Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Improving one's writing

A while back, someone, I forget who, (Pam maybe?) recommended a book called Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King. I bought it, read a couple of chapters, and set it down due to other demands on my time. This past week I finally had time to read it some more. I couldn't get over some of the things the authors suggest. I noticed that I've now become very conscious of things that are considered "amateurish" as I write.

On the subject of introspection (Interior monologue is the term they use) : "...interior monologue is so powerful and easy to write (though not easy to write well) that many fiction writers tend to overuse it." (p.76) And: "Interior monologue is best served up a little at a time, especially in a dialogue scene, as a support for dialogue rather than as a substitute for it." (p.78) And last, but not least, "When self-editing, be on the lookout for long passages of interior monologue. As we've suggested, they usually mean you are telling the reader things you should be showing. ... In general, consider the possibility that any passage of interior monologue more than a page long may need cutting, breaking up, or conversion to a scene." (p. 84)

I'll share more later if people are interested.

Schoolmarm

Well, the introspection -v- non-introspection debate has been going on a long time in this fandom and my thoughts on it haven't changed any over the years.

Basically, if I was writing professionally and getting paid for it, I'd tailor my writing to the necessities and 'rules' of that market and not write much in the way of introspection.

With fanfic, however, I'm writing purely for fun, so I'll feel free to indulge myself. Readers then have the choice to read or skip over the introspection as suits their reading tastes.

LabRat (who realises as she hasn't had the inclination to write anything at all for almost a year these thoughts are pretty redundant <g>...but they'll apply if/when she wakes up keen to write again )

My writing professors have always stressed that narrative and dialogue are much more important than introspection. Long passages of people thinking is just plain *boring*. While such was the norm in eighteenth century and eariler serial novels, it has long since passed out of fashion, and should be used *sparingly*. My professors say that everything you write you should consider it "in real time". Think about how long it takes the character to do what you're writing. If your character is thinking for more than 5-10 minutes, you're taking too long. After all, if it were onscreen, we'd be bored ut of our skulls watching it.

Laura

Well, I'm not a writer, therefore am not speaking as someone who writes in a particular style. And certainly in the three years that I've been around I've seen a lot of "introspection" vs. "non-introspection" debate, and it's obviously been around much longer than I.

Purely as a reader, I would say that there's a place for all styles. There are certainly some readers who dislike introspection of any kind, or others who feel that some stories have way too much. Well, perhaps that's true, but there is definitely an audience for introspection in this particular fandom. I enjoy many different styles of writing, and depending on my mood, I know which authors to go to for a story to satisfy my particular taste at that moment.

For me personally, sometimes I love to wallow in introspection, and I don't feel if there's more than a page it's "too much". If professionally that wouldn't sell, I wouldn't know about that, but I do know that I have read published books that I don't consider nearly as well written as some of the fanfics that I've read, with or without introspection.

Kathy

Oh, goodie! The 'introspection' debate again.

Yvonne

Well said, Kathy. I'm a believer in the fact that there's something for everybody in the world of fanfic. Personally speaking, introspection bores me most days. A few snippets are fine, but when it gets to be a page long, it's just not for me. However, there a plenty of other stories jam-packed with dialogue that I can read. Actually, if the story has a killer plot, I'll just skip over the introspection and get back to the action.

So, my opinion is write what you want. It's not like it's the end of the world if you don't feel like tailoring it to one audience or another who automatically starts bowing

JD

I read your post, Schoolmarm, and thought, "no, I don't remember recommending that..." -- but then I looked on my bookshelf, and sure 'nough, there it was!

I always find it really interesting to read these books about writing, but I'm an ornery critter who thinks that only some of the "rules" apply, depending on what type of thing you're writing. And I think one of the things we have to watch out for is the temptation to hit each other over the head with the book Actually, it reminds me of a sermon, years ago, where the pastor cautioned against reading the Bible primarily in order to find fault with other people, especially if you then go repeat verses at them in an effort to shame them into repentence. I've known some people like that, and in my experience, that approach is very counter-productive.

But it can be awfully tempting. "Oh, I don't like introspection/POV shifts within a scene/whatever, and this book says it's bad, so I have proof, proof! that those other people are bad writers, just wait until I tell them..." :p I've probably given into that temptation myself, a few times, but it's something I try to watch out for.

Anyway, we've all been here and had this discussion before. It's not an argument that anyone can ever win, so let's agree that some people love introspection, some people hate it, most people fall somewhere in between, and leave it at that, shall we?

Variety is the spice of life, tolerance is a virtue, live and let live, etc, etc.

PJ

It does seem to be a bit of a redundant use of bandwidth to rehash this one all over again - especially when it's unlikely any consensus will be met. So far, the seasoned campaigners on both sides of the debate - myself included <g> - are repeating the same arguments for their pov almost word for word as all the other times this one has been debated. It's almost unnecessary by this point to read the posts. You can accurately predict what will be in them from the nicks alone.

Can I suggest then, perhaps, that instead of repeating ourselves, anyone who has a desperate wish to express a new opinion on this one or add to the debate simply finds the previous threads on the subject and adds to one of those instead?

It does seem the more sensible course than wasting bandwidth on a whole new thread and a repetition of the same issues and views. And for myself, I'd much rather bandwidth was used for posting more stories - both with and without introspection.

LabRat

I also believe that everyone should write the way they want. Others may like it, others may not like it. It's a matter of taste.

Still, I think I should point out something:

Although the writer adds 'though not easy to write well', I think that's a big mistake. Some people may find introspection easier to write, some people may find it more difficult. I, for example, have been writing dialogue scenes since I was 10 years old. On the other hand, it took me half a year of writing fanfiction to be able to write introspection. (Not 'good' introspection. Introspection in general.)

AnnaBtG.

I've read the posts on this topic, because I think it's an interesting one, and I don't think this point has been mentioned previously, at least not in these same words

When I was in grad school I took a writing class called "The literature of horror." It was one of my favorite classes because we studied the history of horror and science fiction literature as a basis for learning how to write it ourselves.

I remember the professor discussing the use of "inner dialog" and her noting that it was an antiquated style popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. But what I found interesting were the reasons she gave as to why we shouldn't use it.

She felt that "immediacy" was an important element of all fiction, but particularly important in the scifi/horror genre. In scifi/horror, the author is often creating a world that differs from the real one, probably more so than in most other types of fiction. The internal dialogs or excessive analysis of the character not only stop the flow of the story, they take the reader outside of the story and the author's carefully crafted world.

I know that one instructor's (even a very good one's ) opinion isn't enough to say that a style is right or wrong, but I thought I'd add it here as something to think about.

In the end, it all comes down to who you're writing for. Personally, I prefer action and dialog to introspective passages (seldom read fics with the latter) but there apparently is an audience for both.

Snarla2

I moderate chats with published authors on a fairly regular basis and invariably a majority of the questions asked involve craft. Writers are like sponges, soaking up any information tossed their way about how to improve their writing. Here it's called a "redundant use of bandwidth."

Go figure.

No, Marilyn, it's called different strokes for different folks. There are almost as many different tastes in reading as there are readers; one person's delight is another's bore, and vice versa.

Writing craft has its place, of course it does. But when it starts to dictate, or appear to dictate, stylistic elements which do appeal to different readers' tastes then, in my opinion, it goes too far in attempting to homogenise writing. I read some published writers because I love their style; I don't read some others because I don't care for that style, and I'm sure most people would tell a similar story. A story has to grip me, and whether or not it grips me doesn't have to do with whether the author has followed certain ten-step rules of story construction and so on, but whether the author can write an interesting story in a way which engages my interest.

One of my very favourite authors, in a book a couple of years ago, followed her editor's advice on writing craft and omitted a certain scene (one which would have involved lots of introspection and heart-to-hearts between the hero and heroine - and, just as an aside, this author is known for lots of use of introspection, and her books frequently hit best-seller lists ). The editor's view was that the book would be 'crafted' better, more elegantly, without that scene; a certain element of surprise would remain and in any case, the editor argued, readers didn't need to be told everything. After the book appeared, on that author's email list and in Amazon reviews, there was complaint after complaint that a key scene near the end seemed to be missing, that the author had 'forgotten' to provide the readers closure over an important element of the plot. When the author told us, on her list, what had happened, list-members were furious at being denied that scene, and scathing at an editor who seemed to presume to know what readers wanted.

The moral, in my opinion? Ignore the ten-step rules and write to your own style. It'll find a market.


Wendy

Sounds like a great suggestion but, frankly, most of the time it's difficult to put into practice. First one has to KNOW that a previous thread exists. Then one has to have the TIME to search it out. Not all of us do.

Plus as Marilyn suggested, since when has any honest sharing of information and knowledge been a waste of bandwidth? As far as I can see that's all Schoolmarm did. Anyone who is already bored with previous discussions on the topic could just skip the new thread, couldn't they?

Completely confused by this odd reaction.

Beverly

Well, I certainly didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest by posting an excerpt from a book on improving one's writing. (Silly me -- I thought this mb was the one where people were interested in writing. ) I was going to share some more "tips" that I found intriguing (especially since I've been guilty of committing the transgressions myself), but since no one here seems particularly interested in learning or reading more about their craft, I won't "waste your bandwidth."

Pam -- in response to your post, I have two things to say. 1) You wrote: "Oh, I don't like introspection/POV shifts within a scene/whatever, and this book says it's bad, so I have proof, proof! that those other people are bad writers, just wait until I tell them..." If you re-read my post, I believe that you will find that nowhere did I say I didn't like introspection/POV shifts within a scene, etc. nor did I say that other people were bad writers. I merely posted what a couple of people who make their living by editing other people's fiction said. (From a book you recommended to me in the first place.) There were several other major points I had intended to share; I just happened to go in page order of the book. 2) When I registered at this mb, I made a deliberate decision to use a nickname rather than my real name (I'm trying to pull my identity back a bit on the internet), but you insist on using my name every time you reply to a post I make. I emailed you before about it but obviously failed to convince you of my right to use my nick as opposed to my name. I can't help but think that I am not welcome here, given that my reasonable request is not honored. Did I miss the memo that said only people who agree with you are allowed to be called by the name they choose or post what they want to say?

Schoolmarm

Erm. There seem to be a few undercurrents running underneath what ought to be a perfectly reasonable discussion, one that surely fits right here. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe this topic has been hashed over and over again before, and I just didn't spot it. But surely there's nothing wrong with citing a book on writing?

I happen to agree that pure introspection is boring. Introspection, internal musings, whatever you want to call it, that is interspersed with action, is an absolute delight. Most of us, after all, don't just sit still and think; we make a cup of coffee, wash the dishes, take a brisk walk, drum our fingers on the steering wheel while we wait for the light to change, check the fuse box...

Most people here are pretty familiar with my little story on FDK. I have adapted the original premise and much of the dialogue to various other genres, and I was quite pleased to see how easily I could move from one genre to another and have the basic idea still hold shape so nicely. (I suppose the need for FDK is universal!) However, while the original "Ultimate Drug" is almost entirely dialogue, my next versions involved quite a bit of action, with the dialogue mixed in.

The difference? The first story was strictly a parody with FDK as its entire justification for its existence. The next two stories actually had something happening.

Now, a 6K story can surely get by with just dialogue. But for something a bit longer, I do agree that it's best to either cut it short or have the character do something while he or she reflects on events.

On the other hand (or is the third hand )... Pure action without introspection? Yawn. Slug fest. I want to know what my characters are thinking, their real motivations.

So give me introspection, by all means! Just don't make it pages and pages without anything else happening.

Hazel

Okay, I intend, in whatever I write after this paragraph, to be friendly, reasonable, polite and non-combative. If anyone feels I'm not being any of those things, then it's because I'm expressing myself badly and not because I don't genuinely want to be all of those things.

Here goes...

Schoolmarm, how about sharing some of the other subjects in that book which have caught your eye? The introspection debate is clearly a touchy subject, so rather than fan the flames of a heated debate, why not pass onto another topic which we can all enjoy discussing? Given the discussions which have taken place in the past on grammar and other related topics, I don't think it's logical to say that no-one here is interested in learning or reading more about their craft - particularly as Pam is 'here' and was the person who recommended this book to you in the first place.

How about the use of speech tags in dialogue? Or plot construction - lots of us have trouble with 'A' plots, so how about some discussion on that subject? How about the trials and tribulations of creating original characters? Or the pros and cons of writing to a pre-prepared plan? The list is endless!

Yvonne

Good suggestions, Yvonne. I, for one, am happy to receive any tips I can get on improving my writing, and I try not to take them as a personal affront, although I admit I can sometimes be as thin-skinned as the next person. Introspection is very popular in L&C Fanfic right now, but it was not always so. I'm not particularly fond of long passages of introspection, but that doesn't mean I think it should go away, and it doesn't mean I don't read it when I find a particularly good story line. Because so many newbies are joining the group and beginning to write, I think it is valuable for them to know that there are different ways to write and more than one kind of story. Readers and writers have to decide what they want to read and how they want to write, but it's a shame if they don't try different things before they make their decision. At least that's the way I feel about it.

Jude

Yvonne asked for more topics and here's one that was discussed before these boards were open. No use re-hashing if it's already been hashed.

Use of Dialogue Tags

Is that what's happened over here, Wendy? Most everything tends to sound alike. Different strokes don't tend to be tolerated very well. Name recognition seems to be the key, as well as being promoted by one of the powers that be. You might be tempted to label me critical, but I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Marilyn, actually, I was talking about published fiction. But if you're talking about stories on these boards, you should take a look at CC's new story in nfic, or Nan's Supercop. Neither writer is over-fond of introspection - in fact, CC frequently tells some of us that she doesn't like it. Both stories are garnering impressive amounts of feedback.

Wendy

Thanks, Supermom - I had a funny feeling we'd discussed dialogue tags before, but I wasn't sure. Any thoughts on the other subjects I suggested, or any other writing craft topic, for that matter?

Yvonne

Yvonne said: In my original post I said that if there was interest, I'd post more tips/comments, whatever one wants to call them. Now, I will preface what I post by saying that the things that caught my eye are the things that either I think I see too much of in fanfic or the things that I realized I do too much myself. This next section hit home, hard. I recognized everything I ever wrote in it (with the exception of a couple of very short vignettes I wrote in first person in another fandom {and yes, I know I'm the queen of not liking first person in general, so what can I say? It just seemed to fit what I was trying to accomplish).

The chapter is entitled "Sophistication" and discusses stylistic tricks that help a writer have a more sophisticated style. On page 156, I read words that made me shudder. Check them out:
They suggest that it would be better to write: "She pulled off her gloves and turned to face him."

The authors go on to point out that sometimes when we use those structures, we create physical impossibilities for our characters (somewhat like the complaint the UK people have with using verbs like laughed, sighed, breathed, etc. to indicate speech). Browne and King go on to say that they are not saying we should avoid these constructions completely, but that we should limit their use so that when we do use them, they are more effective. "But do avoid the hack's favorite constructions unless you have a good reason for using them." (p. 157) They go on to say that if you only have one incidence of these constructions per page, you're in good shape.

Schoolmarm

Now that is interesting, Schoolmarm - I do tend to use that type of phrasing from time to time, but have no idea how frequent it is. I like the suggestion that it's not too bad if used only once on a page; I'll have to keep a look out for that one.

I suppose it's like just about any stylistic device: they're fine unless they're over-used, and when they're over-used they tend to leap out at the reader and distract from the story.


Wendy

Rats! That's another thing I do when I write. There is no hope.

ccmalo

One thing that the authors suggest is to print out a chapter and then go through it with a highlighter, marking the as and -ing clauses/phrases. If the page is essentially still black and white when you're finished, you're in good shape. If it's not, then you can go back and edit it. No big deal. And CC, you might be surprised if you do that. I know I used to do it a lot. But I tried the highlighter approach on the most recent chapter I wrote and only marked about three instances in the whole chapter. So apparently, I've been getting away from it anyway.

Schoolmarm

Yup, I winced when I saw those examples, but then I scanned the story I'm writing at the moment and couldn't spot a single instance. Phew.

I have made use of this construction:
or

But I don't think that's quite the same thing, is it?

Oh, and by the way, can anyone suggest other methods to convey the fact that someone spoke quietly? I'm sick and tired of 'murmured' and 'spoke quietly' etc!

Yvonne

Too late for the introspection debate?
Shoot. Had my gloves on, ready to come out boxing...

I want and need to learn the writer's craft. I guess so I can know what's out there, what sins I am currently commiting, and what the possibilites that I haven't even imagined are.

That said, I'm often afraid to look too closely at the 'do and don't's, afraid they might freeze the muse, does that make sense?

Also, I'm with you, Yvonne. When it comes to characters speaking quietly, I don't so much "murmur" (will need to use this one) as "mutter" and "in a low voice" is big with me, too. Too much so!

Interesting thread.

CC

Yvonne said: The authors of the book suggest using the word "said" almost exclusively to attribute speech. They put forth the idea that the dialogue itself, along with description of what the characters are doing while they talk, should allow the reader to figure out that the character was angry, or whispering, or whatever most of the time.

Schoolmarm

Okay, I have a really big problem with this suggestion. Having run across books where "said" is actually used like that, I know for a fact that after a while it begins to grate as I'm reading it. Proper or not, it reads as stilted dialogue if overused.

Now there's a writing problem that I'd love some suggestions on but to be honest I'm not sure if this concerns introspection or some form of narrative that I don't know the term for. Are narratives of memories the same thing as introspection? Where does one begin and where do they stop?

A while back when I was attempting to sort out the scenes from SANCTUARY into the NEBS outline (this was before I started calling it HAVEN), there were several narrative passages of memory where Lois was thinking about things that had already happened, sort of flashbacks but not, that I marked as possibly needing to be expanded into actual scenes. Only I'm not sure if they really need to be to tell the truth. I mean realistically there is only so much one can put into each story. So how does one decide?

CeeCee wrote:
<That said, I'm often afraid to look too closely at the 'do and don't's, afraid they might freeze the muse, does that make sense?>

Sort of.
But maybe these 'do's and 'don'ts' are meant to drive the writer crazy after that first muse inpired draft is completd. It's at that point that the muse then goes out for a stroll, leaving the poor writer behind to clean up the mess.

I'll add 'said softly' to the mea culpa list, btw.

CCMalo

I look at it more as a balancing act somewhere between being conscious rules exist and ignoring them completely.

No, really. Worrying about the rules too much CAN stifle the muse, especially during the rough draft phase, but there are also times, particularly during editing, when rules can also free the muse because they do help us communicate more precisely what we're trying to say. This is all about being able to communicate the story we're trying to tell in the best manner possible, isn't it?

So it comes back to a balancing act between letting worry about possible rules one might not already know stop the process and acknowledging that once one has the story down in words there might be better ways to say certain things in it. That's where a great editor comes in handy.

I've hesitated coming into this discussion before today because in the beginning it didn't feel like writers/readers talking about writing. Now it does.

So, here are my two cents on several topics discussed.

1. In using a participle phrase or a subordinate clause to begin a sentence seems to be a way for the writer to avoid having a lot of "ands" in her writing. I know that I used to string a lot of clauses and phrases together before my beta-reader ( I think it was Jude in this case) pointed it out to me. Now I use more of those nasty phrases and clauses. I think that they work if the writer understands how the particular phrase/clause is working and whether it is supposed to be less important than the main clause. If "pulling off her gloves" is important (because the character uses it as a delaying tactic or in order to show off her expensive rings, then it should be used preceding the action.

The important thing is to be aware of what we're writing and aware of what is implied by the constructions we use. During the editing process we need to make sure that we don't use the same construction over and over again, and that we don't use the same phrases over and over again.

2. Beverly wrote: I believe (please not that everything I write here is what I believe and my opinion and not the only way anything should be done ) that, like everything in life(except for chocolate), moderation is the key. Dialogue tags is an interesting example. If the tags are too flowery or every tag has another adverb ("said haughtily", "remarked with venom", "whispered quietly--another can of worms here ) then it takes away from the actual dialogue.

I'm a firm believer that a good writer can let the reader know how a character is saying something by the situation the writer has created and the words the character speaks.

Also, the conventions of dialogue writing makes it possible to have two people speaking without indicating who is who after the initial tags. So, a writer only needs to write good dialogue.


3. And again from Beverly:
I believe that narratives of memory show what has happened in the past. I think that they should be handled in the same way that the character "shows" any kind of narrative using the same story-telling techniques.

The difficult part there is when the memory is something that has occurred in another story or in the series. It's basically filling in information that the reader should have, but may not for one reason or another. (Sometimes it's like a "previously on the Lois and Clark:"..) That's more difficult because the writer doesn't want to rewrite the story, just give a flavour of what is going on.

In one of the previous posts, someone mentioned a confidante as a way of allowing the character to share information and introspection. Not a bad idea, at all.

(Writing is a craft. We work at it, polish it, make it say what we want. There is no one way, no right way except that in the end, it needs to work. )

gerry

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary, Gerry. I've been trying to work up something about 'subservient' action but you've said it very well. Not all actions are equal, but description of what's going on helps bring the reader more into the moment and creates an urgency in the writing. Verbs, in whatever form, and modifiers (adverbs, adjectives) need to move the story along. If they slow it down, then they should be dumped. At least that's how I see it.

Jude

I, personally, use participles and subordinate (is this the word?) sentences too much. I have had three people pointing this out to me lately.

1. Editing a composition I wrote for school (in Greek) a few months ago, my teacher suggested that I should avoid using participles too much because they weaken the writing, and that I should cut my periods into smaller sentences.

2. My Spanish teacher has given me a 'tip' for writing in a foreign languages: "Write small sentences. You're less likely to committ grammar mistakes if you avoid conjunctions, participles and all these tricky thingies

3. The exact same was what I was told by my French teacher.

In Greek I've learned to follow it. But in the other languages... I just can't <shrug> I don't know why.


On the 'he smiled/sighed/laughed/etc. topic:

I think that using these words is better than using 'said' all the time. Personally, it annoys me to see the same word repeated several times, for whatever reason. I prefer using a varied vocabulary.

AnnaBtG.

-- this is me with my hand up.

Just when I start to think that maybe, just maybe, I'm learning how to write the English language, suddenly there are a whole bunch of new rules. I have just three words: IT'S NOT FAIR! (or is that four words )

My head is spinning. As a result, while reading all these rules, I found that I constantly had my hand up (much like Horshack in Welcome Back Carter) wanting clarification.

ML (who thinks there should be a rule saying no more new rules . But knows that as long as there are rules, she probably needs to know them )

ML, it's better to know the rules so when you break them it's for a reason instead of out of ignorance.

This is all just fascinating, and I have to say that like CC, I'm also finding it a bit paralyzing.

One thing - about the "is recounting a memory introspection?" I would be on the "no" side of that vote. I think that stories need to have a good balance of narrative as well as action - sometimes in order to maintain the pace of a story, it is simply better to "tell" instead of "show", and I would think that very much implies to memories recounted unless the memory is so impactful it warrants a scene. Just MHO, of course.

I had a writing teacher also give me the "highlighter" editing technique, wherein you use different color highlighters to mark up your manuscript to find problematic passages. For example, a yellow highlighter to mark up all adverbs (don't want too many there), a pink highlighter for all said-bookisms, etc. This is both a good thing and a bad thing for me - good in that a lot of times I think I've overused something come to find out I haven't, but also bad because I get somewhat paranoid as I write.

Which brings me to three questions/issues that this same writing teacher passed along as big no-nos in writing that I seem to have problems with.

One is the overuse of adverbs. Somehow I just can't let go of the "-ly is my friend" philosophy. Now, while I'm quite proficient in changing things like "walked slowly" into "strolled" and "smiled cheerfully" into "grinned", I just can't manage to give up these little crutches. I haven't figured out how to condense "kissed passionately" or "gripped painfully". Is there a list of these somewhere <g>?

The other bit of advice that I've been trying to employ is to wean myself of the dreaded "It was". This teacher's hard and fast rule (which I know all rules are meant to be broken, bent, and battered to within an inch of their lives) was to NEVER start a sentence with "It was." It is far too passive of a sentence structure and is a definite example of telling, not showing. She swore up and down that there is always another way to write the sentence without using it. Sometimes, I just can't find that way.

And finally, the dreaded "that". I think I must use if far more than I'm supposed to because according to my Teacher (note the capital T), the word "that" should be ruthlessly searched-and-deleted throughout the story.

So any thoughts on these three big taboos? I know, I know, everything in moderation. Although when it comes to "said" I have to actively force myself to go through my story and replace said-bookisms with "said". I love whispereds and groaneds and retorteds. I guess I must just be a really lazy writer.

Lynn

You see, this is exactly what I meant by not really wanting to know the do's and dont's!

Yikes.

I'm making all of my stuff up. There, I said it. I have no classes, no club, no list, no teacher to give me the low down on what is done and what is frowned on.

I read a lot. And then I just...throw stuff at the screen. Anybody else?

I can get behind the idea that you write freely, then go back and edit ruthlessly...but man! Now that I've seen your list, Lynn, and the other things pointed out on this thread, I'm afraid to go back and look at my stories. Might have to lay down, take two aspirin, imagine I'm in London...

Who makes these rules? Let's get to the bottom of this, find out who Oz is....And, I'd be interested to know, who ignores them entirely?

Ok, I vented a little. It's a bit disconcerting to realize how little I know about something I really love.

Back to our thread in progress- going to find those aspirin. This, btw, is why I never get started when the gigantic 'grammar' thread shows up around here...intimidates me!

CC

Does the 'thou shalt not' re "It was" also apply to "It is"?
As in:
"It is a truth universally acknowedged that a man with superpowers must be in want of a wife."
Just noticed the evil "that" as well.

c. (with apologies to Jane) <g>

Re. Lynn bemoaning 'said-bookisms', I have to say that I entirely agree with whoever it was - Beverly? - who said that the repeated use of 'said' jerks her right out of a story. It's repetitive and it gets irritating, at least for me. It suggests that the author has either a limited imagination or a limited vocabulary. Now, maybe that's me being judgemental and superior - that's entirely possible - but it grates on me.

So, Lynn, please keep up your whispering and groaning! I promise to lap up every word.

As someone else said - and I'm sorry, but it's on the first page of the thread and I forget who it was - all these rules are helpful - but in moderation. Plus, know what they are so you know when you're breaking them: nice one, Jude!


Wendy

On the subject of speaker attributions, I think it's important to remember why writers use them -- to let the reader know who said what. So you don't even need an attribution for every line of dialogue. As someone said, it's annoying to read:

"Clark, I can't find the Wilson file," Lois said.

"Gee, Lois, I can't remember where you put it either," Clark said.

"Well, I need it to finish this story," Lois said.

One way to avoid a string of "saids" is to either make the dialogue clear as to who is speaking. (In the above example, it might be clear with no "saids.") If the sentence before indicated that Lois and Clark were at her desk, it would be clear that Lois said the first sentence, then Clark, etc. Another way, which got discussed earlier, is to use "beats" to show who is talking. And it's always good to remember with any technique that moderation is the key. You don't want too many beats any more than you want too many "saids" or too many other attributions.

If I were writing a fic with the three lines above, I would probably do it like this:

Lois flipped through the stack of manila folders on her desk, her frustration growing with each file.

"Clark, I can't find the Wilson file."

"Gee, Lois, I can't remember where you put it either."

"Well, I need it to finish this story."

The beat at the beginning lets us know Lois's mood and indicates that she's the first one to speak. From there, it's pretty clear who said what.

Schoolmarm

ROTFL! I was with her until the London part. Maybe it's because I'm currently cold, but I can think of much warmer places to imagine than that.

Okay, this addendum is because I was chuckling so much earlier I forgot what else I was going to comment on here. Anyway, the intimidation factor that Lynne is talking about is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about finding that balance between being conscious of the rules and ignoring them completely.

Now, I know that most likely many of the language teachers out there are cringing reading this, but let's face it - most of us aren't language majors. Quite frankly, a lot of us are winging it whether we want to or not and we either wing it from the knowledge base we "own" currently or we choose not to attempt storytelling at all. So somewhere along the line if we choose to make the attempts, we have to almost blind ourselves to the absolute knowledge that grammatically and even structurally we're simply going to make mistakes and just dive in anyway.

Does this mean that during that same process we can't pick up new things and learn new ways as we have fun with the stories? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'm a great believer in lifelong learning for one thing. Show me the individual who doesn't need to "learn" anything new in life and I'll take their pulse to make sure. Literally.

We simply have to balance out the sure knowledge that all of us can learn new things as we go along with the equally sure knowledge that not making the attempt if our interest leans that way is the true failure.

Back last fall I learned something new that really surprised me, so much so that it's is part of the reason why I have consciously decided to become more active in this fanfic arena again. I was doing some research and wanted to find the term that was the "writing" equivalent of literacy. I was quite honest in my search, so imagine my surprise when I found the actual definition of literate on Merriam-Webster Online: "able to read and write".

Now, I know that at its most basic that's simply about the "act" of reading and writing. On another level, however, it made me think about all the times I've run across discussions on and offline about how reading just for the sake of reading is not encouraged like it should be. Very true. But, using the above definition of literate and the same logic, if people become better readers the more they read, should not the same be said of writing?

And yet how many people are like I was and don't even realize writing is part of the same literacy package because people don't discuss writing for the sake of writing?

Amen, CC! I haven't taken any classes about writing fiction ever, and I don't have clubs, lists, or teachers to help me. I don't even read all that much.

I pretty much write whatever my brain tells my fingers to type -- it's pretty stream of consciousness -- and that tends to be my writing style.

So what if I don't follow the bible of writing? So what if I don't even know half of the "rules"? So what if I had to ask on IRC yesterday what was actually meant between "telling and showing"?

I am not trying to become a professional writer. There's no way I could ever even dream of doing it. I know there are people who do aspire to write professionally and people who have been published. But it's discussions like this that remind me that my writing is horribly sub par.

Some of us just write what we want to write -- and what we want to read ourselves -- without regard for any rule. I guess I don't take my writing seriously enough or something. Oh well. I really don't care.

Oh well, guess I should stop writing then.

- Laura
(who's in the midst of writing a paper to be published . . . um in Annals of BME . . . doesn't count, huh?)

I'm not trying to lead a rebellion, to overthrow the Fiction Rule Gods, or anything else, for that matter.

I do want to learn to tell a story effectively. I have years of experience writing in other areas, but this is a different animal.

I've found that just writing, pure and simple, on a regular basis has been a great teacher. As well as posting stories here, and seeing them reflected back to me. This lets me know how I'm communicating, if I'm coming across the way I intend to.

So, with the knowledge that I'm not a rabble-rouser firmly in place, and my acknowledgment that there is value in learning the rules, and as Jude said, knowing enough to know what rules to break, here's this (at last): Do we risk our distinctive voices when we adhere to someone else's idea of what good story telling is?

I'm not starting a debate.
I'm just really curious.

CC

According to one article I've read, it's more likely you will lose your distinctive voice when you work with a critique group where your work is re-worked by many different writers until it begins to resemble a work by committee. This article also stated that basic instinct is a writer's best tool, though basic instinct alone won't carry you to publication unless you do hone your skills and learn about craft. I think several folks have said it here -- there's a balance. But there does have to be a certain level of professionalism in your writing for an editor to consider it. Of course, the majority of writers here aren't working toward publication; they write for fun. But even when you play football or tennis for fun you still follow the rules.

One thing that has not been mentioned yet is the obvious thought that if you're not interested in improving your craft (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that) then why bother to read these threads? Just don't open them, or if you do and realize it's something that doesn't interest you, click "Back" and go on to something else.

At the risk of debating with CC - whom I've learned it's a good policy never to debate with because she will whip out the old Philosophy Major trump card and soundly whip me with it every time - I don't think that writers risk losing their voice by trying to follow some general guidelines.

If you think about it (and CC, this actually does just kind of maybe get a little philosophical), we are all limited with the basic building blocks of the English language - there are only so many ways to construct a sentence and so many words to use (albeit gazillions of words). Yet still year after year people pour out staggering amounts of excellent writing. Two authors can take the same subject and same set of words and create completely different works just based on order and usage. I think this is where "style" or "voice" comes from more so that a disregard for some guidelines. Kind of like e.e. cummings not using capital letters or punctuation. Yes - I know his stuff. But it kind of annoys me to read it.

Strunk and White do a great job of illustrating this with the phrase by Thomas Paine: "These are the times that try men's souls." Very strong and well known phrase. Try simply reordering the words, as another author may have chosen to do: "Times like these try men's souls," or "These are trying times for men's souls." Same words. Same general meaning. All three sentences grammatically accurate and well turned. But neither of the last two examples have even close to the same style and voice as the original.

That being said, I also agree that the rules we've been throwing around in here - or actually, guidelines - are simply things we might all want to employ in moderation to fine-tune our writing. Keep it from getting sloppy.

To a certain degree, I agree with Laura in that since in fanficdom we are not writing with the intention of getting published, we can ignore a lot of what writing teachers and publishers and editors throw around as guidelines and follow our own hearts and ways. At least to the degree that we write a story that people want to read. If some of the basic guidelines aren't followed, I know that personally, I would not enjoy the story. If I'm constantly noting that "he said" "she said" appears at the end of every dialogue passage, I would become so distracted by this that I would no longer be "hearing" what the author was trying to tell me. Kind of like trying to watch a television program with a little kid jumping in front of the screen shouting "Look at me! Look at me!"

I once asked my good friend, Wendy, if she judged a story to be good based on the story itself or on the technical merits of the writer. She said - and Wendy, correct me if I've misinterpreted you - that she looks at "story" but that if the technical aspects were atrocious, she found it hard to even focus on the story. I very much agree with her on that.

Sometimes, though, I admit to starting a story that seems like it has a good premise but becoming too distracted by an amateurish affectation that I can't manage to get over. And I apply a different standard to fanfic than I do to published work - expecting a lot more from those who get paid to entertain me for a living <g>.

Writing is a craft, and like all crafts, improves with practice. So in just our simple exercise of sharing these ideas and continuing to write fanfic, we are all getting better every day regardless of what "rules" we choose to use or not.

Lynn

As an English major and having spent many, many years steeped in great works of literature (Didn't I just break a rule?), I find that I adhere to the osmosis school of literacy. Or is it the Supreme Court rule of pornography? Oh, well, I know it when I see it. I recognize when it's good and, lord help me, I recognize when it's bad, bad bad. That's why I spend so much time re-writing my own stuff - trying to get rid of the bad, bad, bad. I trust my instincts because they come from a base of reading a lot of good writing, not what I have judged to be good writing, but what the ages have judged so. It's not a very analytical or scientific way to make a decision, and it doesn't really answer your question, CC, but what is universally considered good writing, whether by teachers or critics or history, is what I prefer to use as a guideline.I leave it to others to analyze and set up rules which can be useful in reshaping what I've written. I've read your writing, CC, and you seem to have good instincts. The 'rules' can help you revise and reshape what needs to be improved.

Good writing is the communication of thoughts and ideas, not just in the whole of a piece, but starting with each sentence. A sentence that is not put together well, so that it communicates clearly, cannot lead to clear communication in paragraphs and total works. When we write, we have to know what we want to say in every sentence and every paragraph, as well as the entire piece and how all those sentences and paragraphs will contribute to the overall statement. We have to say it so that those who read it, get it. If we're writing fiction, we also have to give it movement and pacing, and we have to vary the sentence structure to entice the reader to keep reading. It ain't easy. (See, I broke another rule.) It would be as wrong to adhere to a rule that says if you must do this, only do it once a page, as it would be to follow a rule that says: you must use 1 simple sentence, 1 complex sentence, 1 compounnd sentence and 1 compound- complex sentence in every 10 lines. I knew a teacher once who used something similar to that to teach high school students how to write. He was very succesful in improving their writing skills, but he did not arbitrarily dictate, as I just did, the frequency of use.

Finally, I'll say that I own the book that Schoolmarm has been quoting and refer to it often, but it is only one of many sources that I consult including my Beta reader, Geri, with whom I have a running argument over certain punctuation rules. They help me recognize my mistakes and, I hope, improve my writing, but they are tools and guidelines, not the ten commandments.

Jude

I mentioned on IRC the other day that there's a difference between less than perfect grammar, and bad grammar. Less than perfect is something like we'd use in normal dialogue. The grammar rules are usually more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. It can be bent a little, in the right circumstances. Bad grammar, as mentioned by Lynn and Wendy, has the effect of throwing the reader off completely. Most readers will either be confused, or (as sometimes in my case) start shouting corrections as they read. This type of bad grammar makes the story unreadable.

However, grammar can be bent into knots when it comes to dialogue. After all, those particular instances may be dialect or a reflection of that character's upbringing, intellect, or age. After all, a two-year-old isn't going to be saying perfect sentences with perfect grammar.

As far as the introspection debate goes, if it's done right, then I'm all for it. Granted, I don't want pages of introspection with no action, but if mixed properly, it's a good combination.

A lot has happened here since I last posted and I'd like to address a few areas (if I can remember everything I've been thinking of).

I taught high school creative writing. (I'm not sure that's a credential or not, but I learned an awful lot preparing myself for my classes.) When I returned my students first piece of writing with their grammatical errors highlighted in yellow, I said the following: We all have our own style of writing, and the genre in which we write demands certain style expectations. Learn to write different ways for different genres.

We also tend to make our own specific kinds of grammatical and structural errors. Learn where your specific errors are so that in the future you can avoid them. (I used the example in my last post of overusing the conjunction "and"). (That means, CC, Lynn and others, that you don't have to know all the rules and the "dos and don'ts", you just have to know where you need to work on your own writing to make it even better.)

So this addresses some of the concerns that I've read on this thread.

Knowledge is a wonderful tool. The more we know and understand, the better writers we become. We don't have to be professionals, we just have to enjoy the craft. (I love it when I bake a souflee that doesn't fall down. I'm proud of it and I try to improve on it. That doesn't mean I want to be a chef.)

Don't let the so-called rules turn you off from writing. A lot of them don't apply to "you" because you've internalized the concept. Find the ones that do apply to you and work on them. (I think I'm repeating myself, but it's worth it.)

Language changes and rules of writing fiction change with time (and the expectation of the readers). Sentence fragments are more acceptable in fiction today than it was 100 years ago. The important thing is that the "error" shouldn't take away from the reader's understanding of the passage.

(For example, we start a new speaker in a new paragraph. If not, the reader gets confused seeing the change of a speaker in a paragraph. That's a convention of writing that we accept. If it's not there we (the readers) are confused. Just as we accept an amber light at an intersection as a warning to prepare to stop, we accept certain conventions in writing.

We're very lucky to have beta-readers. I hope that many of these people help us become better writers. I know mine have. (I know it's not beta-reader appreciation day but I don't care. That's you ML, Jude and CCMalo I'm talking about.) These women have shown me areas of weakness both grammatically and structurally that I've learned from and hopefully helped me become a better writer. (When I read my first fanfics I cringe in embarrassment. ) I hope that I will continue learning and that as I do I will become a better writer, even if my writing goes no further than these boards.

And that's the importance of discussions like this, that we become aware of what is written about the writer's craft so that we can learn from it (and use everything in moderation.)

And remember what George Orwell said about writing: "Break any of ...rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

gerry

Ok- again, not debating! But I minored in philosophy, Lynn, not majored...

And I do see the value of following essential guidelines for clean writing, I'm not advocating we do away with punctuation...not yet, that's for later.<g>

I couldn't resist this: I have a gig as the local playwright for our small town. Two plays a year I get to do with as I like. Two plays a year I'm 'assigned' my topic and it is suggested to me rather meaningfully who I cast and etc...

I write those plays- this is fresh in my head as just had one a few weeks ago- and then turn them in. The Reading Committee frowns over them, and then makes the appropriate "suggestions." By that I mean, they tell me what stays and what goes.

Long story short, those plays never sound like me. Ever. But I had a old friend come to the one that was mine, hadn't seen him in ages, he said when the first actor opened her mouth he "heard me."

I guess the tricky part is the balance- the creative spark that takes you places, and the guidelines that keep you readable...

Don't really know. This is all good stuff.
I'm thinking on it,

CC

Reading the last several comments have made me realise how out of my league I am here. L & C fanfic is the only stuff I've written (outside of work reqired reports) Nor do I have a background in things literary. (other than having kept my high school grammar text, which probably doesn't count <g>) So much to learn - which is very good, as Beverly said.

Having confessed that, you wonder why I'm posting then?

Well, first, the desire to express my appreciation for this thread. And second - a brief excerpt from an interview, which I just heard, with Elmore Leonard, on the radio. His new novel, Mr Paradise, has apparently been well recieved by the critics . He's one of the few 'thriller" (pulp fiction <g>) writers whom these guys take seriously.

Here's Leonard's comment which made me think of this thread. "Don't write what you don't need" in your story.

Of course, define, 'need' ( & note the double negative )

c.

OK - following Ms Aiken's advice about "ruthless editing" and Mr Leonard's about writing, I've edited my previous post but decided to leave both as a comparison.
----

So much to learn - which is very good, as Beverly said.

Thanks, everyone, for this thread!

Excerpt from a radio interview with Elmore Leonard, author of the recently published Mr Paradise:
"Don't write what you don't need" in your story.
-----
c.

I just want to say that, regardless of my previous comments, I really do appreciate this type of thread as well. (I just wish I still didn't have so much to learn )

I've already gone back through my current story and am making changes based on some of the suggestions here. So thanks all, for your ideas.
(And keep them coming)

ML

I love these discussions and thought I'd take a second to jump in.

On another writers' list that I'm on, they've been harping on how you should always use "said," how it's the only acceptable way, blah, blah, blah... (can you tell I'm not in complete agreement? ) but like others here have mentioned, I think eliminating "groaned" and "whispered," etc. entirely could potentially lose a writer's voice, not to mention reading as boring copy.

I have, however, learned a fun alternative, and the more I use it, the more I find myself loving it! Here's what I do. Sure, use "said" more often than the "groaned," or "whispered" to appease those who are adamant about those things. But I still throw in those more fun descreptive words, AND something fun like this (using previous example):

Lois rummaged frantically through the papers on her desk. "Clark, I can't find the Wilson file."

Clark's brow furrowed in concentration. "Gee, Lois, I can't remember where you put it either."

"Well, I need it to finish this story!" Lois finally stopped rummaging and threw her hands in the air.


There. I avoided the "said" (I'll use it sparingly later in the story ), but I also think the description not only tells the reader who's talking, but gives a great mental image of what's going on *while* they're talking. That may not be everyone's cup of tea, I understand, but as a reader, I love that. Imagery is my very favorite thing in a book. (Okay, as long as it's not used to *death* )

Anyway, that's my .02 on the subject.

I'd have to agree. Yeah, you can go too far with the synonyms. I've seen it overdone, and the story looked a bit silly. But IMHO, a little variety doesn't hurt. I think eliminating it all together in a section of dialogue doesn't hurt either, as long as there's no confusion as to who's speaking.

Point of View: This is probably one of the more challenging things a lot of us struggle with as we write.

For anyone who isn't sure what POV means, it's basically showing the story through the characters' eyes. So if I write a story from Clark's POV, I relate the events as if I were Clark, only showing what he sees or knows. For example, if Clark sees Lois shuffle through a stack of papers as she looks for the post-it note on which she jotted an important phone number, I could have something like this:


We see this scene as Clark sees it.

Switching POV within a scene is considered a bad idea by most editors, in part because it gets confusing for the reader. Now let's rewrite that bit, but shift POV within the scene.


Hopefully, you can see that the scene has lost some clarity by adding in Lois's perception of the conversation.

Now, how to know when to shift POV and how to do it. I'm no expert, but basically, from what I've read, you shouldn't shift POV unless you end the scene and begin a new one. To do that, just end the scene, insert a line space, and begin the new scene from the POV of the character whose POV you want to use. The book suggests establishing the POV in the first paragraph of the scene in order to orient the reader. You decide to shift POV when you want to show the story from a different character's perspective.

Point of view can help develop the characters as you show what's going on in their minds. It can also help you with your plot. If you write from the POV of a character who has no idea what's going on, it's going to create a different experience for the reader than if you write from the POV of a character who does know what's happening.

The book asks some questions to check yourself on POV:


Schoolmarm

Ooh, this is something I actually know a little bit about When I first started writing fanfic, I used an omniscient POV -- I'd shift from one character's head to another every paragraph. But discussions like these enlightened me and now I stick with one POV per scene. I tend to get into a rhythm, a scene from Lois's POV, then one from Clark's, then back. I *always* notice POV these days, it's just one of the things I'm sensitive to.

When a scene's not working for me, one of the first things I ask myself about is POV -- am I trying to write this scene from the wrong side? I can't say how many times I've switched heads, and had the scene start to flow.

I can't verbalize how I choose a POV; it's just got to feel right. But one of the things I think about is, who has information that won't be in dialog? Is there anything I want the reader to know -- or is there something I want to conceal, or have misunderstood?

It's fun

PJ

To add to what Pam said about deciding about whose POV to use in a scene, I'd always gone with the maxim of using whoever has the most at stake in a scene to choose the POV. If Clark and Lois are out on a date and the restaurant catches on fire and Clark has to pull a Superman to rescue everyone, chances are Clark has the most at stake - the possibility of a big reveal - so it makes sense to use his POV. If Clark and Lois are out on a date and Lois spots her old boyfriend, the one that knows that she once got drunk and danced topless on a bar and Lois is afraid that this guy will tell Clark, it makes sense to show the scene from Lois's POV.

As for changing POV from scene to scene, that is exactly what I do. However, the other maxim that I've always followed is that the only time it is OK to change POV from person to person within a single scene is during a love scene. Because you want to be able to show how each person is feeling and reacting to the other, it is OK to go back and forth between POVs as long as they are in different paragraphs and you make it clear who is feeling what and avoid roaming body parts. Kind of an action/reaction thing - Clark loved the feeling of Lois's soft lips against his own. Next paragraph: Lois couldn't believe how bold Clark was being, but she liked it.

This discussion just gets more and more informative!

Lynn

Can I skip back to Erin's comments. I've been trying to use the same technique too. It "shows" the story more than the previous way, which "tells" it.

POV. Oh boy! The bane of my existence (after commas, of course).

When I first started writing I had no idea what POV even meant, something that is all too evident in my first story. So now I'm *very* aware of it.

To add a bit of variety, another way of getting at both the main characters' thoughts in the same scene is to write the scene from a third person's POV . I'm thinking of Anna B's "What a Fish Knows" which got quite a lot across about what was going on in Lois and Clark's minds. In more serious stories, a secondary character like Martha or Perry could be used in a scene. Or .... a whole L & C story from Henderson's POV! <g>

c.

I've found that writing L&C fanfic is different than other kinds of fiction because we have two main characters--Lois and Clark. And as readers we want to know what both are thinking.

I used one POV in Divinity's Ends here where it's all from Lois's POV because she's dealing with her problem and I didn't think that it was necessary to see Clark's POV. Having said that, it was interesting to read the feedback on the boards where readers wanted to know what Clark was thinking. For me, that was an entirely different story.

Sometimes it's fun to challenge oneself and write a story from a POV other than Lois and Clark's. The fish is an example. So is using Perry or Jimmy. But that means that the writer needs to be doing a lot of "showing" since we can't get into our favourite characters' heads. Fun exercise though.

Schoolmarm, a request: This thread is getting cumbersome for my slow moving old computer. Would you consider starting a new topic for each new writing hint. Perhaps you could label it: Improve One's Writing: POV.

I'm really enjoying reading what the "professionals" say and what our readers say.

gerry

Now here's something weird...

I thought that, in most stories I've written, I've kept a 'neutral' POV. Not Lois's, not Clark's. Just what the watcher sees.

But, if I understand this correctly, writing introspection means that you're using someone's POV?

I guess I'll have to think it over. Maybe it'll help me write better introspection.
See ya,
AnnaBtG.

Anna, it sounds like you're talking about the omniscient POV -- where the reader can peek into any character's head at any time. It used to be a lot more popular... see Georgette Heyer for an example of head-hopping! <g> I think of it as sort of the writing equivalent of a TV camera -- instead of reading an actor's face and body language, you're reading the description of it. And the camera shows you every character.

PJ

So I'm not doing anything weird? Thanks for the encouragement, Pam!

AnnaBtG.

Going back to Erin's example of showing actions by the speaker to indicate who is talking:

That technique is often called "using beats." And by and large, it's an excellent way to avoid repititious attributions or flamboyant verbs to show who said what. Nevertheless, as with any technique, moderation is the key. If you put in a beat with every line of dialogue, you are likely to overwhelm the dialogue with action. And if the conversation you are showing is important, you probably don't want to do that. So again, you might want to have a beat every few lines or so, to help the reader visualize the scene and know who is speaking.

Schoolmarm

Regarding POV...

Use the POV of the character with the most to lose in a specific scene. Usually this is the hero or heroine (in most cases here, that's Lois or Clark). If the central character is not on the scene, use the POV of the most important character.