Any hidden baggage with letters used sparingly in an otherwise standard story?

[Euphony]

Only thing I think I've ever heard is it being poor form if used as a narrative dump. But narrative dumps are troublesome in all forms so..

I've gone down the rabbit hole of epistolary research and I'm buying the relationship building they're selling. But reality doesn't always mesh with readers and standards.

So, if you have or were going to include honest to god paper letters between characters, are there any thing you'd keep in mind or common errors worth trying to avoid?

"Write what you are called to write," yes yes. But I like to consider my tools and their use (pro and con) and I *feel* like there are some attached to letters (inserted in this case but I'd be fascinated by full on Epistolary novel considerations as well, so long as delineated as such if necessary.)

What say you? Any thoughts on old fashioned letters as an author or a reader?

 

[alohadave]

As a reader, I hate epistolary stories. If I know that a large part of the story is setup like that, I will not read it.

It's nothing against any author, but I won't read them.

 

[Euphony]

As a reader, I hate epistolary stories. If I know that a large part of the story is setup like that, I will not read it.

It's nothing against any author, but I won't read them.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm more in "if the mood camp" myself.

Some recent reads of well done examples. Well being authors understanding the necessity to include narrative and flow into the letter format unlike most *real* letter writers do in their more stream of conscious style of communication. "Authorial" letters have me currently very interested.

At the very least, to understand it as a tool: best use v. square peg in a round hole.

 

[MrPixel]

What strikes me about the epistolary style I've read is you get less of the true sense of the characters. Letter-writing is a deep thought sort of thing, where you're preoccupied (like authoring!) with making a specific impression to the other person, choosing words and phrases carefully as you put pen to paper. I prefer a little bit of humor, too, and unless very skillfully written, humor within a letter tends to fall a bit flat.

It's why I lean heavily on conversational style, where the sometimes swordplay of banter is more revealing of the personas.

Now letters can be positioned as setup for in-person (or telephonic) chatter, like in "What the F did you mean when you wrote...?" Now that could be fun.

 

[Euphony]

What strikes me about the epistolary style I've read is you get less of the true sense of the characters. Letter-writing is a deep thought sort of thing, where you're preoccupied (like authoring!) with making a specific impression to the other person, choosing words and phrases carefully as you put pen to paper.

Interesting. You are solidifying the words and their meaning more than conversation. Can't rely as much on "didn't think before I spoke" or just the hiccups that come trying to process thoughts/feeling real time with the work of communication. Good to keep in mind, thanks.

I prefer a little bit of humor, too, and unless very skillfully written, humor within a letter tends to fall a bit flat.

Went over a epistolary I enjoyed and realized just how true your statement is. There's a difference between characters being funny vs. an implication of them having an ability to be funny. Not quite show v. tell but working in an awkward part of the telly end of spectrum.

It's why I lean heavily on conversational style, where the sometimes swordplay of banter is more revealing of the personas.

I do that a lot. I needed a change up and the characters needed to show they were willing to grow around their set ways unsolvable problem by trying other, out of fashion i.e. "more difficult/showing effort" ways of communicating and connection.

Now letters can be positioned as setup for in-person (or telephonic) chatter, like in "What the F did you mean when you wrote...?" Now that could be fun.

That is interesting. I may holster that for later. I do love using a more unique device when there seems to be a solid place for it.

 

[AlinaX]

I had fun writing letters in my Bellway series and in From a loving wife - although this latter is a single long letter so it's mostly first-person narrative with only occasional acknowledgement that there's a recipient of the letter.

 

[ElectricBlue]

See how folk handled it here:

Letters of Love Anthology 2022

 

[Euphony]

See how folk handled it here:

Letters of Love Anthology 2022

This was helpful, thank you.

Plenty of nuggets but, alas, a different set of challenges as the rules specifically stated written as a letter to be in the L&T category.

Cursory search is they've been full epistolary but maybe a few folded in to stories snuck through.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This was helpful, thank you.

Plenty of nuggets but, alas, a different set of challenges as the rules specifically stated written as a letter to be in the L&T category.

Cursory search is they've been full epistolary but maybe a few folded in to stories snuck through.

I've got this one, which is a combination of letter exchange (by email) plus traditional narrative. The personalities come across nicely, I think.

Dear Helen

 

[NoTalentHack]

I used the letter as a device in No Place to Go. A guy gets a letter from his dead wife, delivered by a lawyer whose job it is to deal with the issues the letter will raise. About 1/3 of the story is the letter, but I cut in and out of it in the story; the MC reacts (poorly) to the contents several times, there are breaks in the reading as he takes time to process/freak out, etc. It’s not quite a conversation/dialog, but it has elements of that.

 

[Voboy]

So I've always thought of letters as uniquely unrevealing, compared to dialogue.

Letter-writers have a built-in "persona" they are presenting to the recipient. You're not really yourself in a letter. You are engaging with what you write, you are editing as you go, and you have the opportunity to go back before you send and make SURE that everything's expressed properly. Even emailers usually look back over their work and self-edit as they move along.

Dialogue is nothing like that. You need to be on your toes. You need to be quick-witted. It's neither rehearsed nor debriefed: it just happens. And it reveals more of the actual character of the person because of that.

As a reader and a writer, I much prefer dialogue for what it shows about people in the moment. I avoid epistolary work. It always strikes me as artificial-sounding, because by definition it is artificial (in terms of interpersonal relations).

 

[Euphony]

So I've always thought of letters as uniquely unrevealing, compared to dialogue.

Letter-writers have a built-in "persona" they are presenting to the recipient. You're not really yourself in a letter. You are engaging with what you write, you are editing as you go, and you have the opportunity to go back before you send and make SURE that everything's expressed properly. Even emailers usually look back over their work and self-edit as they move along.

Dialogue is nothing like that. You need to be on your toes. You need to be quick-witted. It's neither rehearsed nor debriefed: it just happens. And it reveals more of the actual character of the person because of that.

As a reader and a writer, I much prefer dialogue for what it shows about people in the moment. I avoid epistolary work. It always strikes me as artificial-sounding, because by definition it is artificial (in terms of interpersonal relations).

I'll agree with much of this. It's definitely not a 1:1 substitution and those who brave epistolary waters best be excellent swimmers.

From a character standpoint, however, it is a tool. Yes, it is edited but that level of control adds a comfort in which certain things may go expressed that wouldn't at all (b/c the "having a face to face discussion" is too high of a bar to clear.)

And it's a shift from how people interact in more modern text message era tales. It may not be as informationally revealing (to the recipient) but there is a level of intent, a uniqueness to the exchange (a long term couple using uncommon ways to communicate/reconnect) and "they thought of me for X long to write this."

Not earth movers and no substitute but have a place if well done.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's a challenging form, but that's not a reason to avoid it, if you have a good story idea. I think that's the key (as it always is): make sure you have a good story-based reason to choose a particular form. The form should follow the function.

I wrote a story in the letter category and published it last fall. It was fun to do, for a change, and I think the way I did it was justified by the content of the story, but it's not something I'd be inclined to do again. In my case, the entire story was a single letter, rather than back and forth letters. The use of a back and forth letter format, especially nowadays, would have to be justified by particular circumstances. If the story is set in the past, that's one thing, but it's hard to see how such a format would make sense today where people have so many technological means to have livestream communications with others anywhere on earth.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I've used emails and texts in stories. The suspense as someone awaits a reply to a text can be powerful, especially if they've crafted the message to try to look nonchalant.