I made a blog

[Mike Dunn]

I decided to create blog as a place for writing small things. So I call it Small Ball.

RSS feed is here, if you have an aggregator and care to subscribe.

[John]

Just bookmarked your blog, Mike, and read the entry about your visit to the cemetery with Charlie. I'm glad he was there to accompany you, and I believe you're right: dogs have a knack for sensing when they're needed. A very moving piece. Keep on writing. I'll share the link with friends.

[roncollins]

Remarkable entry, Mike.

[Mike Dunn]

Some thoughts on reading while writing.

[roncollins]

Good thoughts.

Writers are constantly making the (generally wrong) assumption that the words they use are the important thing. I never want to suggest that the ability to bring a powerful beat or poetry to a story is not useful, but the real fact of the matter is that as long as you write well enough to be understood clearly and easily, the path to real success--the differentiator as it were--is whether you can tell a story. (L. Ron Hubbard, or all people, once said something like "craft strong enough to elicit _some_ emotion is good enough," or something like that).

As a general rule, stylists understand well when they can use their poetry, and when they just need to tell the story. When you read Mieville next, take time to really look at his prose. Watch where he is letting his characters do their thing, and when he's writing clean prose. I think these kinds of writers are so brilliant because they can turn it on and off in the right places. And realize that Mieville's "voice" here is not really Mieville's voice. Mieville does not, for example, use the word "complexitude." His character uses that word, and it is the exact word his character would use. He gets away with his pretension here because of the characters he chooses to write about.

I have not read "The Martian," but even if Weir could write like that, it would almost certainly be out of place in his Martian adventure story.

The point here is that new writers need to focus more on how to tell a story rather than worry about any quality or lack thereof to their prose. Be clear with your prose, and avoid pure flab. Make it easy to read (Mieville's prose may be deep, but it is insanely easy to read). Write a lot, and your prose quality will become whatever it will become. But remember that most people will read a great story even it it's told with limited sophistication, but they will stop reading beautiful prose fairly quickly if it isn't backing a story of true interest.

[Mike Dunn]

Ron, as usual your comments are both insightful and encouraging. Thanks for taking the time.

Your point about Meiville's use of prose to reflect the voice of individual characters is extremely important and one that I'm struggling with in my novel. I have three POV characters, and I am well aware that their voices -- as reflected in the prose of the individual chapters -- are not distinct enough. The characters, I believe, are distinct enough (at least in my mind), but their voices are not. I know this is a problem. I'm not sure I have the ability to fix it.

[roncollins]

The "problem" is solved by:

1) Becoming your characters, to the very best you can. In this way there is much in common with acting and writing.
2) Removing anything that sounds writerly unless the tone is speaking to character in some fashion (and remember that setting is actually character--Mieville's world of Perdido Street Station is so deep and vivid and industrial because he uses characters that are deeply attentive and focused on that aspect of his cities...that same city may feel very different if he wrote from the point of view of a young boy growing up in a rich family there.)
3) Writing on a piece until it says to _you_ what you want it to say to _you_.
4) Letting it go then to live its life however and wherever it will find itself.
5) Going on to write something new and different so you can stretch your muscles in a different place.

The real problem here is that your work (especially the first several years of your work) never really "sounds" right to you because you're busy reading Stephen King or China Mieville or Neil Gaiman or Harlan Ellison, and you're not any of these people and you think that's a terrible shame because that's the way you have to write. But your work is your work. It will sound like you. And that, in the end, is a very good thing.

[John]

Great thoughts, Ron, and great advice.

[Alleghenies]

Good thoughts.

Writers are constantly making the (generally wrong) assumption that the words they use are the important thing. I never want to suggest that the ability to bring a powerful beat or poetry to a story is not useful, but the real fact of the matter is that as long as you write well enough to be understood clearly and easily, the path to real success--the differentiator as it were--is whether you can tell a story. (L. Ron Hubbard, or all people, once said something like "craft strong enough to elicit _some_ emotion is good enough," or something like that).

As a general rule, stylists understand well when they can use their poetry, and when they just need to tell the story. When you read Mieville next, take time to really look at his prose. Watch where he is letting his characters do their thing, and when he's writing clean prose. I think these kinds of writers are so brilliant because they can turn it on and off in the right places. And realize that Mieville's "voice" here is not really Mieville's voice. Mieville does not, for example, use the word "complexitude." His character uses that word, and it is the exact word his character would use. He gets away with his pretension here because of the characters he chooses to write about.

I have not read "The Martian," but even if Weir could write like that, it would almost certainly be out of place in his Martian adventure story.

The point here is that new writers need to focus more on how to tell a story rather than worry about any quality or lack thereof to their prose. Be clear with your prose, and avoid pure flab. Make it easy to read (Mieville's prose may be deep, but it is insanely easy to read). Write a lot, and your prose quality will become whatever it will become. But remember that most people will read a great story even it it's told with limited sophistication, but they will stop reading beautiful prose fairly quickly if it isn't backing a story of true interest.

I've never noticed stuff like this before and it is enlightening to read. I'll be paying closer attention to when I read books now and see if I can pick this out. It is probably a contributing cause as to why I love or disliked certain writers, I've just never understood why before. Thanks Ron!

[Mike Dunn]

The "problem" is solved by:...

As John said, great advice. Thanks again.

I think I'm going to collect all your replies to the questions/issues John and I have posted into a little book. How about: "The Collective Writing Wisdom of Ron Collins."

[Mike Dunn]

Another post, this one about reading sf. Ron, I think you'll appreciate this one.

[roncollins]

My reply: Cultural snobbery and the genres :)

[Mike Dunn]

My reply: Cultural snobbery and the genres :)

Thanks Ron, flattered that you'd link to my post and pleased its theme was synchronous with your thoughts and the Rothfuss video. I recently was reading about China Meiville and saw that he explicitly wants write across many genres; in fact he said his goal IIRC is to write a novel in every single genre (if such a thing is possible). I'm sure his publisher might also prefer otherwise. So you're in good company.

[John]

This discussion brings to mind how awkward I feel when discussing my reading and writing tastes. I particularly hate talking about my writing, for the precise reason that it makes me feel like a lowbrow cretin. The shame strikes me every time.

"So tell me about your latest work!"

"Well, it's a gothic horror story ... "

<nose turn up>

" ... I mean, it's a character piece ... "

<nose lowers>

" ... about a boy who finds that his parents have locked a girl inside a cage in their attic ... "

<nose crack the ceiling>

" ... and, well, enough about that. Did you see that awesome film that just came out? No, not that one ... I meant that one ... "

<withers under disapproving gaze>

It's tough being a genre fan - at least, it is if you posses a less-than-iron level of self-confidence. (Guilty.) I confess to wishing at times that I had more passion for "artistic art" just so I didn't have to feel so defensive about my plebeian tastes. And yet I realize how self-destructive this notion is. I am who I am, a person with passions and talents that revolve around certain forms of poppy, pulpy art. I will never be able to produce The Great American Novel, but I might just be able to carve out a career for myself in the genres that I love. That shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. It embarrasses me that it embarrasses me.

[roncollins]

Yeah ... among the reasons I still like going to SF conventions that cater to literary folks is that it's always great to spend a weekend with a bunch of folks who live the genres. It's nice to hang out with my peeps, and it's nice to see people who are professionals in the field work just like professionals in pretty much any field. :)