Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

If you MUST include eating, drinking, or potty stuff, work it into the scene. Maybe when two characters are talking in the bar, the third could go take a leak. Or they would meet at a restaurant. Or if the person is captive for a long time (like in a cell or something, or stuck in the woods), have the person munch on something: berries, dried fruits, etc. or describe the place hinting at urine or something...

Always do what the scene requires. In my book I have scenes where they eat, talk, do things, excuse themselves to go to the bathroom, etc. but these details never distract from the scene and the action. They're just part of it. When you work the detail in just right, it does enhance the verisimilitude of your scenes.

But if you can keep your readers captive and in the dream state, no one is going to stop and ask, "Hey, wait a minute..."

p.s. I have gone for more than 12 hours without eating or going to the bathroom... so it can be done.

The question is whether the potty break advances the plot, reveals character, or supports the theme.

Dutch Shultz undoubtedly went to the bathroom many times in his life. The only time worth mentioning was one night at the Palace Chop House and Tavern in Newark, New Jersey.

So it doesn't matter if your characters go for days on end without mentioning them eating? That makes things a lot easier.

It only matters if it matters to your readers.

loquax, have you looked at how your favorite authors handle the "bathroom break" problem? Characters in a novel don't eat or use the toilet as often as real people because the author tracks them only during selected slices out of their day – that is, scenes. If, during a scene in Chapter 1, two characters have lunch together, of course eating will be part of the action. But if one of those characters vanishes until Chapter 12, which takes place a week later, readers won't assume he hasn't eaten in between.

You don't read novels where a character turns up in the middle of the book and says "Wow, I'm hungry. I haven't had a bite since Chapter 1."

Characters presumably dress, undress, bathe, floss their teeth, and pay their bills between scenes, too. Writers just don't mention it.

reph - I think you and others have got the wrong end of the stick. The question was whether it is plausible to have commentary running for perhaps an entire day with one character in the spotlight without them eating, sleeping, or going to the toilet. The bottom line is which is more important - realism and consistency or aesthetics?

loquax said:

reph - I think you and others have got the wrong end of the stick. The question was whether it is plausible to have commentary running for perhaps an entire day with one character in the spotlight without them eating, sleeping, or going to the toilet. The bottom line is which is more important - realism and consistency or aesthetics?

Click to expand...

Realism does not mean that you have to include the boring parts. Showing characters relieving themselves is not usually of interest unless something very out of the ordinary happens ("Hey, what's with all this blood in my pee?" or a certain scene from Big Daddy with Adam Sandler).

It's true that readers might wonder if you show the characters continually engaged in some long, non-stop task where there is no way they could leave. For example, having the characters run from something, or a man sitting in an interrogation room until they say he can leave (in which case the man having to go is going to be relevant to the scene). Or if you had them trapped in an area with no bathroom - hiding in a closet for days, or pinned down in a foxhole, for example. But if they are doing something in one place, go to another after a few hours, etc, readers will probably assume they had some time off camera. Give your characters a few chapter breaks.

Sleep might be a bit more problematic. If you show a character doing something requring being awake and have him awake during at least one point during all 24 hours, it would be realistic if he were sleepy.

First off: Congratulations to jlawrenceperry for finishing your first. it's a swell feeling, isn't it? (Okay, i've watched Pleasantville too recently...)

Second: Roger and Sharon, See you at VP! I got my acceptance last week.

As to covers:

I pointedly went out and bought the new rerelease of a book I liked from an author I love specifically because the original release had the worst pastel unicorn shot you've ever seen. But I bought the original when it was all that was available. And I wish Nalo Hopkinson's the Salt Roads had a better cover, but that didn't stop me owning that book, either (So I got a review copy for free. Technicality. I'd have paid for it. But I don't think the cover got her any new fans.)

Bad covers will likely turn me off impulse purchases, but not against recommended authors or people I've previously read. But there's also a vast gap between bad and actually really good which also leaves me cold; the "meh" factor. Some of these are deliberate; using the same cover artist as a currently popular series is a way of implying the story inside would appeal to fans of the first series. It can give the length of several shelves a lookalike feel, a blandness - but it's a blandness that flags certain fans very pointedly.

What i've been wondering about is a new trend in covers: It used to be that faces were widely considered the single best part of a person to show if you weren't going to provide a full scene. There's a reason for this: quick, what's the single most popular National Geographic shot EVER?

But nowadays, the shelves are full of shots of feet, of legs, of backs (Lots and lots of backs), of torsos with the head cut off the top edge of the cover. Or even angles of heads that don't show faces or eyes. It's less prevalent in genre, but even some romances have done so. It's novel, but I do wonder why the industry is going back on several centuries of human psychology?

Not much to say about writing right now. I'm second guessing everything I've written to this point in this draft, and it's all I can do to remind myself, Keep going. "Don't look back until you have it all down. Just keep going. Ack! All the characters sound alike. Fix it in the next draft. Just keep going. Oh, no, how am I using ellipses? Just keep going...."

LRH

James D. Macdonald said:

The question is whether the potty break advances the plot, reveals character, or supports the theme.

Click to expand...

In my medieval fantasy novel, I wanted to separate my two traveling companions so that one could be attacked without the other knowing until after the fact. I had one take a potty break while the other continued on at a slower pace. I guess that could be considered advancing the plot -- it was a means by which I advanced the plot. I couldn't think up a better excuse to separate the two for a short time.

loquax said:

reph - I think you and others have got the wrong end of the stick....The bottom line is which is more important - realism and consistency or aesthetics?

Click to expand...

If you follow a character continuously through a whole day, then eating and sleeping should happen, or the situation should make clear why they don't happen (e.g., character is lost in woods without food, must stay awake to avoid predators). Otherwise, readers will wonder, and the story will be too unrealistic. Maybe you can get by without mentioning bathroom functions. Normally, though, a writer leaves the character's side once in a while.

I don't see that it's unaesthetic to describe the meeting of bodily needs that everyone has. Maybe you mean that these incidentals interrupt the main narrative?

Lenora Rose said:

quick, what's the single most popular National Geographic shot EVER?

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess the 12-year-old Afghan girl with the dramatic eyes.

reph said:

Maybe you mean that these incidentals interrupt the main narrative?

Click to expand...

Indeed, e.g

"Hey, we really need to run. We've been hiding for over two days and I think they've spotted us."
"All right, but can I take a leak first?"
"Go ahead."
"Okay, all done. Let's go."

loquax said:

Indeed, e.g

"Hey, we really need to run. We've been hiding for over two days and I think they've spotted us."
"All right, but can I take a leak first?"
"Go ahead."
"Okay, all done. Let's go."

Click to expand...

And what's the point of that? It doesn't advance the plot, develop characters or strengthen the theme (unless the theme is "the natural urge for humans to pee whenever they can").

Just do a scene change. Skip the peeing. Your readers can fill in the blanks.

In my book, there's one scene in which the protagonist announces that he has to pee. He goes to the bathroom, does his business... but there's a point for all that. First, the way he slips away from his situation speaks of his character... then something dramatic happens while he's in the bathroom: a major revelation.

When my characters eat, it's part of a scene when things happen -- dialogue, action, plot advancement. It doesn't stop the narrative like in the example above.

Otherwise, I don't chronicle every bodily function of my characters...

A scene break is your friend, pal.

Agreed, and when the time does come when you need to slow down the hero just enough so he <almost> gets nabbed/killed/diaperrash, when you haven't mentioned bodily functions for 8 chapters, its that much more believeable when he says "Sure, the Mexican army is coming, but if I don't take a leak, the gold's going to float away!"

Heh, that was a joke. I was just using it as an example of how stupid that kind of thing can look. But even so, if there was a scene break, would the reader would have to assume in that short period of time that the characters went to the toilet, ate some food, and had a quick nap? That can be almost as unrealistic as not including them in the first place.

When I'm reading a book, I don't give a lot of thought to the characters eating, drinking, peeing, sleeping. I can't recall a time when I was absorbed in a story and suddenly thought, "but when did he last pee????" If I'm thinking about those things, the book probably sucks anyway and the lack of bathroom breaks or nutrition is the least of its worries.

Assume the reader will fill in the blanks. That doesn't mean never mention such things, just that you don't have to unless there's a point.

loquax said:

...if there was a scene break, would the reader would have to assume in that short period of time that the characters went to the toilet, ate some food, and had a quick nap?

Click to expand...

Scene 141: The deserters Hank and Bubba need a place to hide from the tzar's army. They find a cave and set up housekeeping there. They build a screen of branches to conceal the cave mouth.

Scene 142: Back at the camp, Sgt. Loquaxsky receives a report from Private Rephenko that Hank and Bubba are missing from the ranks. He sends a detail to look for them.

Scene 143: Hank and Bubba cower at the back of their cave as they hear the tramping of booted feet outside. The soldiers pass by. Whew! The screen worked. Hank and Bubba are safe. Will the reader assume that their stomachs are empty and their bladders are full? No, because the intervening scene took the focus off Hank and Bubba for a while.

You know, I've written about a third of a novel without one character (not even the dogs or cat) answering the call of nature. But I've had such a good time following this discussion, that I think I must try to work it in somehow. A sort of Hitchcockian cameo. Scholars 30 years from now will comment on how just preceding the climax of each of Ben Mears's novels, a minor character stops to take a squat, thus pointedly commenting on the human condition...

By the way, Big Ups to JLP on finishing your first draft!

Now the real writing begins.

Nobody has gone to the bathroom in any of my books; it's something I do every day, therefor I don't find it interesting enough to write about.

Eating, however, receives some page space in my current book. This is mainly because there are so many dinosaur characters; the herbivores have to eat pretty much all the time, and its usually interesting when the carnivores eat.

alaskamatt17 said:

Nobody has gone to the bathroom in any of my books;

Click to expand...

Yeah, it has the tendancy to make the pages sticky.




Seriously though, I'll throw the mundane tasks in really briefly like this:

On the way out, I ran a brush through my hair and grabbed an apple before slaming the door behind me.

(crappy example but you get the idea)

I liked your story reph. I was in it.

Lets say that there is one solid scene that lasts a whole day in the POV of one character.

What then? That's my question. I don't want any solutions (I can see very well how a scene break would work). It's a yes/no answer - can you miss out toilet breaks, sleeping, and eating?

They rarely add to the plot, enhance the character or support a theme. But without them your book becomes unrealistic (even if there are ice dragons floating around breathing liquid nitrogen... wait, thats a good idea. Nobody steal it.)

loquax said:

Lets say that there is one solid scene that lasts a whole day in the POV of one character.

What then? That's my question. I don't want any solutions (I can see very well how a scene break would work). It's a yes/no answer - can you miss out toilet breaks, sleeping, and eating?

Click to expand...

OK, but my question is, what is the character doing all day that's interesting enough to follow him or her in detail, without breaks? Are you really detailing everything the character does, minute by minute? Or do you have parts like,

Here it was. Bubba held the book with trembling hands. The ancient glyphs on the cover read 'Detective Comics 1.' Reverently, he laid the book on the library table and opened to the first brittle page. Finger hovering above the text, he sounded out the first word.

It took the rest of the afternoon to read the entire book, but Bubba was a patient man. When he had sounded out the last word, he closed the cover with a sigh....

In other words, there's a short summary of the action ("It took the rest of the afternoon to read the entire book") within the scene; I don't bother to describe Bubba's action blow-by-blow.

My opinion is that if you've got these types of short summaries, and the character is in a situation where he or she could take a break, like Bubba is, then the reader will assume that your character does what's necessary.

On the other hand, if you really do detail out every single minute of the day without a potty break and without summarizing some parts, then the reader will start to wonder. By the same token, if you do summarize, but leave the character in a situation where, explicitly or implicitly, he can't take a break, then also the reader will start to wonder. For example, if I changed the above to:

Here it was. Bubba held the book with trembling hands. The ancient glyphs on the cover read 'Detective Comics 1.' Reverently, he laid the book on the library table and opened to the first brittle page. Finger hovering above the text, he sounded out the first word.

Bubba stayed planted in his seat the rest of the afternoon, reading the ancient tome. How could he move when there was such knowledge to be gained? When he had sounded out the last word, he closed the cover with a sigh....

Now I've explicitly prevented Bubba from moving during the short summary. If Bubba's exact position is accounted for for an entire day, and he doesn't take a potty break, then yes, I think the reader would notice.

There's a simple solution to this one. Pick up a book or two either similar to your story or by your favorite author and read it. Make sure you have a pencil in hand so you can note points that make you, on an architectural level, say "aha! That's how you do that."

Personally, if I was reading a book that followed a character's every move on such a minute level for more than a few minutes at a time, I'd send the book to Letterman and have him tape it to a watermelon and drop it off the roof of a five-story building.

Write the interesting stuff. If you think it's interesting to have your characters doing something mundane then do it, but what you don't want, above everything else is the reader saying "why am I reading this?".

I have a couple in my book who do absolutely nothing. However in the context this is why they are interesting. I like to transpose the Hitchcockian idea of films being like life with the boring parts cut out.


Os.

For some reason I have a lot of food in my last book. But it's because the MC moves to a house with a staff and now has a cook, so some of the scenes are coversations over dinner, so I mention the dinner. Another one is a banquet feast in Ancient Greece, so I mention the food. They eat other times in the book, I'm sure, but they aren't noteworthy.

The only time I mention the bathroom is when the MC first sees it. It's maybe a dozen words long. But I guess they go, if they eat. I just don't write about it.