When is a writer being self-indulgent?

[Diviner]

When is a writer being self-indulgent and how serious a problem is it?

Being an organic writer, I often go off on tangents. Unexpected characters pop up and have to be incorporated into the plot. A character comes up with an idea he wants to explore that has nothing to do with the plot, and he just runs with it. Or, in my historical novel, a bit of relevant history needs to be included, but the characters are not the movers and shakers of the main plotline.

When I am writing, I find all these things absorbing and entertaining, but when I am editing, a red flag goes up; and I wonder if I have gone overboard. How can I assess my foibles? How damaging are they if they are entertaining but slightly irrelevant? If I am attached to them, how hard should I work to integrate them? And should I turn the historical info dumps into scenes or just let them stay narration?

My biggest temptation is to get all Dickensian with bringing in interesting, but peripheral characters.

[maestrowork]

When you write, do whatever pleases you.

Before you submit, trim and prune. Think of your readers (agents, editors, betas, etc.)

My opinion, is they're not relevant, cut. No matter how entertaining they are.

[scribbler1382]

There's an old saying amongst novelists: Kill your darlings. Whenever you think you've been incredibly clever, or tricky or, worse, writerly...immediately go back and delete it. :)

[write4details]

Well, it worked for Dickens, didn't it? And it works for a lot of writers today. Think how much oddball stuff is in Pulp Fiction...and that's in a FILM, where space is a lot more dear than a novel. And it's been influential on all kinds of writers. Look at something like Harry Potter, with all the little extraneous stuff (she's really good at tying things together, but there are still a lot of oddities--and people like them) Or Douglas Adams...how many of people's favorite things about those books are extraneous little details like the Danger Sensitive Glasses or the Other Peoples' Problem Field?

In point of fact...what is more important to a reader entertainment, or revlance to something other than entertainment.

Kill your darlings is another one of those writing homilies (like "Write what you know") that people repeat, but are not all that helpful. Should you kill off your favorite things in a book just because you like them? Not a good recipe for writing, actually.

Thing is, we can't really tell you if it's "OK" to do this sort of thing. It might end up being the wonderful stuff that people love the most when you are the hottest novelist around three years from now. Guess who ends up having to decide? The same guy who is making crucial decision on character, plot, speech, and nuance in every single sentence--deciding what the book will be like. This is really what being a writer is all about, deciding what goes in and what doesn't.

A lot of people think editors have a better sense of what's good than writers do. Unlikely, actually, and expecially these days when "editors" are generally twenty-something twits who move on from the publishing company after three years maximum or recent English major grads working for agents for nothing and full of unproven opinions.

If you are concerned about something being left in, maybe you are trying to tell yourself something. Or maybe you've got some little detail or character just waiting to be hooked up as a subplot of neat little device later. Like I said...you're in control.

[Tish Davidson]

I have found it helpful to ask my beta readers to mark every spot where they find that their mind is wandering or that they are getting bored. They can simply draw a line in the margin along what they found dull or make a check mark every time they realized their mind wandered. This gives you some idea of which parts are relevant and entertaining to readers as opposed to entertaining to you.

[scribbler1382]

Well, it worked for Dickens, didn't it?
Well, I'd agree with you there. But the fact is, Dickens' books probably wouldn't get published today. Or, at least, not be as popular. No point honing yourself into a skillset that's out of date, imo.

Kill your darlings is another one of those writing homilies (like "Write what you know") that people repeat, but are not all that helpful. Should you kill off your favorite things in a book just because you like them? Not a good recipe for writing, actually.

I agree with you on the "write what you know" saying. Always hated that one. But the point of "kill your darlings" is not to make you delete everything you like from your work. Or even to actually delete clever bits. The point is to BE AWARE of what you're doing. That way, if you're about to be clever, maybe you'll think twice about it. Maybe you'll decide to do something else, maybe you won't. The point is, you thought about it.

While it's true over-thinking can bring on the old writer's block, I believe under-thinking can be just as bad. You've got to have SOME kind of bullshit filter on or you'll become Michael Douglas' character from The Wonder Boys. :)

[write4details]

I don't think anybody today "hones" on Dickens. Perhaps you should have picked Rowling or Adams from the examples I gave. Or Tarantino.

If you don't have a bullshit filter, you aren't going to get far as a writer. Well, there's always the little mags and academic journals.

[NeuroFizz]

[QUOTE=Diviner]
Being an organic writer,
QUOTE]

Hi, Diviner

Sorry to deviate from your topic. My question will be brief, and I hope the answer is as well so it doesn't detract from your intended discussion.

What is an organic writer? The word organic confuses me. To some it means "natural" which can be construed as someone who just writes without being mechanical or theoretical about it. But organic also means organized, systematic, methodical, formal--which can be the opposite of the first meaning. Actually, some take the strictly biological definition of "carbon-containing" and scoff at all the newer permutations. Personally, I think the word has been abused to the point of being vague and not very useful. But, if there is a "school" of writing that teaches organic writing, please define it for me. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm part curious and part confused.
Thank you.
Cheers, NF

[write4details]

I think it has to do with avoiding chemicals and pesticides. Which is good advice for us all.

[zornhau]

What is an organic writer?

The opposite to a Holistic writer.

Organics write as if they were reading the story. They engage with it at ground level in a linear fashion, experiencing it with the characters. This means not outlining, and limited planning. However, they will often use strategies to move their story along, e.g. "Have a character enter the room with a gun". Stephen King's your man for this.

Holistics, like me, prefer to engage with the whole shape of the story at one go through intellectualising some proportion of the process. May holistics are also Outliners. Books: "Story" by Robert McKee and "Techniques of a Selling Author" by Dwight Swain.

Some writers are both, depending on what they are writing.

[NeuroFizz]

Thanks, Z.

In other words, it goes against at least one set of accepted synonyms of "organic." Your definitions are clear and helpful, but my own personal confusion deepens over the word itself. Now, back to the topic of the thread. Sorry for the detour.

Cheers, NF

[zornhau]

Thanks, Z.

In other words, it goes against at least one set of accepted synonyms of "organic." Your definitions are clear and helpful, but my own personal confusion deepens over the word itself. Now, back to the topic of the thread. Sorry for the detour.

Cheers, NF

I hasten to add that my definitions are based on observation rather than any hard or fast 3rd party rules.

[Jamesaritchie]

The term "organic writer" is most often used by those who are outliners, and who simply don't understand the process of those who write without using outline. Not using an outline in no way means you don't pay attention to structure, and to the story as a whole. Just the opposite.

It means you do pay attention to the story as a whole, rather than as separate chunks you put together to create a story.

It means story structure is built into the first chapter, and usually into the opening scene. "Organic writer" is a horrible term, and a highly inaccurate term, at that.

When those who don't use outlines go off on a tangent, it's solely because the overall story structure dictates the tangent. The tanget does not and should not go off in a direction that leads nowhere, but, if you're doing it right, leads directly to a better climax for teh story that's already been structured.

The the story and the characters dictate the events, rather than the writer articficially planning them ahead of time.

[Jamesaritchie]

When is a writer being self-indulgent and how serious a problem is it?

Being an organic writer, I often go off on tangents. Unexpected characters pop up and have to be incorporated into the plot. A character comes up with an idea he wants to explore that has nothing to do with the plot, and he just runs with it. Or, in my historical novel, a bit of relevant history needs to be included, but the characters are not the movers and shakers of the main plotline.

When I am writing, I find all these things absorbing and entertaining, but when I am editing, a red flag goes up; and I wonder if I have gone overboard. How can I assess my foibles? How damaging are they if they are entertaining but slightly irrelevant? If I am attached to them, how hard should I work to integrate them? And should I turn the historical info dumps into scenes or just let them stay narration?

My biggest temptation is to get all Dickensian with bringing in interesting, but peripheral characters.

Dickens was one heck of a great writer, and you could do far worse than imitate him. But there was generally rhyme and reason for everything he did, and how he did it.

A tangent is wrong when it turns the story away from the climax the story should have, and right when it aims the story at the climax.

A character is right when he plays some minor to major part in the actual story, and wrong when he's just there for window dressing.

[Diviner]

Hi, Diviner


What is an organic writer? The word organic confuses me. To some it means "natural" which can be construed as someone who just writes without being mechanical or theoretical about it. . . . But, if there is a "school" of writing that teaches organic writing, please define it for me. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm part curious and part confused.
Thank you.
Cheers, NF

Stephen King is the one from whom I got "organic." I found I simply could not write a story outline without violating it significantly by the second chapter or falling asleep somewhere like a third of the way through the proposed book. It is as if my mind refuses to even consider what might be happening until I have seen the characters in action.

I have never been good at thinking. I have to write or talk to follow my thoughts. I see my scenes vividly and become anxious to write them down, experiencing them along with my characters. When writing, I am also interested in what the characters say to each other. Sometimes it is quite surprising--and this will lead to those digressions I asked about in the main post of this thread.

I do not proceed as described in the other posts, beginning at the beginning and allowing my story to grow. My version is to start with a character, a story question, and a theme. This gives me an ending. Then I start writing to see how the character gets there. In historicals, a certain amount of content is determined by a time line, so I have that to guide me. As I am writing, I often write out of order so as not to have the stimulus of the unwritten scene interfering with the progression of the story.

I do not recommend my method. It is inefficient, and I often have to delete or rewrite the scenes written out of order. If I could outline, I would. I am a beginning novelist, and it is possible that as I grow I may be able to use outlines. I certainly review my scenes at the edit stage using Swain, but I do not plan them beforehand.

[Aconite]

Dickens was one heck of a great writer, and you could do far worse than imitate him. But there was generally rhyme and reason for everything he did, and how he did it.

Yep. Among other things, you have to remember that he was writing serials, and thus couldn't go back and rewrite earlier chapters, so he had to throw in characters and situations and possible plot points for later use if needed. Neil Gaiman said that writing a monthly comic gave him a lot of insight into serial writers of yore.

[SRHowen]

Organic writers, we form the story from one small detail--a scene, a book title, a character and so on. The story "grows" from that seed--as we write it. Thus the "organic" The story grows as the writer writes it. If you don't write this way it is very hard to understand the how and why of it. But but but how do you know you need the pack of gum in chapter 1 when he is in the store if you haven't planned chapter 5 where he uses it to save the day?

The only answer that can be given is--you just know it. You don't think OK he needs to have gum so he can use it to stop up the leak and save the day in chapter 5--

You character goes into the store and you have him buy milk and eggs, he sees the gum and the character picks up that gum (a small tangent) later in chapter 5 he needs to fix a leak in his rubber boat. Ahhh, you the writer says--that's why he needed that gum.

It's as if the characters are telling you a story as it has already happened to them, you are just the historian who is writing out their life. And, as James stated, we do pay attention to things we just know to let the characters have their way. The quickest way to stall a story or make a tangent meaningless is to try to make the story go back on a path you the writer want it to go on. NO NO NO I don't want John to fall in love with Jill, he is suposed to love Ann--we just let it go and grow on its own.

I think of the outline and no outline people it's hard for one to understand the other--we no outline writers--all I can say is for me the story is just there, tangents and all.

I am often surprised by where the story goes and what happens next.

Go with the flow and see what you get in the end.

Shawn

[brinkett]

It's as if the characters are telling you a story as it has already happened to them, you are just the historian who is writing out their life.

That's a brilliant way of putting it.


The quickest way to stall a story or make a tangent meaningless is to try to make the story go back on a path you the writer want it to go on.

Yep. I can tell I'm trying to force something the characters don't want when I totally block on a scene, or when I know as I'm writing it that it's just not working. I've learned to select what I've written of the scene so far, hit the delete key, and start over without forcing it. Works every time, and always results in a better scene/story.

[Lenora Rose]

I do not recommend my method. It is inefficient, and I often have to delete or rewrite the scenes written out of order. If I could outline, I would. I am a beginning novelist, and it is possible that as I grow I may be able to use outlines. I certainly review my scenes at the edit stage using Swain, but I do not plan them beforehand.

I used to be wildly organic by almost all the definitions here (except possibly the pesticide-free one:Shrug: ). I wrote stories where I started by describing a character and his setting that had popped in my head. I borrowed a cool scene from a dream as a climax, and started working towards that ending with no idea how I'd get there. I never outlined. Sometimes structure was in from the first, sometimes it was a grey fog into which the character led me (And usually back out at the end, but there was plenty of crud in there...).

The last few years, I've turned into an outliner. When I start a story, I also start scribbling down where it's going, and why. And I usually reach the climax I meant to reach.

But even with an outline, I never arrive by the exact path in the outline. I can have everything plotted, scene by scene, and suddenly realise that the character is too inexperienced to do something that clever. Right now I have two characters planned to fall in love who look at one another with mutual respect, even friendship, but no sexual or romantic urge, and I've just had a hard lesson in what a fanatically religious person will drive himself to do, against his own best interests. Both bend the story in different directions, but it could be interesting seeing how it goes. (Particularly since now I might have to figure out who the actual mother is of another character in another story entirely.)

On the other hand I also just had a cardboard character wake up and tell me what his real motivation is. I'd put him doing stuff into the outline on paper and in my head, but it was all me thinking. What I find amusing is that his new personality points to him doing exactly what I note him as doing in the outline, but for vastly different reasons. The plot doesn't change, btu the story feels richer.

I think really really firm planners won't sympathise with this kind of shift - and "organic" writers will.

[alanna]

(referring to the original quote. i'm too lazy to read the entire thread)

that's a great word, foibles. i like that word. is it spelled right? oh well. still a cool word.

and i would just write your heart out and go back with a machete- or in my case, the critiquing pen of doom. trust your insticts. little red flag goes up, ask yourself why. or have someone else read the piece and see if they notice the same thing. jmo.

[Cathy C]

Well, I'm going to prescribe what works best for my co-author and I. She is organic. I'm holistic, using the definitions here. While I don't outline a book on paper, or on sticky notes or whatever, it's complete in my head before I set a single word to paper (or at least each "scene" or chapter is in my head). But I do understand the organic process, because that's how my co-author works. So, I've learned to go with the flow when it comes to a wandering muse. There is no outline strong enough to contain that muse on the path, and it must go traipsing through the forest to find bits and pieces of what will wind up being an incredible book.


So, what to do about it to avoid wandering in the woods forever? Well, a couple of things work. First, if a character demands that you write his whole story, and you get wrapped up in Bob the mailman (whose only part in the book is to stop by and deliver the package which is the crux of the plot,) then write about Bob for awhile. There's no sin in "backstory", because you never know if Bob's hobby doing woodworking might be useful at the end when you're trying to figure out how to turn off the saw in the mill that's about to cut your heroine in half (LOL!)

When you're "world-building", nothing is off limits. But you have to recognize that some of it will never make it into the plot because it just doesn't fit. But such is the stuff of SEQUELS! So keep all that backstory, in case a publisher wants to offer you a two-book deal. Maybe Bob the mailman will be the next hero.

What I've found works is to take the best and brightest character or "wander thread" and give it a second home at the end of the book. Find some way to tie in all that fun information, because then you've created real people that will resonate with the readers. Turn Bob from a walk-on role into best supporting actor. Your readers will love you for it, and so will your muse! :)

Good luck!

[Ginger]

So after realizing, thanks to this thread, that I am an organic writer, I'm wondering if editing is easier for you non-organic types?

Personally, I'm in the middle of going over my novel for the third time, and to be honest, I'm getting sick of it. I've known how it ends for some time now, and I'm becoming bored.

Finding out what happened at the end of my novel was extremely satisfying when I typed it out the FIRST TIME. That's my thrill, finding out what happens.

I've never been one to watch the same movie over and over again either.
:horse:

[alanna]

Finding out what happened at the end of my novel was extremely satisfying when I typed it out the FIRST TIME. That's my thrill, finding out what happens.


:horse:

i know what you mean. i love it when my characters do something unexpected.

[Cathy C]

Ah! THAT is the true curse of the organic writer! The difficulty (and it's not a problem -- just a difficulty) is that when you've finished writing the story, it's GONE. Poof! It's not in your head anymore and you're out wandering in the forest with the next interesting group of people. The old story is boring -- actually irritating ("Jeez, didn't I get rid of those people? Why do they keep following me around?")

My best advice?

Consider getting a co-author or a really good CP. Really, truly. Not at all kidding. But you need a holistic writer for the co-author, who can take the story with all the wandering threads and clip and tuck it until it fits back on the path. My co-author does her absolute best work when she's editing (well, actually when she's ripping apart MY editing. :ROFL: ) Your muse will be happy, and your pockets will be lined with gold to feed the muse chocolate!

At least, it's working for us...

[SRHowen]

Editing for me is not a lot of work--unless I am trying to make my story into something it isn't suposed to be--get away from the organic and make them do what me the writer wants.

I have a novel that has a main character who I was not listening to--I made he be what I wanted. Well, in all the rewrites the book is painful to work on--now that I am letting her have free will---the story is going very well, but not at all like I planned it to be. (this was my last time trying to write from an outline) nomore nomore I am not a outlinner by any means way or form.

[PattiTheWicked]

Yep. Among other things, you have to remember that he was writing serials, and thus couldn't go back and rewrite earlier chapters, so he had to throw in characters and situations and possible plot points for later use if needed. Neil Gaiman said that writing a monthly comic gave him a lot of insight into serial writers of yore.

Another great example of this is Alexandre Dumas. "The Count of Monte Cristo" was written as a serial, which is why so many of the chapters leave you on a "Oh my god what happens NOW?" note.

Of course, Dumas also got paid by the word, which is why some of his stuff tends to ramble, but it seems to work in the long run.

[aruna]

The opposite to a Holistic writer.

Organics write as if they were reading the story. They engage with it at ground level in a linear fashion, experiencing it with the characters. This means not outlining, and limited planning. However, they will often use strategies to move their story along, e.g. "Have a character enter the room with a gun". Stephen King's your man for this.

Holistics, like me, prefer to engage with the whole shape of the story at one go through intellectualising some proportion of the process. May holistics are also Outliners. Books: "Story" by Robert McKee and "Techniques of a Selling Author" by Dwight Swain.

Some writers are both, depending on what they are writing.

Your definitions confuse me more than ever...
I would always have thought as a Holistic wrter as one who writes spontaeously, without outlining, in a non-analytical, non-intellectual, "holistic" way; more from the subconscious than from the conscious mind. That is how I define the term holistic, generally speaking. I've never heard the term organic before as realted to writing, but if I would have to guess I would place it very close to Holistic.

The term I would use as the opposite to these two would be linear; or left-brained, as opposed to right-brained.

I am a very right-brained writer. Never planned, never organsised in first draft; I write much as the originator of this thread, letting the characters flow out by themselves, and pruning alter on. I would instinctively call myself both organic and holistic.

[brinkett]

Ah! THAT is the true curse of the organic writer! The difficulty (and it's not a problem -- just a difficulty) is that when you've finished writing the story, it's GONE. Poof! It's not in your head anymore and you're out wandering in the forest with the next interesting group of people. The old story is boring -- actually irritating ("Jeez, didn't I get rid of those people? Why do they keep following me around?")

Hmm... I'm an organic writer by the definitions in this thread, but I have no problem with the editing/revision process. I learn so much more about writing during during that phase than I do while writing the first draft, and I enjoy polishing the first draft until it shines. So I'd say I'm organic for the first draft only, and then turn into an analytical type for the revision phase.

[alanna]

Another great example of this is Alexandre Dumas. "The Count of Monte Cristo" was written as a serial, which is why so many of the chapters leave you on a "Oh my god what happens NOW?" note.

Of course, Dumas also got paid by the word, which is why some of his stuff tends to ramble, but it seems to work in the long run.

Crime and Punishment was a serial also. in fact, the last chapter (or was it the epilogue? if there was an epilogue, that was it.) was only written becuase people kept writing the magazine/newpaper it was in and demanding that it have a better ending.

personally, i like the way he ended it the first time.

[azbikergirl]

I guess I'd be a holistic writer then. I must plan and outline to some extent. I need to know the basic path the characters take to get from beginning to end. However, once I know the direction, I write somewhat 'organically' in that I just let it flow, making sure it's at least following the riverbed and not flooding the plains. In my novel, I had to ditch the antagonist and create a new one because the original refused to follow the path I wanted for him. The new bad guy was better suited to this story, and he happily complied. (My WDS instructor finds his scenes best of all, in fact.)

[aruna]

The term "organic writer" is most often used by those who are outliners, and who simply don't understand the process of those who write without using outline. Not using an outline in no way means you don't pay attention to structure, and to the story as a whole. Just the opposite.

It means you do pay attention to the story as a whole, rather than as separate chunks you put together to create a story.

It means story structure is built into the first chapter, and usually into the opening scene. "Organic writer" is a horrible term, and a highly inaccurate term, at that.

When those who don't use outlines go off on a tangent, it's solely because the overall story structure dictates the tangent. The tanget does not and should not go off in a direction that leads nowhere, but, if you're doing it right, leads directly to a better climax for teh story that's already been structured.

The the story and the characters dictate the events, rather than the writer articficially planning them ahead of time.

Nicely put. I absolutely don't agree with the definitions of "organic" and "holistic" as laid down here. But definitely, there are two kinds of writers, those who plan ahead and those who don't. What we choose to call them is irrelevant.

I don't plan. I simply sit down and let the chaarcters move and speak, often without knowing why and how it is all going to fit together later. It always works out.

In the second and later draft, I work quite differently; there, I pull everything into shape, change scenes around, go back and foreshadow, and so on.

[zornhau]

OK. What about those who intellectualise - look for rules of the thumb and terminology - and those who don't? Are there really 2 axes?

[three seven]

I came in here to answer the original question, but this whole conversation is way too intellectual for me so I'm going away again...

[Diviner]

I came in here to answer the original question, but this whole conversation is way too intellectual for me so I'm going away again...

I feel cheated. Although all the digressions about wholistic-organic writing discussions are interesting, my question about diversions and ripe character development is serious. Do you have anything to add? :poke:

Thanks.

[Cathy C]

:( I tried very hard to answer you, Diviner. But I'll try to be more clear.


No, going off on tangents isn't self-indulgent, nor is it disasterous. What you have to decide if you're going on tangents with too much backstory for a particular character is whether it ADDS to the plot. Or whether it CAN add to the plot. If you're going on tangents with "side trips" off from the main plot, then determine how to wind it back in. It's actually quite easy to have ONE element of a tangent have bearing in the ending. If your H/h meet just ONE person whose knowledge in dialogue can help him/her achieve the ending, then it was time well spent. In other words, write the book right up to the last few chapters and see if anything can be woven back in. The dog walking by with a frisbee in chapter 5 might become the same dog who bites the leg of the bad guy at the end, providing a REASON for the tangent.

See, there are two types of plots in books. One is the "straight-line" plot where the H/h is moving consistently toward a goal with complete, focused devotion. There's little time for anything that isn't part of the problem to be resolved. Tangent writers will have a difficult time writing a straight line plot. It's possible, but more difficult.

The other type of plot is a "braided" plot, where many things are going on in the character's lives -- the main problem to be resolved being only one of them. Or, there are a lot of characters, and each one will have their own part to resolve the single plot, but there are subplots galore due to all the people. Writers who go off on tangents are best suited to braided plots, because each time the character wanders off the path to find something else to do, it gets brought back around and fit into the puzzle. Tom Clancy is famous for braided plots. He introduces multiple characters in seemingly disparate roles and weaves them until the reader finally becomes fully aware of the plot almost right at the end. But the reader is willing to along for the ride because they KNOW it will be woven back in.

Does that help any?

[Ace]

When is a writer being self-indulgent?

I think the answer is quite obvious:

A writer is being self-indulgent if that writer has perpetuated this thread.

Seriously, though, the point that you're going to get from everyone is to write however you want to.

[Diviner]

:( I tried very hard to answer you, Diviner. But I'll try to be more clear.


No, going off on tangents isn't self-indulgent, nor is it disasterous. What you have to decide if you're going on tangents with too much backstory for a particular character is whether it ADDS to the plot. Or whether it CAN add to the plot. If you're going on tangents with "side trips" off from the main plot, then determine how to wind it back in. It's actually quite easy to have ONE element of a tangent have bearing in the ending. If your H/h meet just ONE person whose knowledge in dialogue can help him/her achieve the ending, then it was time well spent. In other words, write the book right up to the last few chapters and see if anything can be woven back in. The dog walking by with a frisbee in chapter 5 might become the same dog who bites the leg of the bad guy at the end, providing a REASON for the tangent.

See, there are two types of plots in books. One is the "straight-line" plot where the H/h is moving consistently toward a goal with complete, focused devotion. There's little time for anything that isn't part of the problem to be resolved. Tangent writers will have a difficult time writing a straight line plot. It's possible, but more difficult.

The other type of plot is a "braided" plot, where many things are going on in the character's lives -- the main problem to be resolved being only one of them. Or, there are a lot of characters, and each one will have their own part to resolve the single plot, but there are subplots galore due to all the people. Writers who go off on tangents are best suited to braided plots, because each time the character wanders off the path to find something else to do, it gets brought back around and fit into the puzzle. Tom Clancy is famous for braided plots. He introduces multiple characters in seemingly disparate roles and weaves them until the reader finally becomes fully aware of the plot almost right at the end. But the reader is willing to along for the ride because they KNOW it will be woven back in.

Does that help any?

Yes, this does help. I didn't mention that I really enjoy Annie Proulx's work. I was enchanted by Accordian Crimes, where she does all these mini characterizations and histories which seemed to have almost nothing to do with the plot. I can see the need to braid things back in, but she really did not. I have to think that it is her writing that is so gripping, but I don't know what others think. In her later books, she does something similar but at greater length.

Thanks.:)

[aruna]

When is a writer being self-indulgent and how serious a problem is it?


When I am writing, I find all these things absorbing and entertaining, but when I am editing, a red flag goes up; and I wonder if I have gone overboard. How can I assess my foibles? How damaging are they if they are entertaining but slightly irrelevant? If I am attached to them, how hard should I work to integrate them? And should I turn the historical info dumps into scenes or just let them stay narration?

My biggest temptation is to get all Dickensian with bringing in interesting, but peripheral characters.

Diviner,
sorry for the diversion. Everything Cathy says is true; but what you say above shows that you have the right instinct. Listen to those red flags going up; they do so for a reason. Sometimes they are telling you that thsoe detours were important for YOU as a writer so that you can get to know your characters and your plot better; but they need to be pruned for the reader's sake, to make your story tighter and more absorbing. the reader doesn't need to know everything; you as the writer do.

I myself go off on very long tangents, and when I get to the revision stage I have to be expecially vigilant. Everything which is not relevant to the story has to go - no matter how entertaining, no matter how much I loved this scene or that. I have already trashed at least six or seven entire chapters from my first draft; some have gone without replacement, some are being rewritten.

I write in a similar way to you; what happens is that the first draft flows very quickly and easily, but the revision process as a result takes four times the time or even longer. That's the price we have to pay. Those who outline first may need to revise less afterwards, but they spend more time at the planning stage - maybe. I have found that in the first draft I didn't really "get" some of the deeper layers of the story,and only much, much later the true ending came to me - after several revisions. That's why it's important not to submit too early. I did, and I am now ashamed of those early submssions and know for a fact that they will be rejected. I now understand why.

As for hsitorical detail: again, pay attention to its relevance. If it's necesary to understand the present story, then by all means include it - but try to make it lively, interesting. In my present novel I have included quite a lot of history, and in rereading it I found it quite flat. What I did was add two characters who "carry" that history, so that the history is dramatised and becomes interesting to the reader.

Try to keep backstory brief and to the point; sometimes its better to start the novel earlier, so as to avoid flashbacks

[aruna]

I do not recommend my method. It is inefficient, and I often have to delete or rewrite the scenes written out of order. If I could outline, I would. I am a beginning novelist, and it is possible that as I grow I may be able to use outlines. I certainly review my scenes at the edit stage using Swain, but I do not plan them beforehand.

Diviner, Your method is not inefficient, though it may seem so to you at this time. It's just the way you write; many established writers do it this way, and for them to change they'd lose their magic touch. I absolutely recommend Doorothea Brande's Becoming a Writer; it is written for writers like you.
I don't use outlines either when I write naturally. Don't think you have to change; be confident that your method of writing is every bit as good as the "outlining" method. Be true to yourself. Your story is unfolding in your subconscious; listen to it; but make sure your revise very thoroughly, and take professional advise when revising. You will get there in the end.

[aruna]

What I've found works is to take the best and brightest character or "wander thread" and give it a second home at the end of the book. Find some way to tie in all that fun information, because then you've created real people that will resonate with the readers. Turn Bob from a walk-on role into best supporting actor. Your readers will love you for it, and so will your muse! :)

Good luck!

I've just done this. The first draft of my novel felt flat; something was missing. Then, six months into the revison stage, I had an idea. I took one very minor character - who was only mentioned once - and gave him a key role. Added a few more scenes with him; he doesn't become a major character, but a SIGNIFICANT one. The reader, I hope, will grow to love him as he keeps turning up within the story, not fully understanding what is going on. And then, in the climax - WHAM! he ends up holding all the threads together anbd supplying the entire theme, so that there's a great surprise, yet it has all been forshadowed, and everything falls into place. Finding this character's true role has been one of the best moments in this story!

[Cathy C]

One other thing to keep in mind is that there is a significant financial advantage to all the backstory you cull or trim. When (not if... when) you become famous, publishers will seek short stories or novellas for anthologies that are based on your best selling characters. Then, all of a sudden, that hard work early on can be polished and SOLD all by itself! :idea:

[Supafly]

The way I see it, a novelist should not be writing to cater to the needs of others. You are writing a story in your own vision, not some John Q in Vermont, or wherever. This probably won't work with first time authors, but that is the problem with the industry. It is catered to the readers, and that is tied directly into making money. If anyone starts to write in order to make money, then that person has a serious issue he/she needs to deal with before doing any work. The rate of success in novel writing is so astronomically low that even thinking of striking it rich is a pipe dream (in most cases).

When you write your first novel, if indeed it is your first, write it the way you want. You might not even get it published. But do it your own way. Maybe you can publish it later if you establish yourself with your publishing company. The reason one writes is to create articial worlds and artificial characters woven around an interesting plot. Creation is the reason. Do what you want. It is your book, after all, not anyone elses. If you write for others, then I can't see you ever becoming fulfilled with the occupation.

Read John Gardner's On Becoming a Novelist.

[Jonny Ryan Mac]

When you write your first novel, if indeed it is your first, write it the way you want. You might not even get it published. But do it your own way.

Preach on! It does blow, the system that is. But for me, I’m an entertainer first, an artist second. I tell stories and throw them in prose, by marketing them and trying to sell them I somehow have a problem? I see your ideals and I respect them, but lashing out at us for catering to a money making business, now that’s just unheard of.



We all have issues with people not taking us seriously, that’s just life. I hope that you get published, as I hop to soon, well see. But with an attitude that says, “Most published work is reader tendered crap, scripted by marketing professionals of all the art the author put in, just so it will sell” (you may not have said this but many do), you’ll never see your work in print, at least outside of vanity.



I, and some of rest of us love to write. I find the first draft very fulfilling. Then I look forward to the publishing process. I hope that someone else like it. And I hope that your work is accepted in good faith too.



Good luck.

[Jonny Ryan Mac]

If anyone starts to write in order to make money, then that person has a serious issue he/she needs to deal with before doing any work.

You should try tellin that to a full time writer that struggles to feed his familly. Its a harsh thing to say to someone who pours thier soul into thier work. I can only hope that the others will see this and be reminded that this still is a money busness.

[Supafly]

A full time writer is someone who is already established. You cannot live off being a full time writer unless your name is Stephen King or JK Rowling. The income for a writer (say, magazine writer) is incredibly low, and everyone who writes usually has another job, because there is no guarantee people will always buy your stuff. Most writers seem to be teachers. I work at a pizza place right now! Then again, I've only been out of high school for a year. ;)

[Mike Coombes]

When is a writer being self-indulgent and how serious a problem is it?



Sitting down and writing is self-indulgent. You know you've become over-organic when you finish your novel, write the synopsis, and the synopsis is better. Or if you got it really bad, the synopsis is longer than the novel.

[Cathy C]

The income for a writer (say, magazine writer) is incredibly low


My editor once told me the secret to making a living writing for magazines. You have to have in the marketplace at any given time (each and every month) THIRTY accepted articles. It's doable, and I did it for a year. It will bring in from $30-40K per year. It's a decent living. But it's damned hard work, and it's why I decided to be a novel writer, where the money is much better. No, you don't have to be a King or Rowling to make good money. Even mid-list authors make $50-100K per year after about about five books. Most make more.
Yes, I write for money. I'm good at writing and I like it. But for me, it's a skill rather than a vision. My visions all have dollar signs attached. ;)

[Supafly]

Well, 30-40k a year is cool for say...someone living in Vermont, but I live in California in the SF Bay Area. That is not enough to live on the street with.

But some people are different. I have a vision, and it does not include dollar signs (that might be a bonus in the long run). You seem to be a good and successful author in your own right. Good luck in the future.

[Nateskate]

If it tastes good, eat it. That may sound weird, but it's pretty much on target. Some food you can spice like crazy and it tastes good. Some people will eat curry till it comes through their nostrils. Other food if you put a good deal of spice in it, you ruin it. Curry Milkshakes, blah!

Writing isn't that much different. Ultimately you get away with things if people perceive they are interesting, or funny. That's where "season to taste" comes in.

Here's a rule of thumb. If you're not sure if you've overspiced, then get two or three opinions, especially from non-partial people. If you can't eat your own food, then don't expect others to want it. That's a place to start. If you find no one but you likes your food, then you have to ask if you have a unique preference that won't appeal to the common man. But if you and the majority of people like it, and they are credible people, you are headed in the right direction.

Again, repeating something said here often, most of the stuff on the bottom of slush piles is unreadable. In fact, pardon me, but so is some stuff on book shelves at Barnes and Nobles.

[Supafly]

I've found that opinions you might want is from the normal, everyday reader. Not necessary a friend who might feel inclined to say that what you wrote is good, but from a coworker of a friend, just someone normal. Afterall, these are the people who are going to be reading the book, anyway. You might get an editor who's already looked at ten manuscripts in the last three days and is just plain tired (this happens more often than people think).

[maestrowork]

I don't write to make gobs of money. It'd be nice if my book sells a million copies. But I have other ways to make gobs of money.

[Diviner]

Sitting down and writing is self-indulgent. . .

Of course, but beyond that?

We are going off topic again, but I'll play, keeping in mind what Mike says.

I do write for me, but I also write to share stories. That is pretty much my bottom line. If I can interest a readership in my stories, I am a success. If I cannot, I am still a failure as a writer. Anything I do that makes them more entertaining without robbing them of my original intent is all to the good.

I want both to make art and to entertain. If I ever had to choose between beautiful words and clear ones, I would always choose clear, clean writing. I enjoy ambiguity and evocative language in poetry, but for prose I prefer clarity.

What I am asking about here (and it seems to have been answered fairly well) is when do digressions become distractions? I feel fairly humble as a beginning writer and have little ability to be objective about my work. If I had done the writing I am doing now five years ago, I would have thought myself a genius--that is how much I have learned. But I am not through learning. I recently looked at a paragraph of narrative I wrote a year ago and realized it was telling something that would make a wonderful scene. I did not understand that a year ago. Now I do.

Others are at different places in their writing. Me, I am indulging myself to write at all, and I am indulging myself to try to improve. My standard for that is, do others want to read my work? I am not too picky about who the others are. Right now, I am trying to write the kind of books that delighted me when I was about twelve, adventures with believable characters I could relate to. It may even be a quest, for all I know. I need some sort of standard, hence my question.:)