The Marketplace of Technique: Open to All

Copperfox

Well-known member
DO NOT LOOK AT THIS THREAD!!--that is, UNLESS you want to receive, or offer, advice on methods of writing prose or poetry. That is what this thread is for; and here is my suggested way of operating it.

I, for my part, will NOT use any part of any item written on this forum as an example either of the good OR of the bad. I will either point to well-established literary examples, or make up imaginary pieces of writing to illustrate what's good or bad. I urge any others contributing to this thread to do likewise, so that no one within our forum will feel he or she is being adversely compared to anyone else.

Now for the first lesson, or session, or whatever--let us consider the question of whether "bigger" is always better in fantasy.

When I was a boy, there was a second-string fantasy and sci-fi author named Lin Carter, who founded his career on copycatting better-known authors, notably "Tarzan" creator Edgar Rice Burroughs and "Conan" creator Robert Howard. It seemed that the one way Carter could think of to outdo his predecessors was to be more sensational. So, if a Tarzan story featured a twenty-foot-long monster, Carter would write a story with a thirty-foot-long monster. If a Conan story featured a forty-foot-long monster, Carter would write a story with a fifty-foot-long monster. But no matter how big he made his monsters, Carter could not seem to make his heroes and heroines as interesting as those of the older stories; and so I didn't care as much about whether they survived their encounters with the inflated monsters.

A real-world monster, the Soviet dictator Iosif Stalin, said once that "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are just a statistic." The old-time sci-fi and horror critic Robert Bloch (who was also the screenwriter for the classic suspense film "Psycho") referred to this saying in one of his essays, when dealing with the overdoing of sensationalism. A reliance on flashy or shocking elements in a story can be like a drug that requires ever-increasing doses; this is often remarked on with regard to recent movies, but it also applies to the written word. Rather than being in an "arms race" over who has the wildest flights of imagination, I feel that authors should focus on creating protagonists and situations that will engage the reader no matter HOW many or few spaceships and enchanted castles are involved. One well-conceived, sympathetic character being in distress or danger in a book should be just as capable of holding the reader's anxious interest as if the author took a Doctor Who approach and insisted on having the entire universe in peril.

There, that was our starter.


Joseph Richard Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"
 
An interesting concept Copper. I've never thought of it that way. Personally i agree with you. One thing i never liked about some stories is how the heroes will be utterly outnumbered, they are doomed statistically, and yet they rise to a top in a flourish of glory. I see how your saying its much better to have firm charecters; but even with that, it makes it so much more real if you don't try to exaggerate everything. And if its not real, your readers loose respect for the story.
 
SITUATIONS AS A LENS

I've gotten to the age where I need to wear progressive bifocals to read or work with tiny parts easily. It's amazing what these lenses do for me to correct for my inability to focus close up.

Writers also uses lenses to bring mental images into sharp focus for their readers. Techniques are the lenses of writers. I hope to share a few of my techniques with you as I have time.

ES
 
I also look forward to ES explaining his lenses. Meanwhile, I'll just get one more thought posted about the "bigness" theme.

The Velociraptors in "Jurassic Park" were an up-close-and-personal menace. They were not 300-foot-tall Japanese movie monsters knocking over model skyscrapers; they were terrifying threats to particular individual characters we cared about. The question of whether this or that person would escape from getting munched by the Velociraptors was enough suspense, with no need of a black hole munching the entire galaxy. And while Sam Neill's character was no Superman to dispose of the creatures with ease, it was a moment for cheers when he managed to kick one in the head and keep it from climbing up into the attic.

There, now the deck is clear for the next subject. EveningStar, don't let my suggested guidelines inhibit you from citing your _own_ forum stories for examples of your lenses. I'm sure that your feelings won't be hurt by you commenting about yourself.
 
Yes - I have read a number of books in which the hero or heroine is so unrealistically succesfull as to make the story unexciting. When the hero was attacked by pirates, I didn't have to read on in anxious suspense, I knew that he would somehow cleverly defeat the insurgent without any loss whatsoever. That's another one of the things that makes stories so great, loss. Loss can be a great factor in a story. In the Lord of the Rings, for instance, I cried the first time I read the part about Boromir dying. Other stories have similar losses.
 
TECHNIQUE 1: CLASSICAL RESTRAINT

It's a fact...drop a frog into boiling water and it will hop right out! If you put the frog in cool water over a slow fire, it will stay in the water until it is cooked.

This harkens back to something Copperfox said about making the baddie twice as big or the grief twice as horrible. You do this and you interrupt a delicate process practiced by your reader, called "Suspension of disbelief." They know it's not a true story but while they are reading it they pretend it's true. Do something that interrupts their ability to believe what you say and BOOM, the reader loses interest. When you want a great tragedy in a story you have to gradually warm up the water or your froggy reader will jump out!

The reason for this process is that people have a visceral reaction to what they read. It involves them physically. They may cry, shake, feel warm and fuzzy, get tense with anger. You have to write at a pace that allows the reader to experience the emotions, and emotions do not zip by as quickly as logical assumptions.

I'll give you an example:

BAD WRITING

Shirley came home. She was met at the door by her mother who took her by the arm and said, "I'm sorry. Your Ronald's been killed in action." Shirley screamed and sobbed.

GOOD WRITING

Shirley walked through the door. "Hi, Mom!" She expected her mother to answer right away and was puzzled. "Did I say something wrong?" Her mother looked her in the eyes and held out a trembling hand clutching a telegram. "It's from the War Department...." Shirley dropped her packages in the floor and her hands went to her face. For a while she couldn't utter a sound, then she gasped in a deep breath and let it out in a shriek. Her mother grabbed her and held her tight. "I'm so sorry! Oh baby, I'm so sorry!"

ES
 
Maybe its just my dumb-blond moment for the day; but while i understand, i don't see what it has to do with lenses. ;)

While we're on the subject of pacing the readers, how fast is too fast and how slow is too slow? How do you tell when its too wordy, and when its not wordy enough?
A friend of mine is a slower reader than i am. We will edit the same thing and she will think it has too much description. She wants her action, and she wants it then.
Me, i'm a fast reader, and i appreciate a couple descriptive sentances for something important, because otherwise i just skip right over it. I'm afraid that effects my own writing. And, personally, i dislike those books where you gobble them up in five seconds.
So; i repeat my question: How do you know? is there some sort of base standard, or is it just for each writer individually?
 
Copperfox said:
I also look forward to ES explaining his lenses. Meanwhile, I'll just get one more thought posted about the "bigness" theme.

The Velociraptors in "Jurassic Park" were an up-close-and-personal menace. They were not 300-foot-tall Japanese movie monsters knocking over model skyscrapers; they were terrifying threats to particular individual characters we cared about. The question of whether this or that person would escape from getting munched by the Velociraptors was enough suspense, with no need of a black hole munching the entire galaxy. And while Sam Neill's character was no Superman to dispose of the creatures with ease, it was a moment for cheers when he managed to kick one in the head and keep it from climbing up into the attic.

There, now the deck is clear for the next subject. EveningStar, don't let my suggested guidelines inhibit you from citing your _own_ forum stories for examples of your lenses. I'm sure that your feelings won't be hurt by you commenting about yourself.


Yes but how does a story have to be 'real?' Define 'reality' in a story that is fanfic or fantasy. Take a look at my fanfic. Clearly it's not 'real' in any sense. I think being too 'real' takes away from the creative aspect of a story. We're not here on this thread so that we can worry about every aspect of technique and grammar in our stories, of course, albeit those two things are helpful.
 
Suspension of disbelief is the very first step. If people can't pretend it's so while they are reading it, they won't read it.

It's hard to get involved with this:

One bright morning in the middle of the night
Two dead brothers got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and killed the two dead boys
And if you don't believe it's true
Ask the blind man...he saw it too!

--Anon
 
Franz Kafka's famous story "The Metamorphosis" depicted a series of events which _could_ logically ensue, IF a man were suddenly changed into a giant cockroach. No man ever _has_ changed into a giant cockroach, but Kafka's conjecture of the aftermath had its own internal logic. So with your story, LifeMaiden. If Jadis and the other characters all DID exist, their actions could plausibly be as you have portrayed them. That, I think, is the kind of "reality" we are discussing: events in a story following a path consistent with the premise.


ALTERNATE VERSION OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT:

If you write a story where things happen that can't happen in our world, the story can still be "real" in a way if the things that happen AFTER the things that can't happen are the things that probably WOULD happen if the things that can't happen, happened.
 
Last edited:
I was trying to explain that to my father the other day after watching the tv show Deja Vu. For some reason he didn't seem to get it. But there is a sort of law to it--if humans could travel back in time, they would be able to change the future by changing the events that led up to it. If they could go back in time.
Its very clear to me...
 
Copperfox said:
Franz Kafka's famous story "The Metamorphosis" depicted a series of events which _could_ logically ensue, IF a man were suddenly changed into a giant cockroach. No man ever _has_ changed into a giant cockroach, but Kafka's conjecture of the aftermath had its own internal logic. So with your story, LifeMaiden. If Jadis and the other characters all DID exist, their actions could plausibly be as you have portrayed them. That, I think, is the kind of "reality" we are discussing: events in a story following a path consistent with the premise.


ALTERNATE VERSION OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT:

If you write a story where things happen that can't happen in our world, the story can still be "real" in a way if the things that happen AFTER the things that can't happen are the things that probably WOULD happen if the things that can't happen, happened.


You see that right there, Joseph, what you just posted? ALTERNATE VERSION OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT? You could have said that originally in your post and saved yourself a lot of time and effort. That is probably the most SIMPLE and CONCISE statement you've ever made on this forum. I salute you. :D :D Let's STICKY THIS TOPIC!!
 
I refer to techniques as lenses that bring a mental image into focus. There is no big deal here and don't let the term bother you.

If I had an hour and a blackboard I could fill the hour and the blackboard talking about timing.

One of the hardest things noviates (the nice word for newbies) find in writing is telescoping time. If the hero has to run from the village all the way up the hill to the outpost, how do you do it without describing the entire journey in detail?

I use a number of techniques, the best of which is Changing POV (that's POINT OF VIEW folks) to break up time.

This is way WAY too simplistic to pass as literature. It's an example exaggerated for effect. We have the Blue Army about to shoot a captured member of the Red Army for being a spy. We have someone with a dispatch hurrying along on a horse to stop the execution. We have the Red Army sending out a rescue party. All three converging on one spot.

Blue Army: "Bring out the prisoner! Now we'll show you what we do to dogs like you!"

Red Army: "Remember boys, we're fighting this one for Johnny!"

Messenger: "I must not fail! Come on horse, don't let me down!"

Blue Army: "Do you have any last words?"

Red Army: "There they are! Raise your muskets lads! Ready...Aim...."

Messenger: "WAIT!"

Now imagine if you did this whole thing from the perspective of the messenger.... Come on horsie! Giddy-yap, horsie! Gee I hope I get there in time! Oh there they are! I'm getting closer...closer....come on horsie!"
 
Excellent point!

It is also difficult to decide which events need to be described in detail, and which should be mentioned in passing. Sometimes, I feel like too much detail makes something boring. Other times, I feel like I'm not being descriptive enough, and not getting inside my characters' heads enough, to make the story interesting. But it would make for a long and pointless story if you got inside your characters' head for every passing thought, and even event!
"So-and-so could feel the sneeze approaching. She reached for a tissue. A bird flew by. [insert a few more irrelevant occurences] Then she sneezed." Pointless, dumb description!
 
EveningStar said:
Suspension of disbelief is the very first step. If people can't pretend it's so while they are reading it, they won't read it.

It's hard to get involved with this:

One bright morning in the middle of the night
Two dead brothers got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and killed the two dead boys
And if you don't believe it's true
Ask the blind man...he saw it too!

--Anon

I love that...It's so cool! (don't ask me why! It's just...ummm...I love it! :D)
* Tries to think of something worth telling people and fails.* maybe next time!
 
A writer discussing kung-fu movies once wrote something like this:

In a traditional kung-fu movie, there could be one or more scenes where a character talks at some length about how a fighting style developed, and what its strengths are. But in Bruce Lee's movie "Return of the Dragon," they simply have a European gangster ask a friend what Chinese kung-fu is like--and then, without waiting for more dialogue, the camera cuts to SHOW Lee's character in the very act of practicing his kung-fu moves.


This came to my mind when reading EveningStar's "army" illustration.
 
Yeah...I like stories (and movies! :p) with lots of action in them, but it can't be to far fetched, or else...it's not very fun. Know what I mean? Fantasy included: Lets just say our little friend Frodo Baggins is fighting 100 orks;
Frodo swung his sword sting, lopping off two ork heads at once (not possible!) Then he threw a dagger, getting one through the eye, it kept going came out the other side and stuck another ork. They both died. And then Frodo picked up a 1000 pound boulder, three times his size and threw it at the rest of the orks, killing them all.
(Okay, remember this is WAYYYY out! :p) Most stories aren't this bad, but they have to be realistic.This fight is a bit better. (not saying it's well written though!)

Finally the lion jumped. He grabbed the tree trunk with all four paws and started up the tree. Emil’s knife was unsheafted in a moment. The lion was only a few feet away. Emil grasped the handle till his knuckles turned white. Then using all his strength he plunged it into one of those awful,vile, evil, yellow eyes.
The lion screamed and dropped to the ground. But it wasn’t stopped yet. He seamed more angered than hurt. Again it leapt up the tree but this time the lion lifted one of his huge paws and made a sweep at the knife. It caught and was pushed back so hard and fast it snapped Emil’s index and middle finger and made him drop the knife. Emil swung higher up the tree, hoping the lion wouldn’t follow. But it did.
The tree was short and dead and Emil couldn’t go any higher and the lion was only a few inches downwards. So Emil did the only thing he could do. He jumped.He decided that the lion was coming so he needed his knife. He felt unsuccessfully for the it in the long grass just as the lion jumped from the tree. It roared, and pounced on Emil crushing him under his heavy weight.
Emil gagged at the smell of the lion’s breath, it stunk like rotten meat. The lion’s blood ran down from it’s eye dripped onto Emil’s face. It roared, at that moment he felt something under him. His knife! Reaching under him he whipped it out slashed at the lion’s throat. But that didn’t stop the teeth from coming down and biting and tearing his shoulder. With a cry of agony he drove the knife into it’s neck. It sliced deep, and Emil heard and felt when it hit the bone. The lion let go of his shoulder gave a tremendous shudder and dropped dead on top of Emil, and that was all he remembered.

Maybe this fight isn't soooooo realistic, but much more so then the first one! Did I prove my point?
 
Back
Top