Originally Posted by
Pete_C
Plot, story, concept, characterisation, scenes, sequences, segways, seagulls; whatever happened to just telling a good story that appeals to some readers? Is it that hard? I've written all my life across many genres: journalism, technical non-fiction, fiction, poetry, scripts, etc., and seemingly I've done it without getting bogged down in the on-going debates; debates that seem to obscure the reason for writing more than offering a revelation. It's only in recent years I've become aware that people spend way too much time debating how to write.
There is no special skill, no secret code, no defining rules or structures. Rather than debate the living shit out of it, spend the time developing an inner ear, one that hears what people want to read. Then apply it to your work. If you get your writing wrong, you will know because your inner ear will tell you so. I sometimes write things that I am unhappy with and usually I know that much as I write it. I don't apply a bunch of other peoples' rules and theories. I go back and work it out because I have learned to read my work as a detached person and can therefore see where it's weak and where it's strong.
All this debate sometimes makes me want to weep (metaphorically, of course; I'm too busy to actually spend time weeping). When I first started writing I played around, broke the rules, tried things no one else had tried (and often found out why no one else had tried them). I invented structures and constructions and even words and then discovered why no one else used them. I didn't want to write a novel or win a Pulitzer prize of create a series that became a film franchise or be on an Amazon list (because Amazon was some future that we had idea about); I wanted to play with language and stories and create something that fitted my mood.
That care-free abandonment taught me more about writing than anything else ever did. Reading a lot of varied things helped, as did immersing myself in communications of all types and observing how other people reacted to them. I only found out about most of the 'rules' after I'd been doing it for 40-odd years.
When a piece of writing really drags me in it's usually different and does not follow the normal path. It has an original voice, and different structure, something that appeals because it 'speaks' to me in some way or another. I don't tend to analyse its construction (and nor do most readers). I know if it works for me. The emphasis is on 'for me'. I don't care if anyone else likes it or not. I also write what works for me. Same emphasis.
The truth is that these debates often achieve little because writing, like any sort of creativity, isn't the same for anyone. It's as futile as debating what the best food to have with beer is. Today that seems to be a 'thing'; pairing beer with food. Ironically, I've never needed 'expert' advice as to what drink to have with a meal. I think I can work that out myself. This is despite several websites and blogs and self-proclaimed experts offering 'pairing' advice. I trust myself.
That's the thing more writers should do: trust themselves. Yes, you will get it wrong. Yes, you will either delete or heavily revise work. Yes, you will weep. But you will learn. Forget rules and theories and 'well established facts' from unestablished people. Play with language and structure and tone and voice and see what works and what doesn't. Don't expect to be great at first. Develop an inner ear that is both critical and complimentary and then trust it. Plot and story and a host of other definitions will then be irrelevant because the writing will stand by itself.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks