Writer thread: Form vs. content

[Tom Collins]

*steps in...looks around nervously to see if anyone's holding rotten produce...clears throat*

Hey y'all. Ummm...I'd just like to say that it can only help to have information on writing, but a person can know every nuance of the craft and still not be capable of string an interesting sentence together.

*steps back out, quietly shutting door behind self*

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I'm gonna go get some monkey-lovin' over there with Jammies, because I write intuitively. It is not a calculated process. It doesn't involve much planning.

One of the books we talk about here on the forum, Stephen King's "On Writing" depicts writing as more of an unearthing, a discovering, a revealing of a story a bit at a time. Sometimes, when things are really flying, I feel like I'm channeling, not writing.

So, if you think about it, you do agree with me, as does Stephen King. When things are really flying, you're not writing, you're channelling. He's doing intellectual archaeology. Both are nicer, less offensive terms than "one step up from monkeys typing randomly", but they mean the same: today you're channelling properly, you write a great story. You don't know how or why, but it is great. The following day the channels will be a little clogged, so you keep on typing, hoping for something to click. That's the problem with archaeology; one very rarely strikes gold unless one knows where to dig.

And it's your job to show writers the errors of their ways, Lauren? You assume that those writers who are enjoying telling their tales and turning out their mass of paperbacks are doing something they shouldn't... if that isn't a superior position, I don't know what is.

My job? No, it isn't. An interesting thread was started, with an interesting question. I answered that question with my opinion. Do you feel bullied by that? That's not my problem, I'm sorry.

You assume that I assume that those writers who are enjoying telling their tales and turning out their masses of paperbacks are doing something they shouldn't. I assume nothing of that sort, though. I'm glad there are writers enjoying themselves, and if they're turning out masses of paperbacks, the more power to them. What I say and will continue to say is that there are many authors - everywhere, but for the case in point, here - that aren't doing something they should. Again, do you feel bullied by that opinion? Then don't do it!

If a writer is meant to develop, a writer WILL develop. In his/her own way and time.

That's a great (nice, polite) way of saying "thumbs-up-your-asses and one day a publisher will discover you". When time comes for this writer to develop, do you think the odds of it happening because he or she will start seeing his or her strengths and understanding which elements of writing are advancing his or her stories are greater or smaller than it happening because he or she will one day start channelling a better writer?

If you have the opportunity PRESENTED to you to mentor a fellow writer, I say, take it! It sounds like you would be fantastic at it... but preaching this stuff to the masses? It doesn't seem like it helps anyone, including you...

Well, it certainly doesn't help me - look at the reactions - but I guarantee that next time Jammies, for example, sits down to write, no matter how pissed off she is, she'll give even a passing thought to structure and form. And that's a step in the right direction.

soapboxes are ok for a while, but eventually, you just gotta step off and actually practice what you preach, kwim?

And I don't?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

As for writing, you get better by practicing. You write, do different types of stories, get feedback from editors or prereaders, make corrections and try to improve (not to mention reading other's stories). It touches on a more structured approach, but is certainly not the mind-numbing exercise in intellectualism you propose.

To quote Cant, What the fuck are you talking about? What mind-numbing exercise in intellectualism am I proposing? Is there any money in it?

If you want to write that way, feel free. If you're going to attack my friends (and in some ways, me) for not ascribing to your particular approach...well, that's what the ignore button is for.

I'm sorry, but did I attack anyone? I remember receiving some insults from you (which I ignored) and some back-handed comments from Jammies and Selena, but if you think I attacked anyone, you're so way off that it's not even funny.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

He's doing intellectual archaeology. Both are nicer, less offensive terms than "one step up from monkeys typing randomly", but they mean the same: today you're channelling properly, you write a great story. You don't know how or why, but it is great. The following day the channels will be a little clogged, so you keep on typing, hoping for something to click. That's the problem with archaeology; one very rarely strikes gold unless one knows where to dig.

No, it's not intellectual archaeology... it's intuitive. Something you clearly don't understand and don't appreciate or value. That's fine. But in the scheme of things, I'd rather be a monkey than your version of "writer." Your views really aren't that far from the "Pritchard Scale" example from Dead Poet's actually... as if art, and the making of art, could be reduced to something so simple as just knowing the rules and following them. Writing-by-numbers.

What I say and will continue to say is that there are many authors - everywhere, but for the case in point, here - that aren't doing something they should. Again, do you feel bullied by that opinion? Then don't do it!

Who are you to say anyone should or shouldn't be doing anything, I wonder? You claimed that you held no superior position, and yet you are sitting in judgment about what should or shouldn't be done by writers here and everywhere? Hm. Bit of a paradox there. I don't feel bullied or threatened by your view... it just makes me sad.

When time comes for this writer to develop, do you think the odds of it happening because he or she will start seeing his or her strengths and understanding which elements of writing are advancing his or her stories are greater or smaller than it happening because he or she will one day start channelling a better writer?

I think writing itself is its own teacher, and if he/she has the true spark of a writer in them, nothing is going to stop them from becoming what they need to be.

And I don't?

Not that I've seen. *shrug*

 

[Lauren Hynde]

No, it's not intellectual archaeology... it's intuitive. Something you clearly don't understand and don't appreciate or value. That's fine. But in the scheme of things, I'd rather be a monkey than your version of "writer." Your views really aren't that far from the "Pritchard Scale" example from Dead Poet's actually... as if art, and the making of art, could be reduced to something so simple as just knowing the rules and following them. Writing-by-numbers.

You clearly need to re-read this thread, if that's your impression of my views. That's all there is to say.

Who are you to say anyone should or shouldn't be doing anything, I wonder?

I'm a reader. I have an opinion. I was asked. I answered.

I think writing itself is its own teacher, and if he/she has the true spark of a writer in them, nothing is going to stop them from becoming what they need to be.

Cool.

Not that I've seen. *shrug*

And is that my fault?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You clearly need to re-read this thread, if that's your impression of my views. That's all there is to say.

perhaps you should re-read the responses to your views... because I think that's not just my impression... perhaps what you are trying to say isn't quite coming across as you intended?

I'm a reader. I have an opinion. I was asked. I answered.

Sure, we all have opinions... and I would venture to say that you could speak for yourself... but for all writers, and what all writers should or shouldn't be doing? Just wondering where that authority came from??

And is that my fault?

Perhaps... as Jammies said, you don't post much here... lots of poems, just a few stories. Writers write. I hear you talking a lot about writing. But there's not much writing going on, at least, in what you post on Lit...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

perhaps you should re-read the responses to your views... because I think that's not just my impression... perhaps what you are trying to say isn't quite coming across as you intended?

Perhaps I am wrong in writing in an open forum as if all the people who read it knew what they're talking about, but since this thread was dedicated to writing instead of underwear, I decided to risk it. Obviously a poor judgement call.

The responses to my views were very positive and civilised: Shang, Cant, Gauche, Liar, agreeing in some things, disagreeing on others, they all understood the point and debated writing. There were also responses from Jammies, which can be surmised by calling me pretentious with no reference to writing, from S-Des, which are comprised mostly of a comparison to music that shows he either didn't read or didn't understand my post to Gauche where I said what I believe are the concepts of form and content being discussed in this thread, and from you, which other than comparing my views to something out of a movie and which shows that you haven't read my posts - seeing as I never said a single word about the end result, but only about method and evolution - adds nothing to the discussion of writing or Form vs. Content.

Sure, we all have opinions... and I would venture to say that you could speak for yourself... but for all writers, and what all writers should or shouldn't be doing? Just wondering where that authority came from??

Apparently, from you. You obviously think so highly of my opinion that you think all I write down must be a gold rule.

I keep forgetting to say "In my opinion". I assume people will know that what I write is my opinion. Where do I get off? My anonymous commentator has it wrong: I am both pretentious and weird.

Perhaps... as Jammies said, you don't post much here... lots of poems, just a few stories. Writers write. I hear you talking a lot about writing. But there's not much writing going on, at least, in what you post on Lit...

Jammies said I don't post at all. I write plenty. Can't force you to read it, though. You will if you want to.

What does that have to do with the validity of anyone's opinions on writing is still a mystery to me. In any case, nice form and top-notch content.

 

[kendo1]

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.

Now let's see.
16 out of 21 stories submitted have an H.
Pick one at random, Interludes - 4.63. not bad.

 

[Guest]

 

[past_perfect]

I don't see a contradiction here. My definition of form is simpler though: Form is the vehicle or carrier of function and intent.
The only difference in approach is the emphasis on either intuitive cohesion or deliberate construction, be that premeditated or post-edited. They are neither mutually exclusive nor subject to any limitations other than skill, experience and personal predilections. Without the additional talent to create a definite resonance in your audience, they are both equally useless.

I wish I could re-phrase that to avoid sounding like a pompous prick, but I don't want to.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm done with this thread--tears of frustration twice in one day is twice too often.

I, too, am withdrawing... no tears, but I'm delirious with flu... that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! Without which, I'd be writing, actually, instead of goofing off in a thread talking about writing... ah, the irony...

 

[kendo1]

Boobies!

 

[NoJo]

Boobies!

That's fighting talk, matey. Outside. Now.

 

[kendo1]

That's content.
Now form...
Preferably roundish.

 

[NoJo]

That's content.
Now form...
Preferably roundish.

I'm more of a cubist myself.

 

[kendo1]

*end of threadjack*

Seriously, I think the content defines which form you use.

Surely the story and characters come first and then the style/form you use follows on.

 

[gauchecritic]

I don't see a contradiction here. My definition of form is simpler though: Form is the vehicle or carrier of function and intent.
The only difference in approach is the emphasis on either intuitive cohesion or deliberate construction, be that premeditated or post-edited. They are neither mutually exclusive nor subject to any limitations other than skill, experience and personal predilections. Without the additional talent to create a definite resonance in your audience, they are both equally useless.

I wish I could re-phrase that to avoid sounding like a pompous prick, but I don't want to.

READ THE ABOVE. (applause) [pomposity is good too{promotes debate}]

What is everyone on their high horse for? (high horse like a metaphor for being above the common scum not meaning Shanglan who is more or less just a horse that writes and is possibly tall).

We write how we write. Some need to plan, some have planned only in their head, some adapt as they see the plan evolve whilst writing but we ALL write in exactly the same way. We ALL have content, therefore we all utilise form. There isn't any other way.

On the other hand arguement and slaps in the face are good too (along with those that dare pomposity) because, whether we change our way or not (I've heard that The Way of Mrs Cosmopilite is a good way (try learning that lesson you snobs)) our way is valid because there can be only one result. A story.

If you're authoring random sentences then there is nothing here for you. Go back to your homes. Show's over. Nothing to see here.

Arguements and slaps in the face: They make you think.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren, in your posts, you expressed satisfaction that your "slap in the face" got a reaction. And yet when I reacted to your second slap in the face, you chose to get miffed and defensive.

Jammies, believe me, I haven't been miffed at any time while reading or writing anything in this thread. You can say I got defensive when you tried to pull my own writing into it, but only to point out it exists.

Still, I am satisfied that you reacted - not at the tears of frustration, of course, and I apologise for those - not once, but twice. As I said to Selena, I guarantee that because of this thread, the next time you sit down to write, you will think a little bit more than you did before about what you are going to write and what will be effects in the story of choosing one formal element over another. And you're going to do it whether you want to or not. "It's inevitable for a writer to reflect on what they write", Liar said.

I am dismissive and contemptuous of any process of that doesn't involve having a clue about what you're doing next, why, or to what end. That's my prerogative and I'm not going to apologise for it. That's a long, long way off from being dismissive and contemptuous of anything that doesn't "analyse every word to its components". If your process involves having a clue about every word, all the better for you and mostly for your readers, though.


On a totally unrelated matter, I am really sorry about your pain.
I know it's not an easy edge to be on - I've been on it every day since last November. I could use it to justify being bitchy and contemptuous, but fuck it. I'm sure I'd be the same without the massive dosages of cortisone.

 

[rgraham666]

I guarantee that because of this thread, the next time you sit down to write, you will think a little bit more than you did before about what you are going to write and what will be effects in the story of choosing one formal element over another.

No, I'm not.

Mostly because I wouldn't recognise a formal element if I stepped in a pile of it.

My only concern will be telling the story, transmitting the actions and emotions of it to the readers.

 

[Guest]

 

[gauchecritic]

but fuck it. I'm sure I'd be the same without the massive dosages of cortisone.

Cortizone? Ejaculate (spunk) has loads of cortizone. Why do you think porn actresses rub it into their breasts? (promotes tissue growth along with the massage action)

But I digress.

 

[NoJo]

Cortizone? Ejaculate (spunk) has loads of cortizone. Why do you think porn actresses rub it into their breasts? (promotes tissue growth along with the massage action)

But I digress.

No, I think everyone except you has been digressing on this thread.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks for starting the thread, Charley. I enjoyed the literary debate. It's been a long day and I'm not at my brightest, so I don't really know how to say the rest of what's on my mind. I'm passionate about this topic, but I'm too ashamed of what's been said by now to have the heart to argue it. I think it's time to go read Lyrical Ballads.

 

[NoJo]

In a way it's good to see it generating so much emotion.

My take: Learn the rules of narrative form, then break them, then make them up.

 

[kendo1]

In a way it's good to see it generating so much emotion.

My take: Learn the rules of narrative form, then break them, then make them up.

True.
It does help to know what you are doing, to learn from others mistakes.
Why repeat them?