A Realization About Myself As A Writer And My Process.

[mmerriam]

I've been thinking about story, and the way I approach writing and story construction.

A couple of things got me thinking about this, two of them related to a group I am part of, The Minnesota Speculative Fictions (MNSpec), and the other sort of a catch-all relation to the posts of people I read on Live Journal.

Bear with me. I might veer around a bit, because I'm thinking out loud here. Or at least I'm thinking on the page. Well, maybe I'm thinking. And that is the point of this whole post. The thinking bit.

We had a MNSpec meeting this month that focused on Robert Mckee's Story, both book and seminar. One of our members had paid (handsomely) for the three day seminar, and reported back to us. There was a lot of talk about the substance of story, and how it is constructed, and how you as a writer do things within the story, even without the reader noticing it. There was a lot a talk about what you need to have accomplished before you even start writing (This is definitely a book that leans toward plotters over pantsers). There was a lot of deep talk about things like symbols and creating the opposite situations of what your characters want, and how to drive a plot.

We have similar discussions on the MNSpec message boards, discussion about tone and theme and style and authorial intent, and deep metaphor and how to purposely put these things into your work and all the deep, deep thinking that should go into the work to make it shine. Examples are held up, works by Titans of Literature to be deconstructed so we see how effortless it seems the author hit all these things, and how that is what We As Writers should be doing as well (unless we want to fall short and be mocked by peers, readers, and critics).

I've run into similar discussion on LJ. Smart writers and editors talking about those very things, about construction, plot and subplot, themes, and echoing back to great works and layering the story and plot, and framing devices, and various other bits of deep literary thought, and how to use all that (and more) when you sit down to create your work.

Mostly I just sit on the sidelines and watch these discussions, because I've come to a realization.

I'm not a deep thinker.

At least, not in the literary deconstruction sense.

Whenever I listen to a presentation or discussion that delves deeply into writing subjects, into serious thinking about craft and art, I realize I do almost everything on instinct. I don't really think that hard about constructions and craft. I just write. Most of this stuff seems to come to me as unexamined second nature. I listen or read these discussions, and I can't but help but think, well yeah, isn’t this oblivious? Voice and tone and all stuff happens while you're writing, doesn’t it?

Don't get me wrong, I've been trained to think about these things, if I want. I've had whole university classes on this stuff. Those where the only times I really did spend a lot of time deconstructing literature, because it was for credit and a grade. The thing is, I'm content to let literary critics and professors and folks who enjoy combing though every word of a novel looking for the deeper meaning and assigning authorial intent to the adverb in the third sentence in the second paragraph on page 135 (against the context of the works the major neo-modernist masters) do just that. I don't really get any joy from it. I just want to write.

Part of the problem I have with these discussions—beyond my own lack of deep thought—is that for the newbie writers, I looks to me like they're looking for the Way and Truth, The True Path To Publication. If I just follow these sets of guidelines, thoughts, ideas, I'll get there.

And you know, maybe it will make something click inside them and get them on the right path. Who am I to judge?

But at some point, you have to stop thinking so hard and just write. I watch some of the newbies in MNSpec, and they're thinking so hard about story that—from where I'm standing—they're thinking too hard, crippling themselves with too much information, trying to force things, trying earnestly to create a thing of both wondrous beauty and commercial value, if only they think all these deep thinky thoughts about writing and them go back and apply that knowledge.

They seem to think themselves straight into story paralysis.

I don’t know. Maybe if I thought more about this stuff, if I spent hours analyzing and considering and deconstructing, I'd be a better writer. Maybe this why I still haven't made the Big Time Pro Sale, because I don't think deeply.

Maybe.

But it seems to me that at some point, you have to sit down and write; you have to surrender yourself to the story and let it find its own voice and tone and themes. You have to trust the story and, more important, you have to let go and trust yourself as a storyteller.

As always, Your Mileage May Vary.

Comments

[haddayr.livejournal.com]

I think that saying you don't think deeply because you think intuitively is a disservice to yourself and to other intuitive writers and thinkers, like me. :-P

[mmerriam.livejournal.com]

I think you could well be right about that, too! Because I do seem to work mostly on instinctive when it comes to story.

Another person I was talking to gave the opinion that, one of the differences between new writers who are looking for "The Way and Truth" or a system to help them get published versus the new writers who just learn the bones of craft and then get down to the business of writing and being rejected and eventually selling is that, at some point for the writer who begins to write and eventually sell, all the deep thinky stuff comes or becomes instinctive and almost subconscious.

Maybe that's part of the key. At some point, without really knowing when, all the thinky stuff got under my skin and into my brain without me realizing it.

As an aside, I always have trouble even talking about this stuff, because, while I want to discuss and explore these thoughts, I don't want to come off as a jerk or something.

Michael's Brain, it is wierd.

[haddayr.livejournal.com]

Oh, honey you couldn't come off as a jerk if you tried.

I mean, except onstage. I imagine you'd make a marvelous villain. But you know what I mean.

[careswen.livejournal.com]

I can testify, through RPG experiences, that he can indeed act a marvelous villain. He also can pull off a hilarious manic crazy person (for short, exhausting bursts).

[mojos-lady.livejournal.com]

maybe it's best to simply follow the great philosophy of that nautical deep thinker who proclaimed "I AM WHAT I AM!"
:)

[mmerriam.livejournal.com]

Odd, we were just talking about Popeye last night. If he comes up again in the 24 hour period, I'll take it as a sign. A sign of what I don't know, but a sign.

[mojos-lady.livejournal.com]

maybe you just have to eat more spinach! :)

[jasondwittman.livejournal.com]

Stephen King is one of the most instinctive writers out there. And how many books has he sold?

[mmerriam.livejournal.com]

A gazillion or so.

[writerjenn.livejournal.com]

I write early drafts intuitively. But I'm more conscious of things like theme and symbolism when I revise. Then I will deliberately rearrange things or change words to emphasize the pattern that half-emerged, unconsciously, in the first draft.

[mmerriam.livejournal.com]

I think that is very similar to how I do it. I've gone back and added scenes to punch up some kind of theme or symbol that seemed to emerge, or that I thought needed to be a part of he story because of what I was writing.

[a-r-williams.livejournal.com]

A quick Bruce Lee quote (from memory so it may not be exact):

Before I learned martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick.

While learning martial arts, a punch was no longer a punch and a kick was no longer a kick.

After I learned martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick.

#

I think at the beginning of anything a person does is the natural state. They can do the act in a natural way, which may or may not be the best way to do it. There is no hesitation because they are mentally one with the activity and free from thought.

In order to learn or progress a lot of people have to deconstruct what they already knew. They have to reprogram their ability to strike the ball or record the word. The act goes from being one of non-thought to one of analyzing, recording, and performing new movements/abilities.

With constant practice, the mind/body begins to understand the new teachings and the effort required to perform them no longer needs the same mental focus. The neurological functioning of the brain and nerves have encoded the action into the system and allow the skill or ability to flow without thought.

One reason writers are told to read a lot is because reading is an activity that fosters this growth pattern in the brain and nerves. We learn from the authors we read. Often writers read so much, that when they write, their words, rhythms, and patterns are better than those who don't read. I think reading is where a lot of writers acquire their "natural" talent.

I think there are two types of people who examine writing in the way you describe. Maybe three types.

The first type is the academic. They enjoy reading, discovering, and examining the underlying ideas in the books and poems they read. They are for the most part readers who do not want to write, but just enjoy discussing the books they read.

The second/third type is the pretender. They say they want to write, but actually they enjoy how intelligent they seem when they talk about writing. Often their actions are controlled by the mighty muse. She doesn't visit much, so if they write they only dabble on occasion, just enough to keep the illusion they are writers alive.

The last type is the writer. They may or may not enter into the discussions. Their focus is on improving their work, regardless of the struggle to do so. They may read a lot and absorb new information in this way or they may practice with different techniques consciously, trying them on and learning how to find their balance; at first over doing, and then underdoing, and finally knowing how to make the skill work. Both are valid methods.

#

I think for you, most of your learning comes from reading, from internalizing the voices, cadences, and subjects of the writers you admire. Then when you write, it seems that it's intuition, when actually it's all the built up hours of words and stories coming out as your voice.

I have that to. But for me, I need to take things apart, examine them, understand them, and then put them back together and try them myself, all the while forcing what was learned to penetrate and take hold. Usually, it's most effective when I take one writing element at a time and push till I grasp it without having to look at the notes on how to achieve the desire effect.

[kmarkhoover.livejournal.com]

I know exactly what you are saying. I am a very big believer in trusting your own instinct when it comes to writing. It seems to me the writers who do this are the ones who take the most chances, write the better stuff, and are more memorable in the long run.

[spiderling.livejournal.com]

I don't think too deeply about anything when I write except what word to start the next sentance/paragraph. Them emerges organically the rest I don't care about. I'm not a literary writer, I'm not aiming for Pulitzer. I want to tell a good story clearly and entertainingly.

[bondo-ba.livejournal.com]

I have the same "problem". I watch other writers over-analyze everything, and am constantly bemused by the fact that, in the end, they manage to get it all to work for them. I would be overwhelmed by the need to balance everything into the perfect story - and would fail utterly.

So I go by instinct as much as possible, and only do the over-analyzing in other people's work, when trying to write a review.

[joelarnold.livejournal.com]

Michael - from what I can tell, I think you're doing it just right. You're writing, and that's the most important part of - um - writing!

[dmbaird.livejournal.com]

Yep - right there with you.
When I started out, I was all instinct-girl and my first book was not the best-written thing out there. I made a lot of remedial mistakes (over and over again) that my editor had to slap out of me. I don't make those mistakes anymore because I worked them out through the active editing process, not by sitting back and analyzing everything.

My writing improved, and the next couple projects moved a long well. I struck a decent balance of giving more thought to the words I put down, avoiding the old mistakes, and yet still letting instinct guide my stories.

Then I learned too much and crippled my current project for almost a year. Once I shook off some of the analysis and concentrated on just writing the dang thing, it finally started to move again. I guess we'll see how well that works when Editor Ed gets a hold of it.