![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ksmithDiscussions of writing in sartorias's blog, scene-building and plot and beginnings.
One of the comments led me to Carol Emshwiller's webpage and her essay about ignoring what she called writing cliches, such as starting a scene with action,or showing rather than telling. An interesting piece, although being more of an action SF writer (and how did that happen, I want to know?) I confess that I see problems with not starting with some sort of action. Not necessarily explosions--we can wait, oh, 10 or 20 pages to get to those *g*--but some sort of tension or hint to the reader that stuff is bubbling just below the surface and will punch through as soon as it finds a fault to exploit.
I haven't read Carol's work, and for all I know she may do that and not call it action. I think 'tension' may be the better word here, because adrenaline and bloodshed are not necessarily involved. Just something to clue in the reader that all is not well. It may be descriptions of surroundings or events through the POV's eyes that strike the reader as odd, or rushed, or not quite right. Actions decribed as perfectly normal by the POV that the reader knows aren't run-of-the-mill. The sense that something's off--if I didn't insert that in the first few paragraphs, I'd feel compelled to rewrite those paragraphs. I think many genre writers would. The key is conflict, of any sort, not necessarily action-as-motion. If a chapter or section or story doesn't clue in the reader fairly quickly that something isn't quite right, there's a good chance that reader is going to set the work aside. Yes, you can overdo it. You can also underdo it, a too-faint ripple that no one notices but the writer. But I think you have to do something, and the tone of the work helps indicate the degree to which it needs to be done.
That leads into another thing we discussed, namely the inability of some writers to explain the writing process. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! I try, but more often than not I fall back on the "You'll know it when it happens" which leaves folks who haven't the experience frustrated. For those of us who write by whisker-feel, it's a skill that grew with time, which we can't quite define. Other writers can spell matters right out, and I envy them sometimes. I am often left shaking my head after such an explanation and murmuring "That's what I do," because when I do it, I'm not thinking about the mechanics or running down a To Do list. I'm just doing it. Luckily, there are writers who can define those things--they wrote the How To books that got me started, and have helped others as well. I just keep wandering down hallways in the dark, sniffing the air and pausing when I hear a sound.
Another thing I blame that discussion for is triggering what may be the first line for a novel that's slowly taking shape. Don't want to give it away now--formation is too fresh and it may dry up and blow away at any moment. But it's there, and I like it so far, so it is Good.
One of the comments led me to Carol Emshwiller's webpage and her essay about ignoring what she called writing cliches, such as starting a scene with action,or showing rather than telling. An interesting piece, although being more of an action SF writer (and how did that happen, I want to know?) I confess that I see problems with not starting with some sort of action. Not necessarily explosions--we can wait, oh, 10 or 20 pages to get to those *g*--but some sort of tension or hint to the reader that stuff is bubbling just below the surface and will punch through as soon as it finds a fault to exploit.
I haven't read Carol's work, and for all I know she may do that and not call it action. I think 'tension' may be the better word here, because adrenaline and bloodshed are not necessarily involved. Just something to clue in the reader that all is not well. It may be descriptions of surroundings or events through the POV's eyes that strike the reader as odd, or rushed, or not quite right. Actions decribed as perfectly normal by the POV that the reader knows aren't run-of-the-mill. The sense that something's off--if I didn't insert that in the first few paragraphs, I'd feel compelled to rewrite those paragraphs. I think many genre writers would. The key is conflict, of any sort, not necessarily action-as-motion. If a chapter or section or story doesn't clue in the reader fairly quickly that something isn't quite right, there's a good chance that reader is going to set the work aside. Yes, you can overdo it. You can also underdo it, a too-faint ripple that no one notices but the writer. But I think you have to do something, and the tone of the work helps indicate the degree to which it needs to be done.
That leads into another thing we discussed, namely the inability of some writers to explain the writing process. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! I try, but more often than not I fall back on the "You'll know it when it happens" which leaves folks who haven't the experience frustrated. For those of us who write by whisker-feel, it's a skill that grew with time, which we can't quite define. Other writers can spell matters right out, and I envy them sometimes. I am often left shaking my head after such an explanation and murmuring "That's what I do," because when I do it, I'm not thinking about the mechanics or running down a To Do list. I'm just doing it. Luckily, there are writers who can define those things--they wrote the How To books that got me started, and have helped others as well. I just keep wandering down hallways in the dark, sniffing the air and pausing when I hear a sound.
Another thing I blame that discussion for is triggering what may be the first line for a novel that's slowly taking shape. Don't want to give it away now--formation is too fresh and it may dry up and blow away at any moment. But it's there, and I like it so far, so it is Good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-09 06:13 pm (UTC)As for that first sentence, He He indeed. The location is a gravesite, and no, there isn't a vamp in sight.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-09 09:21 pm (UTC)Anyhoo, it sounds most intriguing!