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
I find it ironic that you start that response by telling me I've missed the point and then repeat what I posted. My point was saying we should pick and choose whatever style is required for our work. What are these greater points?
It's up to you if you choose not to read any how to books. I don't see the harm myself and have written about this before. As long as people take what they need and don't only read writing manuals at the expense of fiction then it can actually be healthy. Are you saying that there is nothing to learn about writing except from what you can learn through experience? If so I agree to a point, but only to a point. I do believe that aspects of writing like anything else can be taught and they applied to practice which brings experience.
You are simplifying so much that you are grossly misrepresenting what goes on in a film. Or play.
My son's an actor. He takes his cue from how the director sees the story which the writer has provided, but each director reads a script differently, just as no two writers will write the same event from the same perspective. And the actor then uses the action to infer the characters reaction and emotion etc, and put that into gesture, facial expression etc. - to show the inner monologue which would otherwise be supplied by the words.
And plenty of films have a narrator. Or voice over from the actor.
[quote=Liz!]My son's an actor. He takes his cue from how the director sees the story which the writer has provided, but each director reads a script differently, just as no two writers will write the same event from the same perspective. And the actor then uses the action to infer the characters reaction and emotion etc, and put that into gesture, facial expression etc. - to show the inner monologue which would otherwise be supplied by the words.
And plenty of films have a narrator. Or voice over from the actor. [/quote]
My partner is an actor - I know.
Writing fiction is defined [by me] as using your imagination to power the imagination of another. As I often say . . . The discussion of classic works usually centres around what did X mean when he said [wrote] Y.
What was the Mona Lisa thinking? - It is ruined if she tells us, no?
I also find it interesting that a question received from several writers with regard to The Life of Riley was . . . Why did she let Marcin move into her home as her carer if she didn't like him?
The immediate answer is - I don't know. (I don't suppose she does either). If pressed, I'd say that it was loneliness more than anything, but I get that from reading it, not writing it. It is not necessarily for us to provide all the answers. If you simply show the a set of facts, then after the book is closed the reader may consider and discuss your work for eternity. Tie it all up perfectly, and it's like a McDonald's burger - it does a job but is instantly forgettable.
Now, if somebody can tell me . . . Did Shane die?
I trust when I return in 6 months, nobody will have an answer - because nobody knows.
So what you are saying is you would rather have a fictional story so ambiguous that many interpretations can be inferred from it? Rather than have a story presented in a the same way as a film where the interpretation is usually pretty clear as the story has been filtered through one or two 'undestandings' of it.
I still think that is perfectly possible, in fact given the human ability to see what we want to see or see things fro a perspective informed by our own experience, inevitable, from a story told from within a character's own mind.
[quote=Liz!]So what you are saying is you would rather have a fictional story so ambiguous that many interpretations can be inferred from it? Rather than have a story presented in a the same way as a film where the interpretation is usually pretty clear as the story has been filtered through one or two 'undestandings' of it.
I still think that is perfectly possible, in fact given the human ability to see what we want to see or see things fro a perspective informed by our own experience, inevitable, from a story told from within a character's own mind. [/quote]
Like my agent said. The stuff that arrives on her desk is much of a muchness.
I do enjoy an ambiguous book (Life of Pi was brilliant) but I wouldn't want to read them all the time. Sometimes you just want a good old yarn! I also think if there is too much doubt about the motivations of a character then the plot will fall down as it won't be believable. So there has to be some basis for the characters' actions.
Ultimately the style and viewpoints you choose to write in depend on the books you enjoy reading, the story you are telling and your own preferences. You can recommend a certain way of writing as much as you like, but it won't suit everyone and shouldn't, otherwise we wouldn't have the wonderful variety of fiction that we all enjoy.
In defence of 'how to' books, I would say that using them has saved me weeks or months of having to correct 'howlers'. Writing has rules, it seems, in the same way that language, grammar and punctuation have rules. I like the availability of the wisdom of other writers in these books. Some are more helpful than others, of course, but there are one or two that are invaluable, I find.
Also, the fashion is for 'show not tell.' Editors will justify this by saying 'it's what readers want', and it's hard to argue with that.
I think your narrative style works because a high percentage of it is dialogue. I suspect that without that, you would be nagged to 'show not tell', as the rest of us are.
[quote=Lou Treleaven]I do enjoy an ambiguous book (Life of Pi was brilliant) but I wouldn't want to read them all the time. Sometimes you just want a good old yarn! [/quote]
I'm NOT saying . . . that's the way to write (I hate present tense, btw). I'm encouraging everybody to try EVERYTHING. And more importantly write first, then analyse later. You'll find your own strengths, you'll add more tools to the toolbox. And hopefully you'll do that *thing* that makes the writing yours, and *somebody* will see that as your X-factor - and if you're lucky, your X-Factor will become the new black.
I've written enough to begin to understand what I do. Patterns emerge (Five out of six of my novels start the same way; a scene with a solitary character thinking, contemplating, or reflecting on something. After three years somebody told me why I do it.
[For me] If you want to be a writer a psychology degree is more useful than a degree in creative writing.
[quote=Michael Scott]You'll find your own strengths, you'll add more tools to the toolbox. And hopefully you'll do that *thing* that makes the writing yours, and *somebody* will see that as your X-factor[/quote]
So is a philosophy degree too. Well at least an better understanding of it. It does rather seem you are trying to preach to the converted here though Michael. I'm sure most writers already do try to be themselves and use everything at their disposal to cultivate their own voice.I also don't think it matters when you analyse your work. It may be before, during or after completion. Symbolism is usually an unintentional and subconscious addition to our writing. As you say we start to see patterns emerge when we read back or edit. But if you happen to see these patterns while you are writing then go with it. All it means is you have unlocked some of the deeper patterns early.
I do think it is dangerous to start with a symbolic pattern in mind or to even think of a message to convey before you write. These things should be organic and filter through osmosis from the story and characters as they evolve.
I assumed she was a pseudonym for Michael. They name is a play on words isn't it based on the volcanic island of Anak Krakatau that emerged from a 'surtseyan' eruption. BTW Anak Krakatau translates as 'Child of Krakatoa' or 'the new kid on the block?'
[quote=lexia]Could you explain why on one version of the front cover it states "Ferguson and Scott" and on the other Surtsey Ana Krakatoa ? [/quote]
If you really want to know . . .
The Life of Riley (novella) was written by Surtsey Ana Krakatoa.
The Life of Riley (screenplay, 10 minute and 60 minute versions) were adapted by Mary Ferguson and Michael Scott.
The Life of Riley (stageplay) was adapted by Michael Scott.
Surtsey, is heavily influenced by me - she has been for years.
Comments
It's up to you if you choose not to read any how to books. I don't see the harm myself and have written about this before. As long as people take what they need and don't only read writing manuals at the expense of fiction then it can actually be healthy. Are you saying that there is nothing to learn about writing except from what you can learn through experience? If so I agree to a point, but only to a point. I do believe that aspects of writing like anything else can be taught and they applied to practice which brings experience.
My son's an actor. He takes his cue from how the director sees the story which the writer has provided, but each director reads a script differently, just as no two writers will write the same event from the same perspective. And the actor then uses the action to infer the characters reaction and emotion etc, and put that into gesture, facial expression etc. - to show the inner monologue which would otherwise be supplied by the words.
And plenty of films have a narrator. Or voice over from the actor.
And plenty of films have a narrator. Or voice over from the actor. [/quote]
My partner is an actor - I know.
Writing fiction is defined [by me] as using your imagination to power the imagination of another. As I often say . . . The discussion of classic works usually centres around what did X mean when he said [wrote] Y.
What was the Mona Lisa thinking? - It is ruined if she tells us, no?
I also find it interesting that a question received from several writers with regard to The Life of Riley was . . . Why did she let Marcin move into her home as her carer if she didn't like him?
The immediate answer is - I don't know. (I don't suppose she does either). If pressed, I'd say that it was loneliness more than anything, but I get that from reading it, not writing it. It is not necessarily for us to provide all the answers. If you simply show the a set of facts, then after the book is closed the reader may consider and discuss your work for eternity. Tie it all up perfectly, and it's like a McDonald's burger - it does a job but is instantly forgettable.
Now, if somebody can tell me . . . Did Shane die?
I trust when I return in 6 months, nobody will have an answer - because nobody knows.
It's here - for free.
http://www.hardpressed.org.uk/uploads/2/9/0/4/2904816/life_of_riley.pdf
I still think that is perfectly possible, in fact given the human ability to see what we want to see or see things fro a perspective informed by our own experience, inevitable, from a story told from within a character's own mind.
I still think that is perfectly possible, in fact given the human ability to see what we want to see or see things fro a perspective informed by our own experience, inevitable, from a story told from within a character's own mind. [/quote]
Like my agent said. The stuff that arrives on her desk is much of a muchness.
G'night.
Quite enjoyed that - now I understand!
Few typos, but good story.
Ultimately the style and viewpoints you choose to write in depend on the books you enjoy reading, the story you are telling and your own preferences. You can recommend a certain way of writing as much as you like, but it won't suit everyone and shouldn't, otherwise we wouldn't have the wonderful variety of fiction that we all enjoy.
In defence of 'how to' books, I would say that using them has saved me weeks or months of having to correct 'howlers'. Writing has rules, it seems, in the same way that language, grammar and punctuation have rules. I like the availability of the wisdom of other writers in these books. Some are more helpful than others, of course, but there are one or two that are invaluable, I find.
Also, the fashion is for 'show not tell.' Editors will justify this by saying 'it's what readers want', and it's hard to argue with that.
I think your narrative style works because a high percentage of it is dialogue. I suspect that without that, you would be nagged to 'show not tell', as the rest of us are.
[quote=Lou Treleaven]I do enjoy an ambiguous book (Life of Pi was brilliant) but I wouldn't want to read them all the time. Sometimes you just want a good old yarn! [/quote]
I do agree with that, Lou.
Thanks to all those that read . . . but, again.
I'm NOT saying . . . that's the way to write (I hate present tense, btw). I'm encouraging everybody to try EVERYTHING. And more importantly write first, then analyse later. You'll find your own strengths, you'll add more tools to the toolbox. And hopefully you'll do that *thing* that makes the writing yours, and *somebody* will see that as your X-factor - and if you're lucky, your X-Factor will become the new black.
I've written enough to begin to understand what I do. Patterns emerge (Five out of six of my novels start the same way; a scene with a solitary character thinking, contemplating, or reflecting on something. After three years somebody told me why I do it.
[For me] If you want to be a writer a psychology degree is more useful than a degree in creative writing.
I agree, understanding they way people think is an extremely useful tool for writers.
Agree!
I do think it is dangerous to start with a symbolic pattern in mind or to even think of a message to convey before you write. These things should be organic and filter through osmosis from the story and characters as they evolve.
"Think of some stuff, and write it down," is about as complicated as fiction writing gets in the world of Michael Scott.
Surtsey Ana Krakatoa
What can you say about Surtsey, other than she's the new kid on the block.
From :
http://www.hardpressed.org.uk/featured-writers.html
Lots of ambiguities in what you say, Michael and what the 'review' says about you.
Enjoyed Life of Riley - congratulations to Surtsey !
Could you explain why on one version of the front cover it states "Ferguson and Scott" and on the other Surtsey Ana Krakatoa ?
That's an interesting pseudonym anyway !
If you really want to know . . .
The Life of Riley (novella) was written by Surtsey Ana Krakatoa.
The Life of Riley (screenplay, 10 minute and 60 minute versions) were adapted by Mary Ferguson and Michael Scott.
The Life of Riley (stageplay) was adapted by Michael Scott.
Surtsey, is heavily influenced by me - she has been for years.
Oh is that code?
[/quote]
So Surtsey is not such a new kid then !
Where can we read the stageplay and the screenplay then ?
Sorry, one version has been submitted and the other is entered in a competition. They'll go back on the web when they're rejected ;o)