Post: Reply | Quote

I'm sure everyone's hear the maxim "Show, don't tell." I tried taking it to heart during my early writing. However, it didn't quite sink in. I was too close to my work to see the problems. I sent in the first 3 chapters of my work at one point to a professional editor that really opened my eyes to something. I wanted to share it with everyone here. Here's a snippet from the review

-------- snip ----------
Fiction writing is different from nonfiction, and most of us were taught nonfiction writing in school—the clear and logical laying out of fact and conclusion. Fiction doesn’t work that way, because you’re primarily trying to evoke emotional and imaginative participation rather than bring about an intellectual understanding. (The very best nonfiction writing uses both approaches, but that’s a different subject.) And readers are most readily engaged by being shown events that elicit a response rather than being told about them.
-------- snip ----------

Now, I sort of knew the last bit about *why* show was better than telling. What I realized, though, was that I was treating the process of writing my novel like it was fiction. I Would stop at certain points and lay out the details. This turned out to be telling, but I was picturing it as merely filling in the details so the reader had enough to go on.

The editor also said that ficting writing is a tricky process of posing questions. You hook the reader by *not* telling them things and making them wonder at certain events. There's an unwritten covenant between writer and reader that you will eventually give them the answers to those questions. Yet in doing so, you will pose more, deeper questions. They're even more on the hook now. The process continues until the climax of the book, at which point nearly all the questions are answered (unless it's a series).

So, I thought I'd just pass those thoughts along and see what people's reactions were. Has anyone had similar revelations during their writing? Something that didn't come clear in the beginning and then *pop*, it was bright as day?

Fiona mentioned the "saw" theory of the writing in another post. That's what made me think of this.

Cheers all,

Brad.

Post: Reply | Quote

I was just about to mention that Fiona's writting is a lot like that in her novels. Umm, but you beat me too it in the last part of your paragraph... OH WELL *Sighs*

*Stumbles off to bed*

Post: Reply | Quote

That's nice wrap up Brad. After joining a writing group a couple of years ago I had a similar revelation. I submited my work, thinking it was pretty darn good, to hav eit torn to shreds. They weren't gentle, but it was the best thing to happen to my writing ever.

I was writing a TV show without the benefit of having actors. Boring!

It's only when I realised I didn't know squat that I've started to learn a little, and although I feel I'm getting better, I am under no illusion anymore. This one craft you can never stop learning, and I'm very much a beginner.

cheers,
Darren.

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Post: Reply | Quote

I think I mentioned this, Brad, on the panel I was part of on the Show Don't Tell discussion in America. One of my major revelations in the early days of drafting Betrayal was to accept that the reader and myself are partners. And more importantly to surrender to the reader understanding that my readers are intelligent, imaginative people with their own creative senses. They do not need to be told everything. Instead, we agree that I will bring an absorbing, intriguing tale to the partnership and they will bring their trust that I won't let them down and especially their imagination. With that notion in place, you will soon find as the writer that the telling inclination stops. You will no longer feel compelled to desribe everything - instead you'll show them by taking them along with you. Does that make sense? So instead of telling them the sun was setting or the man was furious, you use more descriptive language which evokes the picture in their own minds.

Post: Reply | Quote

Yes, I really loved that description of it. It's a much more personal way to view the writing process, and indeed, it makes me loosen the hold on my writing and let things flow more freely.

I must admit, though, that the concept is somewhat... foreign, not having been published. It feels distant, if that makes sense. But in any case, I understand and appreciate the words you put to it. I will make it my mantra for a time, methinks.

Another thought that perhaps goes well with this topic: a writer once told me that my writing was too dry. I gave very factoid-type descriptions of things. I was trying hard to give a complete "run-down" of the setting, but I ended up just making it greyer.

The other writer is great at setting, and she told me that one detail is worth twenty generalities. Drum up your creativity and pull out some specific images. The rest can be generalized and the reader will paint amazing pictures without going into great detail.

Thanks, Fiona!

Brad.

Post: Reply | Quote

Can I also just reassure you that if you are not good at waxing lyrical over settings or details, don't push it. Because if it doesn't come naturally, then the reader will find you out so fast it will make your eyes water.

I freely admit I hate description. I don't enjoy doing it and I feel like I'm forcing it and when discovered I don't need to because the reader brings such vast colours and emotions and ideas with them, it was a relief to just write the story the way it came out from me.

You're not dry....you're just not a poet. Let the others who are good at it do that - you get on with being a storyteller and I promise it will work far better for you.

She's spot on of course in suggesting that a few details are like gold dust and can be hugely evocative for readers. Leave it to them to paint in the big picture.