading toward the same destination and will have a causality with each character and story line. While you may argue this is setting up false constructs it is actually closer to reality than most straight line narratives.
Excuse me for adding my opinion (as per Rule 51a), MS. I would start at the beginning of your first strand, showing her marriage failing, and work my way through all seven strands until they meet and mix. Sounds like a good storyline. The wrong place to start, IMHO, is where they meet, with explanations to follow.
My feeling is that the modern fiction reader dislikes flashback/backstory, so the author would do well to avoid it, or at worst deliver it in a line or two where it's unavoidable.
I hope you don't mind if I demonstrate what I mean by using Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. as ST says:
[quote=SilentTony]One of the great things about these devices is it allows the writer and reader to access the story more quickly which grips the interest and motivates to read on. Backstory can be dripped in with just a line or two, in dual meaning dialogue, symbolism and reaction. [/quote]
The story of PAP starts on page 1, with a momentous event that turns the lives of all the main characters on their heads. Mr Bingley has taken Netherfield Hall. This line is actually backstory, since the story begins with Mrs Bennet relating this - on page 1 - to her husband. No need for any other backstory: the novel proceeds forward from there.
I think this is a good example of choosing a way to start the storyline at the beginning and avoid the need for backstory.
BTW, PAP does include chunks of flashback in the middle: the links between Darcy and Wickham; but at that stage the reader has been fed with intriguing questions and is agog to discover the answers.
Five short stories, followed by a novella, followed by an epic. And in a bizarre twist the whole story starts and ends with the same event. If I'd know how to write, I'd never have written it!
It's still my favourite though!
Not that your book dream should be abandoned: maybe it has to be written!
I find that encouraging. I wrote my first one hundred thousand words that way. It's only since I started trying to kick it into to shape, make it something acceptable, that I got lost in the maze of rules.
However, I do believe that on the other side of the maze I have come out with a more coherent story, and I am now working on more 'advanced' problems.
I love the Forrest Gump story.
[/quote]
Been there, done that.
Well, this is what all the gurus seem to be saying.
I'm interested in your suggestion that it should be delivered in 'a line or two where it's unavoidable.' I deliberately have two full chapters of back story, as late in the book as I can reasonably position them. They work, because they provide contrast on many levels to what is happening in the narrative. They add a richness of texture (I hope - that is how I've tried to construct them).
The problem I had to overcome was that I wanted to start my novel at a point where the protag had made a momentous decision and she had gone through an irreversible event ( rather like each of those seven deadly sins) and at some point the reader wants to know why she made that decision. I originally set up this novel with three chapters of back story, and it was boring, but repositioned, they provide the richness and contrast I wanted.
To rephrase you, Dwight, I think what you are saying is that readers find it 'boring' to have to wade through a painstakingly set frame which provides the springboard for the action. These days they want to see the protag hit the ground running and then be kept titillated until the explanations emerge.
I haven't thanked each post individually, but I'd like to thank all participants for providing such helpful instruction and insights on this thread.
MS and ST, you are both right in your own ways. As usual, it seems to boil down to the skill of the writer in handling structure and applying backstory and flashback deftly, if needed.
Fibonacci's Child opens with a pregnant woman sitting in a doctors' surgery in the year 2016. She is waiting to be called into the examination room. It is revealed that she's carrying her own clone.
- How'd that happen?
Chapter Two takes us back 15 years to 2001, and detail the character's time at University and the relationship with her twin sister, and her partner. This takes us through to chapter six where the twin dies in the Twin Towers.
- Five chapters is not a 'flashback' nor is it backstory, the substance contained is 'story' - it's simply told in a non-linear way.
In Chapter Seven the character is finally called into the examination room - but the story has changed to from third person to first person.
Again, if you *knew* you simply wouldn't write it.
I have to disagree with that completely. Knowledge doesn't push blockades across our imagination, it shows us where the openings are and how to manipulate them to gain easier access to the countless rooms inside.
Your story sound like a good idea and I like the metaphor of the destruction of the twins on 9/11 representing the broken infallibility of life through the cloned twins.
I think that if you have as much information as you can possibly obtain then you have a greater understanding of what is necessary, relevant or useless to your requirements. Now that you have written that story are you now saying you couldn't write anything like that again now you have the knowledge of how the mechanics of it works? You see in writing as in the whole of human life there are patterns and templates. I'm not talking about clich
But I assure you there are very few rules. Most 'rules' are the result of reverse engineering successful works and breaking them down to component level. I strongly suggest that writers reverse engineer their own work and understand it before applying the techniques of others.
We are individuals. We each have inherent talents. We need to recognise them and work with them before looking externally.
I agree 100% with that. Of course they are and there's little wrong with gleaning from somebody else's wisdom. In some ways the novel has overstayed its welcome after a very pleasant party. In other ways it still feels fresher than ever when you read a good old yarn. It is just reverse engineering from the collective cannon and all disciplines do the same thing. We shouldn't look at the plans and do a dot-to-dot when we have studied them however. That will of course lead to a dilution and does every so often in genre writing. But writers aren't solely responsible for this. Publishers who want to sell what's selling will push their authors to purse the trends. Readers who can't get enough of one type of story, genre or character will feast until they are sick and full of it.
So it is best to know the patterns and use them as guides. Imagine you visit the Smithsonian for the very first time and you only have a couple of hours before it closes. Do you take the tour, read the guide map or wander aimlessly hoping you'll find some good exhibitions before the Tannoy calls for close? My guess is you would do at leasts two of those things to maximise your visit. So it's the same with writing and 'rules' or to give them a more fitting name, collective or collected wisdom.
[quote=Michael Scott]I strongly suggest that writers reverse engineer their own work and understand it before applying the techniques of others.[/quote]
I think you have a point but how could they even know unless they had a frame of reference? You see you may think writing classes, how to books or a creative writing course is a waste of time or unnecessary, even harmful, but look at it from another angle. The greatest education on writing is to read. The greatest and even the most entertaining writers learn their craft this way. Reading is the source material of writing study, it is the stripped down data ready to be digested and applied. So the only way to not be influenced by any other writer, rules or patterns is to never read. I doubt you'd recommend that.
So all we are doing when we read with a writers mind is to take the collected wisdom through osmosis as raw data and let it reassemble in constructive thought. If you read one paragraph of fiction you are engaged in the same pursuit as a creative writing student. Only they analyse and hone in on particular aspects of the process to have a greater understanding of not only writing, but reading also. There are how-to books that say join point A to point B and resolve at point C. These are not good or healthy and shouldn't really be brought into the debate. Just the same as we shouldn't say bad novels should be used as a reference to explain how all novels are written.
If we stop thinking in terms of rules and instruction and realign our perception to value them as wisdom, how can we then argue the worth of creative writing guides in the many forms they take?
ST and MS, you state the arguments extremely well.
ST, you are absolutely right to say that heavy pressure to write in a particular way drives 'creative writing instruction', and don't forget there's a huge academic industry in degrees and qualifications in it, which is also commercially motivated. These commercial pressures drive the 'how to' industry also and I still say, MS, there are some extremely good ones.
Let's not forget that ultimately readers drive the value system of the creative writing industry, and it's the best of the 'how to's' which identify and interpret readers' tastes most accurately.
ST is also right to say you need to know the rules before you can break them, and I've read more than one 'how to' which says the same.
On the other hand, I sympathise with MS in stating that the danger of all that lies in the way it can restrict or kill creativity. Anything really new, or genre breaking, or truly individual may not get published because it does not meet the criteria for bumping up the bottom line.
Yes, we can 'write for ourselves' but then, is that no more than a private journal? If we're writing stories or novels, we want others to read them, surely. If our basic driver for a project was 'something to say', we want others to hear it, don't we?
I'm a strong believer in writing from the heart (first draft) and I think MS' reverse engineering phase can follow on from there, but again, what benchmark are you using to compare your work, to understand the results of your reverse engineering. MS is right to say you can 'over-edit' and kill the freshness, tie your original work up in a corset which crushes the life out of it.
I know we don't agree on this, MS, but Donald Maass 'Writing the Breakout Novel Workbook' is a particularly good method for the reverse engineering you describe. I think it has dragged my work up several notches, but of course, the acid test will be whether agents/editors agree with me.
Ho hum. Brain surgery must be easier.