Then Lorin Stein Said

Lorin Stein recently wrote the following in the New York Times Book Review: “There is a sound I hear in lots of ‘literary’ stories and novels today, not just the ones that come to me on submission, but published work too. It’s the sound of fingers on a keyboard. When I’m supposed to hear the voice of a narrator, or see a family around a dinner table, what I’m actually aware of is the author pushing a product, specifically, the image of the writer at work, doing his/her best to shock and charm.”

The writer should get out of the way and let the story reign. I sure hope I’m doing this in my work.

Here’s another quote from Stein from the same article: “Method actors like to talk about something called “public solitude” – that is, the ability to seem alone onstage. Really, to be alone, without wondering how you look to the audience. They will tell you this is the basis of naturalistic acting: to forget about the audience. Only then can you build a character, pay attention to others on stage and act out a scene.”

Certainly the writer is present. There would be no story if he wasn’t. But he must work; he must build the story as if no one is reading, as if no one ever will. Good writers work for the realization of the story. Like the actor, the writer slips into the story and vanishes in plain sight. They let the story have the day. The power is not in their wittiness, their ability to conjure and devise some sweet-scented wonder. The power of the narrative is solely in how the characters respond to the world that has risen up around them.

Thank you, Lorin Stein. Well said.

Stein’s article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/books/review/words-unwired.html

Simple and Concrete VS. Layered and Abstract

Simple and concrete is the goal. This is where good writing lives. Layered and abstract is what most beginning writers produce. Layered and abstract is a pothole many experienced writers fall into. We think this is what will wow the reader. What we fail to realize is that layered and abstract will get in the reader’s way. It will veil the meaning. It will wake the reader from their dream.
Here are a couple of examples from my own writing. The first example in each pair is layered and abstract. The second example is simple and concrete:

“Yes,” I said, “I suppose I am hungry.”
“Yes,” I said, “I am hungry.”

“I thought about how I’d like to talk to this Maker. How I’d like to get some answers about all of this.”
“I’d like to talk to this maker, I thought. I’d like to get some answers.”

The difference is striking. Notice how the language that has been removed is meaningless and useless? It is obvious when you see it. With the first examples I thought I was adding meaning, being introspective and sensitive – I thought I was adding character depth. I wasn’t. I was infusing clutter into a perfectly straight-forward statement.
This difference, if carefully understood and then detected and ruthlessly uprooted from your writing, will leap your work forward toward being quality prose.

*Thank you, Ben H. Winters for phrasing the differences like this during one of our conversations.

A Parable of Commitment*

He loved the violin. He loved going to the concert hall and hearing a solo violinist. He had thought about it for years and now was his time. He would take violin lessons.

The following Saturday he bought a violin. He felt like a superstar walking out of the music shop with the case under his arm. He got online and signed up with a local teacher who was well respected and set the date for his first lesson.

Every evening, leading up to that first lesson, he took his new violin out of the case and dusted it with the cleaning cloth the salesman had given him. He tuned the violin, gently plucking the strings and using the electronic tuner he had bought. He left the case open so he could glance over at the violin while he watched TV or so his friends could see it when they stopped by.

Finally the evening came for his first lesson.

The teacher taught the young man how to hold the violin and the bow. She taught him the notes of each string and how to move the bow between them. She then gave him several exercises and sent him home with these assignments.

At his second lesson the teacher asked the young man to perform his first assignment for her. He struggled. The teacher corrected a few things and sent him home with an additional assignment.

At his third lesson, again, the teacher asked him to perform his assignment. The young man struggled much like he had the week before.

And so it went: weeks of lessons, assignments, little if any discernible progress.

After a few months of lessons, the young man was surprised when the teacher told him to leave his violin in its case and have a seat. She sat down across from him.

“Tell me how has your practice time has been going?” she asked.

“It’s been going OK,” said the young man as he glanced around the room.

She was careful with her wording. “How often did you practice this last week?”

The young man didn’t quite know what to say. He looked over at his violin case which was standing open. He looked at the golden wood grain of the instrument. It was beautiful.

“Remember how I told you to practice every day for 20 minutes? We’ve talked about that several times.”

“I do. Yes.”

“Have you done that?”

“No. See, things are crazy at work.”

“I understand.”

“And the neighbors have been gone for three weeks and I’m house-sitting their dog.”

“I see.”

“And I had a really bad cold over the weekend.”

The teacher sat patiently and listened to the young man. “May I be frank?” she asked.

The young man nodded.

“You have told me many times that you love the violin and that you would love to learn to play it.” The man nodded again. “But I have identified a gap,” continued the teacher. “You have not yet committed to the process, to the work of becoming a violinist. You are not in love with learning to play the violin – you are in love with the idea of learning to play the violin.”

 

*This is not original. I heard it a long time ago and re-wrote it for you here.

On [The Illusion of] Character

Oren’s life is like our own*. It is not a series of events, but rather his life occupies a space in time and is constructed of soul + DNA + experience, within and influenced by a community – a cast of other characters.
However, characters in novels cannot be written with the complexity of real people. If I attempt to write a character with all the interior life and mixed motivations of a real person, I’ll not only overwhelm the story but my reader as well. I won’t create a realistic character; I’ll create a muddy persona without shape and lacking individuality.
Characters in stories are presented through a series of reveals – concrete, strategically chosen facts, and declared motivations – which (if we do our best work) give the reader the illusion that all the complexity of a life exists between the lines and off camera.
A key element enters here for the writer: we must know more of the character than is on the page.
The writer must know the character’s life story – as deeply as possible – in order to authentically present snippets of his/her life to the reader. Here’s a loose metaphor – in order to most effectively treat a patient a doctor strives to know the history of that patient and as much as possible about their lifestyle past and present. None of this detail may be addressed in the patient’s care – discussed or further explored in any way – but care for the patient’s present complaint will be most accurate and lasting with this knowledge in hand.
Similarly, writers write about characters – their history, habits, lifestyle (sometimes called a character sketch) – to learn about them. This meta-writing isn’t intended to ever be part of the story, but it is how we learn about characters, how we discover them and sculpt them so that we can create for our readers the illusion of a real story about a real person.

*Except that Oren is a character in my novel-in-progress. He is a master scribe from the ancient city of Susa.

Isaiah and Micah – One Evening in Jerusalem, 751 BC

M: It is good we have finally met, Isaiah. I’ve heard much about you. The faithful say we are speaking about the same event – the event to come – the one of which we’ve been told.
I: Yes! Tell me what have you been saying?
M: I’ve been trying to get the attention of the rabbis in Bethlehem. I told them, Bethlehem, David’s country, the runt of the litter— from you will come the Leader who will shepherd-rule Israel. But they aren’t listening.
I: Oh Micah, who believes what we’ve heard and seen? Who would have thought God’s saving power would look like this? The servant grew up before God—a scrawny seedling, a scrubby plant in a parched field. I speak in past tense about the future. I have seen it! It is a sure thing!
M: The One who is going to be born in Bethlehem, He’ll be no upstart, no pretender. His family tree is ancient and distinguished.
I: This is true, but you speak of His glory while I speak of His humility. There was nothing attractive about Him, nothing to cause us to take a second look. He was looked down on and passed over, a man who suffered, who knew pain firsthand. One look at Him and people turned away. We looked down on Him, thought He was scum.
M: Meanwhile, Israel will be in foster homes until the birth pangs are over and the Child is born, and the scattered brothers come back home to the family of Israel.
I: But the fact is, it was our pains He carried— our disfigurements, all the things wrong with us. We thought He brought it on Himself, that God was punishing Him for His own failures. But it was our sins that did that to Him, that ripped and tore and crushed Him—our sins! He took the punishment, and that made us whole. Through His bruises we get healed.
M: He will stand tall in His shepherd-rule by GOD’s strength, centered in the majesty of GOD – Revealed. And the people will have a good and safe home, for the whole world will hold Him in respect— Peacemaker of the world!
I: Of course, Micah, but it is personal! We’re all like sheep who’ve wandered off and gotten lost. We’ve all done our own thing, gone our own way. And God has piled all our sins, everything we’ve done wrong, on Him, on Him.
M: Isaiah, I have not only said all this, I’ve written it down.
I: I have too. Though I’m not sure why. No one seems to listen, why should we think they will read?
M: Maybe they’ll read what we’ve written – even after it is done, generations from now – and see that we foretold it all?
I: Many won’t, but some will, Micah, some will.

*Much of this text taken from the books of Isaiah and Micah as found in The Message, by Eugene Peterson.

Time Again for My Favorite Old Soapbox

In the end, there is only one thing the writer can do. There is one accomplishment that is wholly under his control. There is only one action he can take to most influence the positive outcome of his pursuit.
Write.
Write when you have a sinus infection. Write when you’ve gotten only four hours of sleep and you keep dozing off at your computer. Write when things at the office are stressing you out. Write when family members are ill. Write when the leaves need raked and the garage needs cleaned out.
Write.
Those demands will be there, and they’ll get your attention soon enough. A successful writer is someone who finds a way to write. Every day. Under every circumstance. No matter what. They write and then they go on about their life.

Or put another way…
There is only one thing that the writer can do to ensure absolute failure at their craft.
Don’t write.
Don’t write when you have a sinus infection. Don’t write when you’ve gotten only four hours of sleep. Don’t write when things at the office are stressing you out. Don’t write when the leaves need raked and the garage needs cleaned out.
You can easily identify these people. They say things like, “It has been a crazy week, and I’ve been too busy to write,” or “I can’t focus. There is too much going on” or “I’ve had no ideas lately,”* or “I don’t have time to write.”
These people are not writers. They are not writers for one reason. They don’t write.
Is the plumber a plumber if he doesn’t daily grant himself the time/energy/focus to fool with pipes?

*Ideas are only generated when you are writing – or are in the daily habit of writing. They don’t arrive willy-nilly through some secret door to which only “creative people” hold the key!

What Great Writers Do

This is what great writers do. They think deeply and critically about the human condition and they come up with a great idea for a story, such a great idea that they are possessed by it and the act of writing it carries them, like a rushing current, until they’ve produced a landmark work that we all read in enlightened amazement.
Not true. This is NOT what great writers do. This a myth.
Late last month there was an article in Time Magazine celebrating the 25th anniversary of Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried*. On display was a page with O’Brien’s hand-written edits. In looking over that page I saw once again what I learned some time ago – the writer’s skill is not in coming up with a great story, the writer’s skill is in telling us what we already know in a new and interesting way.
The Things They Carried is a war novel^. There have been many war novels – even great war novels. It has been said that the first American war novel was Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage, a novel of the civil war. O’Brien’s landmark accomplishment was not in writing a great war novel. That had been done – many times. What makes The Things They Carried the book that it is is in how O’Brien goes about pulling us into the Vietnam War. He loops his forearm around our necks and yanks our heads down into the grit; he makes us look very closely at what is happening.
So, stop wandering around trying to come up with a great and original idea for a story.
Stop wasting your time. Instead, give us the most familiar anew.

*http://time.com/4118713/things-they-carried-manuscript/#4118713/things-they-carried-manuscript/

^You might call it a short story collection. The line between the two is too thin to warrant debate.

Progressive Elaboration

There are two kinds of writers.
One kind thinks about the story they are going to write. They think and think and think about the story, then one day when they are done thinking, done imagining the story, they go and they write it all down in one feverish rush. This kind of writer is very, very rare. They may even be the stuff of myth and movies. They are the mad scientists of literature.
The other kind of writer has an idea about a story – a character, a plot point or two, a place, a situation – and gets a draft of the idea down as soon as they can. They write a reckless and awful first exploratory draft to see if the story has legs, if the idea is going to sprout. This is almost always clear to the writer in this first draft and is always clear by the second. There is either life in the idea or there isn’t. It is either on or it is off. If there is life then the writer reworks that draft over and over until they are convinced the story is fully wrought.
I am this second kind of writer. I learn what the story is going to be as I write it. That original seed of an idea is only a place to start. The story is created in the writing of it. This revealing of the story as it is written is called progressive elaboration*. As drafts of the story are written, the story unfolds and the facets of it develop. I believe that all novels are like this. It is certainly my experience that all short stories are. With each draft you find there are aspects of the story to be fleshed out, other aspects to be left less explicit, for the reader to imagine.
It is in the progress of making the story that we learn what it will be and how it will be told.

*This is a term that is used in project management – discovery of the work to be done as it is planned. I am repurposing the term here, as it applies perfectly to the making of fiction as well.

The Willing Suspension of Disbelief

When a reader picks up a novel and begins to read, there is an unspoken agreement that occurs. The reader agrees to accept what she reads as fact. And this agreement remains in place for the duration of the dream the author has created.
The willing suspension of disbelief is a concept I learned in high school theater. It has been around forever and is a foundational fact of how we consume stories. Without this uniquely human capability, all fiction in writing, film, and on the stage would fall flat. We would interrogate everything we read and saw. We’d be constantly preoccupied – tethered to an ongoing argument about whether or not what is being presented to us is a truth or a lie. Fortunately, we don’t think in these terms…when we decide not to. In fact, we are able to tease truth out of a story and learn about ourselves and our lives from events and circumstances that are not themselves real.
While this concept seems complicated, we don’t actively suspend our disbelief. We do it without even thinking about it. This is the joy of reading.
However, as writers we must realize that the dream is fragile. The willing suspension our readers have granted us is always at risk. We must tend to it, keep it propped up. Our reader is willing, but we must support them in their effort.
When crafting the story, don’t grab the reader’s attention and wake them from their disbelief. Watch that your characters stay in character on and off stage. Be sure not to force the story. Let it wander where it will. And here is the test. If the story you are writing doesn’t cause you to slip into the dream, then it will not support your reader’s willing suspension of disbelief either.
The goal is simple. You want your readers to suspend their disbelief as often and for as long as possible.

The Reader as a Silent Observer

Tags

There is an element in writing fiction that is invisible to readers (if the craftsman is successful) but is at the very heart of the process for writers.
As we write there are decisions to be made at every turn – thousands of them both large and small. Among these decisions are several significant ones of approach – what to reveal to the reader, what to reveal to the various characters, and what to reveal to all involved?*
We know that the reader will only be truly satisfied if they know more than the characters do about what is happening on the page. The reader is always in the room and wants the inside scoop. The writer had better not forget to treat the reader as the silent, ever-present observer.
Here is an example. If I want to focus a reader’s attention or emotions more on one character than another, that character needs to open up and become vulnerable to the reader. This will be most effective if this character is then also guarded toward the other characters. This will make the reader feel like they are inside the story, a part of what is happening on the page.
So there is craft to be done. We must ensure that the reader is kept central to the telling of the story. And we must all the while make sure the reader doesn’t see us on-stage managing the illusion.

*There are other aspects of the story – contexts, histories, maybe even motivations and relationships – that don’t make it onto the page at all. The writer must know more of the story than ends up on the page, otherwise the story will feel flimsy and lacking in depth.