"You never learn to write a novel..."

PeeDee · Oct 18, 2007

A quote from Neil Gaiman about something Gene Wolfe says starts this thread.

Neil Gaiman's Blog said:
Gene Wolfe pointed out to me, five years ago, when I proudly told him, at the end of the first draft of American Gods, that I thought I'd figured out how to write a novel, that you never learn how to write a novel. You merely learn how to write the novel you're on. He's right, of course. The paradox is that by the time you've figured out how to do it, you've done it. And the next one, if it's going to satisfy the urge to create something new, is probably going to be so different that you may as well be starting from scratch, with the alphabet.

At least in my case, it feels as I begin the next novel knowing less than I did the last time.

Gene Wolfe is, perhaps, wiser than most of us combined, so it's always been something that I took seriously and could find no reason to find untrue.

On my end, it is true. Writing my Rome novel is an entirely different process from writing my last urban fantasy novel. It will be a completely different experience from writing my next historical novel, in November. I can already feel it.

With short stories, the process doesn't change much. I have my story, my voice, my character(s) and I just start writing, free and easy. It's not so with novels, though.

For Rome, I did a little bit of research beforehand, to make sure I knew enough of the groundwork in my time era so that I didn't wind up writing something really stupid. It's easy if it's a little error that I can go back and correct later, but if I base a large portion on the book off of a fact which is just really untrue, that can cause a lot of damage.

Mostly, I didn't do much research to start it. Mostly, I read other Roman fiction, because it gave me a better idea of my boundaries. This was unique to writing my Rome novel, in that when I write sci-fi or fantasy in the past, I don't go out and read similar books to see the shape of the area.

But writing the Rome novel was also shaped differently. It was written like a proper novel (whatever the heck that means) in the sense that the chapters were "chapters," and there was one long story that flowed through the whole book.

I can already see, even before I've started on it, that my next book is going to have a more episodic feel to it. The chapters will flow together, but they will nearly have definite beginnings and endings. And again, with this next book, I don't feel the need to read similar books (I am content just to recall them), and most of my research has consisted of making sure that the big world events line up properly to my story. That's it. The little things (steam engine? wood engine? coal engine?) will wait until the book's done. It already feels like an entirely new creature, y'see.

So my question is: How have you noticed the difference between novels? How has it affected you, when writing, having to learn how to write each novel practically anew?

megan_d · Oct 18, 2007

That depressing and exciting all at the same time.

Soccer Mom · Oct 18, 2007

Gene Wolf is completely dead on. I find each time that I have to reinvent myself.

I haven't found a magic formula for me. I've written novels with a detailed outline, with a bare bones outline, without an outline but with clear ideas of what I wanted to do, and with no clue what I wanted to write.

I thought I would eventually grow out of that phase and settle on a way to do things. But maybe not.

If Neil Gaiman doesn't feel like he really knows "how to write a book"? eep. I need more tea.

Ava Jarvis · Oct 18, 2007

First... <worships the Neil Gaiman>

Second... I think it applies most if you're not writing a series. However, that doesn't apply to trilogies---you have a beginning, middle, and end, spread out across big books, and those are all going to have different problems to overcome.

I have one novel I'm working on, one novel that will be a NaNoWriMo novel, and one that will be the "first novels don't sell, change tracks" novel.

The first one is a slooow process, because it's my first novel.

The second one is another book in the series, but it's hurting my brain because it's technically a prequel to the first novel, and by the end of it every character will either be vastly changed or dead. I'm not sure how that happened. And I already know it will be a different beast to write in tone and premise, despite being part of a series.

The third one is a completely different book in every way: female MC, dealing with racial prejudice, airships, alternate Victorian realities, etc. That will hurt my brain much to write.

I could see going into each novel knowing less than before. The more you learn, the more you learn that there's so much you have to learn.

badducky · Oct 18, 2007

Some things are the same for every novel.

Journaling journaling journaling to find a voice worthy of an idea, then finding the voice and dashing off a hundred pages like drinking water, then editing that because it wasn't as good the next day as it was (and now it's fifty pages... maybe thirty)....

Finding a solution to the Big Swampy Middle where your patience is wearing thin and you know your audience wants some breath of air or twist to keep their attention...

Mushing on through the last fifty pages or so, just trying to get to that ending you've felt coming for weeks, though you never seem to get there.

Also, let us not forget how different the revision process is for each book: it's not. Get up. Stab face with pencil. Drink coffee. Stab face with pencil. Drink more coffee. Flounce away from the garbage in a huff. Drink some coffee. Stab face with pencil.

maestrowork · Oct 18, 2007

My second book is SO MUCH harder than the first. It's a completely different beast -- bigger, more epic, more complex... When people asked me "are you writing something similar [to your first novel], a sequel perhaps?" I had to say, "Hell no."

You constantly grow out of where you are and move and do something different and keep learning and then you look back and say, "I wrote that? What was I thinking?" but we all go through that process and that's, to me, is the testament of a true writer. That we're not writing machines. This writing thing is alive and changing all the time.

PeeDee · Oct 18, 2007

Gene Wolfe is always dead on. I hope that, as I age, I become more like Gene Wolfe...

Personally, I think it's a piece of great optimism. Case in point: my urban fantasy novel was hellish to write. It didn't work properly halfway through, I had changed as a writer which had broken the novel. The ending came badly, no one enjoyed reading it, and so on. Awful experience.

And yet, I'm happily heading for the Rome novel ending which works beautifully (i think) and have enjoyed writing the whole novel, even in the bad moments.

It's optimistic, because it means there's always a chance that the next novel is going to be a whole world of difference from your last.

Interestingly, I think there are some novelists who find a "formula" or at least, a repetitive approach for working, although I don't think this discredits Gene Wolfe's opinion. In fact, I think it applies to them too.

Terry Pratchett and Isaac Asimov both churn(ed) out novels on a regular basis without problem or, indeed, always a huge world of difference between the works. Brilliant works and you can see them growing, but there is no sense that they've reinvented themselves with each coming novel.

seun · Oct 18, 2007

I've never considered this in such obvious terms but it is something I've always believed.

Unless you're writing the same book over and over again, each book has to be a new experience in every respect.

Pamster · Oct 18, 2007

I'd say that each has been a learning experience, my first novel about an amputee struggling with acceptance of his disability was different then my second about a young exotic dancer who was in a domestically abusive situation. Both novels affected me differently. The first was more personal to me because I myself am a high level amputee and it was my first novel so I wanted to put a lot of realistic stuff in it to make it believable. The second was based on a old female friend I had who was into dancing and had an abusive relationship. I felt both books intimately as I wrote them, but it's not the same as the children's stories I've since written.

Like you said you learn to write the one you're on, that makes total sense to me. I hope that I can polish my work enough that it will sell in time, I really want to make a good go of this and now that I am finally submitting things I feel much better about my work. It's been a long time coming for me, ten years since the first novel, and it took years to finish properly. I am sure the next one will be just as difficult and yet just as easy to come as the last children's stories were. I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to write your vision, a gift to the world, even sharing that vision here in posts on AW is a great feeling, to be among peers who value this gift is really validating.

Great topic Pete.

Stew21 · Oct 18, 2007

My two novels were completely different experiences. When I started on the second it looked and felt much different than the first. I had far more reworking and rewriting to do of the first one than the second. Part of that I think is because my writing has improved, but part of it is just differences in plot. I used elements in the second one that challenged me a great deal.
I found I needed to read more books while writing the second than the first.
And I worked much harder at the voice and message of the second.
I'm positive that what I write for Nano is going to be an entirely different experience than either of the first two.

I like that it's different each time, but it also scares the hell out of me on occasion when i'm struggling with something and I think "have I not learned anything?" Then I realize I have, because the first time around I didn't even know to worry about it.

Ava Jarvis · Oct 18, 2007

PeeDee said:
Gene Wolfe is always dead on. I hope that, as I age, I become more like Gene Wolfe...

Heh. I forgot, but I must also <worship the Gene Wolfe>

Terry Pratchett and Isaac Asimov both churn(ed) out novels on a regular basis without problem or, indeed, always a huge world of difference between the works. Brilliant works and you can see them growing, but there is no sense that they've reinvented themselves with each coming novel.

That's true, but they consciously try to do that.

What about a lot of mystery stories? Not all the books are different enough to warrant the different-novel-different-strokes philosophy. But even the most formulaic mystery series have novels that are different, and stand out... for instance, _The Doorbell Rang_ in the Nero Wolfe series, and _The Hound of the Baskervilles_ for Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes stories did have variety to them, too... _The Sign of Four_ was also partly a love story, while _The Valley of Fear_ was different from all the rest. _A Study in Scarlet_ is usually lauded as the novel where none of the characters were quite themselves yet.

Come to think of it, in mysteries, you like to have a different puzzle each time. So that's another turn of difference.

<ponder>

Gene Wolfe is wise. <worships the Gene Wolfe>

PeeDee · Oct 18, 2007

That's a good point, I didn't think about that. Isaac Asimov did write mysteries, and he certainly did a wonderful job on his explanatory books, which were wildly different from any of his fiction. And then there was his comedy book, The Sensuous Dirty Old Man which is such a funny little book.

Terry Pratchett, I can't think of any that are a wild departure. Even when he does something which is clearly not Discworld -- such as Good Omens -- it's still Pratchett.

Neil Gaiman's a good example of all of this, especially if you look at Sandman, and then you look at American Gods, and then you look at Anansi Boys. There's a world of difference between the three on every single level, even though they all fall in the same genre (whatever the heck genre you put Gaiman in).

...

Do you enjoy coming to a new novel with no particular advantage gained from your last novel? Do you like that when you start your second book, no matter what happened with your first book, it's back down to you and a blank sheet of paper?

NeuroFizz · Oct 18, 2007

If writing a "next" novel doesn't require new thinking and new craftsmanship, it may be too cookie-cutter, so there is a wisdom in the quote. However, superimposed on that idea is an overall improvement in the basics of the craft, so with experience we should expect that fewer drafts are required, more coherent storylines emerge, and the overall stories flow better. Back to the quote--if the author doesn't take chances with each new story, he/she is not challenging himself/herself in a way that risks the better things in that next story. And "risk" is a good word here. Challenges don't always work out, but either way, they are good learning experiences.

Stew21 · Oct 18, 2007

Do you enjoy coming to a new novel with no particular advantage gained from your last novel? Do you like that when you start your second book, no matter what happened with your first book, it's back down to you and a blank sheet of paper?

I love when it gets down to blank sheet of paper and me.

and while I like starting a book with no particular advantage gained, I think there is at least one thing that we all take from one book to the next and that's the confidence that no matter what the story does to us, what hoops it makes us jump through that we know we can get to the end because we've done it before. Done it differently, but Done it.

CaroGirl · Oct 18, 2007

I must also agree. My first (trunk) novel was a stumble in the dark. My second novel came to me (thusly I wrote it) in episodic bursts, which, sadly, might make it unpublishable without some serious rewriting. My latest novel is written in first person and I wrote it chronologically, so it doesn't have the problems of novel #2, but might have a whole other set of problems I haven't discovered yet

.

I'll never know how to write A Novel, I'll just muddle around with whichever beast I'm flogging at a given time.

PeeDee · Oct 18, 2007

NeuroFizz said:
However, superimposed on that idea is an overall improvement in the basics of the craft, so with experience we should expect that fewer drafts are required, more coherent storylines emerge, and the overall stories flow better.

Absolutely, although I think that might be entirely seperate from the "new novel experience" that Gene Wolfe is sort of talking about. To apply a metaphor, building every single house and building is a completely new and frightening experience, but because you've done it before, you have more muscle, if you see what I mean.

Stew21 said:
I love when it gets down to blank sheet of paper and me.

and while I like starting a book with no particular advantage gained, I think there is at least one thing that we all take from one book to the next and that's the confidence that no matter what the story does to us, what hoops it makes us jump through that we know we can get to the end because we've done it before. Done it differently, but Done it.

Sure, and I think the confidence is a huge advantage, even if it wavers sometimes and you wind up thinking, like I do, what the hell am I doing writing a Roman novel like this? The other people writing in this field have degrees in history and stuff. This is nuts. Where are my spaceships? It's exciting.

...

I also wonder if hindsight is a killer. You can look back on the writing process from your last novel project and since hindsight is golden, it seems better and easier and sweeter than it perhaps was at the time. The middle-swamp wasn't so bad, not really, not like THIS time, when I'm just buried and I must be a hack, I must be doing it wrong this time, etc.

allenparker · Oct 18, 2007

Learning curve

Reinventing the novel process with each new book is counterproductive and, frankly, a little scary. Each storyline and how its portrayed should build on the accomplishments o the past.

I would be totally destroyed if I had to abandon my writing world each time and make the process start over.

Even though my next book has nothing to do with humor, I am still able to utilize the elements of writing I learned with the previous works. Timing, plot arcs, and user friendly development are elements of all stories. Learning to balance dialog with narrative and the structuring the reader's tension are important to all books, regardless of what genre, story, or theme. What makes our stories new and fresh is our voice and how we make our characters interact and respond to the universal plots.

Please tell me I don't have to start all over.

CaroGirl · Oct 18, 2007

allenparker said:
Reinventing the novel process with each new book is counterproductive and, frankly, a little scary. Each storyline and how its portrayed should build on the accomplishments o the past.

I would be totally destroyed if I had to abandon my writing world each time and make the process start over.

Even though my next book has nothing to do with humor, I am still able to utilize the elements of writing I learned with the previous works. Timing, plot arcs, and user friendly development are elements of all stories. Learning to balance dialog with narrative and the structuring the reader's tension are important to all books, regardless of what genre, story, or theme. What makes our stories new and fresh is our voice and how we make our characters interact and respond to the universal plots.

Please tell me I don't have to start all over.

It depends on whether the quote refers to skills or the actual process. The skills accumulate (I hope, or I'm SOL) but the process might be completely new. Good point.

PeeDee · Oct 18, 2007

CaroGirl said:
It depends on whether the quote refers to skills or the actual process. The skills accumulate (I hope, or I'm SOL) but the process might be completely new. Good point.

The quote refers to the actual process, far as I'm concerned. The skills are the skills. I developed a skill for writing pretty good dialogue (I like to think) and that skill travels with me from novel to novel and is always very useful.

The skills are the skills. This applies to the process of, to bring Douglas Adams into the thread, "putting a hundred thousand words in cunning order."

maestrowork · Oct 18, 2007

I don't think you can completely ignore the past efforts -- every experience adds to the next. I have to say I'm a much stronger writer now because of my first book, and not in spite of. Certainly, there's great excitement (and some dread) in starting something new from scratch. My WIP is very different from my first novel. And yet all my skills and thought processes and approaches are cumulative. I can't really detached myself from my past experiences. It doesn't mean I can't do something entirely different.

I mean, never in a million years would I have thought "one day I would write a historical drama" but here I am, slogging through the second act of my historical drama.

Stew21 · Oct 18, 2007

PeeDee said:
Sure, and I think the confidence is a huge advantage, even if it wavers sometimes and you wind up thinking, like I do, what the hell am I doing writing a Roman novel like this? The other people writing in this field have degrees in history and stuff. This is nuts. Where are my spaceships? It's exciting.

mine waivers frequently. You think it hasn't crossed my mind a million times that I have no business putting words into the mouth of Ernest Hemingway's ghost? What gives me the right? who the hell am I?
...

I also wonder if hindsight is a killer. You can look back on the writing process from your last novel project and since hindsight is golden, it seems better and easier and sweeter than it perhaps was at the time. The middle-swamp wasn't so bad, not really, not like THIS time, when I'm just buried and I must be a hack, I must be doing it wrong this time, etc.

it's why women have more than one child. We forget how bad it really hurts each time.

maestrowork · Oct 18, 2007

And the creative process is very like childbirth, a lot of times.

MidnightMuse · Oct 18, 2007

I find it more of a challenge with each new novel simply because I've learned new tricks, rules and no-nos that I was ignorant to in the previous novel. With each new one, my writing becomes tighter, stronger, and hopefully more involved.

Every time I create new characters, I have to put serious effort to make sure they're not just carbon copies of the ones in the novel before them (avoiding the Anne McCaffery syndrome) But once I get well into the novel, and feel that sense of happy confidence wash over me, the rest of the story is pure enjoyment and fun to watch unfold.

Then the sense of unhappy lack of confidence returns. Thankfully, I forget those feelings much like women forget childbirth, and go forth to write again.

JoNightshade · Oct 18, 2007

I agree with Wolfe, but I have a slightly different take on it.

I don't reinvent my novels each time; I reinvent myself. And not for the sake of the novel. Ten years ago, I was not the same person I am today. In another ten years, I don't plan to be the person I am now. I plan to be wiser, more skilled, and braver.

As I change, my books change. My writing, whatever the plot, always tackles themes dear to my heart, so whatever I'm currently working on is a reflection of who I am right now. Of course, some of those important themes never change-- they will be important to me throughout my life. But as I age and grow, I'll look at them in new and unexpected ways.

For example, when I was sixteen I wrote a romance novel. It was naive and innocent. When I read it today, I see who I was back then and I smile. If I wrote that book today, it would be completely different. Not because what I wrote was WRONG, but because now I see the world differently. I'm less idealistic, more practical, and I've been through some painful love experiences. Back then, neither I nor my characters were that mature.

PeeDee · Oct 18, 2007

I think that's a good way to consider it, Jo, and I wonder if, underneath, that's what Gene Wolfe meant. (It's Gene Wolfe. There are always more meanings than the first one you see). I think that reinventing yourself -- consciously or not -- and turning into a new person does affect not only what you're inclined to write, but how it comes out and how you're inclined to go about writing it. I used to write space opera short stories, now I can see that I've shifted to the gray area on the edge of science-fiction/fantasy/horror/literary. Same sort of thing, I think.

"You never learn to write a novel..."

Where's my tea, please...?

Falling in the milk

Crypto-fascist

Too stupid to know fear

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Fear the Death Ray

Where's my tea, please...?

Horror Man

Counting Stars

Too stupid to know fear

Where's my tea, please...?

The grad students did it

Living the dream

Where's my tea, please...?

Naked Futon Guy

Living the dream

Where's my tea, please...?

Fear the Death Ray

Fear the Death Ray

Midnight Reading

has finally arrived

Where's my tea, please...?