So instead--and maybe this is a more accurate interpretation of those quotes--I tell myself that I have to write with feeling and curiosity. Feeling, because it is "not untrue" if it is sincere feeling. Curiosity, because if I have an Idea, I don't need to tell it, I need to explore it.
Exploration...I like this, yes. It is still something to say, just not a statement.
I think this is a worthy thing, indeed.
But I don't always need an Idea. Sometimes I just want to tell a rippin' good story, and maybe an Idea comes out of it, or it doesn't.
Haha, okay. Let me ask, though--how do you construct the stories? I mean, for me personally, I think of the little nugget of an idea ("what if blahblah") and then try to add conflict to make a plot out of it--that's all fine, right--but then when it comes to characters and their arcs, how they change or how they change things, I start to run up against this..."something to say" thing. I mean, can you escape saying something, even if you don't mean to?
I don't have a particular defined opinion but...just wondering
You know Hemingway and Fitzgerald were drunk a lot, right?
Ah, sure. Forget everything they ever said or wrote then
To be fair, this "something to say" thing was something I first saw somewhere on AW, and kept hearing about elsewhere, but I couldn't remember where or dig up a source for it, so. Went searching for something concrete to point to.
Oh, golly. Those are deep questions. I'm on a bit steadier ground wrt Hemingway, though. Hemingway didn't go in for excessive ornamentation in writing; he was rather derisive when speaking of authors who did. His works contain simplicity of expression (aesthetics) and what he truly felt, knew, or believed (ethics). To him, as seen by his works, writing a true sentence meant writing what is within you (what you know, what you feel, what you believe) in the simplest, most straightforward way possible.
"Having something to say" doesn't mean only writing about earth-shattering or world-changing topics—or, at least, it doesn't mean that to me. Every story has a theme, planned or not. Suppose you have a new take on a very old theme. Heck, you could have the 188,000th take on the theme "the course of true love never did run smooth" and it still be worth saying.
Write your story as honestly and as simply as you can.
This makes sense, at least with respect to Hemingway's style--and I do like the bit about a theme, planned or not. Something to say does not, I suppose, have to be something *new* to say.
1. Fitzgerald's quote seems kind of idealistic.
But for me, it's less about only writing meaningful words, and more about showing ONLY the meaningful words to someone else.
I go to a lot of writing groups/workshops, and I always cringe when someone says, "I'm not working on anything right now, but if you'd like... I could bring in this story a wrote a couple years ago." Inwardly, I'm like, NO. PLEASE GOD, NO.
The way they say this has nothing to do with politeness, or false modesty. It's not like that one photographer lady who took awesome B&W photographs and stuffed them in a trunk for like fifty years. She had something to say, she just chose not to say it. These stories, however, have a one-in-a-million chance of being somewhat good. Lots of people are just filling in time, to participate.
You can always tell though, with writers. When they're *dying* to show you a story. Then I'm like, sure. Bring it on.
But you can't always write only meaningful words. Not if you write with any regularity. Some days, we practically drown in our own drivel. But have the good sense not to make someone else wade through it.
In one way, this makes a certain sense, but in another--I do not feel I ever write meaningful words, and therefore sometimes wonder if it's better to stop attempting it, and then wonder if I should really put that much investment into my own perceptions, given how faulty they often are. Like, how do I know if I've actually written something that is meaningful, and I just don't see it...
But I don't know if my personal feeling here is a data point that matters
2. I've always sort of liked that Hemingway quote.
To me, he's talking about a sentence where you can roll it around in your head, and be like, "Yeah, this is pretty good." It feels beyond reproach. You read it and don't think anyone will argue with it. That's always a good to start, or a place to retreat, should you find yourself getting caught in a lie. The truth will rarely lead you astray.
What truth, though? Mine? Yours? Objective? The truth of the moment? Or is this more just a styling-your-sentences issue, rather than about content?
To me, I think it just means write with authenticity. Give writing all your heart and be genuine about it. When you force something it will sound contrived and readers will instantly pick up on it.
You can write anything in the world, but it should be written with your true feelings. I think if your writing is flowing easily, that's a sure sign it's with true feeling.
Ah, but which fraction of me has the truest feelings, when they're often in contest; what if the truth is I have no heart to give and no truth on which to rely?
God I'm being so contrarian. Sorry.
I think that's certainly an answer to the question(s)...well, all of these are. It's kind of a multi-dimensional problem, involving passion, heart, truth, honesty; concepts that might mean different things to different people. And maybe that's the whole point. A lack of a truth to stand on might be as true as the standiest-on truth there is. But then, how do you say something when you don't have it to begin with...
Hmmm.
I fall in love with some book worlds and can't get enough of them. Themes or messages in them take many forms. Good fiction only needs to take you into its world and have you enjoy it. Themes might reflect on society, but to variable degrees. Or there might be nothing more than escapism. I can't recall many romance novels I've read that had anything wider than personal drama within them (though there may be many out there). And who's to say personal drama is not a worthy thing to write about?
Of course. And I don't think "something to say" necessarily has to be something philosophically shattering. For me, though, it's sort of a concept that holds a story together, like...you know, Harry Potter making his own family out of his friends and such. You could contrast this weird instant "magical love" that his parents stamped on his face when they died with the actual gritty fighting-to-the-death love that he and his friends/mentors/etc build (even though I still think Hermione deserved so much more credit than she ever got and Harry should have been her personal damn footstool for a full decade for all she did for him and he took credit for, BLEAH). It's not, like, a super profound statement, and it does not create the plot, but for me, it sort of hangs the story together in a way that it just wouldn't otherwise, yanno? Like, quite honestly, I don't care about Harry beating Voldemort. It doesn't mean anything on its own. It only means something because of what it threatens to destroy, if that makes sense.
I'm motivated to write because I do have something to say. It started as a vague concept and only as my story unfolded did it come into better focus. I don't know if I'll be successful or influence anyone or have anything that holds up over time. It doesn't matter. I've written a book that I wanted to write. That's what matters.
If you don't mind my asking, how did you know what you wanted to write?
Lisa Cron's blog and books on writing might be helpful on this subject. They were for me.
http://wiredforstory.com/
Thank you for the link
I often think of that Hemingway quote. To me it means, start with one true thing and it will be a lot more difficult to not be truthful throughout the entire MS. As far as overall theme, I haven't, so far, thought about theme until after the first draft or pretty far into it, when I start to see what the story might illustrate, or elucidate regarding the human condition. Until then, I'm just trying to write a coherent story. Then, I go back through on revisions and now, knowing what the story might say or mean, I carve out the finer details with that in mind, along with everything else like story and character arcs, making sure the voice is consistent, that kind of thing. But I do like that Hemingway quote. I think it's a good way to go in.
Right, fair enough
I suppose where I run into trouble is that, if I start with this one sentence, it must evolve into something else by the end. Or, yanno, if I start with a character, this character must do something, become something, and with this doing and becoming, something must necessarily be spoken through the story, even if it's rather a minor something? And thus in trying to create this coherent story I sort of...get lost in what this is supposed to come around to. What the point is. ...Maybe I'm just thinking too much
I never feel I have anything to say before starting a story. I just have one scene (or one piece of dialogue) in my head and 'write around it'. Sometimes a deeper theme emerges, mostly it doesn't.
IMO, it's blindingly obvious when a writer builds a story around something they want to say. It immediately feels contrived and allegorical. My advice would be to just write story and ice the cake with message/theme/subtext/fancy stuff in the later drafts.
Ed
So is it always a bad thing to start with something you want to say? A writer should just try to make a story and find out what it says later?
People sometimes equate great fiction writing to an act of exhibitionism. If true writing is letting it all hang out for the world to see, untrue writing is the exact opposite: it's hiding under layers of clothes and a ski mask, while hiding in a dark room with a locked door.
What Hemingway and Fitzgerald are ultimately talking about (and when those two agree on anything it's worth paying attention to) is honesty to oneself. "To thine own self be true" isn't just a line from a decent old play, it should be the writer's mantra. We imagine stories, we create worlds, we people those worlds with characters, and then, based on rules and constructs we've created from our innate beliefs, our breadth of personal experience, and our most cherished philosophies, we let them loose on the page. Writing untruthfully is using somebody else's rule book for our story worlds.
Which self should I be true to? Which self is it that is untouched by other people's input? Is there such a thing?
An untrue sentence is a sentence crafted for consumption rather than communication. It's the literary equivalent of blowing smoke up your reader's ass. It's made of words chosen to please rather than evoke, conveying actions tailored to reader or societal expectation rather than one's own vision. In short, it's "selling out."
A true sentence, on the other hand, is a solid declaration to the reader: "This is how I see the world. This is the story I have to tell. This is me. Take us as we are or be damned."
So then, it is having a story to tell, for some purpose of exposing the self, of glorifying the self as truth, as a single object that is honest in its core and uninfluenced by the outside world?
Not only is it possible to write dishonestly, it's seductively easy. So easy, in fact, that most of us do it, and often. Ever tone down something for fear of how it might come across? Then you may have lied to your reader.
What if I have toned something down because I wanted to communicate something, but failed in the initial communication, overwhelming what I meant to say with excessive imagery that spattered over the meaning?
Ever change a character's actions because you worried about how they might come off? Then you may have lied to your reader.
What if I changed a character's actions because I wanted to? Because what they did didn't work for the story, because it made them more despicable or boring than the story could handle? I'm still worried about how they come off; how the reader's perception will play into it and receive the story...
For me, this assumes the initial conception of a character or sentence or idea is the truest, and to change it is lying; is that what you mean?
I change things in stories because I do not think I'm communicating the story properly, because I don't think what I've done makes a good story, that sort of thing. Because the reader's reception matters in what the story says. It's not all about what I'm writing; it's about what the reader reads into it, as well, isn't it?
Or what you're saying--is it more about doing what I think will *sell* rather than what I want to write?
Killing Colonel Mustard in the Library with a Colt .45.
Your honesty is appreciated
Speaking as someone who hasn't been a voracious reader ever before and who has only been pursuing writing for a relatively short time now, I may have a different perspective than some.
I think the gist of it is to be true to yourself. If you are genuine and writing what is in your heart it will show through in what you write. It will make your work stand out when compared to people that are just writing to write.
Mmm, perhaps I have an issue with the concept because I'm in the latter category
Both as a reader and a writer, the stuff that feels most alive to me is stuff that doesn't tackle big social or philosophical issues, but fiction that simply renders a portrait of another human consciousness in full.
I like this
Probably the least abstract way I can put it is this: what feels "true" about the books that I love is that I come away from them with a sense of genuine connection, with the author and with her characters.
What feels "untrue" is perhaps more difficult to account for. But maybe it's like this: you ever have a dream where something in the dreamscape is just a little off, and in your dream you realize "oh, this is just a dream?" That's what untrue writing feels like to me. You can't fully enter the world of the story because there's something or other that serves as a reminder that this is just a dream.
Hmm. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you.
That's all I was getting at above. It isn't what you're writing, it's HOW you write it. True writing is writing with feeling. It's not about genre, or style, or sensationalism. It's about remembering the only thing truly unique we can bring to our readers is ourselves. And then it's about having the guts to do that.
Ah. With feeling
Okay. So, you mean "going through the motions of what you think is expected" vs, I guess, "telling a story you feel like telling", or similar?
