Writer Growth

[MrPixel]

Driving back from lunch and an errand yesterday, I was thinking about a "based on true experience" story I couldn't recall whether I had written. If I had, I know I didn't publish it. After fifteen minutes scraping my system, I found it in a partition with the old OS. The story was written over five years ago, before I found LitE.

My intent was to touch it up and possibly expand the story's fictional development. I could not believe how much my writing style has changed. For one thing, it was first-person past-tense narrative, and embarrassingly clunky. What I write these days is third-person present-tense dialog, with one series I'm trying to wrap-up that's first-person, but the same style. Those, IMO, are smooth reads that more or less put you in the room with the characters.

Bottom line is that old story's text is unrecoverable. I spent most of the night editing, adding, and re-editing, until 3 a.m., and cannot get past the obvious: it cannot be un-clunked. The premise is on my mind, so it's going to get a rewrite.

But, still. In that relatively short time I've grown into a different writer. As is the case with my music, practice may not make perfect, but it does make better.

 

[AG31]

Have fun with your mini-project!!

So you're in tech, right?

After fifteen minutes scraping my system, I found it in a partition with the old OS.

 

[StillStunned]

If there's one thing I've learned from 25 years as a language professional it's that practice is the only way to get better. The good news is, you can get very much better very quickly.

Or at the very least you settle into a style that's comfortable for you. When you look back, it will feel odd, like a pair of shoes you tried that didn't quite fit.

 

[alohadave]

If there's one thing I've learned from 25 years as a language professional it's that practice is the only way to get better.

It's how you get better at anything. The more you do, the better you get.

 

[NotWise]

"Unlikely Angels" was among my early stories at Lit. I wrote the first 11 chapters of the story a couple years before I even thought of publishing a story here. When I did publish it, I put the first seven chapters up in the state I'd left them in. Many style and editing issues.

The story eventually grew to 23 chapters before I pulled it off Lit. The chapters from 14 through 23 chronicled two years of growth in my writing and editing. The early chapters were intensely visual. The later chapters trended toward narrative action. I don't see myself going back to the intensely visual.

 

[TheLobster]

I have to admit that I do occasionally experience a kind of growth while writing.

It appears to be related to another aspect of it we’ve discussed previously, i.e., spurts.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

The early chapters were intensely visual. The later chapters trended toward narrative action.

This is interesting. Can you explain a bit more about this distinction?

 

[NotWise]

This is interesting. Can you explain a bit more about this distinction?

In the opening scene of "Unlikely Angels," the main character relates a series of events that led to the beginning of the story while he rides a bus to meet an attorney. Much of it is a description of the visuals around him, as if the reader "sees" what the character sees; ice crystals in morning sunlight, new-fallen snow, people huddled on the bus, ice and mud on the downtown streets.

There's nothing wrong with that. It interleaves memories and current experiences and dilutes an opening data dump. It's immersive. It also requires a lot of words for relatively little action, which is great if you're writing a novel. I was writing a novel, but there was enough story to the novel that padding it with words did it no service. I'm not sure what the word count was through those first 23 chapters--maybe 35k. It would have been twice that length if I stayed with the same style, and I was only half way through the story when I pulled it.

Since then, I've tried to replace much (not all) of the visual descriptions in my stories with dialog. I want to build the setting and description through the characters' narratives, and to reserve the author's narrative for action rather than description. That feels like a better fit for me. I'm not always successful.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I am, in my mind, divorced from any story of mine that I finished before 2019. What I write now and what I wrote then are so wildly different that I can no longer reconcile them as having come from the same person.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

In the opening scene of "Unlikely Angels," the main character relates a series of events that led to the beginning of the story while he rides a bus to meet an attorney. Much of it is a description of the visuals around him, as if the reader "sees" what the character sees; ice crystals in morning sunlight, new-fallen snow, people huddled on the bus, ice and mud on the downtown streets.

There's nothing wrong with that. It interleaves memories and current experiences and dilutes an opening data dump. It's immersive. It also requires a lot of words for relatively little action, which is great if you're writing a novel. I was writing a novel, but there was enough story to the novel that padding it with words did it no service. I'm not sure what the word count was through those first 23 chapters--maybe 35k. It would have been twice that length if I stayed with the same style, and I was only half way through the story when I pulled it.

Since then, I've tried to replace much (not all) of the visual descriptions in my stories with dialog. I want to build the setting and description through the characters' narratives, and to reserve the author's narrative for action rather than description. That feels like a better fit for me. I'm not always successful.

That was an excellent explanation. Thank you! I like your framing of "characters' narratives" vs. "the author's narrative." I also tend to lean on dialogue to build setting and drive the action forward, so I can appreciate where you're coming from here.

 

[Cagivagurl]

It doesn't matter what you create... the more times you do it, the better you get.

Cagivagurl

 

[Rob_Royale]

I've been though the same thing with My Beautiful Debbie. It was my first Lit submission that was kicked back three times. I abandoned the project and soldiered on. Not long ago, I dug it out and attempted the same thing. In the end, a complete re-write was the way to go. It IS worth doing, especially with the "based on true experience" stories, because those stories don't lie still in your mind. They want to be written.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It doesn't matter what you create... the more times you do it, the better you get.

Cagivagurl

Not entirely true. There are several writers on lit who write the same story over and over and never get better. Okay, I suppose that they get better, but their stories don't get better. They can't, since they never challenge themselves to the next hurdle.

If you write something and it required much effort, you get better, sure, but then you have a choice: put in the same amount of effort and write something better, or write at the same level but with less effort. If you challenge yourself to write something tougher you will keep putting in more effort and get better, but if you write the same stuff, you just bang out it as a quick way to chase the same accolades and all that you do is get quicker at writing the same story and at some point you stop getting better altogether.

I read a novel by a fellow named Kellerman. Apparently this guy is a big seller and never has to work another day in his life due to his royalties. And in his writing it shows. The particular book of his that I read was like the 30th in a series all with similar titles with these same two characters. There were conventions between these two characters solving murders that I wasn't sure of the significance of until I realized that they were expected tropes already long established in the series. He wasn't endearing me to the characters because he felt that he didn't have to since his readers already love these guys. Well Kellerman couldn't get me to care because he had mailed this one the fuck in!

He has a formula (30-plus novels with the same 2 boring guys ffs!!!) that he created and all that he wants to do is slap together another story with the formula every six to nine months and get paid. He's writing tons and tons and tons and tons and TONS and he's not getting the slightest bit better.

 

[Rob_Royale]

He has a formula (30-plus novels with the same 2 boring guys ffs!!!) that he created and all that he wants to do is slap together another story with the formula every six to nine months and get paid. He's writing tons and tons and tons and tons and TONS and he's not getting the slightest bit better.

Sadly this is the pitfall of become a marketable writer. Many have fallen prey to it. Once they reach a level of success, they just figure "I'm good enough now, time to get paid." George R.R. Martin, Peter Benchley, Michael Crichton, among many others.

But to get back to those lIt writers who write the same story over again, I think that's mostly due to their near obsession with their subject matter, than anything else.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

But to get back to those lIt writers who write the same story over again, I think that's mostly due to their near obsession with their subject matter, than anything else.

Even so, they're putting in less and less effort and not improving. And for the record I have one particular lit writer in mind who does not write kink-based and is more cerebral, but still writes the same character(s) in the same dynamic with minimal effort, and he's a pretty good writer skills-wise but he's not getting any better. His stuff is all the same because he chooses to coast on what he has rather than put in the effort to tackle something a bit bigger. And that's okay, lit is a hobby after all.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Not entirely true. There are several writers on lit who write the same story over and over and never get better. Okay, I suppose that they get better, but their stories don't get better. They can't, since they never challenge themselves to the next hurdle.

If you write something and it required much effort, you get better, sure, but then you have a choice: put in the same amount of effort and write something better, or write at the same level but with less effort. If you challenge yourself to write something tougher you will keep putting in more effort and get better, but if you write the same stuff, you just bang out it as a quick way to chase the same accolades and all that you do is get quicker at writing the same story and at some point you stop getting better altogether.

I read a novel by a fellow named Kellerman. Apparently this guy is a big seller and never has to work another day in his life due to his royalties. And in his writing it shows. The particular book of his that I read was like the 30th in a series all with similar titles with these same two characters. There were conventions between these two characters solving murders that I wasn't sure of the significance of until I realized that they were expected tropes already long established in the series. He wasn't endearing me to the characters because he felt that he didn't have to since his readers already love these guys. Well Kellerman couldn't get me to care because he had mailed this one the fuck in!

He has a formula (30-plus novels with the same 2 boring guys ffs!!!) that he created and all that he wants to do is slap together another story with the formula every six to nine months and get paid. He's writing tons and tons and tons and tons and TONS and he's not getting the slightest bit better.

Because you didn't like Kellerman doesn't mean he hasn't improved.
Here in Lit, most writers I think write for fun. They're not trying to turn their hobby into a lucrative money making exercise. My opinion only.
For myself, I write for fun not money. Am I better today than yesterday? Possibly.

Being a musician, I understand practising and rehearsing. Always searching to improve your craft. Playing live is the payback for hours of practise.

Writing is like every activity whether it's work, sports, art... You improve... I suggest it is impossible not to get better. Repetition only makes it easier.

Who cares if you write the same story a billion times. As long as you enjoyed writing it. Mission accomplished. Writing the same story at least lets you improve. Your focus is narrow. Your ambition clear.

Cagivagurl

 

[Cagivagurl]

Sadly this is the pitfall of become a marketable writer. Many have fallen prey to it. Once they reach a level of success, they just figure "I'm good enough now, time to get paid." George R.R. Martin, Peter Benchley, Michael Crichton, among many others.

But to get back to those lIt writers who write the same story over again, I think that's mostly due to their near obsession with their subject matter, than anything else.

If you create something, and it becomes popular. You have succeeded. All artists, regardless of the format would be happy if they produced something that people liked enough to buy it.
I write for fun, no expectations aside from a smile when I get it right. If somebody offered me money for what I produced, and it meant I could live comfortably for the rest of my life. I would be happy with that as well.
Probably try to recreate that work hoping for a similar result.

Cagivagurl

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Writing is like every activity whether it's work, sports, art... You improve... I suggest it is impossible not to get better. Repetition only makes it easier.

Who cares if you write the same story a billion times. As long as you enjoyed writing it. Mission accomplished. Writing the same story at least lets you improve. Your focus is narrow. Your ambition clear.

No. You write that story enough times, it gets perfected. You stop improving. When you say that repetition makes it easier, that is true, like I already said above. It doesn't make you better, it only makes it easier, but then it only makes it easier until you've mastered it. Then it doesn't get an easier because it can't.

When you're four years old, you play tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) for an afternoon until you perfect it. For the rest of your life growing old and grey, no matter how much you play it, you don't get any better. You can't. You have to challenge yourself to a tougher game.

 

[mildlyaroused]

When you're four years old, you play tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) for an afternoon until you perfect it. For the rest of your life growing old and grey, no matter how much you play it, you don't get any better. You can't. You have to challenge yourself to a tougher game.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think this is the right analogy. Writing fiction has an incalculably higher number of variables than playing Noughts and Crosses. When you write, you're using a toolbox which contains every word in every language, and every possible combination of those words. They form a web of syntax which creates characters, plots, themes, and subtext. Noughts and Crosses has just nine small squares in which you can put either an X or an O.

I also think that things becoming "easier" is by definition a symptom of a writer getting "better." That's how it works. When I play a particularly hard piece on the piano, my hands and mind slowly get more efficient at playing the correct notes in the correct ways. That certainly counts as me getting better, even if it's not an expansion of the task I'm performing. I'm simply getting better at performing that task.

For the record, you'll never catch me reading one of those 30-book long series that some mainstream authors write. They're repetitive and (to me) they're boring and stale, but that doesn't mean the author isn't improving while they write. Fiction has far too many variables to ever be "mastered." Even if you follow a structure and write the same story over and over, "mastery" cannot exist in art.

Now, I agree with you that it's a boring way to write. I won't read the work of the authors who churn out novels like that, and I won't churn out such novels myself, but I still think it's underselling those authors to say they're not getting better at their craft. If they want to recycle ideas and themes to make a living, that's up to them. It's certainly an attractive path for writers once they finally get some validation and cash for all their efforts. I can respect it even if I can't live it myself.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think this is the right analogy. Writing fiction has an incalculably higher number of variables than playing Noughts and Crosses. When you write, you're using a toolbox which contains every word in every language, and every possible combination of those words. They form a web of syntax which creates characters, plots, themes, and subtext. Noughts and Crosses has just nine small squares in which you can put either an X or an O.

It's a perfect analogy. Remember, we're not talking about someone who right out of the box writes a ridiculous wild ride like The Satanic Verses and then rests on his laurels. We're talking about a 5 or 10k word unicorn stroke story, which is the literary equivalent of rock-paper-scissors. Once you've figured out RPS, you can't get any better at it. If you want to improve, you have to try checkers or parchisi. Then you get good at that and you have to move on to chess or something, or else all you will ever do is just keep beating people at checkers with the exact same strategies and moves over and over without adding any skills to your repertoire. The game is too simple to require any more.

Once you've mastered the 5 to 10k stroke unicorn story, you're not getting better. You need to take on some character depth. Once you get good at that, you have to start taking on some conflict or some motive and working on your plot. Once you've done that a while try taking on some theme. At each of these levels it takes extra effort to improve your skills, but also at each of these levels you can stop and stick to what you've mastered and crank out the same level of stuff with little to no effort. That is a choice.

I also think that things becoming "easier" is by definition a symptom of a writer getting "better." That's how it works. When I play a particularly hard piece on the piano, my hands and mind slowly get more efficient at playing the correct notes in the correct ways. That certainly counts as me getting better, even if it's not an expansion of the task I'm performing. I'm simply getting better at performing that task.

Sure, but once you learn the piece you can keep playing that same piece over and over, not improving your skills. To get better you need to learn a tougher song. Ben Folds didn't get as good as he is by just playing Twinkle Little Star over and over.

For the record, you'll never catch me reading one of those 30-book long series that some mainstream authors write. They're repetitive and (to me) they're boring and stale, but that doesn't mean the author isn't improving while they write. Fiction has far too many variables to ever be "mastered." Even if you follow a structure and write the same story over and over, "mastery" cannot exist in art.

You're comparing the wrong two things. You are claiming that fiction can't be mastered. That is not my claim. I said that Kellerman "mastered" his specific template and stayed there, which stopped him from improving in fiction generally.

If they want to recycle ideas and themes to make a living, that's up to them. It's certainly an attractive path for writers once they finally get some validation and cash for all their efforts. I can respect it even if I can't live it myself.

Of course they can. No problems there. I can respect his business decision absolutely 100%. But I didn't pick up his book to read his business decision. I was hoping for a good novel and instead I got a meh, so-so one of which I could see right through its creative process. Other folks like it, that's great. But he's a perfect example of someone who has chosen to stay where he is as a writer and churn out the same formula over and over with as little effort as possible. That's the point that I'm making. He's decided to not get any better and his stories are not getting any better.

You say that fiction can't be mastered. That means that there is always room for improvement. Well you can't improve on minimal effort. It always takes work to push yourself to the next level. It always takes vast amounts of energy to create. If you want to find new treasure, you have to do some bushwhacking. If you keep to the same trail that you already cut, you won't find any new treasure. Such is the law of the universe.

 

[mildlyaroused]

Once you've mastered the 5 to 10k stroke unicorn story, you're not getting better. You need to take on some character depth. Once you get good at that, you have to start taking on some conflict or some motive and working on your plot. Once you've done that a while try taking on some theme. At each of these levels it takes extra effort to improve your skills, but also at each of these levels you can stop and stick to what you've mastered and crank out the same level of stuff with little to no effort. That is a choice.

It is choice, and I agree that stagnation is generally the wrong choice in creative fields. But at the same time, it's still not as simple as mastering the 10k stroke story as you might master noughts and crosses. There's too many variables. You might master the template, as you say, but you still have to actually write the thing. And by virtue of fiction being art (however repetitive and soul-destroying, as some of those long series are), you can't master the act of writing the words themselves. Those authors are always deepening their understanding of language and prose as they write. It comes with proximity, like how after you've first learned to drive you'll continue to improve with practice even if you know all the rules by heart. It's the difference between efficiency and expansion, which are both types of improvement.

Anyway, it's all semantics. We're just yapping about different definitions of mastery and improvement, and I certainly agree with you from a creative standpoint. And you, Miss Silk Glove, have certainly mastered the art of reasoned, persuasive arguments on this forum (which, by the way, I'll take a certain amount of credit for, since I am giving you practice right now which means you're getting even more efficient at it).

When I worked in a book shop I was repeatedly baffled by how often all those samey thrillers seemed to fly off the shelves. We'd get people looking for book 29 specifically, because they'd read it all up to that point. I guess it's a good thing that people digest books so diversely, because it certainly helps us writers. And I can't look down on people who do read those books, since I love re-reading novels that I read in my childhood or teenage years. It's like comfort food!

 

[StillStunned]

When I worked in a book shop I was repeatedly baffled by how often all those samey thrillers seemed to fly off the shelves. We'd get people looking for book 29 specifically, because they're read it all up to that point. I guess it's a good thing that people digest books so diversely, because it certainly helps us writers. And I can't look down on people who do read those books, since I love re-reading novels that I read in my childhood or teenage years. It's like comfort food!

I think the great advantage of rereading books, or reading formulaic books, is that it requires so little effort, but you still get the same enjoyment. I spend so much of my time editing and rewriting my clients' words that I have don't have much energy left at the end of the day to read. Sitting down with something new, or in a new style, not knowing whether I'm going to enjoy it or whether it will be a waste of my time and energy - I just don't do that anymore.

(Paradoxically, I usually have energy to write.)

 

[mildlyaroused]

I think the great advantage of rereading books, or reading formulaic books, is that it requires so little effort, but you still get the same enjoyment. I spend so much of my time editing and rewriting my clients' words that I have don't have much energy left at the end of the day to read. Sitting down with something new, or in a new style, not knowing whether I'm going to enjoy it or whether it will be a waste of my time and energy - I just don't do that anymore.

(Paradoxically, I usually have energy to write.)

It is such an enjoyable thing. I particularly like familiar movies and books once I'm not very sober, because then I can just recline and enjoy the evening. It gives me a whole new (more raw, less intellectual) appreciation of the work. Plus, us humans are simple creatures in many ways, and it's just generally comforting to delve into something you know you'll like.

(Maybe this is why you have energy to write but not read. You know it'll be good, and even a new story will feel familiar in some ways when it's told through your own voice and style. Writing can be hard, but it does feel homely).

Sometimes I do something similar with my own writing. If I'm too tired to grind out some new words, I'll just scroll back through the manuscript and read things through. I mightn't be the best editor in this state, but it still lets me appreciate and familiarise myself with my story in a passive sort of way. Sometimes I'll have a brainwave, and it'll perk up my energy levels again. Other times I'll simply better recall and consolidate all the nuances in what I've already written next time I sit down to write, which is also useful.

 

[Writer61]

I still have some of my oldest erotic writings, but sadly, they are in an ancient file format protected by a forgotten password. Still, the titles are helpful in reminding me of their content.

The oldest that I can access are from about three years' ago but subsequent edits make seeing any change in style difficult. That said, in more recent writing, I am very conscious of using fewer words denoting the passage of time (and, then, etc.) leaving events to show it instead. Similarly I am trying to avoid describing things that should be obvious (e.g. in 'he got up to open the door' the 'got up to' is superfluous).

 

[Cagivagurl]

No. You write that story enough times, it gets perfected. You stop improving. When you say that repetition makes it easier, that is true, like I already said above. It doesn't make you better, it only makes it easier, but then it only makes it easier until you've mastered it. Then it doesn't get an easier because it can't.

When you're four years old, you play tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) for an afternoon until you perfect it. For the rest of your life growing old and grey, no matter how much you play it, you don't get any better. You can't. You have to challenge yourself to a tougher game.

You never stop improving. A story is never perfected. Changed, improved perhaps, but never mastered. Musicians will tell you. They get better every time they play. They never master their instrument.

Art regardless of the genre, is never mastered.

Cagivagurl

​