Creative Writing truisms

pickarooney

This is a thread to discuss widely accepted guidelines for creative writing and to explore whether or not these rules should be adhered to, to what degree and what exceptions there should be. To make the thread easier to follow, if you have a suggested truism to discuss, please number it and mark it in bold so that the discussion can jump back and forth from one subject to the other over time without becoming too confusing.

When addressing any of the suggested guidelines, use the same number to make it easier for everyone. I'll probably add each point to this opening post as it's made.

I'll throw a couple out there to start with.

1) SHOW, DON'T TELL
2) A NOVEL SHOULD HAVE A PROTAGONIST
3) THE PROTAGONIST OF A NOVEL SHOULD BE LIKABLE

pickarooney

1)
This is probably the most popular rule of thumb suggested on this forum. It can be hard enough to explain without the use of examples, but the general idea is that it's better to let the reader know something by inference rather than directly stating the facts.

Tell:
John was hungry and tired. He was afraid he would be late for the meeting.

Show:
John heaved a weary sigh, his stomach growling. He looked anxiously at his watch.

The above example is fairly rubbish, but hopefully illustrates the axiom in some way.

pickarooney

2)
I suppose this one is obvious, but there are some examples of films where there is no clear-cut protagonist, or there are several, or he dies, or the lead character is not the one you think it is or the protagonist is something non-human. I'm trying to think of examples of books but am drawing a blank at the moment. My first attempt at a novel had no single protagonist and I think it might be one of the main reasons it was so rubbish.

Has anyone read or written a novel with no protagonist that remains interesting reading?

WHU

2)
If I understand you correctly, "Fluke" By James Herbert, (which was ruined by being made into a tacky film) where a dog is the main character with a man's memories

pickarooney

WHU wrote: »

2)
If I understand you correctly, "Fluke" By James Herbert, (which was ruined by being made into a tacky film) where a dog is the main character with a man's memories

Not exactly. There are loads of books with dogs, cars, dolls etc. as the main character but they've been anthropomorphised and are essentially acting as people. I'm more referring to the likes of Short Cuts (Robert Altman film), Magnolia, No Country For Old Men...

WHU

2)
I see, so a possible collection of characters, none more prominent than the other, telling different stories/plots which overall lead or intertwine within the main story.

pickarooney

Yes, exactly.

WHU

2) To a degree maybe "It" By Stephen King. A group of children with their own individual storries are thrown together as friends by various events (being bullied etc.) to combat an evil being. Only for years later where after having no contact with each other being dragged back from their individual lives to face the same evil again. Reading it myself, a very long time ago, although some survive, there was not a prominent character

pickarooney

WHU wrote: »

2) To a degree maybe "It" By Stephen King. A group of children with their own individual storries are thrown together as friends by various events (being bullied etc.) to combat an evil being. Only for years later where after having no contact with each other being dragged back from their individual lives to face the same evil again. Reading it myself, a very long time ago, although some survive, there was not a prominent character

2) Does it have a narrator? I can't remember if I ever read it.

WHU

pickarooney wrote: »

2) Does it have a narrator? I can't remember if I ever read it.

It has been such a long time since I read it, I don't think so because I think I remember when they were adults their short stories were told from their own point of view and not as second hand but like I said it was a while ago.

pickarooney

What about 3)? I've seen it mentioned several times but don't agree with it at all. American Psycho, Filth, The End of Alice - nothing remotely sympathetic about the main characters in those books, but they're none the less fascinating for it.

WHU

pickarooney wrote: »

What about 3)? I've seen it mentioned several times but don't agree with it at all. American Psycho, Filth, The End of Alice

I can not recall seeing or reading any of these, are they about characters, whom start and end the story bad?
Or do they change through the course by performing a good act or changing their ways?
American History X style, where the character is a hate filled racist but changes after seeing his faults whilst in prison.

WHU

4) Grammer in dialogue

What are the modern day rules for grammer whilst writing speech,
ie:
"You can not do that".

"You can't do that".

Are we better to write the way the majority of people speak or not?

pickarooney

WHU wrote: »

3)I can not recall seeing or reading any of these, are they about characters, whom start and end the story bad?
Or do they change through the course by performing a good act or changing their ways?
American History X style, where the character is a hate filled racist but changes after seeing his faults whilst in prison.

All three are unreformed arseholes from beginning to end, although they all kind of get their come-uppance.

4) Definitely write the dialogue to suit the character and have the character speak as someone of his background would.

ToasterSparks

5) Think of a story and let your style evolve naturally - instead of thinking of a style and trying to make up a story around it

I don't care if you write something in a different way, or if your book/story has a different layout/feel - if there's no story behind the fancy prose, I am not gonna keep reading.

pickarooney

5) makes sense of course, but how would you actually know which order a writer had done it in? A badly though-out, overwritten piece is a dead giveaway but a skilled writer might pull a great story out of the air while messing about with a new style.

6) Write about what you know
It seems to be unapplicable to sci-fi/fantasy/horror but the actual heart of the story will always beat stronger if there's some of the writer's experience in there.

pickarooney

7) The opening passage can make or break your story

You can write a fantastic piece of fiction, but it the reader is turned off before he's turned the first page, it's all for nothing. The converse is not true - just because you've written a killer intro doesn't mean the reader will stick with your story if what follows doesn't live up to the beginning.

EileenG

Absolutely agree with this one. I tend to go to bookshops, read the first couple of paragraphs and buy or discard based on how good they are. I believe most editors will read a bit further, but their initial impression is based on the beginning.

Eliot Rosewater

1) Show dont tell is very important. The scope of it is very wide. Its not just about describing a characters immediate emotion through what they do, but also about showing how past and present events in their lives have formed them. The short stories of JD Salinger would be one of the greatest examples of this.

Show dont tell makes it easier for the reader to intimate with your work. Another book, Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut, is a war novel centered around free will. Vonnegut never says "I am trying to deal with my war past" but theres certainly that essence to it. And its all the more intimate for that.


3) I'm with pickarooney here: I think thats rubbish. Firstly, there are many example of books where the protagonist is partly meant to be hated. Think A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. But also, liking someone is totally subjective. Talking about Salinger, some people love Holden Caulfield as much as others hate him. Which leaves Salinger in a pickle: did he adhere to the rule or did he break it??


7) Openings are important, but whats defined as a good opening will depend by and large on the work itself rather than some abstract axiom. Its productive to read good openings and understand what makes them good. Consider the opening to Anthony Burgess' Earthly Powers:

It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me.

The immediate way in which Burgess sets the tone is immense. Firstly the narrator is old (81) and educated (use of archaic work "catamite" meaning young male dominated lover). The very fact he has a catamite, a servant Ali and that the archbishop is visiting him all emphasize he is a man of some power.

Thats one of my favorite openings. However I dont think it would be a good thriller opening. In general a good thriller opening would include some action or a scene to stimulate you interest. It could include a puzzle of enigma to be solved. So this rule, while general, differs in application between genres.


Its not hard to see that those remarks are written by a reader more so than a writer. But thats a mixed issue which leads me on to a generally considered truism:


8) A writer is also naturally a reader.

If your writing your probably not going to re-invent the wheel, nor should you be trying to. Writers are naturally influenced by other writers, and so a dedicated writer also will tend to be dedicated reader.

pickarooney

Going back to 4) and the way characters speak. I've found that this can have a knock-on effect on the writing surrounding the characters in some instances and find it hard to know what exactly to do in situations like this.

A mundane example, but imagine Tony, an American, is looking for something in his car while talking to a friend.

"Lemme check the trunk," said Tony, moving towards the back of the cream sedan. The boot opened with a low creak.

or

"Lemme check the trunk," said Tony, moving towards the back of the cream stationwagon. The trunk opened with a low creak.

WHU

pickarooney wrote: »

Going back to 4) and the way characters speak. I've found that this can have a knock-on effect on the writing surrounding the characters in some instances and find it hard to know what exactly to do in situations like this..

You beat me to it. I was thinking about this last night, of how the type of writing continues outside of dialogue, poor example:
"I can't do this"! John shouted, he wasn't very good at swiming.

EileenG

Personally, I think that contractions like "can't" and "wasn't" are acceptable in non-dialogue text if it suits the way the book is being written. If you are using a POV character who would use them, it reads more naturally than a more formal style.

ToasterSparks

Here's a link to a page that has a few interesting pointers about writing fiction:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/20/ten-rules-for-writing-fiction-part-one


Anne Enright's tips were interesting

pickarooney

Some very interestring ones in that guardian link all right. Do you want to pick a few out for discussion?

9) Don't use a thesaurus

If you didn't know the word before you started writing, most of your readers probably won't either. The last thing anyone wants to do is stop reading to go look up a word. Besides, it's not as if there are no other words to say what you're trying to say. One exception would be if you simply can't remember the technical name for something but know a rough equivalent.

MikeC101

Show, don't tell is accurate in a sense, but horribly overused in a lot of critiques. It's a crutch for someone looking for a problem - and pounced on way too often, without taking context into account. Good authors do it all the time. The over emphasis on avoiding it, I think, leads a lot of new writers to labour at achieving all show, no tell, which leads to artificial bloated prose. It's a matter of achieving the right balance (which I suppose all these truisms are) rather than completely cutting something out. When it's done properly it flows with the narrative and is barely noticeable.

Good examples of how not to do it tend to show up in fantasy and science fiction (and Dan Brown) a lot. Science fiction has the "As you know, Bob" info dump dialogue, where characters (frequently scientists/engineers) lecture each other on things they already know, but that the reader doesn't.
There's a good review of the movie versions of The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, where the reviewer says the main difference between the two films is that Tom Hanks stands around and lectures people in the first movie, but in the second one he runs around while lecturing people.

MikeC101

From the Guardian article

There's a few ones I'd take issue with - mainly because they take things that I consider fine in moderation, use examples of them at their worst and then flatly state "never do this".

Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.

Don't agree with this at all. Maybe in straightforward dialogue, but I'm fine with "asked", "snapped", "explained", "yelled". The examples in the article of "grumbled", "gasped", "cautioned", "lied" are a bit more intrusive perhaps, but wouldn't bother me at all if used in moderation. "Ejaculated" and "asseverated", fair enough.

Sure, I would use "said" ninety percent of the time, but I don't see the problem with using other words, as long as they aren't too intrusive.

Edit: Looking back over them, the problem I have with a lot of these "rules" is the tendency to take the worst possible example of a device, or the device being used poorly or in the wrong context, and equating that to the device itself, then making a rule that said device must never be used. For example taking info dumping and using that to expound "show don't tell" as an infallible rule that must be obeyed at all times.

MikeC101

pickarooney wrote: »

2)
I suppose this one is obvious, but there are some examples of films where there is no clear-cut protagonist, or there are several, or he dies, or the lead character is not the one you think it is or the protagonist is something non-human. I'm trying to think of examples of books but am drawing a blank at the moment. My first attempt at a novel had no single protagonist and I think it might be one of the main reasons it was so rubbish.

Has anyone read or written a novel with no protagonist that remains interesting reading?

That's a tough one. I can think of a good amount that have more than one protagonist, or lack a clearly defined protagonist, but not really one with none. Stephen King springs to mind as an obvious example, with a lot of his stuff featuring multiple point of view characters. Even books with unconventional protagonists, or "false" protagonists (GRRMs Song of Ice and Fire springs to mind) like you've referenced in films.

The only one that I can think of that comes close is "Last and First Men" by Olaf Stapledon. It's an imagined history of the future, written in the thirties, of how humanity will change as it rises and falls throughout the centuries.

MikeC101

pickarooney wrote: »

What about 3)? I've seen it mentioned several times but don't agree with it at all. American Psycho, Filth, The End of Alice - nothing remotely sympathetic about the main characters in those books, but they're none the less fascinating for it.

This is very true. American Psycho just couldn't exist with Bateman as a likeable character. (Ok, it could I suppose, but it wouldn't be the powerful novel it is)

Perhaps the rule is best taken as a warning to novice writers that it's very hard to do it successfully?

EileenG

9) Don't use a thesaurus

I don't agree with this one. No, I don't mean you should look up the longest word you can find that will fit, but over-using a word is bad too. There is nothing wrong with looking up alternatives to words that seem to keep popping up all the time. Sometimes you start with a boring word, but a little work can produce the word that conveys exactly the image you wanted, without being annoying.

pickarooney

10) Give the reader credit

Don't assume the reader is slow-witted and needs you to point everything out. Most people will pick up on little clues straight away; others will read back over to see what they've missed. The smug feeling of working something out before the characters do is better than being beaten over the head with a detailed explanation. If you think you've written something so subtle that nobody will get it a) you're probably wrong and b) so what?

i-digress

pickarooney wrote: »

10) Give the reader credit

Don't assume the reader is slow-witted and needs you to point everything out. Most people will pick up on little clues straight away; others will read back over to see what they've missed. The smug feeling of working something out before the characters do is better than being beaten over the head with a detailed explanation. If you think you've written something so subtle that nobody will get it a) you're probably wrong and b) so what?

+1 this is such an important one

jackthelad321

pickarooney wrote: »

1)
This is probably the most popular rule of thumb suggested on this forum. It can be hard enough to explain without the use of examples, but the general idea is that it's better to let the reader know something by inference rather than directly stating the facts.

Tell:
John was hungry and tired. He was afraid he would be late for the meeting.

Show:
John heaved a weary sigh, his stomach growling. He looked anxiously at his watch.

The above example is fairly rubbish, but hopefully illustrates the axiom in some way.

I think it was a good, clear example. I can often violate this simple rule. I think John Magahern was talking about this when he said ''all good writing is suggestion and all bad writing is statement''. That really hit me when i read it. Now John would know!;)

My own beliefs would be derived (almost entirely) from The Elements of Style. So, as good rules, to be clear, and to not overwrite. Also read somewhere that writers are, lets be honest, hopelessly egotistical. It comes with the territory. so, again, try to be more grounded with what you are doing! I again fall prey to this

Torakx

pickarooney wrote: »

2)
I suppose this one is obvious, but there are some examples of films where there is no clear-cut protagonist, or there are several, or he dies, or the lead character is not the one you think it is or the protagonist is something non-human. I'm trying to think of examples of books but am drawing a blank at the moment. My first attempt at a novel had no single protagonist and I think it might be one of the main reasons it was so rubbish.

Has anyone read or written a novel with no protagonist that remains interesting reading?

This is probably a bit late.
I straight away thought of George R R Martins series "A Song of Ice and Fire".
Ive been reading tons of fantasy books from age 12 to 24 or so and found his series to have really no main character.
Some of them i actually liked and he killed them,some are right buggers and get away with stuff that makes you angry.I experienced dissapointed,happiness and sadness reading this series and i also enjoyed his writing style as it was realistic and merged reality with fantasy much better than say a classic Tolkien book for example.
I would reccomend it to anyone wishing to write fantasy books as a good example of creating a world with realistic dissapointments,laughs,sadness,heroics and a lasting feeling that it was worth experiencing that world you will never forget.

miec

Great thread

2 The only book I can think of that mastered this successfully was 'The Sound and the Fury' by William Faulkner. It had four sections, the first was narrated through (please note through not by) Benjy (he had a learning disability) and how Faulkner managed to get the story through association of objects was incredible, the second section focuses on his brother Quentin, the third is narrated by the other brother Jason and the final section focuses primarily on Dilsey (the family servant - it was set in the South of the US). There is no one specific protangonist but it really works. One of the best books I've ever read.

3 I think having a strong leading character works better, whether they are lovable or you dislike them intensely. For instance 'Satan' in 'Paradise Lost' is such a powerful, bad character that I ended up loving him. The mother in Lionel Shriver's 'Let's talk about Kevin' is an interesting character, I was not sure if I could take to her but she remained strong throughout the entire novel, she was powerfully honest and brutal and I think that is what makes an unlikeable character so compelling, they are usually honest in their brutality.

4 Ah dialogue, yes I think it should be collequial according to the speaker but here is my dilemna - how far do you go with it. For instance if I was to write exactly how people speak it becomes difficult for the reader to understand, for instance 'Interviews with hideous men' by David Scott Wallace uses speech exactly how it would be spoken, as does Irvine Welsch and others. How far do you go with it? I mean who uses comma's etc in speech, yet in my book I do use punctuation for pauses in the speech, plus my work is aimed at the 11+ so I can't afford to play around too much.

11 As recommended by Stephen King and others, leave the work to rest for six weeks. (I think you could shorten the time if it is a short story). I did this with my novel and it is so helpful because I found I was able to be technical as I edited the book, the emotional/creative side was in the 1st draft. I have the capacity to be ruthless with the waffle and so I am able to cut, cut, cut.

12 Cut, cut, cut. Take out the waffle if it does not lend itself to the story. (says she who overwrites all the time).

pickarooney

miec wrote: »

12 Cut, cut, cut. Take out the waffle if it does not lend itself to the story. (says she who overwrites all the time).

It took me a while to understand what 'Write the shït out of it" really meant.

EileenG

miec wrote: »

4 Ah dialogue, yes I think it should be collequial according to the speaker but here is my dilemna - how far do you go with it. For instance if I was to write exactly how people speak it becomes difficult for the reader to understand, for instance 'Interviews with hideous men' by David Scott Wallace uses speech exactly how it would be spoken, as does Irvine Welsch and others. How far do you go with it? I mean who uses comma's etc in speech, yet in my book I do use punctuation for pauses in the speech, plus my work is aimed at the 11+ so I can't afford to play around too much.

In very small doses. Dialogue is not the same as conversation. In real life, every time people open their mouths, you get a rash of "Er" and "Um" and "You know" and "like", not to mention all the half finished sentences and constant repetition. In dialogue, you just give a flavour of that, and you cut out all the stuff that's not relative to the scene. No chat about how bad the traffic is, unless the traffic is going to be significant later on.

miec

It took me a while to understand what 'Write the shït out of it" really meant.

Lol, it only really comes with experience.

Freds universe

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

8) A writer is also naturally a reader.

If your writing your probably not going to re-invent the wheel, nor should you be trying to. Writers are naturally influenced by other writers, and so a dedicated writer also will tend to be dedicated reader.

Damn right. After reading some tome's of Sir Bulwer-Lytton's legacy and Dave Eggers works I notice a peculiar bent of style in my own simple writings. The mind is a very plastic piece of ****, always adapting to surroundings, following the outer walls of the mould.

Besides I like to note that for me the most important fact for a writer should be his aptitude for imagination and the ability to precipitate his inner feelings. In my opinion an author should be a dreamer, with little attachment to facts, nor to his own achievements. If one likes to take his reader on a trip through space, he should go first. Besides, who cares for facts? Look at that landmark in fantasy A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, isn't it a marvel in itself?

Great thread indeed, and a good read for that!

pickarooney

Welkom in boards.ie Fred

Freds universe

Much appreciated to be welcomed, thank you. Great to be here. I am Dutch, all Dutch, and just boarded Boards.ie to find a landfall to enter into Ireland. Not only physically but also spiritually. This summer I'd like to travel through this much written about country for the first time of my life, and perhaps get to know how it is to be an Irishman?
But this thread about creative writing kindled a long seated desire in me to be more productive in writing. So I hope you can learn from me and I learn much more from you!

EileenG

The more writers the better!

cobsie

EileenG wrote: »

9) Don't use a thesaurus

I don't agree with this one. No, I don't mean you should look up the longest word you can find that will fit, but over-using a word is bad too. There is nothing wrong with looking up alternatives to words that seem to keep popping up all the time. Sometimes you start with a boring word, but a little work can produce the word that conveys exactly the image you wanted, without being annoying.

Think of the brilliant use Jonathon Saffran Foer made of the thesaurus in Everything Is Illuminated, in the hands of his Ukranian translator Alex.

I use a thesaurus all the time, not to introduce words that I don't know or would normally not use, but just to quickly jog my memory. It's a tool, there to be used.

dawvee

cobsie wrote: »

Think of the brilliant use Jonathon Saffran Foer made of the thesaurus in Everything Is Illuminated, in the hands of his Ukranian translator Alex.

I use a thesaurus all the time, not to introduce words that I don't know or would normally not use, but just to quickly jog my memory. It's a tool, there to be used.

I agree with that - as a memory aid, a thesaurus can be a valuable tool. I often find I can remember the meaning and 'shape' or 'feel' of a word, for lack of a better term, but need the quick reminder before I can actually remember what the word I'm looking for is.

But, the other side is that looking through synonyms in a thesaurus, I recognize most of the words listed as either terrible fits or downright nonsensical in the context I'm writing. So for me, the rule I'd suggest for a thesaurus is: Use it, but for god's sake don't use a word you found in there that you didn't already *know* before you opened it.

EileenG

Agree you need to know the word first. But I love looking through a thesaurus and seeing the exact word you need.

pickarooney

Does anyone ever refrain from using a word that you know because you think nobody will understand it? Is that really arrogant and insulting?

EileenG

Yes, but I know some very strange words. I was checking the spelling of "flensing" recently and everyone looked at me as if I had two heads.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

Yes, but I know some very strange words. I was checking the spelling of "flensing" recently and everyone looked at me as if I had two heads.

Funny, I just deleted a paragraph that had 'flensing' in the the other day (as a verb).

The Mad Hatter

pickarooney wrote: »

Does anyone ever refrain from using a word that you know because you think nobody will understand it? Is that really arrogant and insulting?

Absolutely not! I try to always use the right word. Usually your meaning will be clear enough from context, and if not, well, that's what dictionaries are for (as I just demonstrated with flensing - which is now a word I like). Words are more than just definitions - they have a rhythm and nuance that you won't usually get by using a different word.

Or that's my take on it anyhow.

EileenG

I did leave in flensing, because that was the right word, and could be guessed from the context. I just couldn't get a quick check on how to spell it.

zeenie

ToasterSparks wrote: »

5) Think of a story and let your style evolve naturally - instead of thinking of a style and trying to make up a story around it

I don't care if you write something in a different way, or if your book/story has a different layout/feel - if there's no story behind the fancy prose, I am not gonna keep reading.

sometimes, that is not easy for amateur writers, like me, i have so many unfinished stories bcos i dont want to just make up a mere story for all my styles/plots n stuff.

i was never a literature student i self studied, and i so much luv literature but i'm not very good at it.

EileenG

zeenie wrote: »

sometimes, that is not easy for amateur writers, like me, i have so many unfinished stories bcos i dont want to just make up a mere story for all my styles/plots n stuff.

i was never a literature student i self studied, and i so much luv literature but i'm not very good at it.

Just write the story. Don't get hung up on the style, just concentrate on telling a damn good story. I promise, the style will evolve to suit the story.