Writing: Weaknesses

[Rumple Foreskin]

Dialogue. I don't speak much IRL and it shows in my character's dialogue.

Happy endings. I can write without them, but I rarely do.

I'm a bit on the wordy side too.

Stella once mentioned that my stories all seem to have happy endings. I said it wasn't true, that at least three of my thirty-three Lit stories don't have HEA endings.

Colly, please smartin' up this chump, what's IRL?

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[BlackShanglan]

Dialogue. I don't speak much IRL and it shows in my character's dialogue.

One may, I assume, beg to differ?

Happy endings. I can write without them, but I rarely do.

I have this problem too. I know that I often crave a good ending for the characters, but that at times it leads to me writing - as one keen-eyed reader put it - "with a safety net." Tough one. Sometimes I think that the themes of the story really require a "happy" ending, or a conclusion that indicates that the tensions can be resolved. But even when I know it's right to have such an ending, I mistrust myself.

One thing I've learned but still have a great deal of difficulty solving is that happy endings seem to me to work when they arise from the plot tensions and characters in an intelligible way that ... well, to put it not very usefully, "means something." That is, what I don't like about some "happy endings" is that they are happy because someone wants them to be happy, not because that is a way in which the tensions of the plot and characters would reasonably work themselves out. I think that this is the key thing that sometimes makes happy endings bad.

For instance, I thought the ending of "Kate and Leopold" a silly ending. The characters - a modern 20th century woman and a man from the late 1800's - had substantial and very serious differences in how they saw the world, and the film simply wasn't up to figuring out how to resolve them. Thus, we have a hasty "love is everything" ending in which the lead female leaps into his world with no indication of how either will resolve the personal, social, and financial problems set up during the rest of the movie, and yet we're meant to feel satisfied with a fairy tale happy ending.

On the other hand, "The Princess Bride" has a happy ending that works. It works (in my opinion) because it takes the tensions of plot and character - trust, revenge, dedication, faith - and brings them all to a higher pitch as the movie draws to a close. It's a happy ending not because it ignores the tensions of the early parts of the movie, but because it builds from them and brings them to a satisfyng conclusion. That, I think, is the right kind of happy ending; I just happen at the moment to be completely stuck on how one of my pieces can possibly do that "drawing together theme, plot, and characterization in a satisfying and powerful fashion that upholds the major motifs" thing. It's a bit tricky, this authoring business.

That said, I think that unhappy endings can also be wrong if they don't do that plot/theme/character confluence thing. The movie "Clerks," of which I am very fond, originally had an extra few minutes of ending that turned it into a grim tragedy. The final scene was - I think rightly - cut. It had an interesting effect of its own, but on the whole it was gratuitous and did not significantly advance the ideas of the rest of the film. I think to me that that is at least becoming my evolving idea of a bad ending - one that is there for the wrong reasons, and that is not rooted in the action and characterization of the work as a whole. When an ending feels right, it's part of everything up to that moment. Thus, I suppose, Todorov's argument that a good ending "repeats" some key element of the beginning; it's part of the beginning.

I'm glad that in the past year I've gotten a more clear structural and theoretical idea of what an ending should be. It has helped me immensely in realizing where flaws in my works are coming from, and why re-writing the last scene a dozen times sometimes won't work - i.e., when it's the setup and the main body of the work that is failing to create and sustain interesting themes and characterization that could ever be brought to a climax in a strong conclusion. It's just the practical application of this theory in creating said tensions and conclusions that I find a real sod.

Shanglan

 

[matriarch]

Does never having the fucking time to write count as a weakness? Now that I have the time (well, sort of) because it's Christmas break, I have a nice case of writer's block. Ugh. I haven't written for this site since April and I'm beginning to wonder if I ever will again. What a mess.

Damn it. Now, I'm all pissed off. I'm gonna' go find the strengths thread.

Ditto.
I have more than enough time.....I just can't get myself motivated. I need so many kicks up the arse, its just not possible.

I seem to work better if I have a strict deadline. The best piece I ever wrote (on my own, not with another writer), was Heather's Baptism , my entry for the Rainy Day Challenge. I HAD to finish it, by a certain date/time (I was the instigator, I couldn't not take part), and in the end, sat down, and wrote the whole thing in 2 hours!! Never done that in my life before. But it worked and I was really, really pleased with it. So, apparently, were my readers.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

In Real Life

Bless you, Jammie. Now that you've, literally, spelled it out, that seems so obvious.

Shang: Something tells me HEA endings are an especially strong tendency among porn/erotic short stories, with the possible exception of Erotic Horror.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[BlackShanglan]

Being too literary. I need to be reminded of that on a regular basis (thanks Og ). I’m pulling my hair trying to figure out how to tone it down and reach a wider audience. At the moment it comes out like that naturally and I’m not sure how to deal with it (structure? vocabulary?). I need to unlearn some of the things I was taught.

Or possibly accept that you are speaking to a more limited audience. Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "literary," but if it's a sense that your vocabulary and style might be too formal or dense for some readers, it's worth weighing the gains and losses. I know that my style doesn't suit everyone or possibly anyone, but I am pleased with a story when it (finally) meets my own standards. I recognize that my standards don't suit everyone, but I find that if I am honest with myself and don't accept any excuses, I can create works that please me deeply.

Punctuation. I need to keep an eye out for it always and still have to read my stories out loud to double check it and correct the rhythm.

I think that reading out loud is an excellent habit to get into - but then I like poetry, which gains immensely from that. I have read one author, I forget whom, who suggestd that there is a danger in reading out loud as well; when one reads out loud, one adds the emotional nuances in one's head and might not realize if they don't wholly come out in the words. That's an interesting point, but one I don't entirely know how to correct. I suppose that's what editors are for.

Poetic license. I allow myself a lot, perhaps too much, taking words slightly out of context to create an image (sensations become tousled, a word that should be applied to a water element might be applied to an air element, etc.). I do that voluntarily but realise now that it might throw off the reader slightly.

I'm smiling because here and above, you sound very much like someone to whom the elements of poetry - rhythm, image, surprising inventiveness in language - are important, and that's something I always enjoy seeing. I hope that you keep with your habit of using language in distinctive and unusual ways. Eliot wrote that one must force or disjoint language, if necessary, in order to give it new vitality and meaning, and I think him right. I'd much rather see a description of the tousled, muzzled thoughts of a half-woken narrator than hear about his sapphire eyes and chiselled features, phrases now so well worn as to have lost all possible interest for the reader.

Length. This one used to be my principal weakness. I added too much details, what should have been a 3000 words story easily became a 10 000 words story. It seems to be getting under control slowly as I pick up confidence in my pen but I still have to ask myself often whether details I’ve put in are really necessary.

I'm guilty of this as well. Nearly all of my revision is cutting and trimming. That said, it can work for you. Now I let myself sprawl on the first draft, knowing that the purpose of successive following drafts will be to go to the places where I threw down four or five sloppy and imprecise descriptors and tighten them to the one or two that will convey the feeling with power. That's fine and careful work, and I found that for me, at least, it's a different sort of writing than the broad-scale drafting where I get the plot elements and chief events into place. Once I have that framework up, then I have time for the part I really think I enjoy best - the fine-tuning of individual lines word by word and phrase by phrase. That process can go on for a very long time; in fact, I only have three stories posted in which I would call it complete.

Relying on the reader’s will to suspend his belief and follow my lead blindly. I could make my plots tighter, put a little more work into the reason for events happening, or characters behaving, a certain way, close all the other possibilities. Is it laziness on my part?

I think it a very good sign that you ask the question. To me, that is the counterbalance vital to knowing for whom one writes; one cannot use it as an excuse. I know that not everyone will like what I write, but I must also be rigorous with myself and know when I am the problem and not the reader. I very much like your view of structure, by the way, and I think that your focus on it says very promising things about your abilities. That question of structure is one to which the great writers of the ages return again and again; it is perhaps "the" question of all writing, and I would suggest probably the real question all of us on the "plot problems" cruise liner are struggling to address. Anyone can assemble a group of events that is technically a plot; the hard part is creating a sense that those are the only events that could have occurred, or that they are the ones that must have occurred given who was involved, or that they are the events that are the most important things one could say about these people and these ideas. I think you sum that up very nicely in your last paragraph.

Most pleased to meet you.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Dicipline. Writing takes time, and there's always something on TV.

Descriptions. I either get too wordy, or I get completely stuck.

Mood consistency. If I write a serious piece or passsage, I might accidentally trow in a silly pun. or the other way around, I can stray into sociorealistic drama mode when I'm supposed to write a comedy.

 

[Boota]

Dyslexia. I am slightly dyslexic, and I tend to leave words, or letters out, and it is hell for me to try to find them. My brain automatically puts the missing word, or letter in as I read it over, and over, and over. It's only when it is submitted that I tend to notice it.

My brother is dyslexic, too. He just bought himself a t-shirt that says, "I put the 'sexy' in dyslexia".

My weaknesses are more technical, and fortunately those are the easiest problems to fix. I've learned a lot since my first novel came out, so my new stuff is much better in that regard, but I still find myself running to check on things like the correct use of possessives and things of that nature. If I had an editor they would drill the correct methods into me, I'm sure.

I'm generally happy with the other elements of my writing and I'm content to let those aspects develop on their own.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I don't have too many complaints with myself. I embrace my limitations

I'm very fussy with words and where they are placed. I used "cunny" for the first time in a recent story, and had to stop myself from mentally cringing. Maybe it gets better with time?

Not planning ahead or at all. Each chapter writes itself. I'm just as suprised as the reader at the unfolding twists. Makes writing the next chapter a challenge

Words that go awol. A lot of times I miss out a word in a sentence, often a crucial one. It's part of the "keep the readers guessing" plan

The killer - I've got the paragraph sentences down to half-paragraph sentences, and counting. And starting a sentence with "he" or "she".

I don't count bad spelling or punctuation as a weakness, as they are easily fixed with the help of others.

I'm working on them, but I don't let it get in the way of writing.

 

[MichelleLovesTo]

For WHO the Bell Tolls

Grammar/punctuation. It limits me when I change my words because I'm not sure if my first choice is "correct."

 

[simulacre]

Most pleased to meet you.

Shanglan

Shanglan the pleasure is all mine! Your post reminds me that we all have the strengths of our weaknesses and vice-versa. It seems within the realm of the plausible that our weaknesses might at some point become our very strengths but only if certain conditions are met.

Or possibly accept that you are speaking to a more limited audience. Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "literary," but if it's a sense that your vocabulary and style might be too formal or dense for some readers, it's worth weighing the gains and losses. I know that my style doesn't suit everyone or possibly anyone, but I am pleased with a story when it (finally) meets my own standards. I recognize that my standards don't suit everyone, but I find that if I am honest with myself and don't accept any excuses, I can create works that please me deeply.

It seems obvious to me that it is a choice that you’ve had to make yourself and as a reader, thinking of The Private Diary of Alexander Pope, I can’t help but think that you’ve made the right choice. My being too “literary” is a direct result of my reading background and of having studied language and literature. My heart definitely goes to a literary (style, structure, vocabulary) approach to writing. Og in his review of one of my stories had said that it could, to some extent if I wanted to reach a wider audience, be a weakness implying that it could also be considered a strength. At the moment I have to qualify it as a weakness. I believe that in order for it to evolve into a strength there has to be an element of choice. At the moment this is how I write, not how I choose to write and, to me, that is a major difference. I feel that it will be a strength the day I’ve become a more versatile writer.

The element of choice is a key factor in determining what is a flaw in my opinion. For example one reader once mentioned that my lack of physical description of characters was a weakness. I didn’t list it as one here because I believe it isn’t. I can successfully describe characters, I choose not to consciously knowing that some won’t be pleased by my choice.

I'm smiling because here and above, you sound very much like someone to whom the elements of poetry - rhythm, image, surprising inventiveness in language - are important, and that's something I always enjoy seeing. I hope that you keep with your habit of using language in distinctive and unusual ways. Eliot wrote that one must force or disjoint language, if necessary, in order to give it new vitality and meaning, and I think him right. I'd much rather see a description of the tousled, muzzled thoughts of a half-woken narrator than hear about his sapphire eyes and chiselled features, phrases now so well worn as to have lost all possible interest for the reader.

Playfulness is an important element in writing I believe. Language, words, would lose a lot of their fascination for me if there was no room for inventiveness, if there was no multiplicity of meaning and uses. The line however between a creative use of the language and a confusing one seems very fine and I believe I cross over to the wrong side once in a while, confusing instead of surprising.

That question of structure is one to which the great writers of the ages return again and again; it is perhaps "the" question of all writing, and I would suggest probably the real question all of us on the "plot problems" cruise liner are struggling to address. Anyone can assemble a group of events that is technically a plot; the hard part is creating a sense that those are the only events that could have occurred, or that they are the ones that must have occurred given who was involved, or that they are the events that are the most important things one could say about these people and these ideas. I think you sum that up very nicely in your last paragraph.

This is something I am still far from achieving and am at this point in time hoping that being aware of it will keep me progressing along the way.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan the pleasure is all mine! Your post reminds me that we all have the strengths of our weaknesses and vice-versa. It seems within the realm of the plausible that our weaknesses might at some point become our very strengths but only if certain conditions are met.

You've got me smiling again. Interestingly, after writing my last post I found myself thinking the same thing from the opposite direction. That is, I was thinking that I hadn't posted to the "Writing Strengths" thread because anything that I characterized as a strength would be in immediate danger of becoming a weakness. I would let myself go on it, overemphasize it, take for granted that it had been done well, or get pompous about it. Perhaps our weaknesses become our strengths because we give them so much attention. At least, that's the only explanation I have ever been able to come up with for a performance review in which I was characterized as "meticulous, thoroughly organized, and carefully attentive to details," a comment so far from my inherent nature that I nearly fell out of my chair. I think possibly this is Yeats' point in saying that we grow and develop best and most fruitfully when we embrace that which is most opposite to our inherent natures. We give those things more attention because we approach them as problems to be solved and challenges to be met, not easy things to be taken for granted.

My being too “literary” is a direct result of my reading background and of having studied language and literature. [...] At the moment I have to qualify it as a weakness. I believe that in order for it to evolve into a strength there has to be an element of choice. At the moment this is how I write, not how I choose to write and, to me, that is a major difference. I feel that it will be a strength the day I’ve become a more versatile writer.

What a superb and trenchant thought, and what an excellent attitude with which to approach writing. You've said a world in that comment.

Playfulness is an important element in writing I believe.

I forget this too often. I can be so grimly serious about this business of being entertaining that I become utterly ridiculous. Fortunately, my own ridiculousness occasionally reminds me that there is a place in the world for humor.

Shanglan

 

[kendo1]

Going back a few posts reminded me'

A dyslexic walked into a bra.


Good post Shang.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Self-doubt. All other weaknesses can be overcome, but I will never get past this one. I will never be satisifed, because nothing will ever be good enough.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Bless you, Jammie. Now that you've, literally, spelled it out, that seems so obvious.

Shang: Something tells me HEA endings are an especially strong tendency among porn/erotic short stories, with the possible exception of Erotic Horror.

Rumple Foreskin

When i said that you write mostly happy endings, didn't I say- I loved you for it?
My happy endings aren't quite the same as yours- but, in a sense, I insist on happiness at the end of my stories too- my heros are never made to regret what they did the night before.

My weaknesses are in writing extended conflict and plot twists, and I will never be a real novelist because of them.

 

[joeys-game]

grammar..spelling..punctuation..

 

[sack]

hmmmm.....

probably being over emotional (some call this sentimental), as in A Walk to The Paradise Garden. However, I prefer that extreme to writing in a cool and calculated manner, just to fit some self-imposed amount of words per day, etc.

Sack

 

[BlackShanglan]

Self-doubt. All other weaknesses can be overcome, but I will never get past this one. I will never be satisifed, because nothing will ever be good enough.

Depends on what you mean, though, doesn't it? That it will never be thoroughly perfect in your own eyes needn't hinder you so long as you can bear to submit slightly imperfect work to the editors. This sort of weakness can be a strength; think how much worse it would be to be easily satisfied with sub-par work. That really is an almost insurmountable obstacle. Yours at least can drive you to excel.

Shanglan

 

[simulacre]

I think possibly this is Yeats' point in saying that we grow and develop best and most fruitfully when we embrace that which is most opposite to our inherent natures.

I love that thought!

Self-doubt. All other weaknesses can be overcome, but I will never get past this one. I will never be satisifed, because nothing will ever be good enough.

Self-doubt is something we all feel at times and it can be a weakness because it can keep us from daring to share what we create... never being satisfied, thinking that we could always do better is a strength I believe. It is the fuel that keeps bringing me further. Somehow I feel that if I ever become truly satisfied with what I create then it would be the end of my creativity? What would be left to say, to write, to paint, how would we find motivation?

 

[Guest]

 

[Stella_Omega]

Two words for you, sweetheart--Raymond Chandler.

Those are an excellent pair of words! I can do that.

Up till now, the only lesson I've taken from Chandler was in how to have Molly Kennedy present herself to the reader- take a good look at her, and see if you don't find it.
She's handsome and sexy, and all the femmes react to her the way the dames go after Marlowe- and just like Marlowe, she never mentions her own appeal. Other people do.

 

[yui]

Lack of plot. I simply create a moment; they're not even stories, more vignettes.