Fiction writing modes

nastyjman said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction-writing_mode
...
Anyway, the thing I want to discuss is how you use these modes or if you even use them at all.
...
I think it's improving my word count too. If I'm stalled at what the next sentence is, I just go through the possible or logical mode that follows. For example, if I just described an object, I could have a character do some introspection on it or have the character throw the object across the room.
....
It also added to my fiction study and analyses. When I do copywork, I'm now highlighting sentences with colors that pertain to their modes. For example, interiority is blue

Click to expand...

Firstly, those "modes" are what a book consists of. Basically, you want to discuss EVERYTHING about fiction writing in this one thread??
Secondly, it appears that you are attempting to quantify the amount of each "mode" and that doesn't work. There is no recipe where you take 1 cup of description, 2 tablespoons of insights and a quart of exposition.
Thirdly, I doubt you'll get great results if you just randomly decide which "mode" to use in the next sentence. You give the reader the information they need at this particular moment in the story. If you just mechanically decide whether to "have a character do some introspection on it or have the character throw the object across the room", then you could end up having a character cuddle their beloved cat in one sentence and then suddenly throw it across the room in the next. And that may be a bit annoying to your reader who's been getting cozy with that romantic comedy, for example.
You wouldn't build a sentence simply by deciding what part of speech to add next, would you? Mmmm, I think I need a determiner and a preposition, or maybe an extra clause because I think I've had too many pronouns in the previous sentence...

nastyjman said:

...I'm checking the last sentence I wrote and then try to understand what's blocking me briefly. Usually it's a transition that I need to do or the next action.

I'm not trying to quantify the modes or looking for a recipe for that sweet spot--it's just awareness of the ingredients.

Click to expand...

Your writing process seem interesting. So, after having that awareness of the ingredients, how do you actually decide which ingredient to use next?

I don't know all those modes. I've decided on my own categorization of four: action, description, dialogue, and internal monologue. I don't have a recipe; it's more "salt to taste". I can notice when I'm using too much or too little of one, which often happens, because when I initially write a scene, my imagination might be working in a more dialogue-heavy or action-heavy mode. Afterward I recognize the need for more flavor.

I think the four go in pairs. If you're overdoing description in a "travel brochure" / "police sketch" kind of way, you can make your description more active. I tend to underdo description, so I can make my action more descriptive by thinking about how the characters, props, and scenery will react to actions, e.g. hair flowing when somebody moves, or the sound made from walking on dry leaves. Usually I overwrite dialogue, and I can shift some of this to internal monologue by thinking, "Does the other character need to know this, or just the reader? Would the speaking character want the other character to know this?" Often people hold back, even just because they're uncertain, and by the time they make up their minds, the conversation has moved on. As a writer, you're usually pretty confident about what you say, because you have unlimited time to think it over, but you can make characters' dialogue sound more natural by changing some of it to internal monologue, while still sharing all your brilliant words and ideas with the reader.

I think that looking at which modes are used is better left for the editing and revision passes. (I mean, obviously, if it works for you during the drafting process then carry on.) But overthinking the craft can greatly slow down or stall a lot of folks. Also, individual stories have differing styles, even for the same author.

So, no. I don't think about this while writing. And only in a general sense while revising. ("Is this dialog exchange too long? Do I need more description? Or bigger actions?" "This paragraph might need some internalization so we know that even though she says she's not scared, she actually is.") But other than a vague attempt to balance dialog, narration, action (and even that depends on the sequence in question) I don't think about modes or trying to find the next mode to create the right beat.

(Which again, if that's what does work for you, excellent. But it's not a necessary step in my experience.)

nastyjman said:

/.../
I think it's improving my word count too. If I'm stalled at what the next sentence is, I just go through the possible or logical mode that follows. For example, if I just described an object, I could have a character do some introspection on it or have the character throw the object across the room.
/.../

Click to expand...

I do this all the time, not when writing first draft, but later, when I look at it. For the rhythm to work, at least in my case, there has to be a balance between these "modes". In the early drafts I leave place-holders in certain places ("he reacts" or "two sentences of scenery" or "he doubts for about a paragraph"), and then turn them into proper prose at a later point.

Sometimes I switch elements of scenes around. Just today I took 3-4 paragraphs about the heroine's past and replanted them 3 chapters later, because they do more good there, balancing the action, while the place where they were initially they bogged everything down.

Rhythm and structural balance are very important for me, and they take a whole lot of reshuffling and tweaking.

nastyjman said:

/.../
It also added to my fiction study and analyses. When I do copywork, I'm now highlighting sentences with colors that pertain to their modes. For example, interiority is blue (because the mind is as vast as the ocean), description green, action red and dialogue none because it's easily distinguishable (unless you're McCarthy).
/.../

Click to expand...

I don't do this with my own stuff, but years back, at the start of this writing thing, I did it to other writers. For example Koontz's Watchers With my own stuff by now I can "see the matrix" clearly enough.

Aggy B. said:

But overthinking the craft can greatly slow down or stall a lot of folks.

Click to expand...

This. I have come to believe that some writers distract themselves from the task of writing by thinking about all kinds of things that have nothing but the vaguest of influences on actually writing.

When I went to the Wikipedia page to find out what a writing "mode" is, I read for a very short time before my eyes glazed over. I write by having an idea and sitting down with a pad of paper and a pen (because I'm old school and still work with paper until I edit on the computer), then putting down a word. The word turns into a sentence. The sentence turns into a paragraph. Soon, I have a chapter. I continue going until I reach the end of the story. If I worried about modes, I would never reach the end. Probably wouldn't even start, tbh.

Modes are really more a collection of tools; you might find it helpful to think if them that way.

Say, for instance, you know you have to get a character to show the reader something important in terms of plot or narration.

You're just not sure how. Reviewing a list of techniques and tools, like the modes listed, might help you select which tool or tools you want to use.

They're more useful as conscious techniques when you're struggling. You don't actually have to know about them or what they're called to use them. We use them all the time in speech, too.

Curlz said:

/.../
Secondly, it appears that you are attempting to quantify the amount of each "mode" and that doesn't work. There is no recipe where you take 1 cup of description, 2 tablespoons of insights and a quart of exposition.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of recipes, most veterans of the entertainment industry have them either as actual lists, or as intuitive understanding borne of experience. All those Guardians of the Galaxy and Toy Stories and everything are made by taking 1 cup of character archetypes, 2 tablespoons of reluctance before accepting the adventure, and so on. As is much of the more formulaic pulp writing.

The moment when as writers we look at a scene and think "there's too much talking here, someone needs to fart or something," we are making an intuitive judgement that a scene needs another spoonful of fart.

You look at a scene with Jack Slater escaping from the killers across the meadow and you think: "Too bland. Gotta add two spoons of stumbling and a pinch of bullets nicking his earlobe."

Curlz said:

/.../You wouldn't build a sentence simply by deciding what part of speech to add next, would you?

Click to expand...

Sure you would. You'd talk to person X on a topic where you need to be a bit sensitive, and you'd do your damn best to say what needs to be said, the way it has to be said, with the appropriate shrugs and wheezes and eyelid twitches as punctuation, in order to achieve a certain effect. During the talking, you'd make last moment decisions to substitute words, use stock phrases, change the tone a bit, and so on: "Now that we've reached this part of the topic, I'm gonna have to be a bit apologetic, perhaps with some feisty naughtiness thrown in..."

We as writers have to achieve certain effects with every scene and with every sentence. The more we care about controlling this effect, the more we care about the teaspoons of internal dialogues and the cups of action sequences. The less we care about controlling the effect*, the more spontaneous we can be.

____
* Or the more "genius Jimi Hendrix of writing" we've turned into...

Curlz said:

You wouldn't build a sentence simply by deciding what part of speech to add next, would you?

Click to expand...

JCornelius said:

Sure you would. You'd talk to person X on a topic where you need to be a bit sensitive, and you'd do your damn best to say what needs to be said, the way it has to be said, with the appropriate shrugs and wheezes and eyelid twitches as punctuation, in order to achieve a certain effect. During the talking, you'd make last moment decisions to substitute words, use stock phrases, change the tone a bit, and so on: "Now that we've reached this part of the topic, I'm gonna have to be a bit apologetic, perhaps with some feisty naughtiness thrown in..."

Click to expand...

And which of the things you mentioned (shrugs and wheezes, eyelid twitches, stock phreases, change of tone, being apologetic, feisty naughtiness) are the "parts of speech" I mentioned?

I'm just astonished that anyone writes with all these different modes in mind. When I write fiction, I just make things up.

Old Hack said:

I'm just astonished that anyone writes with all these different modes in mind. When I write fiction, I just make things up.

Click to expand...

Yep. Like much of rhetorical theory and critical theory, they're derived from reading things people have written.

That said, I think there's more utility in thinking about writing this way for non-fiction than fiction; fiction needs to be driven by character (which includes dialog) and story (which relies on narrative and plot).

Everything else is kinda secondary, in my opinion (and I'm not a writer of fiction, so I'm just speculatin' as a professional reader).

This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Wow, I just read that wiki and am so glad I have never thought about that while writing. You are telling a story. That is it.

GoreQuill NachoVidal said:

Wow, I just read that wiki and am so glad I have never thought about that while writing. You are telling a story. That is it.

Click to expand...

That's what you are doing; it might not be what every other writer is doing.

Personally, I don't analyze my writing. And even though I love reading, I hated literature class, where they made you read something, then break it down into pieces to analyze. It's probably because I'm an intuitive person, I figure things out as I go along, using instinct. Not just in writing, but in other areas of my life, too. If I'm editing and something feels "off" or wrong, I fix it. It might take a few tries before it flows naturally, but I usually get there eventually.

Some people need more structure, more analysis, more engineering. That's totally fine, if it works for you. We all learn, process, and create in different ways.

I suppose it can be helpful to read about techniques, modes, and strategies. More often than not, you are likely to find you are already using the methods described.

While you are expanding your knowledge, here is a thread you might find useful. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?6710-Learn-Writing-with-Uncle-Jim-Volume-1