Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Improving one's writing

A while back, someone, I forget who, (Pam maybe?) recommended a book called Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King. I bought it, read a couple of chapters, and set it down due to other demands on my time. This past week I finally had time to read it some more. I couldn't get over some of the things the authors suggest. I noticed that I've now become very conscious of things that are considered "amateurish" as I write.

On the subject of introspection (Interior monologue is the term they use) : "...interior monologue is so powerful and easy to write (though not easy to write well) that many fiction writers tend to overuse it." (p.76) And: "Interior monologue is best served up a little at a time, especially in a dialogue scene, as a support for dialogue rather than as a substitute for it." (p.78) And last, but not least, "When self-editing, be on the lookout for long passages of interior monologue. As we've suggested, they usually mean you are telling the reader things you should be showing. ... In general, consider the possibility that any passage of interior monologue more than a page long may need cutting, breaking up, or conversion to a scene." (p. 84)

I'll share more later if people are interested.

Schoolmarm

Well, the introspection -v- non-introspection debate has been going on a long time in this fandom and my thoughts on it haven't changed any over the years.

Basically, if I was writing professionally and getting paid for it, I'd tailor my writing to the necessities and 'rules' of that market and not write much in the way of introspection.

With fanfic, however, I'm writing purely for fun, so I'll feel free to indulge myself. Readers then have the choice to read or skip over the introspection as suits their reading tastes.

LabRat (who realises as she hasn't had the inclination to write anything at all for almost a year these thoughts are pretty redundant <g>...but they'll apply if/when she wakes up keen to write again )

My writing professors have always stressed that narrative and dialogue are much more important than introspection. Long passages of people thinking is just plain *boring*. While such was the norm in eighteenth century and eariler serial novels, it has long since passed out of fashion, and should be used *sparingly*. My professors say that everything you write you should consider it "in real time". Think about how long it takes the character to do what you're writing. If your character is thinking for more than 5-10 minutes, you're taking too long. After all, if it were onscreen, we'd be bored ut of our skulls watching it.

Laura

Well, I'm not a writer, therefore am not speaking as someone who writes in a particular style. And certainly in the three years that I've been around I've seen a lot of "introspection" vs. "non-introspection" debate, and it's obviously been around much longer than I.

Purely as a reader, I would say that there's a place for all styles. There are certainly some readers who dislike introspection of any kind, or others who feel that some stories have way too much. Well, perhaps that's true, but there is definitely an audience for introspection in this particular fandom. I enjoy many different styles of writing, and depending on my mood, I know which authors to go to for a story to satisfy my particular taste at that moment.

For me personally, sometimes I love to wallow in introspection, and I don't feel if there's more than a page it's "too much". If professionally that wouldn't sell, I wouldn't know about that, but I do know that I have read published books that I don't consider nearly as well written as some of the fanfics that I've read, with or without introspection.

Kathy

Oh, goodie! The 'introspection' debate again.

Yvonne

Well said, Kathy. I'm a believer in the fact that there's something for everybody in the world of fanfic. Personally speaking, introspection bores me most days. A few snippets are fine, but when it gets to be a page long, it's just not for me. However, there a plenty of other stories jam-packed with dialogue that I can read. Actually, if the story has a killer plot, I'll just skip over the introspection and get back to the action.

So, my opinion is write what you want. It's not like it's the end of the world if you don't feel like tailoring it to one audience or another who automatically starts bowing

JD

I read your post, Schoolmarm, and thought, "no, I don't remember recommending that..." -- but then I looked on my bookshelf, and sure 'nough, there it was!

I always find it really interesting to read these books about writing, but I'm an ornery critter who thinks that only some of the "rules" apply, depending on what type of thing you're writing. And I think one of the things we have to watch out for is the temptation to hit each other over the head with the book Actually, it reminds me of a sermon, years ago, where the pastor cautioned against reading the Bible primarily in order to find fault with other people, especially if you then go repeat verses at them in an effort to shame them into repentence. I've known some people like that, and in my experience, that approach is very counter-productive.

But it can be awfully tempting. "Oh, I don't like introspection/POV shifts within a scene/whatever, and this book says it's bad, so I have proof, proof! that those other people are bad writers, just wait until I tell them..." :p I've probably given into that temptation myself, a few times, but it's something I try to watch out for.

Anyway, we've all been here and had this discussion before. It's not an argument that anyone can ever win, so let's agree that some people love introspection, some people hate it, most people fall somewhere in between, and leave it at that, shall we?

Variety is the spice of life, tolerance is a virtue, live and let live, etc, etc.

PJ

It does seem to be a bit of a redundant use of bandwidth to rehash this one all over again - especially when it's unlikely any consensus will be met. So far, the seasoned campaigners on both sides of the debate - myself included <g> - are repeating the same arguments for their pov almost word for word as all the other times this one has been debated. It's almost unnecessary by this point to read the posts. You can accurately predict what will be in them from the nicks alone.

Can I suggest then, perhaps, that instead of repeating ourselves, anyone who has a desperate wish to express a new opinion on this one or add to the debate simply finds the previous threads on the subject and adds to one of those instead?

It does seem the more sensible course than wasting bandwidth on a whole new thread and a repetition of the same issues and views. And for myself, I'd much rather bandwidth was used for posting more stories - both with and without introspection.

LabRat

I also believe that everyone should write the way they want. Others may like it, others may not like it. It's a matter of taste.

Still, I think I should point out something:

Although the writer adds 'though not easy to write well', I think that's a big mistake. Some people may find introspection easier to write, some people may find it more difficult. I, for example, have been writing dialogue scenes since I was 10 years old. On the other hand, it took me half a year of writing fanfiction to be able to write introspection. (Not 'good' introspection. Introspection in general.)

AnnaBtG.

I've read the posts on this topic, because I think it's an interesting one, and I don't think this point has been mentioned previously, at least not in these same words

When I was in grad school I took a writing class called "The literature of horror." It was one of my favorite classes because we studied the history of horror and science fiction literature as a basis for learning how to write it ourselves.

I remember the professor discussing the use of "inner dialog" and her noting that it was an antiquated style popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. But what I found interesting were the reasons she gave as to why we shouldn't use it.

She felt that "immediacy" was an important element of all fiction, but particularly important in the scifi/horror genre. In scifi/horror, the author is often creating a world that differs from the real one, probably more so than in most other types of fiction. The internal dialogs or excessive analysis of the character not only stop the flow of the story, they take the reader outside of the story and the author's carefully crafted world.

I know that one instructor's (even a very good one's ) opinion isn't enough to say that a style is right or wrong, but I thought I'd add it here as something to think about.

In the end, it all comes down to who you're writing for. Personally, I prefer action and dialog to introspective passages (seldom read fics with the latter) but there apparently is an audience for both.

Snarla2

I moderate chats with published authors on a fairly regular basis and invariably a majority of the questions asked involve craft. Writers are like sponges, soaking up any information tossed their way about how to improve their writing. Here it's called a "redundant use of bandwidth."

Go figure.

No, Marilyn, it's called different strokes for different folks. There are almost as many different tastes in reading as there are readers; one person's delight is another's bore, and vice versa.

Writing craft has its place, of course it does. But when it starts to dictate, or appear to dictate, stylistic elements which do appeal to different readers' tastes then, in my opinion, it goes too far in attempting to homogenise writing. I read some published writers because I love their style; I don't read some others because I don't care for that style, and I'm sure most people would tell a similar story. A story has to grip me, and whether or not it grips me doesn't have to do with whether the author has followed certain ten-step rules of story construction and so on, but whether the author can write an interesting story in a way which engages my interest.

One of my very favourite authors, in a book a couple of years ago, followed her editor's advice on writing craft and omitted a certain scene (one which would have involved lots of introspection and heart-to-hearts between the hero and heroine - and, just as an aside, this author is known for lots of use of introspection, and her books frequently hit best-seller lists ). The editor's view was that the book would be 'crafted' better, more elegantly, without that scene; a certain element of surprise would remain and in any case, the editor argued, readers didn't need to be told everything. After the book appeared, on that author's email list and in Amazon reviews, there was complaint after complaint that a key scene near the end seemed to be missing, that the author had 'forgotten' to provide the readers closure over an important element of the plot. When the author told us, on her list, what had happened, list-members were furious at being denied that scene, and scathing at an editor who seemed to presume to know what readers wanted.

The moral, in my opinion? Ignore the ten-step rules and write to your own style. It'll find a market.


Wendy

Sounds like a great suggestion but, frankly, most of the time it's difficult to put into practice. First one has to KNOW that a previous thread exists. Then one has to have the TIME to search it out. Not all of us do.

Plus as Marilyn suggested, since when has any honest sharing of information and knowledge been a waste of bandwidth? As far as I can see that's all Schoolmarm did. Anyone who is already bored with previous discussions on the topic could just skip the new thread, couldn't they?

Completely confused by this odd reaction.

Beverly

Well, I certainly didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest by posting an excerpt from a book on improving one's writing. (Silly me -- I thought this mb was the one where people were interested in writing. ) I was going to share some more "tips" that I found intriguing (especially since I've been guilty of committing the transgressions myself), but since no one here seems particularly interested in learning or reading more about their craft, I won't "waste your bandwidth."

Pam -- in response to your post, I have two things to say. 1) You wrote: "Oh, I don't like introspection/POV shifts within a scene/whatever, and this book says it's bad, so I have proof, proof! that those other people are bad writers, just wait until I tell them..." If you re-read my post, I believe that you will find that nowhere did I say I didn't like introspection/POV shifts within a scene, etc. nor did I say that other people were bad writers. I merely posted what a couple of people who make their living by editing other people's fiction said. (From a book you recommended to me in the first place.) There were several other major points I had intended to share; I just happened to go in page order of the book. 2) When I registered at this mb, I made a deliberate decision to use a nickname rather than my real name (I'm trying to pull my identity back a bit on the internet), but you insist on using my name every time you reply to a post I make. I emailed you before about it but obviously failed to convince you of my right to use my nick as opposed to my name. I can't help but think that I am not welcome here, given that my reasonable request is not honored. Did I miss the memo that said only people who agree with you are allowed to be called by the name they choose or post what they want to say?

Schoolmarm

Erm. There seem to be a few undercurrents running underneath what ought to be a perfectly reasonable discussion, one that surely fits right here. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe this topic has been hashed over and over again before, and I just didn't spot it. But surely there's nothing wrong with citing a book on writing?

I happen to agree that pure introspection is boring. Introspection, internal musings, whatever you want to call it, that is interspersed with action, is an absolute delight. Most of us, after all, don't just sit still and think; we make a cup of coffee, wash the dishes, take a brisk walk, drum our fingers on the steering wheel while we wait for the light to change, check the fuse box...

Most people here are pretty familiar with my little story on FDK. I have adapted the original premise and much of the dialogue to various other genres, and I was quite pleased to see how easily I could move from one genre to another and have the basic idea still hold shape so nicely. (I suppose the need for FDK is universal!) However, while the original "Ultimate Drug" is almost entirely dialogue, my next versions involved quite a bit of action, with the dialogue mixed in.

The difference? The first story was strictly a parody with FDK as its entire justification for its existence. The next two stories actually had something happening.

Now, a 6K story can surely get by with just dialogue. But for something a bit longer, I do agree that it's best to either cut it short or have the character do something while he or she reflects on events.

On the other hand (or is the third hand )... Pure action without introspection? Yawn. Slug fest. I want to know what my characters are thinking, their real motivations.

So give me introspection, by all means! Just don't make it pages and pages without anything else happening.

Hazel

Okay, I intend, in whatever I write after this paragraph, to be friendly, reasonable, polite and non-combative. If anyone feels I'm not being any of those things, then it's because I'm expressing myself badly and not because I don't genuinely want to be all of those things.

Here goes...

Schoolmarm, how about sharing some of the other subjects in that book which have caught your eye? The introspection debate is clearly a touchy subject, so rather than fan the flames of a heated debate, why not pass onto another topic which we can all enjoy discussing? Given the discussions which have taken place in the past on grammar and other related topics, I don't think it's logical to say that no-one here is interested in learning or reading more about their craft - particularly as Pam is 'here' and was the person who recommended this book to you in the first place.

How about the use of speech tags in dialogue? Or plot construction - lots of us have trouble with 'A' plots, so how about some discussion on that subject? How about the trials and tribulations of creating original characters? Or the pros and cons of writing to a pre-prepared plan? The list is endless!

Yvonne

Good suggestions, Yvonne. I, for one, am happy to receive any tips I can get on improving my writing, and I try not to take them as a personal affront, although I admit I can sometimes be as thin-skinned as the next person. Introspection is very popular in L&C Fanfic right now, but it was not always so. I'm not particularly fond of long passages of introspection, but that doesn't mean I think it should go away, and it doesn't mean I don't read it when I find a particularly good story line. Because so many newbies are joining the group and beginning to write, I think it is valuable for them to know that there are different ways to write and more than one kind of story. Readers and writers have to decide what they want to read and how they want to write, but it's a shame if they don't try different things before they make their decision. At least that's the way I feel about it.

Jude

Yvonne asked for more topics and here's one that was discussed before these boards were open. No use re-hashing if it's already been hashed.

Use of Dialogue Tags

Is that what's happened over here, Wendy? Most everything tends to sound alike. Different strokes don't tend to be tolerated very well. Name recognition seems to be the key, as well as being promoted by one of the powers that be. You might be tempted to label me critical, but I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Marilyn, actually, I was talking about published fiction. But if you're talking about stories on these boards, you should take a look at CC's new story in nfic, or Nan's Supercop. Neither writer is over-fond of introspection - in fact, CC frequently tells some of us that she doesn't like it. Both stories are garnering impressive amounts of feedback.

Wendy