posted
So I made my first post in fragments and feedback and I received some very astute feedback. One issue had to do with a one sentence flashback, which goes against the whole "pick a setting for your scene and stay with it" rule.
When I rewrote the section, I found I enjoyed the story more with the original version. I posted the new version to feedback that agreed with me.
Now many a great storyteller and best selling author have horrible technique (Mr. Bobby Jordan, Terry Goodkind, R.A Salvatore: I know it's sacriledge, but it's true) and many techniqually perfect writers have starving artist careers. And then there are the rare few like Mr. Card who produce technically sound, engaging stories and make a good living doing it (a rare breed though, especially in genre writing).
So when a situation arises when you have to choose between proper technique and story, which path do you go down?
I know there's no black and white, right and wrong with this question, but I still would like to hear some opinions and anecdotes on the matter.
posted
I think there are 10 active threads on this subject from different angles.
Go with storytelling.
However, keep in mind that proper style and grammar are there to help you make your story clearer.
It is a very rare situation where improper style or grammar will help you tell a story better. But you can sell a book with good story telling and poor style.
posted
Here's the thing with storytelling. There are rules, such as the flashback thing, but these rules are not hard and fast. Rather, each time you do something like that there is a consequence. For example, if you begin a story with a flashback the consequence is that the reader is not grounded in the current scene before going back and living something that happened before.
posted
Christine makes a very good point. You can break the rules if you are willing to pay the price.
The other thing I want to point out is that styles change in writing but what makes a compelling story does not. Or at least, not as quickly. At one point switching POV was not only considered okay, you would be making a mistake if you didn't switch POV. How else would we know what the other characters were thinking? At one point, it was considered good form to write with phonetic dialects. How else could you know how someone sounded?
Both of those are now things that are considered mistakes, but they aren't really. It's a fashion shift. Much like deciding to go out without gloves and a hat. Heavens! You're not dressed if you don't have gloves on.
But story. Ah, that's different. You may have to know the techniques so you can get your story across, but the story has to come first.
posted
Someone here on Hatrack once said something about JK Rowling not being the most perfect person with her technique, I have to agree with that person. But what made her get published in the first place is she can tell a story.
I believe if you can tell a story with good enough technique as to make it not noticable in every single word, you can get published easily.
If you can write perfectly scripted technique, but can't tell a story then you're better off as a non-fictionist. If you can tell a story but can't get technique or your story clear enough for the reader, then you may get a ghostwriter to write for you (which cost's quite a bit, I think).
If you can do both then well, congratulations on your career!
So, depending on your ability with storytelling or your technique, it's entirely up to you.
posted
It's a false dilemma. You don't choose between story and technique, you use technique to tell the story. That's why techniques exist. If they don't help you tell the story better, then you're not using them correctly. This often happens when writers mechanically apply rules as "oh, these stupid things I have to do because everyone says so" rather than using sound technique because it is the most effective way to tel the story.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first successes came in a career that is practiced very differently in the real world than it is practiced in the "ivory tower" center of learning. I'm lately coming to understand that learning to write is no different from how I learned my first career. This is because proper technique, learned properly, is essential to understanding the difference between what works well, and what simply works.
In my old career, once I learned proper technique and MASTERED it to the point that it came instinctively, I was then able to apply my creativity to the development of an individual style. But I started from a place of proven, guaranteed success. Later, when I knew what success felt like, I could start playing with the standard.
(I believe some writers, just like some participants my first career, are touched by near-miraculous, spontaneous success. Part of that success is talent, part of it is determination, and the biggest part of it is pure luck. I simply can't rely on being one of those individuals, as I've never shown such a tendency in the past.)
I've left my old career, and had some small writing successes. And I am beginning to choose what "rules" I believe work within my skills, and what "rules" turn my writing bland and mechanical. I'm going for story in some places now, because there are times when technique and story can't both lead. However, I try to write a technically sound draft, and later chose my rule-breaking with deliberate consideration and rationale.
posted
I was in the medical field, but I think the comparison holds true for most careers. Even self-taught disciplines are usually approached through a mentor, and "mastering the basics" is universally advantageous.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
