What's your own writing hacks?

[Kasper Hviid]

Which writing techniques have you come up with yourself?

I'm no writer myself, but still, here is my own silly notions:



S T O R Y

Story is vastly overrated. I see it mostly as a cheap trick to keep the reader hooked. The author tries to engage the reader, not with what's actually happening but by promising that there is a big reveal around the next corner. When the reader gets there, he gets promised that, by Golly, what awaits him a little further is truly fantastic...

I once began watching the tv-series LOST. After several episodes, I realized that I didn't care about the show ... every character could die, I wouldn't mind. The only thing that kept me hooked was that promise that there was this thing that I just shouldn't miss just around the next corner. I quitted the show.

Another time, I started watching WAREHOUSE 13, and instantly one of the leads began going on about how he absolutely didn't want to talk about the horrifying events from his past. And I already knew what I was in for - episode after episode of hinting about his stupid past, before the big reveal. I quit that show too.

When reading a novel called A VISION OF MURDER, I was yet again subjected to that horrible event from a characters past which she didn't want to talk about. And okay, I know the drill - a series of hints, then the big reveal. Not quitting this time, I read on, passed the hints and finally got the big reveal over with.

Newer tv-series tries to give the viewer an illusion of development. But of course, despite the reveals and character arcs, everything stays the same. If there true progress in DEXTER, it would quit being DEXTER after a few episodes.

The story fad is quite prominent, but let us look at some exceptions. There is the slice-of-life genre, where the story thing is ditched to give focus to environment. The SUPERMAN cartoons from the fourties shows a impressive disregard for any kind of progress or story, each and every episode being an exact carbon copy of the same formula. The way certain elements were repeated seemed almost like a ritual. The tv-series KOLCHAK THE NIGHT STALKER and COLUMBO also downplay the story. Each episode had a murder/monster, but the main attraction was the protagonists verbal duels with the other characters.

The Tintin comic THE CASTAFIORE EMERALD dared to show that the story isn't all that important - it is the ride that matter, the destination is just a silly excuse.


W I S H F U L F I L M E N T

There is in comic books a peculiar tradition for showing characters enjoying food with extreme joy.

GARFIELD has his lasagna, LIL ABNER has his po'k chop. The kiddie version of the super hero parody TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES had the heroes eat pizza. A member of Disneys BEAGLE BOYS has a great appetite for sweets. Dagwood Bumstead from the BLONDE strips had his fameous sandwiches - giving name to the Dagwood Sandwich: http://images.google.com/search?tbm=...gwood+sandwich
SERGANT SNORKLE represent a special sub-trope in in food-related comic book tropes: The Jovial Fat Guy Who Loves Food, also seen in LES 4 AS and LITTLE LOTTA.

Wish fulfilment doesn't have to be about being a milionaire or having super powers. A good writer can write about a character eating a meal in a way that makes the reader take part of that characters enjoyment. The crime novel TOO DARN HOT, about a female detective in the fourties, has the protagonists enjoyment of food as a running theme throughout, generously using half a page to let her enjoy a cup of coffee and a nesselrode pudding and when interviewing the parents of a missing girl, she is very much focused on the hors d'oeuvres.

The first PHRYNE FISHER novel runs wild in wish fulfilment - the protagonist is super rich, good looking and clever. She has no obligations and becomes a detective just for the fun of it. She buys new dresses constantly, have sex with everything and surely, our heroine needs food: http://thefabulousmissfisher.blogspo...ine-blues.html

[crich70]

I disagree with you about Story. Taking "Columbo" as an example the viewer knew at the start who the killer was and the fun was in watching Lt. Columbo unravel their alibi and prove that they were the killer. Granted that Columbo is an odd twist on the Mystery genre in that we know who did it from the start, but it's basically a quest story format. The hero (Columbo) has to figure out who did it and be able to prove it (his goal). Aristotle wrote that a story has to have a Beginning, a Middle, and an End. Granted in real life things aren't tidy, but in fiction while we know that the hero will either succeed or fail but even though their story is fiction we want to be able to suspend disbelief and be entertained. Words have a magic all their own. Even today we ask "how do you spell that" if we don't recognize a word/name.

[cromag]

I personally dislike (very much!) "Big Reveals" that involve events that pre-date or occur outside of the story. Anything that's that important to the story should be in the story.

On the other hand, one thing I do like is a big reveal that reveals a second interpretation of the events in the story. That sort of thing makes me think.


As far as "Wish Fulfillment" goes -- well, that's the whole point of fiction, isn't it? Well, maybe not all fiction, but a lot of it. If it's handled well it can be a lot of fun!

[gmw]

The only technique I have come up with for myself is: I want to know what happens.

In my writing I am telling myself what happens. I get an image of a character, I don't know where it comes from, and I wonder how he/she came to be like that, and so develops a back story. I get an image of a situation and I wonder how it came to be, and what could it possibly mean, and so develops the main story. And the two should overlap. If they don't, it's not working.

The story and the characters and the back story all intertwine, that's how life works, that's how a story should work - except ... a story gets to choose its ending. And this is part is mostly wish fulfilment. Elsewhere on this forum I said something to the effect of: no one wants to read the biography of some poor sucker that worked hard all his life, did good deeds, and still died poor, lonely and unrecognised. It is how life works for many, but it's not what we want to read in our fantasies.

There is a saying: "Goodness is its own reward". But that's not what we want to believe. We want to believe that being determined, honest and courageous will be rewarded - at the very least with our survival through the hardship. Life's not like that, but we like to think it could be. So we read fantasy stories where things, more often than not, turn out right - or close to it. We accept some level sadness in our fantasy, it adds to the verisimilitude, helps us to believe it is real. But inject too much reality and we are likely to reject it, it isn't what we want to hear - if it was, we'd be reading the news.


I believe story is important, but it should not stand alone. I re-read my favourite books quite often, and so I know what is going to be revealed. I need stories to involve me emotionally, and that should happen regardless of how familiar I have become. I need to be able to connect to (if not actually like), the characters. The poignant scenes of favourite books can still draw tears, however much I know it is coming. BUT I wouldn't be re-reading these books if the story didn't work. A story works when it fits in with who the characters are and how they came to be there.


You are correct that some "big reveal" from some untold past of a character is often not a great story element ... not unless the story has deliberately led you along a path where suddenly you can say "of course, it had to be like that". And there are authors who are masters of this technique.


I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the best stories are not made from one single element. All the elements have to work together. A "big reveal" should not be a surprise, it should be an affirmation of the story. Wish fulfilment is part of most fantasies, but it should not be too obvious or easy, or the reader won't believe it and their wishes will not be fulfilled.

[Rizla]

@OP. You'd probably like Raymond Chandler. He had no interest in plot, and it shows in his work.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by crich70

I disagree with you about Story. ....

And Stephen King agrees with you. Story is what matters. I agree.
(some additional tips here: http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/s...r-writers.html )

"We tell ourselves stories in order to live...We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience."
— Joan Didion (The White Album)

beyond that IMO it is Narrative Voice that matters.

of course any successful story must have all the elements - Situation, Characters, and the Story around them. It must keep the reader engaged and asking 'what then?'

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

Which writing techniques have you come up with yourself?

I'm no writer myself, but still, here is my own silly notions:


.....

Wait a minute, let's back that truck up Dale. You're not a writer but you ask this question. What may I ask is your motive/reason?

[kennyc]

another thought (not necessarily completely original, but phrased in my own inimitable way).

"Read what you want to write, write what you want to read."
- Kenny A. Chaffin

[Kasper Hviid]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wait a minute, let's back that truck up Dale. You're not a writer but you ask this question. What may I ask is your motive/reason?

Fair question! I'm trying to get a novel stitched together ... but I have loads of abandoned projects behind me, so I have sort of a low expectation. So I kind of feel more more honest by saying that "I'm not a writer".

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

Fair question! I'm trying to get a novel stitched together ... but I have loads of abandoned projects behind me, so I have sort of a low expectation. So I kind of feel more more honest by saying that "I'm not a writer".

Understood.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And Stephen King agrees with you. Story is what matters. I agree.
(some additional tips here: http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/s...r-writers.html )



beyond that IMO it is Narrative Voice that matters.

of course any successful story must have all the elements - Situation, Characters, and the Story around them. It must keep the reader engaged and asking 'what then?'

I agree with you about that Kennyc. No one element of a story can stand alone really. Characters are the ones a story happens to and of course situation is the state of affairs before the story begins. Without that we're left wondering why we should care why Frodo must destroy the ring etc. since we have no frame of reference to tell us what the character stands to lose if he/she doesn't take action. I think Narrative Voice is unique to each author myself. While two authors may use the same language in their writing each has their own way of writing things down that is unique to them. You and I could write the same scene if we were writing an account of something but we'd both see things differently to one another. Word choice,etc. would make the two accounts different.

[Kasper Hviid]

B E . A . D I P L O M A T

When I try to express an opinion on something, I always forget that I should try and win the critical readers heart - not try to attack him with aggressive paroles.

I forget to be humble. Reservations such as "I think" or "perhaps" may seem somewhat unnecessary and wishy washy, but I think they can help the reader be more open to what you're trying to say.

When I declared that story is overrated in fiction, I should have added some paragraph where I acknowledges that story is important and actually rather awesome. Again, this feel unnessary - kinda like stating the obvious - but it is necessary to set up a perimeter, so the reader is crystal clear on what you are saying, and what you are not.

One single slight provocation is enough to spoil your message. Look at this:
David Nicholls: Browsing bookshops then buying online is a 'genteel form of shoplifting'
Nicholls makes one single mistake, by comparing a somewhat questionable but legal behavior to shoplifting ... and of course, that single quote goes straight to the headline, since the media just loves conflict, since it makes such great 'stories'.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

B E . A . D I P L O M A T

When I try to express an opinion on something, I always forget that I should try and win the critical readers heart - not try to attack him with aggressive paroles. [...]

That really depends on your objective. Being blunt and deliberately provocative can actually generate discussion (and, incidentally if often not accidentally, publicity). I could point you to various authors on the 'net who I believe do this quite deliberately (if I was wanting to be provocative ).

If you write a piece where everything is "it seems" or "in some circumstances", then there is less chance the reader will take much notice, because the chances are that "in some circumstances" you are right. But if you say "it is", and "every time" then you challenge the reader to find exceptions, and in doing so you gain their participation.

One of the forum members has a signature line to the effect that people only want to read things that confirm their own prejudices, but I don't think that's true. People like to read opposing views that they feel they can negate ... and so continue to confirm their own prejudices in a more active way.

By writing in absolutes and using provocative analogies, you gain attention from both those that are interested (and perhaps tending to agree) as well as those who disagree with you. (Of course, it can also backfire.)

You can see this with David Nicholls example. I have no idea if he was intending to be deliberately provocative, but he has certainly generated participation here. There is just enough truth in his analogy to make most people sit up and look at what he said, and enough exaggeration to offend some sensibilities such that people feel they have to respond (no one likes to be called a thief, and he has effectively just placed that label on a large part of the population - if not in book stores then in other, similar, ways).