A Word is Only the Beginning of the End

This is a topic I might have already touched upon, however I wanted to revisit it. If I have not mentioned it on Detangled Writers, or if I have and you just don't want to scroll a dozen pages back, I will start by asking you all a question: What does it take to make a story? Not a good story, not an amazing story, or even a bad story. Just a story, the rest can come after; and why am I asking you this? Because this is a topic that is both intriguing to me, while being irksome at once.

We have many expectations for a story, some of them very shallow. I'll name a few, a story must have plot, and it must be reasonable, that's one expectation - or often considered requirement. A story must have characters, and those characters need to serve a purpose. A story must have meaning, not necessarily a lesson, but meaning that relays to the reader. And that leads to the most shallow of expectations (in my opinion), a story must be written - or oral, but it must be made of words.

This expectation has often baffled me, as a person who can sit and stare at a piece of artwork, or listen to a classical work of art, and wonder and imagine and build from them. Yet many people are very adamant that such things as music or artwork are not stories. Do you believe this is true? In one of my writing courses we had a very heated debate on what a story was, and most people attested that no, a story had to be a full manuscript, but it could not be a picture or any form of artwork.

I believe this to be a very narrow view, and as a writer, as an artist, as someone who loves listening to music, I wanted to share this idea with you all. I was one of three people that contested this view of storytelling, and here is why. All of my stories, start with pictures, start with a feeling that I'm having inside, because that's my outlet, and so when I was told that art was not a form of storytelling I was quite offended, because this is what I believe a story is.

Anything that can get your imagination invested. As simple as that. I believe that if you look at a picture, and you ask 'why?' there is a story there, because as soon as you ask why, your mind starts building that story for itself. The artist who painted the picture, there was an investment in the presentation, there was a thought, and as an artist myself, there is a story, at least for me, even if it's missed by everyone else.

Now I know that's a very broad view, and can be equally as dangerous as the narrow view of story, so I'll condense it into a smaller frame of idea. Native Americans and Ancient Egyptians often used pictures to depict their legends where words and language were not enough. Would we deny that these are stories?

Finally the definition of story that really bothered me was that a story must have length:

"For sale, baby shoes. Never worn."
- Ernest Hemingway

This is the story that Hemingway considered his very finest in it's power to invoke a reaction. He believed this to be his greatest work of all time, and many people say that this is not a story at all. They say it's a piece of prose, but that it lacks the length and meaning of a story. It lacks the meaning? Do you believe this is true? "For sale, baby shoes. Never worn." This lacks meaning? ...Never worn; why? Why were these shoes never worn. Considering Hemingway's time, it leads to the assumption that the child died, if the child didn't die, there was something amiss with the shoes, but either way, there is a distinct feeling of loss - at least to me.

Because of the contention against this piece, a form of writing known as flash-fiction was created, and in fact my limited research on the topic genuinely suggests that this is the very reason flash-fiction was created at all. However flash-fiction doesn't necessarily make it a story. I admit I don't believe this is probably Hemingway's best work, but the fact that it resounded so strongly with him, and that he believed it to be his best, doesn't that investment in and of itself make it a story? Of course Hemingway knows much more than any of us behind the true meaning of the story, because perhaps the shoes were just too small for the baby, we don't know, it leaves us to wonder though.

So I want to ask all of you, what do you think qualifies as a story? Do you think it's an underlying meaning, or does it have to have words and length? Do pictures and songs count? Or is it what comes after that counts?

It feels like my brain is corroding slowly but surely, especially in the areas where I'm artistically inclined. It's kind of devastating, and so I've been really struggling to figure out what to write, both personally, but also for this blog. I've started so many blog posts and then just had to walk away because I've been so overwhelmed. I'm trying to remedy that now, by discussing some of the hardships that comes with being a writer, and how sometimes 'writer's block' is very real, and to people who depend on artistic expression, very devastating.

I've had a few classmates and associates in the past claim that 'writer's block' is a fallacy, and that there is no such thing as not being able to write anything. Perhaps in that regard they are correct, you can always write something, but what happens when you don't feel what you write, or when you reread it, it is a horror to behold? I've started to read again, slowly but surely, and tried drawing as well to counteract my inability to write, with little success. I've found that my artwork is suffering as well.

So I am at the end of my rope and would like to know how all of you deal with writer's block. How do you combat it, are there any techniques, philosophies, lessons you can share with me? I'd really appreciate it, and as this is a community for writing I thought I'd present this, because certainly I am not the only one who suffers from this. So this can be used as a source to help encourage other writers on how to combat a full imagination shut down.

Craft Choice: Speaker Tag

"I shan't go overboard with speaker tags," she said, "I find them to be horribly dull!"
"Then don't!"  He retorted.
"Oh, I certainly won't!  And when I do use speaker tags, I'll keep it nice and simple and only use 'said' for the communicative verb."

Having just finished rereading Golding's Lord of the Flies, I am left to ponder the usage of speaker tags in fiction.  In this book, lines of dialogue get their own paragraph and are often left without a tag of any kind.  It is the preceding or following paragraph that give us a hint as to who spoke.  Many people, authors and the like, have expressed a desire to minimize speaker tags in writing as a way to keep the story moving along or to limit the temptation to add unnecessary exposition to 's/he said.'  Some people feel quite the opposite and demand a tag on almost every line of dialogue because losing track of who's speaking is more detrimental to your story than a moment of extraneous detail.  Personally I hate not knowing who is talking though sometimes keeping it a bit obscure, such as in Golding's novel, can add to the setting of chaos.  But don't let that be your only element of chaos either.

Then there is the subject of what to use in your speaker tag.  Most Fiction authors agree that 'said' is more than enough, yet, Venice Berry (a very successful author herself) informed my workshop class in Boston that 'said' is fine but can get a little boring after a while.  She encouraged us to reach for other ways to express the verb.  There was a time when I steered clear of 'said' figuring that it was what 'learning writers' used and not the mark of a matured author.  I've been corrected.

What do I do when it comes to speaker tags?  I use them generously and I often fall into the trap of adding exposition right along with it.  And I primarily use 'said' but I am not afraid to change it up when I feel it better expresses how or why the character spoke in the first place.  This is a topic of interest to me and may end up working its way into a critical analysis at some point during this semester.  Just as a casual question: how do you - readers and fellow contributors - typically handle speaker tags?  I'm not asking what you think is best or better or more professional or more likely to get you published.  I'm just curious what works for you at this point in time.  Everyone has a different style and sometimes it helps to know you're not completely alone in your craft choices.

Amanda LaFantasie (Skoora) © 2013

10 Rules of Writing

I recently read Elmore Leonard's 10 Rules of Writing.  It is literally an 89 page book dedicated to  white space, caricature-like drawings and, of course, the ten rules.  They are as follows:

1.  Never open a book with weather.
2.  Avoid prologues.
3.  Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4.  Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said”…he admonished gravely.
5.  Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. 
6.  Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
7.  Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8.  Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9.  Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
10.  Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

 My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.

 If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

I found the entire book to be a bit on the pretentious side, please visit my personal blog to read my full review.  Concerning these rules, I question whether or not calling them 'rules' makes us less likely to follow them, or if something like this might be more palatable if presented as suggestions.  What are your thoughts on these rules?  Do you follow them?  Do you break them?  Do you think that you have to follow them in order to get any literary credibility?  There are a few that I do agree with and many that I intend to completely disregard.  Are there any here that you would personally follow?  Are there any that you disagree with completely?  

Amanda LaFantasie (Skoora) © 2012

The Need To Move On

Copyright notice, this image is public domain and free to use from here.

This is more a speculative piece, not based on any prompts, or any writing I have done recently. Nor does it have to do with other writers' suggestions, but rather something that occurred to me a few weeks ago, and then again tonight. Sometimes - I realized - what is most necessary is to just move on.  I don't mean this in a way that suggests anyone should just quit halfway through. No nothing quite so drastic. Rather, I mean this more in a way of growth. We as humans, we grow, our experiences, our every day interactions shape us and how we regard the world around us. Rather we grow forward or backwards, no matter the direction, there is little debate that we grow.  So for better or for worse, does our writing not need to as well?

This is kind of a personal realization for me, and here is the reason.  For the last seven years I have been in a writing partnership with Skoora.  Many of you know that.  Thousands of pages have been drafted between the two of us. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of words, and I'd gander millions if not billions of characters. These accomplishments have helped me grow as a writer, but recently I've found myself wondering how far I've come, and if I could go further. Because I realize that I have trouble letting go. We as human beings find a place where we are comfortable, and being shaken from that comfort causes us great stress. Something as simple as our favorite barista quiting after ten years of diligent service at our coffee shop that we go to just for them is enough to shake our emotional stability for a short time - and for some a great deal of time.  What does that say about us? Well the obvious answer is we stick to what we know.

This is a double edged sword, because the greatest advice writers give other writers is 'Write what you know.' Yet when does that quit being enough?  For the last six of the seven years Skoora and I have been writing, there has been a pretty prominent constant in our writing, and that is my primary character who goes by the name - I bet you can guess it - Tory.  He's the character that really started it for me, the one who made me realize so much about myself as a writer, but also about myself as a human being.  There has been something positive that has come from this, over the years as I've grown, so has he, to where I can now write him in any situation with ease.  I know him better than I know myself, I now what makes him tick, I know what makes him smile, and what makes him cry (which is everything). I know what he wants, what he fears, who he cherishes, who he wishes he could love more.  I know his vices and where he excels.  He's a character that is as real to me as you or myself.

I know Tory.

But maybe it's time I stop writing what I know? I find myself performing a tap dance through flaming hoops and tanks of man-eating piranha when I try to write someone else, anyone else.  I think with Tory I have grown as far as I ever will, and so this makes me wonder should I find a knew comfort? Should I find a new  knowledge?

Is this a question that all writers should ask?

Is the advice, 'Write what you know,' too broad?  If you know detectives, certainly you should write about that, if you know horses, then follow in Joe Henry's footsteps and write about horses. Yet, one of the greatest feelings in writing is learning something new. The research, the hardwork, the discovery that goes into writing the next scene, in building a life that you yourself can never live.  Is that not the wonder of fiction? The wonder of using ones mind to weave tales that are remarkable and unfamiliar, but through time, effort, and perseverance, become familiar?

Should I put to rest my familiar comfort and face the fires of uncertainty?  It's an interesting question that I know many great writers would disagree on. So this is something of a philosophical question that I don't believe has a write or wrong answer, but rather is left to personal preference, and it is the job of the writer to find that in themselves.

So I ask, what is your take on this topic, on writing the familiar, can this lead you into a dangerous downward spiral? Do you believe you should always write what you know? Do you believe that sometimes the best writing comes from learning and building new knowledge?  When does it become time to move on? Should we always/never move on?  I hope that this piece has allowed for some thought rather than confusion.

And on that note I leave with this idea:

 What we know is limited, but what we can learn is a vast universe of unforeseeable potential. - Elizabeth Kelly

The Writing Space

"That's my spot." ~ Sheldon, The Big Bang Theory

A recurring theme and a vital topic is that of a writing space, a place a writer feels comfortable and unencumbered enough to put black on white and practice their craft.  I lack this and so it has been a topic of much interest to me as of late.  In reading Goldberg's Writing Down the Bones and Wood's The Pocket Muse I encountered very similar ideas about what a writing space should be.  It should be a place that inspires you, that represents and augments who you are, that is orderly to a point but not pristine because immaculate conditions rarely produce art, and it should be yours.  Claim it with a name plate if you have to, this desk, corner of the kitchen table, spot on the couch, nook in the hallway is yours and yours alone.  I am considering making a space in the garage, but for now my 'writing space' consists of wherever the hell I can get a moment's peace and, of course, the library.  

Thanks to a good friend, I now possess a copy of On Writing by Stephen King and while I have yet to start reading the meat of the book, I noticed that even there, on the back cover, King makes mention of the all important writing space.  His assessment was that it should be a corner desk thereby sheltering one from the constant distractions of the world and allowing concentration and completion.  

Something interesting about the concept of having a writing space that is yours and yours alone is the necessity of leaving it.  Goldberg suggests finding a cafe to write in while Wood tells us that it's important to mix up the schedule a bit and try writing at a different place (park bench perhaps), a different time of the day (if you usually write at night, try getting up with the sun and see what happens), and also to write in a different style from time to time.  I understand that the real function of all of this is to rouse us out of our comfort zones and gain new perspective, new ideas, and perhaps reach a new audience.  But one must have a comfort zone in order to leave it, hence the importance of the writing space.  Do you have a writing space?  What is it like? 

Amanda LaFantasie (Skoora) © 2012

Discussion Question- a plotter or a pantser?

Are you a plotter or a pantser? A plotter is someone that outlines their novels before writing them. A pantser rides by the seat of their pants and waits for their characters to tell them what happens. Which one are you? And does it work for you and why?