Challenging – that was the best verb for a day with no writing. Sure, a few hours were fun. I reread On Writing by Stephen King, and half of Post Mortem by Patricia Cornwell. Both served a purpose and came with their own lessons. On Writing contains a lot of great advice, the best piece of it might be: write a lot, read a lot. Simple enough. Cornwell offers an another lesson.
The Kay Scarpetta forensic thriller is a good example of a plot-driven story that hooks the reader into staying up way past their bedtime. Some dismiss the “Oreo effect†( gotta have just one more cookie, gotta read one more page ) as an act of manipulation, and here’s where I agree and disagree with Ray Bradbury and Stephen King. Both consider plot little more than footprints in the snow left behind by their characters, secondary to the story. That’s absolutely correct, if the story is situation based. What if it’s not?
Situation driven stories – like what would happen if a writer was kidnapped by his biggest fan, or mankind had to move to Mars – tell the story slowly. Readers learn of the characters in bits and pieces just as the writers do. Hopefully, this builds to a crescendo. In the hands of a Bradbury or a King, it can be a great journey.
Plot driven stories place the emphasis on engagement. The action pops out front, right in the beginning. The stories burn bright; the stories burn fast. Patricia Cornwell, Dan Brown, John Grisham all deliver plot by the truckload. I’ll argue that Thomas Harris does as well, though he has a few more goodies in the toolbox than the others.
Given the competition books face from other visual mediums, the flat growth of publishing in general, and ever shrinking attention spans, it begs the question – how long will a reader tolerate a slow burn? Myself, I respect the get in, get out, take no prisoners approach. Put the ball where everyone can see, roll it, and keep it rolling. Brand me manipulative, I guess.
Lest this idea seem to come from a vacuum, here’s an article in the New York Times that raises good questions about technology scattering attentions in the workplace. Registration is required, but it’s free.
On Writing is a great book. I think my best line is something to the effect of: “If you don’t have the time to read, then you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write.”
Or those who won’t read outside of the genre in which they write. People in the sf/fantasy genres are the most guilty of this, which is why we see gluts of serial-killer stories, vampire stories, and atypical high fantasy stories, in which the only thing that’s different are the character names. These genres tend to go through stages where critics and fans alike complain about its derivativeness, and often with good reason.
I think the best advice you can give a genre writer is to read outside your genre. I mean, hell, I’m reading The Diviners, by Margaret Laurence, right now, and that’s about as far from horror as one can get.
The second half of On Writing is great; I found the first half only marginally interesting (but I’ll confess I haven’t read any of his other books) and I think they should have been two different books. But he does offer some great advice. My favorite line is: “Writing is seduction.”
Enjoy your days off. Recharge your batteries. You’ve been doing some heavy lifting; your writing muscles will grow stronger with rest.
I started reading Joey Vinny last night before I went to bed. I love the opening:
Those lines are just great!
I wonder if On Writing will ever seep into school curricula. That could do most students a lot more good than a two week sentence with Madame Bovary or Jane Eyre, that’s for sure.
Ian – I concur. Read from as many genres as possible. There’s not much more that can be done with serial killers.
Actually Robert, reading that bit from Joey Vinny again suggests a fourth line that could work with that passage. I always meant to either finish or revisit that story.
I actually think I’ve heard of On Writing being taught in some schools. I knew a teacher who, although it was not in the curricula, had recommended it to his students.
I’m all for reading the classics, but I think writers just starting out should have an appreciation for popular fiction as well, because that’s what’s selling today. It’s not different than monitoring any business trend, I guess, to see what people are consuming.
I remember some writer, it might have been King or Koontz or Bloch, said something to the effect of, Lovecraft is great, but don’t write like him, don’t imitate his style, nobody writes like that anymore, write in your own language. I take that advice to heart, especially since there are so many Lovecraft imitators out there, but also because I do enjoy the classics, and I also enjoy a lot of pop fiction. Some people turn their nose at pop-lit because they feel that books that reach a wide audience means one must be appealing to the lowest common denominator. That is obviously not always the case, but such generalizations are made from time to time.
I say read everything you can get your hands on and write in whatever way feels most comfortable to you. The greatest compliments I’ve had on my writing, both on my journal and on my stories, are from people who know me who say I write the way I talk. I figure that’s a good thing.
King makes a good point about Lovecraft as well, along the lines that because he was a loner, his ear for dialog suffered.
That is very true. Probably why Lovecraft wrote so little of the stuff.
The list of successful writers who craft poor dialog is long. This surprises me, because there’s plenty good examples available for study. Writers can dislike people or have social anxieties — many do, in fact — but they damn well better be active students of what they hate.