LJ IDOL: thoughts on writing

[rm]

So, I've been reading LJ Idol entries, and I've been seeing a strong desire from people to really tell stories, but a lot of people who either don't really know how or have been given some really bad advice in the past.

Now, this list of advice may not be the best either, because afterall, we're talking about a subjective thing. And my credentials as a storyteller are in many ways mediocre. However, I have published fiction, non-fiction, poetry and journalism. And I'm a performer. I have a lot of flaws as a writer and a person, but I was well educated and do know how to hold someone's attention, so here's some stuff you may want to consider.

Don't be cute.
This is not a college admissions essay. You're not going to get extra points for writing on tree bark or thinking of adjectives that start with each letter in your name. It's not as original as you think, and it's not as cute. It's trite, jejune, and distracting.

Know where to start.
You don't have to start at the beginning. In fact, sometimes it's best to start at the end or in medias res. Sometimes, you have to start before the beginning. But you have to choose a place to start and you have to choose a reason for it. Rephrasing the question, although I know you were told to do that in some sixth-grade essay writing class, IS A SHITTY, BORING PLACE TO START. It immediately identifies your writing as amateurish and removes the power from the story you're going to tell. If you have to do this to get going, fine, but chop that shit off before you post.

Be strong.
Storytelling is an act of proclaiming your existence. It is an act of prayer, of remembrance, of hope, of fury, of claiming. Regardless of the tonal quality you choose and the type of story you are telling, tell it with conviction and certitude. Among other things, be careful of over qualifying or mitigating your words and beliefs - "It sort of seemed like", "Maybe I thought at the time", etc. These constructions have their places, but you must use them deliberately and not as apologies for choosing to be a storyteller. There's a huge difference between "My mother never loved me" and "Sometimes, I thought my mother never loved me." Know which one you mean and use it, unapologetically. The fact is, whether you remind us this is just your opinion or memory or not, the reader knows that, so why weaken your position for any reason other than intentional art?

Know which details matter.
One or two key, trivial and possibly irrelevant details per character (this can include inanimate objects) in the story, tends to work really really well. Too much description can bog you down and causes the reader not to know what to focus on. When you meet a person face to face you immediately seize on something -- the shape of their jaw, the curve of an eyebrow, a crooked smile. Too many details and the reader doesn't know what to seize on. Choose carefully. Help them love or loathe.

Remember that there is magic in the world.
One of the things that really struck me about the response to my LJ Idol story about Chicago is how much people seemed to be saying that nothing like this had ever happened to them. I don't think this is true. The world is full of magic and serendipity, the hand of God, the mathematical beauty of coincidence. Find it. Use it. Believe in it. Even a day climbing a tree by yourself can be made into a day where you were chosen the strange master of a certain private earth. Find that power, and in telling the story, loan it to your reader.

Skill matters.
There are two ways to be defiant about lack of skill in writing, or really, anything else. One involves telling your audience, "tough, this is how it is" and/or apologizing for it. The other involves not drawing irrelevant attention to your flaws (self-perceived or otherwise) and working on them. There's this real tendency, particularly in America, for people to be defiant about their lack of education, training and skill in communication and writing, and to be frank, I find it tacky. Defy it by working at it, but unless that's the very story you're telling, I don't want to hear about it.

CADENCE.
Words have rhythm, sound and shape. So does life. Walking, dancing, traffic, sex, flight, anger, frustration, sport, politics -- everything has a pace, a speed, an internal syncopation, a heartbeat, a cant, a turn, a rasp. Think about how your story sounds aloud, how it feels to listen to, how it feels to speak. If it feels good to you, it's going to feel good to your reader, and even the stories of the most terrible things we read for a feeling, for a sensation, for a hush, for a visit to foreign flesh and soil. Find your beat. Then make the act of reading your story change mine.

Finish deliberately.
Sometimes this is a punchline, sometimes the whisp of a haunted heart. But make sure, at least for a moment, that the reader feels like they will never, ever forget what you just told them. Whatever you do, don't trail off in a ramble or apology or with a lack of any conclusive point, focus or emotion.

Comments

[40sw.livejournal.com]

The point, was not that a writer should not use words.
The point was that there are other tools for communication.
Being just a writer is limited.
Depending solely on words, you seem to be unable to see potential for anything beyond them.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I'm a professional actor and dancer too, but I can't tell you (generic you, not you, you) to point your toes to make your LJ posts more compelling, although, granted, there are days I wish I could.

[40sw.livejournal.com]

No, and I'm not saying that writing on bark makes an entry more compelling either however I don't think it necessarily makes it less compelling and I do think that trying to communicate in ways that extend beyond stringing together words based on what the dictionary says they mean can have merit.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Obviously, there's plenty of value in pushing the envelope -- I think of e. e. cummings, and I certianly use a lot of odd (or more often archaic) constructions in my own work. But clever for the sake of being clever is something I personally can't stand and don't find very effective, and I still find it difficult to grok your assertion that someone can just decide the meanings in the dictionary are invalid and write something in which cat means mouse for any purpose other than surrealism.

Every language is a system and a code. The rules are not absolute or universal, but if you're going to make radical changes or departures you have to provide people with a key they can understand to get there. They key is about words, words are about commonly accepted meaning and the play of nuance (which is one of the places where the art of writing comes in).

Actually, I don't think abstraction is helping this conversation.

beyond stringing together words based on what the dictionary says they mean can have merit

Show me.

[40sw.livejournal.com]

OK. Now you're just being difficult, aren't you? I was talking about communicating via posting a video of dance or deciding that it would be fun to write about your favorite Dr. Seuss book using rhyming verse with appropriate meter or writing about your favorite place, up a tree, by carving it on the tree and taking a picture and presenting that... all of which are beyond the scope of just "stringing together words based on what the dictionary says they mean" I don't mean making up meanings (at least not beyond the made up meanings accepted as slang and even there you might want to make a note to any audience completely outside that culture). I was the smartass in 'intro to art theory' who suggested the TA look art up in the dictionary to find out what the word meant when asked the profound question "what does the word 'art' mean?" and went into the whole calling-a-pencil-a-cat-will-just-confuse-people argument when she suggested that a dictionary definition wasn't strictly useful.

some thoughts on the discussion

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure she is being difficult as much as genuinely curious about what it is you are trying to demonstrate. (As am I, it seems.) Some of what you mentioned (the dance, the picture of the tree carving) are more visual representations instead of written ones, and I think that is where the disconnect in the discussion is happening. So, for the sake of argument, let's agree that dance is not writing.

I think what I see here is the difficulty of actually trying to define art, and how it is presented, in a world where different mediums seem to be mixed everywhere. Granted, you have a point that there are different ways of expression. One can write in any number of ways, in different mediums and present that work however one likes. But I think that was not the same point rm was trying to make here in her post about writing. She was advocating trying to use language in a way that made it about language and words, rather than using it in a way that relied on methods or tricks used in different mediums.

Also, in regards to calling the work juvenile - that is not necessary pejorative. A writer's juvenalia is just that work that hasn't fully matured and grown into the writer's own creation. The writer may still be heavily leaning on tricks learned, on other influences and may not have yet developed their own.

Re: some thoughts on the discussion

[40sw.livejournal.com]

In my world both trite and jejune are pejorative. I expect your average dictionary would take my side on this. ;)

I get that the post is about writing, but I don't think that incorporating other things makes the writing bad, or juvenile, or immature- it just includes other things. There are great authors who take their writing a step beyond words on a page and there are crap authors that hide their writing in other things hoping we won't notice it's crap. Adding other dimensions by changing presentation might distract from the story you're trying to tell or it might add another dimension and add to the story.

I just don't think you have to take out everything but the words for something to be good (writing or otherwise).

Re: some thoughts on the discussion

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

Again, I think you're talking past the point. rm's post is about specifically *writing* and not about various artistic interpretations of the act of writing. I think you read too much into this, or just seem to take this too personally. When I read this, what I got from that point was not to worry about the presentation or the tricks or any other artistic methods to be incorporated with the words - just to start out dealing with the words.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Actually, when I'm trying to be difficult, it's a lot uglier and intentionally so. Truly, I felt like we were talking across each other and wanted some examples, and in your providing examples, it's clear to me that that perception was at least, somewhat, correct.

But I wasn't writing a post on "how to compete in LJ Idol," I was writing a post on things to think about if you're writing for LJ Idol. Perhaps it was my bad not to specify this, but since the vast majority of people are (I know you're not and I know someone else is doing most things in poetry, which also has different issues), it honestly didn't occur to me.

Your arguments being about other media, make sense. I thought you were making them about writing, which was the source both of my confusion and irritation.

[40sw.livejournal.com]

I just realized you were the first to suggest I keep drawing. I suck at watching names. :/

Are you into purity of art so I should keep writing out of my pictures if we're keeping pictures out of our writing (what with illustrations for text being juvenile)? O:)

It was mostly down to the not writing on tree bark thing- 'cause absolutely I prefer words on objects* to words on screens and declaring writing on objects is necessarily bad made me compelled to fuss about a lack of appreciation for anything beyond the words.

*granted I do prefer the choice to be purposeful over randomly decorative

[rm.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I don't have a purity of art thing at all, and I'm a bit of a typography geek and design geek (something influenced I assume by both my father's career and my Ex who remains ,to this day, a font hoarding freak).

You nail it though that I really like things to be done for a reason. I prefer a Why as opposed to a Why Not which can make me seem kinda Not Fun a lot of the time.

For the record I really liked (and voted for) your piece because I thought the two components went together, such that I didn't see them as two components. In fact, there was no actual entry that I could truly equate with the treebark thing, HOWEVER, there was more than one entry that was words only that I thought utilized something appallingly gimicky without any reason beyond the gimmick itself, but I didn't think it was appropriate to write anything that would actively call out a poster who was simple not to my admittedly snobbish taste.

So, now that we've got that resolved. Hi!

I'll friend you back.