Tag Archives: fiction

Poetry & Prose

A good friend once told me, “No poets hang out with people who want to read their work.” And I find that to be shockingly true. If I offer a friend the chance to read my latest story, they jump at it. And while I offer it a lot less, the few times I’ve given anyone the chance to read my poems, they politely decline. (Or accept and never do.)

Maybe I’m just bad at it. That thought has occured to me. But even if I, or my readers, are really bad at poetry, there’s still a lot to be said for it. Someone once said that poetry is life. That’s a little dramatic for my tastes, but it is worth noting how long poetry has been around. It predates literacy. Back when we were still hitting things with clubs, poems and songs were how we passed down information. Some of the oldest written stories we have are written in poem. It’s not an accident. Poetry is a way in which people think, and a vehicle for them expressing that to the world. Some of my favorite prose is reminiscent of poetry. It rolls off the tongue and is pleasing to the ear, an essential quality in poems. (At least to my limited understanding of it)

Without meaning, poetry is just pretty words. Without a sound that catches the ear, it’s just prose in really short sentences. Poetry has to have both in order to work, and that’s where it can be of use to writers of prose. There’s something we need to talk about folks. Nobody puts down a book and says, “Man! He explained everything so much, and had so many unnecessary words! It was awesome!” There are two huge mistakes I see with newer writers. (Myself included until my editor beat me with a stick) We either use too many words in an attempt to fill in the gaps we don’t think the readers will fill in themselves, or we get so lost in the meanings behind the stories that we fall on our face with the actual language.

Poetry helps with both of those things. In poetry, having excess words is much more noticeable. Yes, plenty of poets still get away with it, but it becomes obvious in their poems. Long form poems that drag on and on about the same thing for a few dozen lines induce a mighty yawn, and then get put aside. On the flip side, poems so caught up in meaning that they become a garbled mess to listen to are cumbersome and unsatisfying. There’s something to be said for a hidden meaning, but when it’s so vague that you can’t figure out what it is, it stops being enlightening in any way.

Writing poetry can help prose writers see where they tend to err on either of those issues and adjust accordingly. In order to write poems with any talent at all, you have to read them. I started doing both, and I swear up and down it’s helped my prose writing a lot. I still suck at poetry, but it doesn’t stop me. Those are almost entirely for my eyes only.

If you’ve never considered it, give it a try. As a youngster, even as into writing and reading as I was, I never got into poetry. I considered it a poor man’s storytelling. Now, a few decades later, it’s just one more thing I’d like to go back in time and slap myself for. If you feel the same way now as I did then, please, try it. You might be shocked at what it does for your understanding of storytelling.

And as always, keep writing.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Novice Writer's Journal

Excessive Character Descriptions (Stop It)

I love my characters. Despite most of them having huge flaws, and several of them being downright bad people, they’re a lot of fun to work with. In fact, the flaws make them more likeable than they would be without. A story about a good guy only doing good things isn’t much of a story. Internal conflicts and defining traits make characters relatable. They are the unique things that set them apart and draw them for us. A gay priest for instance, will instantly stand out. How does his religion affect his desire? Is he ashamed of it? Does he act on it? There are so many questions tied up that basic concept that it’s almost a story in and of itself.

Showing who a character is and shoving a readers face into it by telling are two very different things. Over explaining characters is a mistake I see a lot, even in more experienced authors. The gay priest becomes a good example of this. Just telling a reader he’s gay does nothing. It’s clumsy. Actions speak louder than words, even the most subtle actions. (An action just being subtle tells us about a character) Him thinking about what it all means, and showing us how it affects his daily actions, will always be more interesting than just reminding us he’s gay. While books are of course all words, how we use the words is what I want to talk about today.

I’m not saying that flat out stating things about a character is useless, just that it should just be done sparingly, and never on it’s own. In my second book I have two characters who have been around since the world went to shit ten years before. Sara is the gay daughter of a very conservative religious family. Kyle is a black sociology professor. Neither of these things are described until they are relevant to the story, and even then, they aren’t flat out stated. Why? Because informing someone of who a character is based on sexual preference and skin color isn’t actually telling you anything at all. Moreover, I like the idea of playing with the readers assumptions. If you filled in Kyle as a white character, would you look at him a little differently once you knew he was black? Would it change the way you see his actions? (Spoilers: It shouldn’t) I see a lot of stories in which sexuality and race are the defining characteristic of a person, but truth is, that’s bullshit. Does it change how those characters see the world? Of course. Does it tell you anything about them? No.

The only time Kyle’s race is mentioned is in a flashback in which a colleague accuses him of getting a job because of it. It’s hinted a few times in narrative, but never stated otherwise. Sara’s sexuality is only mentioned when a character asks her if she’s romantically involved with Kyle. She never says she’s gay, only offhandedly comments that Kyle isn’t toting the right equipment. If the book was about life in the city, I might have done otherwise. If the story was an examination of race and/or sexuality, I would explore it deeper. It’s not. It’s the tale of a group after the world ended. Their sexual preferences and skin color are only as relevant to one another as other characters/readers make it. It changes the way they see, understand, and feel things compared to one another, but all of that is expressed through thought, action, and dialogue.

It’s the same with any character. Unless someone being a red head is relevant, I don’t see much of a point in bringing it up. Kvothe in The Kingkiller Trilogy gets comments about his red hair a lot, and therefore his red hair is relevant. It also serves to show us that he stands out in a setting where red hair is uncommon. It makes him memorable when he is one of two characters who has it. Someone being 5’9 in a story of people who are all roughly 5’9 adds nothing. Telling us they have blue eyes and never bringing it up again is pointless. There are better ways of painting a picture. I seldom fail to notice when a book describes a character and does nothing with it. It’s word fat that can be cut to make a leaner narrative. (Always a good thing)

If someone gets teased for their weight, that’s a better way of telling us they’re fat. If they feel ashamed when they eat, you’ve done more to describe them than you would by telling us their pant size. (Inversely, saying that your character doesn’t give a damn what people think and eats what they want does the same, but paints a more confident picture.) If people call your character too-tall, or you mention he has to duck to get into doorways, that’s fine. If men are constantly showering your heroine with attention, we’ll understand that she is attractive. In any case, writing around the physical description serves more of a purpose than barreling through it the vast majority of the time. It gets us into the world without intruding on the narrative.

It’s just as true for personality, if not more so. Telling us anything about a character is weak. When I see. “Sara blushed, shy as ever,” it reminds me of a profile on a dating site. I like walk’s on the beach, and good friends. I’m very shy! “Sara’s cheeks heated up as the man smiled at her,” does the same thing. A character quickly losing their temper is better than telling us they have a short temper. Watching an addict make excuse after excuse for his behavior– watching him alienate everyone who loves him– is always better than just saying, “Aaron had a problem.” Making a character stand out is essential, but that doesn’t give a writer free reign to beat us over the head with telling instead of showing. Telling is at the heart of most bad writing, and this is no different.

Rushing is part of the problem. If you want to hurry up and establish a character in order to get on with the plot, you’ve already fucked up. A character should be revealed through the story. A good tale is more about the journey than the destination. If that wasn’t the case you could just sum up Lord of the Rings as, “Two hobbits threw a ring in the mountain, proving that the little guy can overcome anything. Also, technology is evil.” We should come to understand the character’s world view and who they are by how they handle what’s going on around them. They are as much the story as the plot itself. (Oftentimes more)

You’ve also got to remember, readers aren’t dumb. If you drop clues, they’ll get it. You don’t have to explain everything to them. If you don’t tell us what a character looks like, we won’t think it’s a faceless monster.

(Pictured: A non issue.)

(Pictured: A non issue.)

If your hero relates to a black woman being harassed by cops because he’s been persecuted as a gay man, we’ll understand their struggle. If it doesn’t matter, you shouldn’t bring it up anyway. Show us who your characters are. We’ll pick up on it. Promise.

As always, keep writing.

1 Comment

Filed under Novice Writer's Journal

The Planning And Plotting Part Of Stories

In the past I’ve talked about my preferred method of plotting out a book. I don’t. I come up with the premise, a rough beginning, and a rough end. From there I just sort of let the story tell itself.

The book I’m writing now is a little different. This is a story I’ve wanted to tell for a long time. I’m not going to get into details here, but sufficed to say that I’m very, very excited about it. This story has been bouncing around in my head since I was a teenager. It’s an old one that’s only just now being told. Because of the age of the story, I’ve had a lot of time to think about it. To be honest, I was thinking about it while I was writing both of my previous books. I wanted to wait until I had a few more stories under my belt before doing this, but a friend convinced me it was time.

And in round about fashion, we get to the point of this post: Plotting. The first two books were new stories. They both started as short stories that I realized were actually long ones in disguise. Being new, they didn’t have any build up to them. They were fresh. Unsullied by the pen. I discovered them as I wrote them, and that’s a lot of fun. (If you haven’t done it, try it. It’s the same thrill you get from reading a new book.) This book is something of a sacred cow to me. It’s a very personal story for a lot of reasons, and I’ve been thinking about what makes it tick for a decade. There are a lot of things that must to be in the story, and thus, the story had some depth to it before it even started. (As opposed to gaining depth during the telling and editing it in where it lacked in the first draft)

So I sat down a few days ago and started writing, but not writing the book. I wrote down all the important scenes that I’ve always wanted. I got them out of my head and put them on paper. That done, I wrote a few pages on the themes and devices I wanted to use in the story.

(Spoilers: It's allegorical)

(Spoilers: It’s allegorical)

Next I wrote detailed evaluations of each important character. (Their stories. Their motivations. Their weaknesses. That kind of thing.) Lastly, I wrote a scene by scene outline of the story. When all was said and done I had a 15k measurement of my story, and it made me giddy. Most of the information I wrote down won’t be in the book itself. It wasn’t for readers, it was for me. I wanted to have the nuts and bolts of this tale hammered out before I touched fingers to keys.

Still, I was determined not to be married to it. After all, plotting something and writing something aren’t the same. If you shoehorn in a plot that doesn’t fit the story you just end up with a word sandwich covered in shit. (I’m not going to get into the difference between plot and story here. It’s long, and English majors are regularly sacrificed to dark gods during the discussion.) With all that in mind, I sat down to start writing the whole shebang today.

In internet slang, “OMFG!” I had so much fun just writing without thinking about where the novel is going. I already know where it’s going, and it’s exactly where I want it to. Instead of thinking about future points, I already know what the frame of the house looks like. I’m just putting up walls, decorating, and bringing it to life. Not only did I have a blast doing it, but I wrote way more than I normally do in a session, and I am very well pleased with what I got down.

This is one of those times when more experienced writers will probably say, “No shit,” and click over to read something more interesting. For me, it was a huge revelation, and I bring it up for a good reason. (This is the Novice Writer’s Journal after all.) New writers need to go outside of their comfort zone. We need to explore things beyond our bailiwick. I have no idea if I would be as pleased with this project if I had just jumped in, but it doesn’t matter. This story demanded careful consideration beforehand, and I gave it what it needed.

If other writers are religious plotters, I encourage you to try writing without doing so. It’s a really fun experience. On the inverse, if you’re like me, I encourage you to try plotting something out. It’s delightful, and there’s no unspoken writing law that demands that you stay true to an outline you wrote 500 pages ago.

I ended the last post on this subject by saying that I didn’t understand how plotters did their thing. I guess I’ll end this one by saying I get it now. Don’t be afraid to go outside of your comfort zone, and as always, keep writing.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Novice Writer's Journal