Gimme A Break

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have a huge stack of writer's books. Virtually all of them preach the same sermon about writing. But I noticed something when I was reading a novel by James Agee: He violated all the rules. The first chapter of the book is a narrative description of a town in 1915. Most of the 2nd chapter is Agee telling about an old Charlie Chaplin film. He won a Pulitzer Prize for the novel.

So I picked 4-5 novels from my bookshelves. All of them Pulitzer prize winners or established classics by masters. And I examined them for compliance with the rules. Twain said Cooper violated almost every rule, and he did. Twain screwed-up, too. Every book was filled with 'errors.'

But enchantment is what they all have in common. The writing drags you into the story REGARDLESS of whether its telling or showing or perforated with errors.

How do you teach enchantment?

 

[Liar]

Rules are occurances...
...labelled as actions...
...repeated into habits...
...copied into phenomenas...
...solidified into conventions...
...and finally constitualized as rules.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are nothing but a bunch of occurances of something. Make something else occur. If it's good it's good.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

I read something the other day and cant recall who said it. But the gist of it was: rules make bad writing mediocre.

"Great books are weighed and measured by their style and matter and not by the trimmings and shadings of their grammer." MARK TWAIN

 

[THROBBS]

Rules are occurances...
...labelled as actions...
...repeated into habits...
...copied into phenomenas...
...solidified into conventions...
...and finally constitualized as rules.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are nothing but a bunch of occurances of something. Make something else occur. If it's good it's good.

... and sold as books.

 

[amicus]

But enchantment is what they all have in common. The writing drags you into the story REGARDLESS of whether its telling or showing or perforated with errors.

How do you teach enchantment?

~~~

I think it cannot be determined if your question is an authorly thing or a personal one, so I shall assume it is just for discussion and that you really are not looking for an answer.

However, if indeed you are, then you, JBJ, from what I have read, have a problem if 'enchantment' is the common denominator of those prize winning stories.

That enchantment, would be an enchantment with human life, if I may so presume and from some of your posts I detect a large measure of disenchantment with the human condition, chalked off, no doubt to your profession.

I used to think and read and was told, even lectured to, that, 'plot, plot and plot', were the three essential ingredients for a tale to be told.

I think otherwise now, but since I don't have a Pulitzer, what do I know?

Amicus....a scribbler of stories...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I've seen too much to be optimistic about people.

Naah. My query is driven by philosophical curiosity. I truly sit around trying to get at the essense of things. Hemingway did the same. He examined experience until he knew what the dramatic points were in the experience.

Yes, indeed, I have a problem if enchantment is the common factor. And let me add one confounding note: The enchantment may be in the reader. I'm thinking of Edward Elgar's masterpiece INTRODUCTION AND ALLEGRO FOR STRING ORCHESTRA.

Everyone on the planet has recorded it, but every version, but one, sounds like crap. The exception is enchanting music. Since the score is the same for everyone, the enchantment must in the wizards who perform it.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=JAMESBJOHNSON]AMICUS

I've seen too much to be optimistic about people.

Naah. My query is driven by philosophical curiosity. I truly sit around trying to get at the essense of things. Hemingway did the same. He examined experience until he knew what the dramatic points were in the experience.

Yes, indeed, I have a problem if enchantment is the common factor. And let me add one confounding note: The enchantment may be in the reader. I'm thinking of Edward Elgar's masterpiece INTRODUCTION AND ALLEGRO FOR STRING ORCHESTRA.

Everyone on the planet has recorded it, but every version, but one, sounds like crap. The exception is enchanting music. Since the score is the same for everyone, the enchantment must in the wizards who perform it.[/QUOTE]


~~~


Hmmm...Hemingway blew his brains out...in "Islands in the Stream" I think he might have been seeking the 'essence of things', dunno, perhaps you could be more explicit?

Thinking about the novels of Neville Shute (Norway), I would suggest that some of his work, more than most I have read, deals with the essence of things from several different directions and you might enjoy his work if you have not already.

Good luck on it...happy to discuss things if you wish..


amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

I have a huge stack of writer's books. Virtually all of them preach the same sermon about writing. But I noticed something when I was reading a novel by James Agee: He violated all the rules.

...Twain said Cooper violated almost every rule, and he did. Twain screwed-up, too. Every book was filled with 'errors.'

But enchantment is what they all have in common. The writing drags you into the story REGARDLESS of whether its telling or showing or perforated with errors.

I think too many people confuse writing with story telling -- writing can be codified, analyzed, and constrained by rules; Storytelling is an art and a talent that can only be trained, not taught.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

My old grandmother, at 90, announced "Its no fun anymore," and died within two days.

Hemingway wasnt exactly a polymath. Writing was pretty much it for him. And he had all the trophies, glory, and babes galore. I suspect he was bored.

I'm a polymath. I've had successful careers in 6 or so fields. I'm not in any books, I'm not famous, but I spent years doing things lotsa people dream about and will never do. I'm competent, not great. The plan, now, is to write some competent books.

Hemingway spoke about fishing on one occasion. His rhetorical question was: What's the most exciting part of fishing? His answer: When the fish first bites the bait. Its when the fish hooks you.

I'll check out Neville Shute.

Jim

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Harold

Youre probably right; I dont have a better answer.

 

[amicus]

"...The plan, now, is to write some competent books...."

~~~

It is none of my business of course, so please ignore me, I won't be upset, but that competent bit, ran a red flag up the pole for me.

If it is non fiction you are planning to write, I can better understand 'competent', in that if you write about sociobiology and what you may have learned in that profession, then indeed, competence and accuracy would be sufficient.

Somehow I feel it is fiction you are considering and unless it is some kind of Kafkaesque novel, I don't feel the exuberant passion I think one must have to create interesting characters.

Be happy to listen if you wish to divulge more.

regards..


Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think too many people confuse writing with story telling -- writing can be codified, analyzed, and constrained by rules; Storytelling is an art and a talent that can only be trained, not taught.

and writing is the skill that makes the stories available to other people.

I see this same argument in visual arts as well. There's the impulse, and then there's the ability to do something with the impulse. You still have to learn that blue and yellow make green-- many people know these things intuitively, the way many common grammar usages seem intuitive-- and you have to know that while turps is a good thinner for oil paint, only water will do the job for acrylics-- bits of slightly more arcane information. In writing, that might be the difference between homonyms and homophones; peace and peas, or per se and per say.

But in the end, if the story isn't worth telling than no one will care about perfect grammer. And there's an author here who claims to be nearly illiterate, and his stories are breathtaking.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's easier to identify what's wrong than to teach inspiration to do something right in novel new ways.

The best writing instruction helps us create a good process for discovering our own novel new ideas and getting the best of what we have to offer onto the page.

The middle rank teaches us how to eliminate as much of the negative as possible so that it doesn't distract from the positive.

The lowest rank pretends that by eliminating the particular author's pet peeves and following his or her particular process, we'll write well, without ever accessing our own unique gifts and ideas.

I'd say, take the first and second, and leave the last.

 

[R. Richard]

How do you teach enchantment?

If you have ever played American fooball, you have seen lots of school kids try to play running back. Most of them are really no good. The guy who has the talent has it and you can see it from the start. You can then teach slight improvements in technique, but the talent must be there or the teaching is meaningless.

If you start with Emmitt Smith, you get an artist. If you start with Joe Average, you get a disaster.

Writing is much the same way.

 

[Weird Harold]

and writing is the skill that makes the stories available to other people.

Actually, I see writing as only one avenue for the talent of story telling.

I've known a good many people who can tell a story (joke, anecdote, scary campfire ghost story, or tall tale) but couldn't write so much as a bad check. likewise, I've known a few people who can express themselves through writing and make an order for spare parts worth framing but can't introduce themselves to more than two people without forgetting the punchline.

In many ways, poets, painters, sculptors, composers, and almost every kind of creative artist have to have a at least a bit of storyteller in them to be great.

Sometimes, a Storyteller just needs a stenographer or video camera to preserve their art for posterity.

 

[elsol]

You can read about hitting a 98 mile an hour fastball... but good luck the first time you step up to the plate, especially if the pitcher thinks you're crowding the plate.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, I see writing as only one avenue for the talent of story telling...

Well all right, I could have said; "and writing is a skill that makes the stories available to other people." Better?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

In part... I think best-selling books are worth noting.

Many authors and literary critics have come out and said JK Rowling writes like crap... but isn't there something to say for popularity? I mean, Stephen King has all but said over the years that he's more interested in how many people dig his books than how many schools use them to teach writing.

I don't know about "artists" and "the art" and "talent" and all that... those are really hard to nail down.

I do know that I like John Grisham books... and I don't care how formulaic lots of them are... I dig the books, I read and re-read them often. Fuck literature. I don't real novels to expand my conciousness or anything. I read for entertainment.

Oh, and I fucking hate fantasy.

Hate it.

Don't like it at all.

I think its boring and weird and dorky.

...

...and I'm totally hooked on "A Song of Ice and Fire" and am ashamed that I even bought the boardgame.

*sigh(

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ELSOL

I read a marvelous story about Ty Cobb last night. Cobb was mean as a snake. Anytime a pitcher threw a fastball at Cobb's head, he retaliated with a bunt down the first base line...so he could collide-fall on the pitcher and try and break his arm.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JW

Yes. Reading is entertainment.

Industrial psychologists study every thing people do, but no one has ever examined the best writing to learn the patterns the authors use. Someone wrote a book about doing it, THE IMPRINT METHOD, but no one has done it.

 

[Recidiva]

Learning how to write technically is like learning to play music technically. You need to learn scales, modes, sight reading, improvisation, the value of practice, repetition and commitment.

However, learning to compose means you can't play a scale and expect it to be new or entertaining.

You need to learn basics so you can then alter the basics. A few things will remain - spelling and grammar should be clean the same way a piano should be in tune at least in reference to itself.

The difference between enchantment and technique - technique is compulsory. Enchantment is having an excellent reason to defy technique.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RR

Oh! Yes!

I was on the track team in high school. I worked my ass off to be mediocre at the low hurdles. But we had a kid named Kenny who was a natural at it. Speed, perfect timing, perfect form. He won every event he was in. He refused to practice, refused to stop smoking, etc. He didnt love what he was doing.

I imagine he went to college and collided with talent equal to his; kids with desire and love for the sport. And he was just an untrained bum.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

One of the lessons I learned in grad school was, I can see things most people cant see. That is, I can look at a flat-view of a three dimensional object and assemble it in my mind instantly. I also do very well on intelligence tests that require you to identify visual patterns in a series.

I've never been sold on the idea that talent is intelligence. I, personally, have more respect for the person who has to study a design and access other skills to solve the problem. I mean, how is having the Answer Book in your head real intelligence?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RECIDIVA

I think we're all on the same page about the basics. The problem for me arises when we forget why in hell we're writing. Who's the target audience? Critics? Grammarians? Mom?

Florence King made the same point when she used examples of 'erotica' famous authors wrote. If she didnt identify one sample as 'erotica' I would never have guessed it. For all I knew, the writer was talking about the process of making a tire or describing how an automatic dishwasher works. The critics orgasmed over this guy.

 

[Recidiva]

RECIDIVA

I think we're all on the same page about the basics. The problem for me arises when we forget why in hell we're writing. Who's the target audience? Critics? Grammarians? Mom?

Florence King made the same point when she used examples of 'erotica' famous authors wrote. If she didnt identify one sample as 'erotica' I would never have guessed it. For all I knew, the writer was talking about the process of making a tire or describing how an automatic dishwasher works. The critics orgasmed over this guy.

There's no exact target audience, I don't think. As long as you can narrow in on AN audience and hit the right chord, that's the trick.

My favorite authors are the ones who don't underestimate the intelligence of their audience. They want to tell a story, not preach. They want to communicate a kinship in exploration of the unexpected, not a party line.

However, there are those readers that voraciously go after the opposite. Formulaic, comforting (to them) writing that shows that things are exactly what they expect them to be. No real surprises, no real thought, going over familiar ground.

If an author fails to speak to any demographic, if their words fail to strike a chord in another mind, that's the only true test.

It's not about appealing to everyone, it's about appealing to those who will buy and agree, and that leaves a lot of potential niche markets.