Bit of Practical Advice, yeah?

Shirokirie · Nov 23, 2012

Perks said:
Hope you're not actually losing sleep over it. All of us are more likely to be shot while being run over by a steam roller.

I'm still anticipating the whale that keeps plotting to fall out of the sky and land on me when I'm en route to work.

Motherfucker's stalking me, I swear.

lemonhead · Nov 23, 2012

A long time ago,in one of those I'm-giving-my-teenager-life-lessons conversations with my dad, he waxed on about always having a "teachable spirit". That is, never being so proud as to think you don't have something to learn, and maybe more importantly, never being to proud to learn from anyone, not just people you think are worth learning from.

Many times on here, I see writers come through who do not have a firm grasp on this concept. It's sad really, because clearly talent can be wasted behind a wall of resistance to learn.

I smell of this in your posts.

And really, you seem to be struggling with larger questions about what you want in life and who you are, writing just happens to be an extension of those unanswered questions. The question for you isn't so much, are you teachable? It's, do you even want to learn?

And no one here can answer that.

kkbe · Nov 23, 2012

[ETA: this is the longest damn response I've ever written. I apologize in advance if I've broken any kind of length-related protocol.]

Hi Shirokirie.

So you don't feel that anything you suggested to Mykall is relevant to you? Really? Because clearly you think writing can be fixable, is worth fixing, is worth at least trying to fix.

Look, storytelling is a learned art. Learned, meaning, that you have to trash and redo, trash and redo, trash -- and -- re-for-the-love-of-derp-do until you get something solid, something right.

What you said here to Mykall, people are telling you:

Clinging to the old method of how you've chosen to relay all this important information is not working.

Granted, you veer from that when you say,

I don't want to dive into a fantasy book, and have some mystical narrator explain it all to me in the second chapter.

I know what you mean, even though I don't read a lot of fantasy, what you're saying rings true: i don't want infodump. I don't want stuff fed to me, I like to be surprised. i like the mystery. I like the wonder. I want to be intrigued enough to read your stuff.

But you seem to go tilting so far in the other direction that it has has a similar result, just like you said,

It ruins the illusion of the story-being-revealed; you lose the mystery; you lose the wonder; you lose my desire to read your stuff.

It's fragmented. I see bits and pieces of something really interesting, really good, but no way can I put it together. It's too hard. That's when people give up on you, I think. You're making it too damn hard.

You told Mykall to do this:

GUT the living hell out of this -- strip EVERY IMPORTANT DETAIL -- then sit down with your plot overall, and find places to put them, where they fit. Then get your characters together, and find where you can weave it in with what they do, say, react, know, etc.

And if that isn't working, you need to make adjustments to your plot so that it does, eliminating a whole freaking chapter of infodumpy here and there, and moving the story along smoothly.

Why can you not do that to your own work? Why can you not at least try to do that? Screw the infodump line, that really doesn't apply, but what about the rest of it? You told Mykall:

Look, Mykall, if you can't get that done the first ten tries, try ten more times for each time you tried, and then do it ten more times for every time you attempted it; don't stop trying to get it right

so why are you right now saying you don't know how to proceed? You've written the blueprint.

Does it make no sense to you at all?

You wrote:

I'm on the fence about success and money -- I really am. I almost fear it more than I do the idea of being shot, or ran over with a steam roller, or whatever other horrible way a person can wind up dead.

You ain't on the fence, you're scared to death. Tell you what I think about that: I think you're afraid of your own shadow. Don't waste your time and energy being afraid of 'what ifs.' Anyway, it's up to you, totally, where you want your writing to go, what goals you have are yours to divine and change at will. You are in control. Seriously.

You're telling me:

As for writing and understanding -- yes, I really do care about that. So much so that I get horribly frustrated (obviously) when what I'm thinking makes logical sense... doesn't. And it refuses to, repeatedly, despite my efforts to try and make something cohesive out of it.

My thought becomes this:
What is this thing you call context and why is it always absent when I think its right there?
[/QUOTE](Before I comment on that, I want to tell you this: what you wrote right there was absolutely understandable. Well written, passionate, it made sense, it flowed, I was moved by it. Are you trying too hard to be writerly with the stuff you write, with your fiction? Because clearly you can write. Really fucking well.)

Moving on. . .

If that's true. . . Sometimes I write a sentence and I go back later and read the thing and words are missing. And I swear to God I wrote 'em. Sometimes I read the thing ten times and miss that word, read it as if it's there and it ain't. Now I'm wondering if you have your story in your head and start typing that sucker out and you fill in the blanks, you read it over, it's cool, but people like me are saying, What the fuck? What the hell, something's missing here and here and here and fuck it. And then you get frustrated and say Fuck it. And it's a fuckfest.

Question, before I continue. . . do you ever read your stuff aloud? Slow and steady, read it aloud. Read it into a damn tape recorder, listen to it? Ask somebody else to read it aloud while you listen? I don't know if you have that luxury. You can read it to yourself but you might not recognize those gaps, those whatever they are. . .

Moving on.

You asked me this:

Can you show me this animal I keep butchering, so that I can at least know what not to hack next time?

Click to expand...

Look how eloquent you are. As for my answer. . .I was reading one of your passages today. Hang on, I'm going to try to find it--

Okay, it's from The Farthest Cry. You said you polished it up as best you could, ran it through the grammar grinder, you gave it the mandatory warnings, said it wouldn't hold universal appeal and you were okay with that. In part:

She wiggles her way upwards in the bed and licks his cheek. The pseudo-groggy man searches for her lips. Finally, when she lets him find her, he POV switch mid-stream caters to her tongue.

Click to expand...

I read that and I liked it but I felt off kilter reading it because POV switched back and forth. Pseudo-groggy was a little over the top, meaning I'm aware of the writing, so I'm pulled out a little bit. "He caters to her tongue"-- I love it.

Awareness disrupts her dreamy daze. His eyes are open, keen, focused on the slit that separates their room from the rest of the shelter.

First: 'disrupts her dreamy daze' is alliteration. I'm aware. I'm aware of the writing so I'm briefly pulled from the story. Again, in this brief paragraph, you switch from her POV to his so again, I'm off balance, trying to keep straight in my head who's doing what. The 'slit that separates their room from the rest of the shelter' caught me off guard. The word 'slit' to me connotes a cut. You used it to describe a what exactly? I'm thinking you mean there's a blanket or something hanging there, or, more likely, two blankets hanging, meeting in the middle, affording a slit between, a narrow view of the shelter. Am I wrong? I don't know. I tripped up trying to figure out what you meant.

The thing is, the weird thing is, I like what you wrote. It just didn't make sense to me as written.

Lyllean throws the flaps open. Two things happened almost simultaneously when I read that line. One: confirmation that my suspicion was correct. Two: Who the hell is Lyllean?

“Nikolei, Nikolei!” For the first time her face is warped and teary. Her face is warped? What does that mean? I'm still trying to figure out who this is, I have no idea if this is a kid, an adult, an android. You give me absolutely no context, no point of reference so I have trouble, real trouble, assimilating this new character into your story.

“Come, come please!” I don't know who's talking here. You do but I don't.

She crawls over to the deep indent in the floor where the bed sets and gropes for his arms.

Here you're describing this world which is foreign to me. There's an indentation in the floor, a deep one. A bed's in there. It takes me a minute to set this in my mind and it's right in the middle of the action. I don't know much about fantasy writing but I have to believe that there's a better way to world-build than right in the midst of a pivotal scene. If this is one.

“What is it?” He does not sound alarmed, taking hold of her hand, rubbing Lyllean. I thought, Wait a minute. It's Lyllean's hand, right? But by writing that he takes hold of her hand, rubbing Lyllean, my little pea brain says, "Wait a minute, rubbing WHO?"

“I donno, but it made Dan piss himself!” Two issues with this sentence. One: 'donno'. I've read 'dunno.' I'm familiar with 'dunno.' 'Donno' is odd-bodkins, as if you spelled it wrong. A brief, almost non-existent trip-up but one, none-the less. Then, Two: Who the hell is Dan? Again, you've dropped in a character. I'm trying to keep stuff straight here. You ain't making it easy.

Aleissa pulls Lyllean into the bed. I thought she was in the bed already. I have to go back and look. Apparently not. Apparently he was rubbing her arms or she was groping his or something, while leaning over that deep indentation.

Nikolei lays the skin-covers over the women, gets up, puts on a pair of shorts. What kind of place is this? (This is what I'm thinking now, as I read your story.) They have 'skin covers.' Meaning pelts or. . . if it's just skin, like human skin, but would they. . . and then what, they wear shorts? The dichotomy of those two things in one sentence, plus the new info--Lyllean is a woman--need to be processed before I can continue.

Just as he’s retrieving his jeans from the drawer, Skin covers and jeans? This is what I thought. I'm thinking this and losing track of your story.

Lyllean shrieks. The flaps part and in darts (that is an unfortunate rhyme-thingie) a four-legged insect-animal-thing. It clicks its central pincers; an eye blinks on the bottom of its head; its two mouths are agape like a jubilant dog, and its four tongues waggle.

That description is the most comprehensive of the entire passage. In fact, it's so comprehensive that I stop reading further and read the description again, and yet again, trying to get a picture of this thing in my head. Very creative, but I lose track yet again, trying to deciphre. . .

If 'no', What was the question again??? abandon all hope ye who reside here?

No. But do you see what I mean? It's here and there and everywhere, you're throwing stuff out there, I'm not getting it, or I'm having to stop and reread or I get lost or. . .

You wrote:

As for waffling on a whim...

Well you can't have too many waffles, can you?
Golden and soft, buttery, slathered in hot fudge and whipped cream -- ouuuh, yessss~

But you don't mean that kind of waffling... I know.

Shirokirie, come on. Now you're just breaking my heart. I take back what I said, what I surmised. I'll tell you the truth, I'm not sure what's going on. I don't know. All I can do is tell you what tripped me up, which I have done. You're a good writer, I told you that before. Meaning, you can write well. The key is, how do you take these brilliantly multicolored bands which right now are lying haphazardly on the table, and weave them into a story written with a clear purpose and design in mind?

I don't know if you can somehow do that, even fundamentally, on your own, or if posting snippets on SYW is the way to go, or if there's a Plan C, D, E effin G. . .

Right now, you're posting a shitload, seems like, and everything you post is following this format of no format, and people are telling you it lacks this or that, and you're getting frustrated. so maybe hold off writing for a little bit. Maybe read other people's stuff. Or maybe chose one thing you've written and really work it, try different approaches. Try to whip it into something that you can live with and your readers can understand enough to appreciate.

Did this incredibly verbose posting help you at all? I don't know.

rwm4768 · Nov 23, 2012

Personally, I don't care for disjointed, abstract stories. They make me feel like the author is deliberately trying to be mysterious. Give me the story in a straightforward manner. I'm reading to be entertained and to learn skills to further my writing goals. I don't want to bang my head against the wall trying to make sense of writing that doesn't flow.

I'm not necessarily saying this is a problem, but you'll have to keep in mind that writing in a more disjointed manner will alienate a lot of readers. Some people like that kind of book, but I'm not one of them.

Shirokirie · Nov 24, 2012

lemonhead said:
A long time ago,in one of those I'm-giving-my-teenager-life-lessons conversations with my dad, he waxed on about always having a "teachable spirit". That is, never being so proud as to think you don't have something to learn, and maybe more importantly, never being to proud to learn from anyone, not just people you think are worth learning from.

Many times on here, I see writers come through who do not have a firm grasp on this concept. It's sad really, because clearly talent can be wasted behind a wall of resistance to learn.

I smell of this in your posts.

And really, you seem to be struggling with larger questions about what you want in life and who you are, writing just happens to be an extension of those unanswered questions. The question for you isn't so much, are you teachable? It's, do you even want to learn?

And no one here can answer that.

... Maybe I should shower before coming to post here. Or maybe we all need to get our noses checked. o_o

To be fair, I get and do appreciate what you're saying. And yeah, I can agree... to an extent. I'm not going to say where I disagree, but I suppose personal development in the realm of writing is different than that of the 'Real World'~

Do I want to learn?
I'm present.
I'm just stubborn and a bit finicky... For example, I don't like pie. Sometimes it takes a mallet for me to realize that this pie is delicious! But as soon as you're not looking, I get all "Fuck your pie, I'm gunna go ride bikes." And as soon as I'm over that "Fuck this" part, I'll sit there, nibble the crust, lick the filling until its gone.

Now if it was fried potatoes I would eat that up without question.

And there are times where what I'm writing ends up in the pie area instead of the fried potatoes bin.

Like, TKoE is fried potatoes for me -- I don't care what you say, I'm eatin' it up.
The Farthest Cry... well, bring a mallet and a bicycle.

kkbe said:
[ETA: this is the longest damn response I've ever written. I apologize in advance if I've broken any kind of length-related protocol.]

Hi Shirokirie.

YOU! Embarrass me! ;.;
How dare you quote that thing!?
Okay, moving on...

Thank you for further elaborating. I didn't know that actually went that far...

Yes I do have people read it. I ask them if they would be so nice as to mark down whatever stabbed them in the eye, made no sense or otherwise comes off as "what is this?"

Amadan made the post that I wanted to respond to (but didn't) concerning if I thought it was me, or the readers. But, frankly, I thought it was a mixture of both. Yeah I don't have all the skillz and proficienciez. On the other hand, the ones I have read what I'm doing unanimously agree that they get it. They do -- apart from little spelling errors here and there and a missed comma. But I go to the pulpit of my fellow writers and get a bunch of "What the hell is this?"

You see what I'm getting at?

And I just want to note, concerning The Farthest Cry:
Apart from Sen who tends to ramble in his thoughts, that story has no POV. Or would it be better said that it has a floating POV? I'm not going to claim omniscience with that story... But there is no one consistent POV character. Apart from Sen.

Yeah, I know, I just totally violated one of the fundamentals of storytelling. Shame on me.

The Farthest Cry is actually too big for its constraints. So I fragmented it, horribly. Kos I want it to fit within 10k, no more than 15k words. But its begging towards 40k.

Most ideas I get tend to do that -- with few exceptions -- and the issue for me then becomes how to hack it down to size, and at the same time keep the setting and other little neat elements.

Okay so, just the important details -- I did that.
Arrange them in the order that they work -- I did that too.
Execute it with perfection -- okay, more or less... no.
Keep trying to get it right -- I can say that I am.

But given the things in TFC, the first article alone, "just the important details," implies that there are a bunch of things that need explaining, if not expanding. And I'm not willing to cut them out. I'm not willing to commit to them, either.

Lastly... would it be considered good to reestablish who each person is from time to time, even if they've been introduced/described/whatever in previous parts?

Bufty · Nov 24, 2012

Are the ones you have had read what you are doing total strangers to you, and persons who have not read any of your prior writings? Where/how did you find them?

Saying they get it is subtly different from agreeing they get it. Get it?

See what I'm getting at?

And this isn't a pulpit. If we don't understand what we are reading, we say so. Aim for clarity. You don't need to spoon-feed anybody, just aim for clarity. :Hug2:

Shirokirie said:
....On the other hand, the ones I have read what I'm doing unanimously agree that they get it. They do -- apart from little spelling errors here and there and a missed comma. But I go to the pulpit of my fellow writers and get a bunch of "What the hell is this?"

You see what I'm getting at?

bearilou · Nov 24, 2012

Shirokirie said:
You see what I'm getting at?

You're gonna hate me for this, but I'm sure you see it coming.

No. Actually, I don't. :chair

You're kind of all over the place with your questions and your frustration. I'm not sure what you're frustrated at, although I am at least getting the sense you're frustrated.

Maybe something to consider is that your fellow writers see what you're trying to do and think that it can use more tightening to achieve the effect you're shooting for while your readers still see what you were getting at without having to explain it to them.

So, are your fellow writers telling you that you need to explain? Maybe, what they're saying is that you need to tighten it, lock it down, nail it firmly, without taking the style you've developed away from you.

Which is the trick, isn't it? :/

And before I leave, I'll just quote Neil Gaiman.

Remember: when people tell you something’s wrong or doesn’t work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.

There are times when I think that doesn't hold true but sometimes it is appropriate to the situation.

NeuroFizz · Nov 24, 2012

Last weekend I drove my son and a couple of other scouts on a troop camping trip. I didn't know the way to the campground, so another parent told me to just follow him--he knew the way. He drove 15-20 miles over the speed limit and weaved between cars, so I became separated from him by one car, then two, then several. Then I lost sight of him. I eventually found the way, but only because I recognized another father's vehicle and followed him. And do you know the worst part of trying to follow the first father? We drove through some beautiful North Carolina countryside, but I didn't get a chance to enjoy any of it because I was so stressed about trying to follow that first father.

See any parallels?

Shirokirie · Nov 24, 2012

Okay, so, clarity and not being all over the place it is then.

I think I'll continue practicing with something else. As in not my latest submission to the SYW forums, with its issues and its... style.

As for the people who take a look -- there are very few that have known me extensively over the years. Most of them I see off and on. Some of them have some idea of the style I tend to write in from other recreational endeavors, but that's little more than a couple paragraphs on occasion. The majority is unaware.

I don't submit to people I've seen face to face. If I do, it's probably because they're either a college professor in literary arts, a nice and non-judgmental person, or some famous author just up and decided to be my RL friend.

But yes, thank you, bearilou, and Bufty~

And yes I do see parallels, N.Fizz.

Anyway I'm gunna go get back to work. On things.

kkbe · Nov 24, 2012

All right. So. I just want to say this, then: I don't think AW adheres to a certain 'style.' Especially not in the context you imply which is, I think, creativity-squelching, smothering, "follow this specific format or be damned" . . .

Nope, AW doesn't concern itself with personal writing style--that's evident when you peruse SYW. But there are expectations relative to substance. Clarity. Professionalism. Honest effort. I'm not suggesting you've missed the boat but I do believe you've missed the point. Alas, alas, I think the point many critiquers here have been trying to make has been lost to you, has fallen on deaf ears or maybe your vision is askew because you're too close to your work. Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees, or don't want to. I don't know. Are you washing your hands of AW? I'm hoping not, but so it seems.

Darn it.

jaksen · Nov 24, 2012

ishtar'sgate said:
I had to laugh when I read this. I had one reviewer say that they and another reader had no idea why I titled my novel "The First Vial". Immediately before the first sentence is a quote from the Bible, "And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore." As the book was set in medieval England during the black plague, an awful disease that covered people in horrible ugly black sores, I thought it was pretty obvious. Guess not.

I'm familiar with the Bible, but would not have made that connection either. Did you include that as a quote, perhaps on the first page? It's an excellent title, regardless.

But yes, sometimes we readers completely miss a clue, a meaning or shade of meaning. We stumble over it and later on might go AHAH! I think I'm a fairly astute reader but I miss stuff all the time, even obvious stuff. Some of my favorite books I've read over and over, picking up 'stuff' I missed the first time around.

But I never assume my readers are stupid or ignorant. Never. I imagine them as much smarter than me, so I must write up to their standard, or at least try to.

calieber · Nov 24, 2012

Perks said:
I love epigraphs. The one for mine made me so happy when I found it -

All places are alike, and every earth is fit for burial.

- Christopher Marlowe

I don't think I truly understand the book if I can't think of an epigraph for it.

kkbe said:
All right. So. I just want to say this, then: I don't think AW adheres to a certain 'style.' Especially not in the context you imply which is, I think, creativity-squelching, smothering, "follow this specific format or be damned" . . .

Nope, AW doesn't concern itself with personal writing style--that's evident when you peruse SYW. But there are expectations relative to substance. Clarity. Professionalism. Honest effort.

Oddly enough, this is simultaneously a good illustration of and well illustrated by the difference between "there are no rules in writing" and "the only rule in writing is to do only what works."

(And, of course, "there are three rules for writing the novel, but no one knows what they are.")

Pyekett · Nov 24, 2012

Sometimes when you think you are doing crazyass backflip handjabs to the knife-edge of keen spectacular, it's because you are Bruce Lee and you are one mofo cool ninja dude who's in the process of filming a classic movie.

Sometimes you are The Star Wars Kid.

I think it's hard to tell which you are doing just from inside the experience. It feels much the same, I imagine. Which one you are depends on the context you are in, which is something outside you--and definitely not defined merely by how you feel about it.

Are you alone in a room, or are you actually on a movie set?

When your toss about your sticklike object, does it wobble back and forth over the ground, or does it maintain level when it is supposed to?

Are people who watch you laughing or admiring? Frowning in frustration as they put down your book or scouring the net for the sequel?

Are you stumbling over the ground, or are you walking straight?

Regardless of how you feel, what is the context you are actually in?

I don't know anything about Shirokirie's writing, other than what is excerpted above. I'm not intending to compare his or her writing to either extreme. I do, however, spend a helluva lot of time inside my own head, and I fly off on some pretty weird self-assessments at 2 am, staring at the ceiling.

(You may not know this, but I am godawful brilliant. I mean, like once in a light-year brilliant. The depth of my talent is flat-out amazing. I am also full of crap, can't write worth a damn, and boring enough to put paint to sleep. It seems to alternate by night.)

I used to think all that mattered was what I thought of my work. Now I still think that matters, but I recognize that my own self-assessment isn't much good without an external check. When you are writing to be read, that is the reader. Not every reader will get it, but if none do, then you might just be waving a golf ball retriever in a dimly lit high school studio.

Sometimes, even if it feels brilliant, it doesn't mean it is. Or at least, it might not be brilliant yet.

backslashbaby · Nov 24, 2012

Some comments aren't going to help you with the style you want. If someone says 'I like it very straightforward', it's fine if you think that they'll probably not like your work. Don't worry about those readers (and certainly don't put them down).

You need to see if folks who like out-there stuff like your work. I think the thorough crit in this thread was gold. I disagreed with parts of it, because I do like more mystery. Most of it was perfect for me, even though I like a lot of ambiguity. I've read stories that were much more out-there that folks enjoy, so my level is also more mainstream than it might sound.

OK, so try to find betas who like the sort of thing you are going for. That's important, truly.

Now, whether you got there or not is a different question. My betas ask me whether the reader is supposed to know x, y or z. I'll use concrete examples:

Is the reader supposed to know whether the things are ghosts or real monsters or a hallucination?

My answer: nope. It should fit all 3. Weird, huh? But it'll work for the readership I'm going for, if I do it right.

Is the reader supposed to know (in a different story) whether he's a human boy?

Me: absolutely! What, I didn't make that clear? Aaack, you are totally right. I added a line about the woman speaking to him wanting to get him a bandaid for a scrape on his leg. The line did double-duty, as it also implied that his parents weren't caring for him, a big theme of the story.

So my choices of what to have be ambiguous totally matter. I want the reader to get exactly what they need to get and wonder about the parts they should wonder about. You need to decide how you feel about those aspects of your stories. Then, if someone doesn't like wondering whether your ghosts are ghosts and that's a huge point of the story, you can just say Thank You. If they wonder whether your humans are humans and you didn't mean to leave that hole, then you can say THANK YOU!

Mr. Breadcrumb · Nov 24, 2012

Well, I'm by no means an expert. I also haven't read your work and don't know the people who have commented on it.

But as someone who tends to favor the surreal, "let me fill in the blanks and think" kind of writing, I can share some of how I think about it.

First off, it's not everyone's thing, and you have to get clear on the fact that there is a huge difference between being too stupid to understand something and simply not enjoying it. When I sent my draft out to one of my readers, she came back with a lot of edits that seemed to indicate that she was looking for a different kind of book than the one I wanted to write, one that was more adventure-y and less contemplative and ambiguous. Does that mean I should just ignore her comments? Or that I'm trying to write the wrong kind of book and should alter it to be more like the one she wanted? No, to both.

If someone says that they didn't understand something or that it isn't working for them, it may mean that you should take it out or make it clearer like they suggest. Or maybe you just didn't do a good enough job with the ambiguity. Maybe you need to lean even harder into it and make it a better crafted, more careful ambiguity.

Sometimes you'll probably find that, yes, you need to provide more information or clean up the structure to make it easier for someone to follow who isn't inside your own brain. Other times you may find that the problem wasn't that it was too ambiguous, but was that it wasn't compelling enough. Readers will only go to the work of filling in the gaps if they feel they'll get something for the effort. So maybe when you receive a crit telling you that you need to fill in a gap, what you should take isn't "I need to be clearer" but instead, "I need to do more work to make this part compelling enough that people will enjoy thinking about it."

But no good will ever come from you deciding that you need to make edits that will bring your book farther away from the kind of book you want it to be. You'll resist it, you won't be interested in doing it, and you won't be happy with the end result. Just be careful not to let that be an excuse to ignore parts that need more work. It doesn't mean something doesn't need fixing, it just means it needs fixing in a way that furthers your goals.

Remember that disjointed writing isn't an excuse for less craft. It takes more. Just because an author's writing jumps around or uses strange sentence structure, doesn't mean that it didn't end up that way through very careful choice and placement to achieve a desired effect. So don't use "I like ambiguous, disjointed prose" as an excuse to let the words fall where they may. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, just reminding you that it will take more work, not less.

Think of it like a carefully calibrated puzzle. Gaps aren't a problem. They're part of the game. But they should never be arbitrary. You should know them all and know why they're there.

crunchyblanket · Nov 25, 2012

What is this thing you call context and why is it always absent when I think its right there?

Ask your reader. If they're being vague, ask them specific questions: Does this make sense? What did you glean from X paragraph or Y sentence? What do you think happened in this chapter? Was Z image clear to you?

Ask several readers. See what they say. If 2 out of 5 readers didn't quite get it, it's not so big a problem. If 5 out of 5 had no idea what flavour the waffle was...then you need to clarify.

job · Nov 25, 2012

If I know a visual artist can do meticulously realistic figure studies, I'm going to pay attention to his splashes-of-seemingly-random-color canvases. My 7-year-old nephew producing similar works . . . not so much.

If a writer's other work shows he can control POV, build scene, develop character, drive pacing, then I'm all agog to read the book where he chooses to do none of this. It is the competence of craft and deliberate intent that makes a disjointed, randomly paced, haphazardly characterized story worth the effort of deciphering.

I'd advise someone with a strong, unique voice to learn the trade of writing. Apprentice in the craft. Master technique -- then discard what you don't need.

I recommend Robert McKee's Story as an introduction to craft. I cannot open that book without finding something wonderful on the page.

". . . literary talent [is] -- the creative conversion of ordinary language into a higher, more expressive form, vividly describing the world and capturing its human voice. Literary talent is, however, common. In every literate community in the world, hundreds, if not thousands of people can, to one degree or another, begin with the ordinary language of their culture and end with something extraordinary. They write beautifully, a few magnificently, in the literary sense.

. . . story talent [is] -- the creative conversion of life itself to a more powerful, clearer, more meaningful experience. It seeks out the inscape of our days and reshapes it into a telling that enriches life. Pure story talent is rare." (McKee Story)

mccardey · Nov 25, 2012

job said:
If a writer's other work shows he can control POV, build scene, develop character, drive pacing, then I'm all agog to read the book where he chooses to do none of this. It is the competence of craft and deliberate intent that makes a disjointed, randomly paced, haphazardly characterized story worth the effort of deciphering..

So well said, and so worth saying. There are many wonderful voices that never get read because they're used to being the cleverest kid in the class and never realised that - in writing as in everything else - clever only works when it's under control.

Pyekett · Nov 25, 2012

mccardey said:
... in writing as in everything else - clever only works when it's under control.

Quoted for truth.

RedWombat · Nov 26, 2012

job said:
If I know a visual artist can do meticulously realistic figure studies, I'm going to pay attention to his splashes-of-seemingly-random-color canvases. My 7-year-old nephew producing similar works . . . not so much.

I find this holds particularly true in horror. It's the Showing Cthulhu Problem (if my memory of Stephen King is accurate.)

I read a book a year or so back that was creepy, interesting, held together well...and ended on an ambiguous manuscript-found-by-main-character's-body kind of note. You got a feeling of Bad Stuff Going Down, but nothing was ever spelled out. I was willing to go with it, since nobody is ever taking dictation while they're being devoured by the Big Bad Thing, except in Lovecraft stories.

I read another book by the same author some weeks later.

It was fairly creepy, not quite so interesting (she had some stylistic tics that somebody needed to sit down and have a firm talk with her about)...and it ended, again, on an ambiguous no-one-is-quite-sure-what-happened note.

I will probably never read another book by her again.

Once is a deliberate stylistic choice. Twice, though, is "I write books where I hint at stuff but I never actually show you the monster and I expect you to fill it all in in your head."

Nuts to that. Sooner or later you've got to knuckle down and show me Cthulhu if you want me to keep reading. Fear of the unknown is scary and all, but fear of "Oh great, another six hours spent for "But was it all a dreaaaaam?!" is much stronger and directly connected to my buying hand.

At the end of the day, you've got to convince the readers that there IS a monster behind the curtain---or more broadly, clarity behind the disjointed style---otherwise you wind up writing something that's cryptic for cryptic's sake, and nobody believes that you really do know what's going on. (See also, X-files.)

It's fine to make the reader fill in details, but be damn sure that enough holds together that they are convinced that you-the-author know exactly what's happening. Otherwise they lose confidence in the book--and you.

Buffysquirrel · Nov 26, 2012

Speaking as a reader who enjoys being made to work (but not too hard), I have two requirements from a book that wants me to work.

Firstly, that it doesn't make me work hard for little reward. Example: Feersum Endjinn, where I was expected to wade through incredibly obscure dialect to find out that some creature was hungry. Book, meet wall. The reward should be commensurate to the effort involved.

Secondly, a) that there's enough to convince me that, by the end, it will all make sense. Example: Light, which had declined to drop a single hint as to what was going on by the point at which it hit the wall. One of my friends assured me there was an explanation for why everything was so weird, but by then it was too late.

or b) that I'm enjoying the ride so much I don't care whether or not it makes sense by the end.

backslashbaby · Nov 26, 2012

RedWombat said:
I find this holds particularly true in horror. It's the Showing Cthulhu Problem (if my memory of Stephen King is accurate.)

I read a book a year or so back that was creepy, interesting, held together well...and ended on an ambiguous manuscript-found-by-main-character's-body kind of note. You got a feeling of Bad Stuff Going Down, but nothing was ever spelled out. I was willing to go with it, since nobody is ever taking dictation while they're being devoured by the Big Bad Thing, except in Lovecraft stories.

I read another book by the same author some weeks later.

It was fairly creepy, not quite so interesting (she had some stylistic tics that somebody needed to sit down and have a firm talk with her about)...and it ended, again, on an ambiguous no-one-is-quite-sure-what-happened note.

I will probably never read another book by her again.

Once is a deliberate stylistic choice. Twice, though, is "I write books where I hint at stuff but I never actually show you the monster and I expect you to fill it all in in your head."

Nuts to that. Sooner or later you've got to knuckle down and show me Cthulhu if you want me to keep reading. Fear of the unknown is scary and all, but fear of "Oh great, another six hours spent for "But was it all a dreaaaaam?!" is much stronger and directly connected to my buying hand.

At the end of the day, you've got to convince the readers that there IS a monster behind the curtain---or more broadly, clarity behind the disjointed style---otherwise you wind up writing something that's cryptic for cryptic's sake, and nobody believes that you really do know what's going on. (See also, X-files.)

It's fine to make the reader fill in details, but be damn sure that enough holds together that they are convinced that you-the-author know exactly what's happening. Otherwise they lose confidence in the book--and you.

Your post made me consider my own work, as you might imagine

I'm a big fan of magical realism. When I do my ambiguity, I'm going for that same flavor. I know it's not popular with a large swath of the reading public, but works like Beloved make me scream YES in humble admiration

Were my creatures ghosts or similar supernatural forces from the war dead, or were they a hallucination? Do I know? I don't know that I do. Maybe they are both. They are the war haunting her, one way or another, and that's all I need the reader to know. The exact nature of what they are is something nobody may ever know, and that's as important in the story as it is in life.

But if you aren't into that sort of thing, cool beans

RedWombat · Nov 26, 2012

*grin* I think it's important here to differentiate between ambiguity and not-showing-Cthulhu, though.

Not showing Cthulhu because you can't write well enough to make him scary is a cop-out. Most readers will twig to that pretty quick. You get one, maybe two books and then they get sick of waiting for you to knuckle down. (Unlike Charlie Brown, we do get tired of the football being yanked away at the last minute.)

Showing Cthulhu and then not telling the reader whether he's real or not---that's another kettle of fish. Take Pan's Labyrinth, for example--you got to SEE the big scary weird things. They were standing right there and you could examine them at your leisure. The ambiguity arose in whether or not it was real or the protagonist was hallucinating. Same thing with, oh, Jacob's Ladder, say, or on a happier note, Big Fish.

I think it's the difference between "Is there a monster behind the curtain?" and "Is the monster behind the curtain real?"

I'll happily tolerate ambiguity if the monster is standing right there, but if you repeatedly fail, across multiple books, to let me get a look at the monster, I become disillusioned, if that makes any sense?

job · Nov 26, 2012

Buffysquirrel said:
or b) that I'm enjoying the ride so much I don't care whether or not it makes sense by the end.

The Jabberwocky gambit.

Carroll is an example where deliberate ambiguity pays off. It works because Carroll is so clever and funny. But it also works because he's telling story. The snark is a boojum, (** spoiler alert here **) so the journey is not only fun, it's worthwhile.

Mr Flibble · Nov 26, 2012

backslashbaby said:
Were my creatures ghosts or similar supernatural forces from the war dead, or were they a hallucination? Do I know? I don't know that I do. Maybe they are both. They are the war haunting her, one way or another, and that's all I need the reader to know. The exact nature of what they are is something nobody may ever know, and that's as important in the story as it is in life.

But if you aren't into that sort of thing, cool beans

I kinda dealt with the current project . Book one, from guys' pov? not clear, (sort of Shutter Island style) Book two from Gal's pov (she's not delusional for a start...) clear, but she has a different problem to solve...

I think it's cool if a) that's the point of the one story(not your badge of honour as in it's in every story) or b) it becomes clear later or c) you're the fecking genius who wrote Memento.

Bit of Practical Advice, yeah?

*Leers at you awkwardly*

Life isn't all beer and skittles.

Huh.

practical experience, FTW

*Leers at you awkwardly*

Where have the last ten years gone?

DenturePunk writer

The grad students did it

*Leers at you awkwardly*

Huh.

Caped Codder

Couth barbarian

I need no hot / Words.

~~~~*~~~~

the Juggernaut of Imperfection

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

I need no hot / Words.

Runs With Scissors

~~~~*~~~~

Runs With Scissors

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Leers at you awkwardly

Leers at you awkwardly

Leers at you awkwardly

*

*