TQ's Advice To A New Writer Friend

[The Question]

I won't repost the story I wrote this in review of. Not gonna tell ya who wrote that story, either, or include bits that might give naughty little clues. But some of these rules, I think, are excellent guideposts for folks just getting into this horrible little addiction. Sardy, let me know if you think I've got any wrong, or if you've already covered them this particular way, or if you were gonna cover 'em this particular way, and I shall make obeisance until the embarrassment of it forces you to change zip codes.

* * * Okay, I want you to keep a few rules in mind:

1. I'm telling you this as a writer, not as an editor.

2. I'm telling you what works for me. There are lots of different ways to follow the rules of good fiction writing.

3. Good fiction writing has rules. There are people who know the rules intuitively, and there are those who have to learn them. A lot of the most successful writers in the business fell into the second category.

3a. You have to know the rules. Whether you know them intuitively, or whether you learn them, you have to know them. Whether you intend to follow them, or whether you intend to break them, you have to know them. You can break the rules and get away with it, but in order to break them and still succeed, you have to know why they're rules.

Now, with that said, I'll give you the pros and the cons, and list a few of those rules along the way.

1. Conflict. There are three kinds of conflict in any story: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature and Man vs. Himself. You want to have at least one of these kinds of conflict in play at any given time during your story, starting as close to the beginning as you possibly can and continuing right through to the end. Conflict doesn't start, pause, continue, pause, continue and then end. It's like the strings in an orchestral arrangement -- once it starts, it keeps going until the very end of the song. People get the impression that it stops before the end; it doesn't. It crescendos at the climax and dies down until the end.

Description: This is where you'll need a lot of work. You see it in your mind's eye as you're writing -- make me see it in mine as I'm reading. What did the place look like? Was it warm? Cold? Did the guy's armpits smell? What does the guy look like? Do his shoes fit? Did the place where he did that thing smell like the family dog?

Those are just example questions, don't let them confuse you. The point is this: imagine that you're a blacksmith standing in his shop at the center of a billowing cloud of soot-black smoke. You're covered in a thick, sour-smelling, suffocating sheet of sweat. The smoke and the sweat sting your eyes, making them water, while the coverall over your chest droops in the overwhelming heat -- but you press on with your work as you lift the tongs from the flame and squint at the impossibly thin, frail, beautiful object clasped in their blazing embrace.

You move your sinewy arm -- so slowly, so carefully, despite the intolerable itch of perspiration irritating the finespun golden hairs of your weathered hand -- and now, with the tenderness of a born lover, you gently lower the tiny, fragile treasure into the cool water that will temper it into...

...your reader's attention.

Get the picture? Good -- now take the picture, and give it to your reader!

The ending -- here's a rule of thumb on that. You want the crescendo to rise as late as possible, peak as high as the previous events of the story will allow, and then end the story as soon after that as you can without leaving the audience wondering what just happened. You don't have to answer all the questions, but you shouldn't leave more questions unanswered than answered.

 

[Blindgroping]

Something I learned in school.

A lot of people don't know Exactly what to do in writing.
Or Exactly what the rules are.
Asking about them, you may not get the answer you want or need.
But these same people sure as hell know Exactly what you did wrong once you've done it.

So, Sometimes you need to Break the Rules in order to know what they are.

 

[The Question]

So, Sometimes you need to Break the Rules in order to know what they are.

I'd say that falls into the practice of learning them through trial and error. The founder of Honda Motors is famously quoted as saying that, "...success can only be achieved through repeated failure and introspection." The introspection is the more important part.

 

[The Question]

Looks good, though I always rebel whenever anyone ever tries to put a limit on or easily categorize things. I cringe whenever I hear that old bit of idiot-wisdom that there are only (laughably, the number changes for every person who utters it) X number of possible television plots. I usually respond by rattling off a litany of plots they've never considered, and asking if I should continue...

Ah, we're all rebels, I think. Every one of us who keeps at it after being told by a friend or a family member that we need "something to fall back on if it doesn't work out" -- I don't know if you got that one, too, Sardy, but I did -- and it set my blood boiling. Made me mad as hell. Made me write. "Fuck you! Doubt me, huh?! WELL, I'LL SHOW YOU!" -- that became a vow that sounded with every keystroke from that day on.

True enough, though I always love to challenge myself with trying to think outside of the box with these sorts of things. Man vs. God: Job. Man vs. the Sureal/Absurd: Gregor Samsa, Laurel & Hardy, Man vs. Convetional Wisdom/Political Correctness: Larry David, Man vs. Wife: Ralph Kramden...

Well, to be clear -- the names for the three kinds of conflict are mighty generic. The first example would qualify as Man vs. Man, the second and third as Man vs. Nature, the fourth and fifth as Man vs. Man again. The words are generic, the meanings behind them many and varied:

Man: The character, societal convention, any other character which can exercise a will and works actively for or against the protagonist/s.

Nature: The stage itself, and anything that acts upon the protagonist/s without its own will, initiative or intelligence.

Here's weird one I just thought up and might toy with today: Omniscient Narrator vs. Unwilling Subject...

That would be a twist! Plan to tease us with a little of that? Pretty please?

Why must Man be central to the formula? Good vs. Evil. The Lives of a Cell depicts in beautiful narrative the complexity of biochemistry and evolution without a sentient protagonist.

See, now that's a new one! I suppose that could be construed as Nature vs. Nature, which I've never seen done before. But again, I'll lay good money down it was done by someone with a profound and masterful knowledge of the rules he set out to break, and to pull off a work like that, I've no doubt he broke them with skill and grace.

Of course you've gotta know the rules before you break 'em. But a good part of these sorts of exercises, I think, is challenging oneself to think outside of the box.

Very much so -- and you've given me fuel for what I think is a very good way to put this: Before you set out to think outside the box, knowing where the walls are is a must.