Writer thread: Form vs. content

[CharleyH]

I happened to be thinking today, not a really common thing , but Andre Bazin popped into me head.

In regards to film he discusses how form and content are inseperable, and I wondered how many people agree or disagee with this sentiment when it comes to writing sex stories and also wondered why or why not?

 

[rgraham666]

I certainly can't separate them. And don't see any reason to try.

You need both. Without content, you have no story. Without form, you can't tell the story.

 

[CharleyH]

I certainly can't separate them. And don't see any reason to try.

You need both. Without content, you have no story. Without form, you can't tell the story.

So, how does your form meet your own content in your writing, RG?

And thanks for your post.

 

[cantdog]

A rhapsodic first-person sex story is a different experience from a calculated and devious seduction story; a farcical romp has a different impact from a novel. But you could say the same for, um, non-sex stories, whatever you call those.

 

[rgraham666]

So, how does your form meet your own content in your writing, RG?

And thanks for your post.

I never stop to think about it, Charley. I regard it as a centipede's dilemma.

If I think about how I do it, I won't be able to do it. Writing is pretty much an unconscious action for me.

 

[cantdog]

I choose my characters differently to suit the form. For instance, the protag in a farce must be someone the readers can like, someone accessible. They won't follow her adventures and sympathize with her predicaments otherwise.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I happened to be thinking today, not a really common thing , but Andre Bazin popped into me head.

In regards to film he discusses how form and content are inseperable, and I wondered how many people agree or disagee with this sentiment when it comes to writing sex stories and also wondered why or why not?

This is one of the fundamental elements of writing, in my opinion, and if people thought about it even a little bit, we wouldn't have so many threads asking about favoured POVs, verbal times, etc.

Each story (the content) needs a very specific voice to be told properly, a very specific perspective, a very specific time, a very specific flow. These are not random choices that one can change later on with "search&replace". When you vary one of these elements, you're going to tell a different story, or you're going to tell the same story in the wrong way.

This is why people bad-mouth some POVs, for example. Because they think form is random and interchangeable and applicable to every story. That's bullshit. There is one story out there that has to be told in 2nd person POV.

 

[CharleyH]

A rhapsodic first-person sex story is a different experience from a calculated and devious seduction story; a farcical romp has a different impact from a novel. But you could say the same for, um, non-sex stories, whatever you call those.

Since we are on a sex forum, I ask in relation to stories we write erotically, yet the same certainly holds for all genres of literature. The question across the board is whether the form of your story reflects the content of it.

 

[R. Richard]

Each story (the content) needs a very specific voice to be told properly, a very specific perspective, a very specific time, a very specific flow. These are not random choices that one can change later on with "search&replace". When you vary one of these elements, you're going to tell a different story, or you're going to tell the same story in the wrong way.

I would disagee to some extent. I collect 50s, 60s music and some later stuff. I tried to find a song, "Please Come To Boston" by Dave Loggins. The song is a sort of dialog between Loggins and his girlfriend, although only Loggins sings. What I finally found is the same song by Joan Baez. It is the same dialog, only now Joan sings the boyfriend part, just as Dave and the girlfriend part. It works, even though the POV has been reversed.

 

[CharleyH]

I never stop to think about it, Charley. I regard it as a centipede's dilemma.

If I think about how I do it, I won't be able to do it. Writing is pretty much an unconscious action for me.

But centipedes have a hundred choices? No offence, but on one end you tell me form and content are the same and here in this post you tell me quite the opposite. I simply wish to discuss how you think an example of your own written content works with your form?

 

[BlackShanglan]

This is one of the fundamental elements of writing, in my opinion, and if people thought about it even a little bit, we wouldn't have so many threads asking about favoured POVs, verbal times, etc.

Each story (the content) needs a very specific voice to be told properly, a very specific perspective, a very specific time, a very specific flow. These are not random choices that one can change later on with "search&replace". When you vary one of these elements, you're going to tell a different story, or you're going to tell the same story in the wrong way.

This is why people bad-mouth some POVs, for example. Because they think form is random and interchangeable and applicable to every story. That's bullshit. There is one story out there that has to be told in 2nd person POV.

Amen! I agree with the vital connection between form and content, and I wholeheartedly agree with Lauren's take on structural elements. There's nothing that can be done that never should be. The question should not be "Should I ever?" but "What effect will this have?" I think that's true of pretty much every possible part of writing.

I also enjoy the way that form can change meaning. "Found" poems I think are a good example - pieces of prose or other words taken from another source and arranged as poetry. It's an unusual art form, but when it's done very well it does, I think, rise to art, and it really gets at the heart of what form can do to meaning. Film adaptations of novels or plays have similarly interesting insights to offer, as do plays when read as opposed to being seen. It's amazing how much difference one can see in exactly the same lines.

Shanglan

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I would disagee to some extent. I collect 50s, 60s music and some later stuff. I tried to find a song, "Please Come To Boston" by Dave Loggins. The song is a sort of dialog between Loggins and his girlfriend, although only Loggins sings. What I finally found is the same song by Joan Baez. It is the same dialog, only now Joan sings the boyfriend part, just as Dave and the girlfriend part. It works, even though the POV has been reversed.

It's the same dialogue, it's a different story.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I would disagee to some extent. I collect 50s, 60s music and some later stuff. I tried to find a song, "Please Come To Boston" by Dave Loggins. The song is a sort of dialog between Loggins and his girlfriend, although only Loggins sings. What I finally found is the same song by Joan Baez. It is the same dialog, only now Joan sings the boyfriend part, just as Dave and the girlfriend part. It works, even though the POV has been reversed.

I think the question is not whether it works as all, but whether it has precisely the same effect. One of my favorite songs is the Pogues' "I'm a Man You Don't Meet Every Day." It's sung by a female singer with beautiful voice, and it certainly works. I'd argue that it works differently, however, to having Shane sing it. It's a great song as it is and would probably be quite good with a male singer as well, but it would be different.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

There's nothing that can be done that never should be. The question should not be "Should I ever?" but "What effect will this have?" I think that's true of pretty much every possible part of writing.

That's exactly it, Shang. I cannot begin to understand people who write, as Rob put it, without stopping to thinking about it. Every word we put down on paper, every structural element, should be a deliberate choice with a deliberate purpose. Otherwise, it's not writing. It's only a step up from monkeys typing randomly.

 

[CharleyH]

I choose my characters differently to suit the form. For instance, the protag in a farce must be someone the readers can like, someone accessible. They won't follow her adventures and sympathize with her predicaments otherwise.

So, how does your form fit your emphasis on your different characters? We all can talk about character, but what happened to form?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I simply wish to discuss how you think an example of your own written content works with your form?

I'll field that one even though it's not addressed to me, because it gives me a chance to talk about Carson. He told me once that my story "Will" would be unreadable from any point of view but the one chosen, and I think he's right (although some may still find it unreadable). It's a story about an intelligent horse who falls in love with her rider, and it's told from her point of view. From that POV, I can show her motivations, feelings, and developing thoughts about humanity. Without it, I don't think the reader could ever really see her as an intelligent person or engage with her emotions. It's much the same with Sewell's Black Beauty. With the horse talking, it's the life story of an engaging person. From the third person talking about the horse, it would just be some lady lecturing us on animal cruelty.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

But centipedes have a hundred choices? No offence, but on one end you tell me form and content are the same and here in this post you tell me quite the opposite. I simply wish to discuss how you think an example of your own written content works with your form?

The centipede's dilemma, Charley, is that he could only walk as long as he didn't think about it. Running a hundred legs was too complex for the conscious mind.

It's much the same with writing, for me. If I try to make it a conscious thing, I can't do it. Writing is too complex to think about.

I'm also at a severe disadvantage here as I don't have the education to speak about what I do.

I can write stories, I can't deconstruct them.

 

[CharleyH]

This is one of the fundamental elements of writing, in my opinion, and if people thought about it even a little bit, we wouldn't have so many threads asking about favoured POVs, verbal times, etc.

Each story (the content) needs a very specific voice to be told properly, a very specific perspective, a very specific time, a very specific flow. These are not random choices that one can change later on with "search&replace". When you vary one of these elements, you're going to tell a different story, or you're going to tell the same story in the wrong way.

This is why people bad-mouth some POVs, for example. Because they think form is random and interchangeable and applicable to every story. That's bullshit. There is one story out there that has to be told in 2nd person POV.

well - I never disagree with you - swoon!

 

[cantdog]

So, how does your form fit your emphasis on your different characters? We all can talk about character, but what happened to form?

What happened to form? I started with it.

 

[CharleyH]

Amen! I agree with the vital connection between form and content, and I wholeheartedly agree with Lauren's take on structural elements. There's nothing that can be done that never should be. The question should not be "Should I ever?" but "What effect will this have?" I think that's true of pretty much every possible part of writing.

I also enjoy the way that form can change meaning. "Found" poems I think are a good example - pieces of prose or other words taken from another source and arranged as poetry. It's an unusual art form, but when it's done very well it does, I think, rise to art, and it really gets at the heart of what form can do to meaning. Film adaptations of novels or plays have similarly interesting insights to offer, as do plays when read as opposed to being seen. It's amazing how much difference one can see in exactly the same lines.

Shanglan

Furthermore, I never disagree with you either. Thanks Shang.

 

[CharleyH]

I'll field that one even though it's not addressed to me, because it gives me a chance to talk about Carson. He told me once that my story "Will" would be unreadable from any point of view but the one chosen, and I think he's right (although some may still find it unreadable). It's a story about an intelligent horse who falls in love with her rider, and it's told from her point of view. From that POV, I can show her motivations, feelings, and developing thoughts about humanity. Without it, I don't think the reader could ever really see her as an intelligent person or engage with her emotions. It's much the same with Sewell's Black Beauty. With the horse talking, it's the life story of an engaging person. From the third person talking about the horse, it would just be some lady lecturing us on animal cruelty.

Shanglan

Its not one of yours I have read (shamefully) I am immediately interested, though. Thank you. I would enjoy taking you a bit deeper into your form, though? Beyond the first person.

 

[scriptordelecto]

I have to agree with Shang. If you tell a story from a different angle, it isn't really the same story.

A good example of this is a show I saw recently that chronicled one day from three different characters' points of view. Although the structure of the day remained elementally the same, the perceptions and experiences that each character derived from the events of the day made the stories very different.

If the show had followed its more traditional form, and showed only one character, the effect would have been completely lost.

 

[Honey123]

See, this is why I believe my writing is horrendus. I don't think about it. I just do it. And when I read all the wonderful works by all of you wonderful authors, I think..OMG, maybe I should think about it...and guess what? I'm stuck...I've been stuck ever since I started to think about.

I don't know much about form and content ~ hell, I don't know much about sex or writing stories...I just did what came into my mind.

When I read threads like this, I realize I can't write. I would love direction...but I don't even have time for that.

 

[CharleyH]

What happened to form? I started with it.

Farce is genre - what form does it take? It must, as a genre, take at the very least, a conventional one? If so? It also has generic elements like the western? How does your writing content suit the genre, then? Or better yet? How does your writing change it?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Farce is a genre, which is content, not form. characters are content, not form. So, the question of where is form in all this is very valid, unless "farce" were a term sufficient to include a set of structural formal elements without which it could not exist, in which case, farce-writing wouldn't be random typing by monkeys, but it would be colouring within the lines by numbers.