Last night, once again I was reminded that there are two strands to be an author of fiction. First and foremost is storytelling. This encompasses the creation of stories with its attendant characterisation, setting and plot structures. Then there is writing or the manipulation of language.
To tell a story, you don't have to write. Stories can be told in pictures or with sounds. You can tell a story orally. And to write, you don't need to tell a story. Writing can be a list, an essay and is simply the act of putting words on a page. It can be poetry or it can be as dry as dust. It can have a soul or not be very deep at all. But the act of writing does not guarantee a well-formed narrative.
When you have the marriage of the two, you get an author. It is the combination of two talents -- the ability to tell a story and the ability to manipulate language on the written page that creates an author. No one person is equally adept at both. In commercial fiction, the ability to tell a story outweighs nuanced language. Sometimes in literary fiction, it is the other way around and the poetry of the image and symbolism can hold more sway. There are reasons why commercial fiction is more accessible to the masses.
Once you accept that there are two types of talent, then the question becomes not how much talent do I have, but how can I maximise and make the most out of the talent that I am given. How can I achieve its potential?
The truth is that you are capable of far more than you think but you have to be willing to work at it. It is not easy. You have to learn to play to the strengths of your talents rather than playing to what others might think. If you adore heavy symbolism, do you want to write a rom-com? If you need the action and adventure rush, do you want to write a tale that is mainly internal and gentle? Conversely if your talent lies with exploring the depth of human relations within a family, do you want to write a thriller? Work with the themes you are drawn towards. Explore the ways you like to tell stories.
You have to accept that storytelling takes maturity because it deals with the human condition. The maturity to tell a meaningful story comes to us at different ages. The desire to tell stories may happen earlier. There are reasons why successful novelists as a general rule tend to be older --- unlike say mathematicians who tend to do their best work early for some reason. Life adds depth to storytelling, rather than taking from it. For example for women, having children can add a resonance and understanding that wasn't there previously. The stories you write in your forties will be different than those you wrote in your twenties. This doesn't mean that good story tellers don't exist in their twenties btw. It just means the average age for a successful novelist tends to be older.
But however the mix of your talent, it is up to you maximise it and work with it if you want to be a successful novelist.
Showing posts with label Story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Story. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2011
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Character v Characterization:McKee
I am starting to realize just how FULL of things I use McKee's STORY is. And I have not even gotten into his analysis of Story design. And it should be noted that I am just giving you the highlights as they occur to me. The subject matter is huge.
As an side, I understand, his workshops are great as well. He goes through Casablance scene by scene.
Right, so here is today's bit on character and characterization.
Characterization is observable -- everything knowable through human scrunity, the hair colour, the eyes, house, the mode of transport, education etc etc The sum total of these characteristics makes an unique being, but it does not really tells anything about true character. This is often wht one feels out on character questionaires btw. As an aside, I rtend not fill out the questionaires until after I have completed the first draft. If I can't do it WITHOUT thinking too deeply then, then I don't know enough about my characters. I may not have written about a favourite thing, but I will know what the favourite thing has to be. Other writers approach it differently, but it is what works for me as often time, character is not cut instone until I have reached the climatic moment.
True Character is only reveaked when a human being is put under pressure. The greater the pressure, the more significant the choice. Choices made when nothing is at risk mean nothing. It is the choices your protagonist makes when she is under pressure, that reveal her inner core of humanity.
You need to make sure that the pressure is continually applied and that she has to make choices that have consequences. the choices she makes will reveal her innner humanity, in a way that makes her resonate with the reader. Making a chioice where there in no consequence is not really a choice. Choosing to tell the truth when a lie will save her life is very different than choosing to tell the truth when nothing will happen to her.
A protagonist is always a willful being. She makes proactive, not passive choices. It are these choices that define the story.
Equally, the revelation of true character as opposed to characterization is what fine storytelling is all about. For example, if your protagonist first appears to be a loving wife blindly devoted to her husband and at the end is still a loving wife blindly devoted to her huband, you have created a character with no growth arc and the character will feel flat. Through the pressure applied, characters need to reveal their inner cores and grow. Character arc changes inner nature for better or worse in the course of the story.
The revaltion of true character must effect the climax. If the climax fails, the story fails. The ultimate pressure needs to be put on at the climax. It is the blackest of black moments when the hardest choices have to be made.
One good trick he does say is to consider which actor/actress you would have play the role? What would happen if a different actor played it? How would the character change? What would be different about that character?
He also says FALL IN LOVE with your characters. The reader can tell when a writer is not in love with his characters as they do not possess the same depth. Embrace all of your characters. Note this does not mean protect your characters. It means putting them under pressure and seeing how they react.
He also says -- self knowledge leads to great character. The only person you can ever know truly is yourself. The root of all character writing is personal experience and personal emotion. The more you can understand your own humanity, the better your characters will be. Human emotions are what you want to write, and the only human emotions you can directly expereince are your own. The same is true for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Shakespeare, Moliere, Austen and Dickens. The only emotions they ever directly experienced were their own. It is the ability to communicate those emotions that results in fine writing.
Much of this is probably not revolutionary, but I do like the way he says it and his examples. When I first read Story, it made sense.
As an side, I understand, his workshops are great as well. He goes through Casablance scene by scene.
Right, so here is today's bit on character and characterization.
Characterization is observable -- everything knowable through human scrunity, the hair colour, the eyes, house, the mode of transport, education etc etc The sum total of these characteristics makes an unique being, but it does not really tells anything about true character. This is often wht one feels out on character questionaires btw. As an aside, I rtend not fill out the questionaires until after I have completed the first draft. If I can't do it WITHOUT thinking too deeply then, then I don't know enough about my characters. I may not have written about a favourite thing, but I will know what the favourite thing has to be. Other writers approach it differently, but it is what works for me as often time, character is not cut instone until I have reached the climatic moment.
True Character is only reveaked when a human being is put under pressure. The greater the pressure, the more significant the choice. Choices made when nothing is at risk mean nothing. It is the choices your protagonist makes when she is under pressure, that reveal her inner core of humanity.
You need to make sure that the pressure is continually applied and that she has to make choices that have consequences. the choices she makes will reveal her innner humanity, in a way that makes her resonate with the reader. Making a chioice where there in no consequence is not really a choice. Choosing to tell the truth when a lie will save her life is very different than choosing to tell the truth when nothing will happen to her.
A protagonist is always a willful being. She makes proactive, not passive choices. It are these choices that define the story.
Equally, the revelation of true character as opposed to characterization is what fine storytelling is all about. For example, if your protagonist first appears to be a loving wife blindly devoted to her husband and at the end is still a loving wife blindly devoted to her huband, you have created a character with no growth arc and the character will feel flat. Through the pressure applied, characters need to reveal their inner cores and grow. Character arc changes inner nature for better or worse in the course of the story.
The revaltion of true character must effect the climax. If the climax fails, the story fails. The ultimate pressure needs to be put on at the climax. It is the blackest of black moments when the hardest choices have to be made.
One good trick he does say is to consider which actor/actress you would have play the role? What would happen if a different actor played it? How would the character change? What would be different about that character?
He also says FALL IN LOVE with your characters. The reader can tell when a writer is not in love with his characters as they do not possess the same depth. Embrace all of your characters. Note this does not mean protect your characters. It means putting them under pressure and seeing how they react.
He also says -- self knowledge leads to great character. The only person you can ever know truly is yourself. The root of all character writing is personal experience and personal emotion. The more you can understand your own humanity, the better your characters will be. Human emotions are what you want to write, and the only human emotions you can directly expereince are your own. The same is true for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Shakespeare, Moliere, Austen and Dickens. The only emotions they ever directly experienced were their own. It is the ability to communicate those emotions that results in fine writing.
Much of this is probably not revolutionary, but I do like the way he says it and his examples. When I first read Story, it made sense.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Authentic: McKee
because this has a little to do with setting, creative limitation and genre, I am going to talk about AUTHENTIC here.
To my mind, this is one of the most important parts of the whole McKee book. It was a revelation when I read it. An author means authority and that results in authenticity. The reader is willing to suspend disbelief because she is totally absorbed in the world that the author has created.
The writer knows everything about the world she has created. The important words are: the world she has created.
In the author's world she is God. No sparrow falls without her knowing why. It is not the entire world. There are far too many unknowable imponderables. The world an author creates is never 100% accurate. The author needs to always choose what to include and what to exclude. It is at best a reflection from a Claude glass. Claude glasses were popular in Regency and Victorian times among painters and tourists -- people who wanted to smooth out the ugly and have a certain view of the world. By using different tinted mirrors, the viewer was able to see the scene in different aspects -- fiery, moonlit, in winter etc, without ever having to actually be there. This is what story does -- it holds a smoky mirror up the world.
What happens when an author creates an authentic world is that the reader willingly suspends disbelief. Sometimes, the reader can't details out of her head and goes to check, thus learning more about the time period or the location that the writer has set the story in. This is excellent as the story has touched the reader.
Authors do research so they can decide what to leave in and leave out and to make their world appear more authentic, but they can never be 100% accurate. A historical written in 1957 is very different from a historical set in the same period but written in 2007 and is most certainly different from a contemporary novel written at that time. IE Jane Austen is contemporary, Georgette Heyer is constrained by her own reality just Nicola Cornick or Loretta Chase (to name two of my favourite current Regency authors) are constrained by theirs. I would never mistake them, and I adore them all. And indeed being in the midst of Decency and Disorder --The Age of Cant 1789 -1837 by Ben Wilson, I will never quite look at the Fancy, the Four In Hand or indeed Cambridge University during the period in quite the same way again. It does not mean my enjoyment of the novels is any less as the over riding STORY is what makes them.
Accuracy helps to build authority and authenticity by providing the TELLING DETAIL. It means that when an author does take a leap, go up the wrong way on a one way street, the reader who knows forgives because she is so entranced with the story. It is the preponderance that makes the story, not the specific detail.
To my mind, this is one of the most important parts of the whole McKee book. It was a revelation when I read it. An author means authority and that results in authenticity. The reader is willing to suspend disbelief because she is totally absorbed in the world that the author has created.
The writer knows everything about the world she has created. The important words are: the world she has created.
In the author's world she is God. No sparrow falls without her knowing why. It is not the entire world. There are far too many unknowable imponderables. The world an author creates is never 100% accurate. The author needs to always choose what to include and what to exclude. It is at best a reflection from a Claude glass. Claude glasses were popular in Regency and Victorian times among painters and tourists -- people who wanted to smooth out the ugly and have a certain view of the world. By using different tinted mirrors, the viewer was able to see the scene in different aspects -- fiery, moonlit, in winter etc, without ever having to actually be there. This is what story does -- it holds a smoky mirror up the world.
What happens when an author creates an authentic world is that the reader willingly suspends disbelief. Sometimes, the reader can't details out of her head and goes to check, thus learning more about the time period or the location that the writer has set the story in. This is excellent as the story has touched the reader.
Authors do research so they can decide what to leave in and leave out and to make their world appear more authentic, but they can never be 100% accurate. A historical written in 1957 is very different from a historical set in the same period but written in 2007 and is most certainly different from a contemporary novel written at that time. IE Jane Austen is contemporary, Georgette Heyer is constrained by her own reality just Nicola Cornick or Loretta Chase (to name two of my favourite current Regency authors) are constrained by theirs. I would never mistake them, and I adore them all. And indeed being in the midst of Decency and Disorder --The Age of Cant 1789 -1837 by Ben Wilson, I will never quite look at the Fancy, the Four In Hand or indeed Cambridge University during the period in quite the same way again. It does not mean my enjoyment of the novels is any less as the over riding STORY is what makes them.
Accuracy helps to build authority and authenticity by providing the TELLING DETAIL. It means that when an author does take a leap, go up the wrong way on a one way street, the reader who knows forgives because she is so entranced with the story. It is the preponderance that makes the story, not the specific detail.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
More on McKee: plot is more than a four letter word
Right as I got two comments endorsing this short series, I will continue and hopefully convince you that you should purchase this book if you are at all interested in writing commercial ficition. One very big plus in his book is that as it aimed at screenwriters -- all the examples are films. This means rather than evaluating the book, I am able to see how the vision works out.
After giving you reasons why you should learn about craft, McKee presents the basic forms and he starts with structure. Just as a house needs a framework, so does any film. This is a rather technical part of the book and it is easy to get bogged but it does have some of my favourite bits.
One is the explanation of the types of plots -- archplot, miniplot and antiplot. As I am a commerical writer, my plots fall in the archplot spectrum. This means I have closed endings -- no dangling threads. My protagonist is active and there are external conflicts. McKee defines external conflicts to include social relationships. A miniplot has a pasisve protagonist, open endings and mainly internal to that person conflicts. Antiplots are literary sphere and so I don't needc to go into them. The thing you need to be aware of is that the further you move away from the archplot, the size of potential audience decreases.
The multiplot is half way between the arch plot and the mini plot. It can be best described as multi protagonist. Because you do have multi protagonists, you will of a necessity have less time to spend with each of them.Think The Fugative v Parenthood.
There are certain directors who are happy to make films for smaller audiences. If you are going to do that, you also have to be prepared to come in under budget. In my terms, when you write for a niche market, you must expect a smaller advance as then you will be able to earn out your advance. Publshiers like studios wantto make money on their offerings. It is just some thing to be aware of. I know for example in historical romance Georgian/regency/Victorian occupy a far greater percentaage share of the market, to expect the readers of say Roman to be equal to the number of Regency is unrealistic, and I need to tailor my expectations accordingly. I find this view comforting in the run up to royalities btw.
he also discusses linear v non linear, casuality v coincidence. All terminolgy that a wrtier might run into when thoughts come back from your editor.
He believes that writers should work towards mastering the archplot before attempting the other forms. Much I suppose as Picasso did with art. If you have mastered the classi form, you can understand the why and how of changing it.It no longer feels confining and you begin to see the possibilities.
He ends the chapter with the very importnat point: THE WRITER MUST WRITE WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN. This includes the form, but first you have to figure out WHY you believe in it. Do not break the rules of commericial writing simply because you want to show your independance, but break the rules because there is no other way to tell your story. You have to truly believe in a form to be able to write it.
After giving you reasons why you should learn about craft, McKee presents the basic forms and he starts with structure. Just as a house needs a framework, so does any film. This is a rather technical part of the book and it is easy to get bogged but it does have some of my favourite bits.
One is the explanation of the types of plots -- archplot, miniplot and antiplot. As I am a commerical writer, my plots fall in the archplot spectrum. This means I have closed endings -- no dangling threads. My protagonist is active and there are external conflicts. McKee defines external conflicts to include social relationships. A miniplot has a pasisve protagonist, open endings and mainly internal to that person conflicts. Antiplots are literary sphere and so I don't needc to go into them. The thing you need to be aware of is that the further you move away from the archplot, the size of potential audience decreases.
The multiplot is half way between the arch plot and the mini plot. It can be best described as multi protagonist. Because you do have multi protagonists, you will of a necessity have less time to spend with each of them.Think The Fugative v Parenthood.
There are certain directors who are happy to make films for smaller audiences. If you are going to do that, you also have to be prepared to come in under budget. In my terms, when you write for a niche market, you must expect a smaller advance as then you will be able to earn out your advance. Publshiers like studios wantto make money on their offerings. It is just some thing to be aware of. I know for example in historical romance Georgian/regency/Victorian occupy a far greater percentaage share of the market, to expect the readers of say Roman to be equal to the number of Regency is unrealistic, and I need to tailor my expectations accordingly. I find this view comforting in the run up to royalities btw.
he also discusses linear v non linear, casuality v coincidence. All terminolgy that a wrtier might run into when thoughts come back from your editor.
He believes that writers should work towards mastering the archplot before attempting the other forms. Much I suppose as Picasso did with art. If you have mastered the classi form, you can understand the why and how of changing it.It no longer feels confining and you begin to see the possibilities.
He ends the chapter with the very importnat point: THE WRITER MUST WRITE WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN. This includes the form, but first you have to figure out WHY you believe in it. Do not break the rules of commericial writing simply because you want to show your independance, but break the rules because there is no other way to tell your story. You have to truly believe in a form to be able to write it.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Deciphering McKee's Story
Trish Wylie asked me very politely if I could tell her why McKee's Story was great or if I had some pointers. In other words - -why do I keep it on my bedside table? Why do I reccomend it? It is a large book and if it just overs the same goround....
So I am going to do a small series on some of the more important points in McKee's book. These may not be everyone's but they are mine. Hopefully it will convince some to pick uip this book or at least to ponder his ideas.
What i am talk about today is Powers and talents. It is a short but I think hugely important part of the book. It actually gets to the nub of the craft of Story.
According to McKee and I have no reason to doubt him, there are two types of talent in story writing.
First is Literary talent. This talent uses words and is the putting together of words to form images. It is a common talent. A lot of people can produce wonderfully descriptive writing. But literary talent does not necessarily lead any where. A description of a sunset stays a description of a sunset. There is no movement. The base material of literary talent is words.
Story telling talent is much rarer. It is the ability to hold an audience, to tell a story in such a fashion that the audience is transfixed. It is what causes the pages to be turned. WIth storytelling talent, even the most mundane can be exciting. The base material for story talent is life.
Commercial publishers buy story telling talent. They want page turning reads that people come back to time and again.
The desire to relate an incident in an intersting manner shows that you have some sort of story telling talent.
It is the combination of the two talents that results in a truly great writer.
Talent can not be taught, but it can be control by the learning and studying craft. You do not need to have studied craft to produce a publishable book, but if you want to stay published over the long term, you need to klearn how to control your talent. You need to learn the why behind the rules. You need to master forms and not formula. It also makes it much easier when editors come back and say -- this is wrong with your novel. With the knowledge of craft, you can see how to rewrite and make better, rater than flapping around in the dark and hoping. Craft is what allows the writer to control her environment, rather than having her environment control her.
Because I apt to have attacks of the crows of doubt. Or simply to forget. Rereading the passages where he says these things makes me feel better. It gives me the breathing space I need. It means that I don't have to get things right the first time, because I know I have learnt the craft tools to get it right when it dfoesn't work.
In other news: the Late Night Praty ducks have discovered the compost heap. where they hide. Then as I return from locking the other ducks in the duck house, one quacks, very loudly, making me jump. The LNPD then rush across the bridge. They consider this a good game. Particularly as we then play round and round the duck house and the other ducks come out and join in the fun. I find it less amusing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)