In spite of the welcome distraction of Hallowe'en, the end of the month is a tense old time in the world of authonomy, as we wait to see what the next top 5 are going to be. To help take our minds off it all, here's Jason Pettus with the second in his series of blog posts about writing.
So what's one of the main differences between a fictional story and real life? Well, here's a big one: unlike real life, a fictional story aims usually to present only a small slice of a particular group of people's lives, not the entireties, and so by definition must present a certain amount of "backstory" at the beginning (more formally known as "exposition"), so that readers can get quickly caught up on what's going on in these people's lives. But since the goal of mainstream fiction is to get a reader "sucked into" the story, to literally trick their brains into thinking these made-up characters are real and their plights legitimately dire, an author can't just sit down and literally write out the backstory formally at the beginning of a novel, as if creating a Wikipedia entry explaining what's been happening up to now.
Within writing circles, it's known as the "showing not telling" problem; and it's one of the more controversial and headache-producing literary problems out there, too, in that many disagree in the first place over the term's very definition, much less how to best overcome it. Today, for example, I thought I'd share my particular thoughts on the subject, as it specifically applies to books that aim to be mainstream hits; and this is opposed to ones that aim to be more underground cult hits, for example, not to mention those who just generally disagree with my opinions to begin with. And my thoughts can be best expressed as follows...
Whenever we meet someone randomly new in our real lives -- say, as a hypothetical example, our new friend Sally -- rarely do they start the relationship by literally sitting down and rattling off an encyclopedic summation of their entire lives so far:
"Hi. I'm Sally. I'm kind of unfairly cruel to most people around me, but that's only because of unresolved issues with my controlling father. I'm the kind of woman who likes collecting Hermes scarves, and then being tied up with them during intense but monogamous sex. Oh, and if you're another woman, I might viciously turn on you one night when I'm wasted. Sorry about that."
Or in other words, rarely does Sally sit down in our real lives and simply tell us these things; instead, as our friendship with Sally progresses, we learn them by simply witnessing her showing us. We actually watch her be unfairly cruel to most others; watch her awkward relationship with her father; perhaps we end up dating her, and watch her predilection for boutique bondage. A great writer's job is to weave all these kinds of examples together, to provide at the end a highly complex and realistic look at a person, precisely by duplicating the way we get to know a new person in real life, not by simply writing out an Wikipedia entry on the subject.
But of course, as mentioned, there are lots of exceptions to that rule too; say, for example, that you're deliberately going for a highly stylized form of writing, one deliberately flat and overly expositional; like a Garrison Keillor tale, for example, or a Wes Anderson movie, or the Coen Brothers at their deadpan-zaniest. Or perhaps you mean to say something deeper about that character precisely by rattling off a series of short declarative statements about them, ala Kurt Vonnegut; or there could be any one of another dozen reasons you might "tell" more in a story than "show," and still have it come out a legitimately great project. This is part of the magic trick of being a great writer, after all, is in knowing how to take a bunch of little words we all use everyday too, and turn them into a unique and profound experience.
No, I'm talking today to all the authors who decided to upload a manuscript to a website sponsored by HarperCollins; authors who obviously are aiming for bigger commercial goals, who want to have a mainstream hit on their hands and maybe even get a movie deal out of the whole thing. Because here in the early 2000s, we can safely say that it's the "Realist" school of thought that has largely taken over mainstream expectations for novels; first popularized by such writers as Henry James in the early 1900s, it's expressed in modern terms by such phrases as, "The book felt real to me," "the characters had become my friends by the end," "I kept forgetting I was reading a book," and more. When it comes to this goal, and of making a splash at a place like authonomy, I recommend the specific things talked about here today; but that's also while recognizing that there are many different ways to look at this issue as well (and in fact, I hope you'll feel free to share your own opinion on the subject in the comments below).
That's it for this time; and don't forget, if you'd like to see a specific issue addressed here, feel free to drop me a line directly at ilikejason[at]gmail.com. Happy writing!
(Jason Pettus is the owner of the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography, found at cclapcenter.com.)
19 comments:
Great example, Jason. I hope I'm not guilty of it - I don't *think* I am!
Very well put, I think it is one of the hardest things I have had to learn, I still find little bits sneaking in.
Very well said, Jason.
Nowadays 'show, don't tell' has become such a cliche, that it rattles off writers' tongues without a thought for how 'telling' can sometimes act in their favour.
I think that the ability to show is indeed a great tool for an author to possess. However, I've been charmed by writers who sometimes stop the story, clear the hall, put their hands on their hips and say, 'So Anne, this is how it went down.'
Thanks for what you do.
Best
Anne
Well done to the HC editor who reviewed "Magdeburg". At last, an injection of harsh reality into the ludicrously cosy Authonomy community of non-serious writers.
One person on Authonomy actually made a plea for no one ever to post critical comments about any books...and received rapturous support. Therein lies the sure way to learn nothing. The ostrich approach to writing.
The main problem with the site is that few of the writers seem to inhabit the real world. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of Magdeburg, the subject matter could not be considered commercial in a million years. People can object to the commercial tag all they like, but HC is a commercial publisher not an obscure literary publisher. A famous literary writer could be garlanded with laurels for tackling something like Magdeburg: a new writer is just setting themselves up for disappointment. Beginners have to be far more pragmatic.
Why don't Authonomy contributors try to help HC by backing books that they would actually buy in a shop? Think like an HC editor, not like amateur writers seduced by the incessant shameless promotions of certain people.
(BTW, Magdeburg was probably the best of last month's top five. It's a shame the other HC editors didn't see fit to be rather more critical of the material they read. Authonomy will prove useful only if writers can escape their dreamworlds and start thinking commercially. It's vital that HC editors tell it as it is and don't try to sugar the pill.)
@ anonymous: you got a good point, but to be fair, some Authonomers HAVE backed commercial books.
There should be equal footing for commercial and non-commercial books, mmm? Some people love commercial and others don't, whilst some love literary fiction and others loathe 'em.
Jason,
Good advice. "rarely does Sally sit down in our real lives and simply tell us these things..."
True, but real folk we are just getting to know sometimes sit down and tell us 'stories' about themselves, stories that indicate things about them that they may not yet be able to see. I say this, probably in defensive mode, because I do employ flashback a few times in my submittal here, White Seed. But if a real editor looked at White Seed and said we don't need to know that, or we could feed that in this way, I would listen.
Again, it would be informative to have more such little lessons from you.
Best
Anonymous, I'd take more notice of your opinions if you weren't hiding behind anonymity.
Why not sign your posts?
Or are you not willing to be associated with your own remarks?
Good for you, Jason,
I'm of the old school reading public (not ancient). I expect 'flashbacks' and thoroughly enjoy works by authors such as Tom Clancey/Robert Ludlum/Barbara Taylor Bradford/Fay Weldon etc., all of whom have been published by HC.
I class the above as mainstream authors though all cross various genre from thriller to romance, and when I write I think how these authors set scenes, more especially the first few descriptive paragraghs, hence my novel was slammed as adjective heavy.
I despise books where dialogue starts at warp speed, the characters mere cardboard junkies -half the first chapter gone and still no clue as to where the characters are(place/time/country).
cheers
SuzySomerset
I've got so many disagreeable disagreements here.
Jason. Great - and respect.
But there seems to me to be a desire to 'cast' certain styles in stone, to plasticise and, therefore, retain as role models, certain techniques.
When James Joyce wrote 'Ulysses', it was a madness - a RadioHead self-destruction. And yet people would compare works to it, today. Similarly, any work that doesn't 'conform' is held up as 'wrong' not different, brave or reconstructive.
If a work breaks the rules and 'works' for a readership, particularly in these changeable times where rules are not just being broken but smashed apart, you can't afford to say, 'That doesn't conform to the accepted rules of this medium'.
We're Punks - WE'RE defining the rules now, creators for consumers that get the new dialogue.
Now, I'm not advocating the wholesale destruction of the rules of grammar - but I am saying that we are changing faster than 'stylists' and academics in the rite of writing are.
WTF meant nothing to Oscar Wilde. But it's a powerful tool in a deft hand today.
If you can change a POV in a para, for example, and make it work - why not do it? If the reader gets it, if it's fluid and makes sense, why not 'break the rule'? It strikes me that rules-based writing is the ultimate commoditisation. The rules of writing today lag the requirements of reality. Today's world is filled with constant, fast, POV shifts.
So while I agree with 'show not tell' as a basic tenet of writing, I also think Anne has a valid point and so, perhaps, would others.
I see your point as valid - and I see the consequences all around me in authonomy every day. But I'd hesitate to impose 'hard and fast' rules...
"When James Joyce wrote 'Ulysses', it was a madness - a RadioHead self-destruction."
That's fightin' talk! Or rather complete nonsense. The finest and most rewarding piece of writing I know bar none and the one I return to and reread most ~ much as I enjoy the odd piece of 'realist' clatrap. It may have seemed like madness to some of the outside world, though in the context of modernism, not that bad, but Jimmy boy knew what he was doing.
"The artist is never ahead of his time ~ the people are only behind theirs." (E Varese)
One annoying fact. Late evening in many a pub in these post_Freudian days, Sally will sit down and offload a life story at us. But I for one would never want to put that in a book! I hate escapism but that's one experience books can shield us from.
Okay I won't be the next Joyce, even the next Heller, even if I prefer "confuse, don't tell" as a watchword ~ or at least "Make them laugh, make them cry ~ make them wait" (W Collins). But I don't want to be the next Dan Brown at any price.
"Quote me no quotes!" R W Emerson.
Anyone who thinks they can write a book, a story –“we all have a book in us” – and has yet to sit in front of MS Word has a few shocks coming. Yes, shocks, tempered with tedium, frustration and the realisation that, as a new writer you are starting as a junior in a new job you know nothing about and therefore must: help make the tea, pop down to the post office and, ‘by the way, can you do the sandwich run?’ An implicit order not a request. Unpaid, naturally.
I hazard a wild statement. Your average wannabe writer author feels he has been round the block, has experienced the joys, knocks and tears of life enough to make a fist of a story, quite often a story he or she would like to read themselves.
Couple this with the bewildering presentation of often complete rubbish in the bookshop shelves. If you are a sci-fi or fantasy fan, for example, as a presumably avid devourer of your genre you will have read the lot over the years and now peer anxiously at whichever part of the shelf alphabet (hopefully not after ‘T’ for those with the seniority of bad backs) for the continuation of a series. 'Aaron Aardvark' for nom-de-plume.
Preamble over, we have to learn of the existence of Show versus Tell, Point of View, Voice and characterisation. We must now revisit punctuation and sentence construction, bear in mind that a chapter should start so far down on a right hand page and, and, and…
Apparently, readers already know all this instinctively. Writers, who are also presumably readers, do not. Bizarre. I hesitate to put an exclamation mark after ‘Bizarre’ after I am told to ‘get rid’.
We are exhorted to put our magnum opus away to cool for a few weeks. This is like asking a kid not to open their Xmas presents until February. Good advice, yes, we all know the self esteem damaged groans of revisiting early work.
I read on the forums that prologues were a debatable requirement. One author staunchly defended himself in spite of the fact he was warned his effort would stall at the publisher’s mail room counter. He didn’t care and I salute him. However, I did feel I had to write to him. It is my own suspicion now, that perhaps he should cool his ms for a while. To write another story (obviously he is capable) obeying all the ‘rules’ necessary to get an ms into the board room and, once ‘in’, he has a quick follow up on which the editor(s) can wield their red pens. My suspicion remember; if I were to be published, it would become my advice.
There seems to be a lot of talent out there. I think the talent is in the imagination, the fervour to get a story down on paper. The fact that there are so many manuscripts queuing up for publisher’s attention reflects a lack of ‘path to market’ The Internet is the obvious place to get heard, but doesn’t pay. The success stories reflect a wide range of interest. Personally, I don’t want to read about some foetus celebrity’s life story, nor yet another cookbook. The ghost writers are having a whale of a time. JKR had 38 rejections for Harry Potter and yet. Good stories for kids and good luck to her, but I, for one, am not doing Pilates so I can bend to see down to the ‘R’ shelf.
Finally, I draw your attention to Feersum Enjin by Iain M Banks. Written from the PoV of a kid, it is all phonetics. It is a story, a good one and has a useful tag – the author’s name. Banks has been writing since the 70s but I doubt he would have got that one in as his first. But it is a story and an enjoyable one which breaks reader’s rules.
Parenthetically yours, (to avoid "excessive use" comments)
Lucian James
Stretcher
Reindeer and Artichoke
I tend to say this a lot lately, but I'll say it again: Form Follows Function.
Again again: Form Follows Function.
If the function requires a reader to be brought up to speed about something, then by all means, tell.
If the function requires a reader to be sucked in and become part of an experience, then show.
Everyone together now: Form Follows Function.
That said... I could TELL you about The Prophecies of Megan Matthews or I can just SHOW you and let you experience it for yourself...
Unless we all believe that we must follow some set of rules putatively set up by HC I believe the issue is not so much whether to use show rather than tell or vice versa, but to know which it is you are using and why. This is more difficult than it sounds
Hi Jason, I felt like that had been directed right at me! I've had quite a lot of feedback saying my book starts too slow, tells too much abotu the character, I'm currently playing around with it though haven't made any changes on authonomy yet - but there are reasons it is how it is so I don't want to change to much. You've definitely given me more to think about though so thanks for the good timing!
Kath
Every day as I scratch out sublime cliches or rework overworked metaphors I wish for the same thing: Why wasn't I born a genius who could get it right the first time?
To anonymous: We all are learning, improving, and honing our craft. I for one, am thankful for sites like Authonomy to help me and others like me on this wondrous journey into our better selves.
Authonomy: the wisdom of crowds, or a confederacy of dunces? Eight years ago, the Americans voted for George W Bush - is that what a wise crowd does? Who says crowds are wise? Perhaps in certain narrow situations, but certainly not as a general proposition. Nietzsche believed that crowds were much more likely to be mad than individuals.
The great "insight" of HarperCollins when they came up with Authonomy was, apparently, that writers are also readers. They didn't seem to ask the rather more fundamental question - yes, but what kind of readers? Are writers in any way representative of the readers in Main Street, and if they're not, is their collective opinion remotely valuable? Would I conduct political opinion polls amongst politicians or amongst the electorate?
The entire intellectual and business rationale of Authonomy seems profoundly flawed, but perhaps one valuable function it serves is to show other publishers who might be considering something similar all the terrible mistakes that must be avoided at all costs.
If you want to "understand" Authonomy just go to the forum and check out the "Shameless Plugs" message board (by far the biggest message board on the site), and ask yourself to what extent any of this promotes high quality writing and makes the selection of excellent manuscripts more likely.
I am probably going to come across as a complete dunderhead. But I am a brave, maybe reckless dunderhead so I will continue regardless.
I found this article to be helpful and I will take it on board.
I am very pleased that Authonomy exists, if only because it gives me somewhere to plonk the few thousand words I am writing each day and watch my book grow and feel as though I have achieved something.
I will never be a 'writer' in the 'I can write stuff that only very clever people can understand' sense.
Neither will I ever be able to write a whole book while trying to make every single sentence into a fantastically honed jewelry quality item.
I would fall asleep well before I could ever get to that point and I know I just don't have it in me and never will.
But I have lots of stories that would make fantastic films. If I could make films that is what I would do - but I can't. So I will take my stories and the film in my head and try to get it down on paper so that at least one other person can read it and enjoy it as well.
The closer I can get the story on the page to the one in my head the happier I will be.
So any tips I can get to help me manage that are happily received digested and made use of when and where I can.
I was delirious to see this website appear. I have been inspired to start writing again with a feeling that here is somewhere that I have a small chance of putting my stories in front of people who might like to read them.
Right now I'm having a lot of fun writing and I don't see how that could ever be a bad thing.
I'm with Nemo regarding the form and function of the forums. As for the golden rules of modern writing: If you want to write something the average reader easily enjoys then take the advice of show-not-tell. It has evolved in effectiveness and readability. Most readers today expect this format. Of course you can write old style, recourse to reams of exposition but this style probably won't impress the publishers.
Post a Comment