Has it all been said before?

[gauchecritic]

In a couple of threads last year it was opined that everything that could be said (in a story) has been said. People meet people and they fuck. Tab a goes in slot b. There is nothing new under the sun.

Out of this I gleaned the consensus that it's why people do these things that make an interesting story not how, or when.

This is all very well, but a story purely about what people feel or think, in my opinion, is inevitably going to be just as dull/unreadable. So between showing the reader these thoughts and reactions, you need mundane things to make a narrative.

This is the part which has to happen for there to be any thoughts/reactions at all. These are the things that have happened before and been told before in all manner of ways.

Ok. So we make a setting. We give reasons for something happening. Maybe to indicate mood. "She'd spent all her money and the evening wore on as she walked up the hill.." It's getting late she's going home and time is passing slowly.

Right, heres the point. There's nothing wrong with that line that I can tell. It's informative, it can bridge 2 other pieces which give thoughts and reactions to something that will move the story along. It's a link.

But to me, it's dull. Someone, somewhere has said that very thing. It's been printed in best sellers. It's not new. So I scrub that and write "trudging homeward under the darkening skies of a penniless evening."

Don't get me wrong I like writing things like that, and will carry on, but it's not simple. Am I narrowing my audience?

The question I'd like an answer to is this: When do I stop re-writing? How can I tell that the first example is sufficient?

(Even there, the first question started as "At what point does complexity...")

Gauche

 

[Xelebes]

When I re-write, I try to find smaller words that fit the clicked term/phrase.

I avoid sounding too verbose and restrain myself to using words with one, two or three syllables and then add eccents of words with 4, 5 and more.

How I'd write it is:

The waning dusk swallowed her as she rambled up the hill, pockets emptied.


I don't know what it is with your sentence, but it isn't very flowing, rather a jarring read. If you can make it flow, then it works.

 

[SadieRose]

Verbalising is Good

"as darkness drew the curtains on the day, she stumbled on and up and into it's embrace, blinded to whatever lay beyond."


Does Pseud's Corner beckon??

*sits down in a trance and chews her pen*

xx.S

 

[wildsweetone]

Gauche,

Are you writing your first thought, or are you scrubbing your first thought and writing your second... then going back and rewriting?

The question I'd like an answer to is this: When do I stop re-writing? How can I tell that the first example is sufficient?

(Even there, the first question started as "At what point does complexity...")

Why did you change your initial start?

Are you trying to cater to a specific audience, thus not writing your own natural wording in the first place?

I guess if one is going to rewrite, then the time to stop is when you think you have achieved the best that you can possibly achieve with your work.

When you get that 'tingle' that tells you you've got it just right.

 

[A7inchPhildo]

"trudging homeward under the darkening skies of a penniless evening."

The waning dusk swallowed her as she rambled up the hill, pockets emptied.

"as darkness drew the curtains on the day, she stumbled on and up and into it's embrace, blinded to whatever lay beyond."

"She'd spent all her money and the evening wore on as she walked up the hill.." It's getting late she's going home and time is passing slowly."


I will take the last one or in the posts the first one. Saying that as a reader, not as a writer. I tend to get carried away with things my self.

Each example later is a great line for a inner meaning. I guess it all depends on what you are writing.

Poetry = Great! Lots of thought as to the meaning
Deep novel = Great! Some thought as to the real meaning
Story = fair surface value is important along with thought
wack attact jerk off tale = very poor No thought just lay it out

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Gauche,

Just because something's been done before doesn't make it hackneyed or bad.

Just because something has never been done before doesn't mean it'll be any good.

Many writers fall into the related trap of thinking "said" is a mundane, tedious, repetitious word in dialogue tags and try to replace it with imaginative adverbs. According to Stephen King and Elmore Leonard, that's not a good idea. In their opinion, trying to be creative and use something else just distracts readers who "see" but don't "read" the word, "said.".

There are only so many basic food items. How those items are prepared and presented can be as important as what those items are. The same is true of writing fiction.

Not only has every basic plot and character been used, just to make matters worse, there are only two great divisions within fiction. A story is either plot driven, or character driven. That is, they either focus on people or events.

At the end of a plot driven story, the character will be very much like the one found on the first page. However, a lot has usually happened in between. Action-adventure books are almost always plot driven.

In character driven stories, there may not be a lot of action, but the character will undergo changes. Coming-of-age novels are one example.

In your example, if going home is important to your plot or the development of your character, the event may need some extra ink. But if it's just a transition from one place to another, giving it "special" treatment might confuse readers. "He's not fooling me. If a great writer like Gauche spends that much time just getting her from A to B, it must be important. After all, he's no Proust of Joyce--thank God."

There's a time and a place for everything (I read that once in a good book, a best seller) and that applies to fiction. This may sound like heresy, but there's a time to "tell" and move things along and a time to "show" by explaining and elaborating.

Which, believe it or not, gets me around to your question, "When do I stop re-writing? How can I tell that the first example is sufficient?"

The only answer is the one Mike Angelo the ceiling painter kept giving the Pope, "Like, you know, when it's done, man." Friends, foes, editors, agents, reviewers, critique writers and your mother-in-law can all give their opinion, but only you, as the writer, the artist, can make the final decision. That's what makes writing a craft, an art, and not just an exercise in stylized grammar.

Rumple Foreskin

ps: Reading your examples:

"She'd spent all her money and the evening wore on as she walked up the hill.." It's getting late she's going home and time is passing slowly," and, "trudging homeward under the darkening skies of a penniless evening."

...got me to thinking about the Platters. (Hey, if Steve King can use these lyrics in "Hearts of Atlantis" they're good enough for this crew.

Heavenly shades of night are falling
It’s twilight time
Out of the mist your voice is calling
It’s twilight time
When purple-colored curtains mark the end of day
I’ll hear you, my dear, at twilight time

Deepening shadows gather splendor as day is done
Fingers of night will soon surrender the setting sun
I count the moments darling till you’re here with me
Together at last at twilight time

Here in the afterglow of day
We keep our rendezvous beneath the blue
Here in the same and sweet old way
I fall in love again as I did then

Deep in the dark your kiss will thrill me
Like days of old
Lighting the spark of love that fills me
With dreams untold
Each day I pray for evening just to be with you
Together at last at twilight time

 

[snooper]

Try:

The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,
And leaves the world to darkness and to me.
T Gray (1716-1771) Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

See Ecclesiastes Chapter 1 Verse 9, but don't worry about it. Just keep on writing.

 

[raphy]

Not only has every basic plot and character been used, just to make matters worse, there are only two great divisions within fiction. A story is either plot driven, or character driven. That is, they either focus on people or events.

At the end of a plot driven story, the character will be very much like the one found on the first page. However, a lot has usually happened in between. Action-adventure books are almost always plot driven.

In character driven stories, there may not be a lot of action, but the character will undergo changes. Coming-of-age novels are one example.

Unless you're J. Michael Straczynski who claims action is worthless without characters behind it, a theory I heartily subscribe to.....

But seriously, Rumple speaks wisely (as usual), and his food analogy reminded me of something I read whilst writing my NaNo novel. There's lots of different ways to make chilli, and every single person who makes it will make it tasting slightly different from another person - Of course, in the end, it's still all chilli, but that doesn't mean it isn't as enjoyable as the last chilli you ate.

 

[Guest]

Gauche, I tried. Anyway, this is not about you or writing smut or what-have-you. I think this is one of the best things I've ever read about story writing and only wish to share it. Bexx
------
From Steering the Craft: Exercises & Discussion on Story Writing for the Lone Navigator or the Mutinous Crew (by Ursula K. Le Guin)

A Discussion of Story

I define story as a narrative of events (external or psychological) which moves through time or implies the passage of time, and which involves change.

I define plot as a form of story which uses action as its mode usually in the form of conflict, and which closely and intricately connects one act to another, usually through a causal chain, ending in a climax.

Climax is one kind of pleasure; plot is one kind of story. A strong, shapely plot is a pleasure in itself. It can be reused generation after generation. It provides an armature for narrative that beginning writers may find invaluable.

But most serious modern fictions can’t be reduced to a plot, or retold without fatal loss except in their own words. The story is not in the plot but in the telling. It is the telling that moves.

Modernist manuals of writing often conflate story with conflict. This reductionism reflects a culture that inflates aggression and competition while cultivating ignorance of other behavioral options. No narrative of any complexity can be built on or reduced to a single element. Conflict is one kind of behavior. There are others, equally important in any human life, such as relating, finding, losing, bearing, discovering, parting, changing.

Change is the universal aspect of all these sources of story. Story is something moving, something happening, something or somebody changing.

We don’t have to have the rigid structure of a plot to tell a story, but we do need a focus. What is it about? Who is it about? This focus, explicit or implicit, is the center to which all the events, characters, sayings, doings of the story originally or finally refer. It may be or may not be a simple or a single thing or person or idea. We may not be able to define it. If it’s a complex subject it probably can’t be expressed in any words at all except all the words of the story. But it is there.

And a story equally needs what Jill Paton Walsh calls a trajectory — not necessarily an outline or synopsis to follow, but a movement to follow: the shape of a movement, whether it be straight ahead or roundabout or recurrent or eccentric, a movement which never ceases, from which no passage departs entirely or for long, and to which all passages contribute in some way. This trajectory is the shape of the story as a whole. It moves always to its end, and its end is implied in its beginning.

Crowding and leaping have to do with the focus and the trajectory. Everything that is crowded in to enrich the story sensually, intellectually, emotionally, should be in focus — part of the central focus of the story. And every leap should be along the trajectory, following the shape and movement of the whole.
------------

The above is from Le Guin's website: UKL

 

[wildsweetone]

Great quote Perdita, I'm glad you shared it, I've learned something from it.

Crowding and leaping have to do with the focus and the trajectory. Everything that is crowded in to enrich the story sensually, intellectually, emotionally, should be in focus — part of the central focus of the story. And every leap should be along the trajectory, following the shape and movement of the whole.

How much 'in focus' should the crowding be? Should every detail be spelled out?

Personally, I enjoy giving only a little information; I enjoy having a reader think and ask questions and maybe even re-read something.

There are several authors at Lit who 'crowd' their writing and I know full well I'm going to have to read the work several times before I understand it. Some, I know I'll never get the entire meaning of their intent.

 

[LorriLove]

Re: Verbalising is Good

"as darkness drew the curtains on the day, she stumbled on and up and into it's embrace, blinded to whatever lay beyond."

xx.S

that's lovely dear, but the average lit reader wants her shagged at least three times in that time span.

narrative is always long winded if you need to tell things as they are / were in any detail, and doing it in a shortened version can confuse folks almost as much as 50 word para's do. it's a fine line to tread, and you just have to write it to please yourself and fit the story gauche son. it may have all been done before, but not attached to your particular story line, so it's unique in that way.

 

[CharleyH]

In a couple of threads last year it was opined that everything that could be said (in a story) has been said. People meet people and they fuck. Tab a goes in slot b. There is nothing new under the sun.

This is all very well, but a story purely about what people feel or think, in my opinion, is inevitably going to be just as dull/unreadable. So between showing the reader these thoughts and reactions, you need mundane things to make a narrative.

This is the part which has to happen for there to be any thoughts/reactions at all. These are the things that have happened before and been told before in all manner of ways.

Ok. So we make a setting. We give reasons for something happening. Maybe to indicate mood. "She'd spent all her money and the evening wore on as she walked up the hill.." It's getting late she's going home and time is passing slowly.

But to me, it's dull.

Am I narrowing my audience?

The question I'd like an answer to is this: When do I stop re-writing? How can I tell that the first example is sufficient?

(Even there, the first question started as "At what point does complexity...")

Gauche

Since I just got here from the philosophy post:
Nothrope Frye stated: Nothing can be created ex nihilo
On the other hand, Andre Breton stated: True art cannot help but be revolutionary . . . its applicable if you think about it - there - got out my thought!

People meet and they fuck, but that isn't really too interesting to me, it's how they fuck and the milieu in which they fuck. Read plenty of laughable 'fuck my man pussy's' and well - I could go on - the list is unfortunately long . . . is it a turn on? Boring. What people feel and think is inherantly locked into writing, in my view via metaphor etc..

There is also the art of the tease? Does one just fuck without making someone want to fuck them? Or without wanting to fuck someone? Working women aside . . . hot - fast - furious - but a reader likes to know HOW you got there? What was the seduction. Even if just the words, "Your gorgeous, lets fuck." It happens. lol - sshh. But you have to look and see first - no?

Everything moves a plot forward even if the plot is sex. Mise en scene in a film for example. Nothing is there for no reason.

Yet sometimes? Who gives a fuck about the past . . . what's happening now? In the moment can be just, if not more so, POWERFUL if the goal is to get someone off. Why not just start with the moment. I could get into a whole, we only live in the now philosophy . . . but why not try it and see what happens? You'd only need a few words, "I saw, I attacked, I fucked. . . and came again" hmm sounds familiar. lol

And well - I think I went off topic - oh well - it was fun.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Personally, I enjoy giving only a little information; I enjoy having a reader think and ask questions and maybe even re-read something. WSO

WSO,

That seems to be Toni Morrison's current philosophy. And while I may disagree, I'll fight to the death for my right to disagree.

I haven't run into Ms Toni in the last few days (okay, make that in this life) so I'll ask you about this. One of the cardinal rules of fiction is don't throw the reader out of the story. Almost by definition, making, "a reader think and ask questions and maybe even re-read" would seem to almost force them out of the story. That may be great for many types of non-fiction, but not for fiction.

If that's an author's goal, why not follow the lead of P.D. James and Agatha Christie and write "who-done-its"?

Rumple Foreskin

 

[gauchecritic]

That may be great for many types of non-fiction, but not for fiction.

If that's an author's goal, why not follow the lead of P.D. James and Agatha Christie and write "who-done-its"?

Rumple Foreskin

Interesting point there Mr Skin. The reason I posted this thread was because of my latest story, a Valentine's Day entry "Abigail Slaughter" (link in sig.) which gets very poetic, with convoluted paragraphs and lines needing a certain amount of concentration.

It became a mystery (yet to be solved in feedback or PM) but the mystery is only there if you question a particular passage (which has been questioned in another thread) otherwise it's a straightforward glimpse at some people interacting in everyday life, sans-sex scene.

But the mytery is there if anyone is interested. PM me if you know what the mystery is (and it's not why did I write it at all) or if you have the answer to it. Don't forget to vote five for the story too.

THREAD HIJACK

What is the mystery in the story "Abigail Slaughter"?

What is the answer to that mystery?

(Doc. Mabeus is excluded from this contest because he has been provided with an extra clue which isn't in the story, having found the answer to the first question. In fact he instigated the first question)

Gauche

 

[Dirt Man]

What's New? Hebrews 13:8 pretty much says that there is nothing NEW under the sun. And after the billion, or maybe even trillions of people who have lived, and died on this planet that's probably more true than some of us wish to admit.

Ceasar said: "Vini, Vidi, Vinci," I came, I saw, I conquered.

As an author one of the first things we learn to edit out is the obvious cliches. And yet no matter what we write if nothing is new under the sun then what we write will be cliche.

However as we all know the author's voice stands out in every tale that he writes, and that's what makes the tale new, or old hat. I came, I saw, I conquered becomes the author's metaphore for a successful piece of their work. And he/she accomplishes this goal with his Voice by the way he/she writes, and the way he/she shows things in his/her stories.

IE an author with a great voice: in their story they use obvious cliches in dialog, to help the reader feel at home with their characters, but they will never do that outside of dialog because their writing voice doesn't speak in obvious cliche.

So basically, it comes down to what each author feels is right for their writing voice. IE I might write: "The walk home was always longer without money to pay for a Taxi, but it did give her more time to think."

My approach isn't really new, since nothing is new under the sun, it's just the way my voice portrays the scene. So I vini, vidi, vinci.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[gauchecritic]

Thanks Dirt.

Gauche

 

[Dirt Man]

Thanks Dirt.

Gauche

My pleasure.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[MathGirl]

That's what makes writing a craft, an art, and not just an exercise in stylized grammar.

Case in point: the deathless lines....

Measles make you jumpy,
Mumps can make you lumpy,
Chicken pox can make you jump and twitch.

Whoopin' cough can cool you,
The common cold can fool you,
But poison ivy Lord can make you itch.

MG

 

[SadieRose]

Clever Ploy

But the mytery is there if anyone is interested. PM me if you know what the mystery is (and it's not why did I write it at all) or if you have the answer to it. Don't forget to vote five for the story too.


Gauche

I have read this story twice now and the fact that I only gave it four in no way bears criticism for the writing style, only for the fact that it does feel very much like an appetiser for a larger body of work.

I think that the mystery lies in the play on each character's sensory abilities but will probably have to read again when awake. The constant reference to colours and sounds and flavours feels very much like a european art house movie whose name I have forgotten.

It feels as though your characters keep reaching out to touch something then drawing back, not sure what it was that they were reaching for.

In any case, I agree very much that a story should develop its characters steadily like a print in a darkroom, even when the aim is merely just sexual release. All the best sensual writing draws the reader into the lives of the participants and involves them to the degree that they too yearn for whatever the central character desires and attains.

Forgive me for rambling. I blame the red wine.

Sadie

 

[damppanties]

One of the cardinal rules of fiction is don't throw the reader out of the story. Almost by definition, making, "a reader think and ask questions and maybe even re-read" would seem to almost force them out of the story. That may be great for many types of non-fiction, but not for fiction.

If that's an author's goal, why not follow the lead of P.D. James and Agatha Christie and write "who-done-its"?

Rumple Foreskin

I don't give much information in my stories either (and am a big fan of WSO's stories.) My take on this -

IMO, making 'a reader think and ask questions and maybe even re-read' is involving him into your story to the greatest extent. They are so involved in the story that even a small inconsistency is noticable to them whereas if someone was just reading your written, crowded words, they'd be hand-held throughout the tour of your story. According to me, giving a reader something more than the words you have written in a story is an experience worth giving.

I loved gauche's story for the same reason. It was like it was a glimpse of something but not quite whole and you desperately wanted the gaps to be filled. That's great writing. I can't say I understood the whole of it in the first read. There are so many whys I want answered... which just makes it impossible to forget it.

 

[Guest]

Case in point: the deathless lines....

Measles make you jumpy,
Mumps can make you lumpy,
Chicken pox can make you jump and twitch.

Whoopin' cough can cool you,
The common cold can fool you,
But poison ivy Lord can make you itch.

MG

You going to need an ocean
Of calamine lotion

Tears pour down my cheeks.

 

[SadieRose]

You going to need an ocean
Of calamine lotion

Tears pour down my cheeks.

THANK YOU!!!

That was the songline that was rolling around in my head and I couldn't remember the words..


"Poison Iv-eh-eh-eh-eh-eh..."


*Many Hugs*


Sadie.xx