posted
i recently just finished a book by J. Madison Davis called Novelist's essential guide to creating plot. I got it from the writer's digest club. I liked it a lot. For me it described the issue of plotting in simple terms and compared the building of a book to the building of a house with the plot being the frame that keeps the house up. The writing is easy to read and the author uses lots of examples. This is the only book I've read on plotting so I can't give you a comparison to other similar books but I recommend this one.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
What aspect of plotting are you interested in? If classic plot structure is what you're after, I've always liked the approach taken by Nigel Watt's Teach Yourself Writing a Novel. I've heard that Nancy Kress's Beginnings, Middles and Ends (I think that's the right title) is pretty good for this kind of material too, although I've never read it myself.
If it's a more low-level book you're looking for, about how to build up tension and break a story down scene-by-scene, I've heard a lot of good things about Donald Maass's Writing the Breakout Novel from this perspective. Again, though, I haven't read it, so might be wrong.
I've heard of something caled the Dramatica theory of plotting and storytelling. Took a quick look on the web but only saw softare, no book. However, there may still be a ook somewhere.
posted
I've read quite a few, and THERE ARE NO GOOD BOOKS ON PLOTTING!!!!!! There's a couple bits of advise, however, that have helped me.
1. E. M. Forster said that a story is what happens, and the plot is why it happened.
2. Every story asks a dramatic question that has a yes, no, or maybe answer. Will Frodo destory the Ring?--No. Will Indy find the Lost Ark?--Yes. Will Luke help the Rebellion destory the Empire?--Maybe (which becomes a Yes in JEDI).
That's it.
Beyond that, the only way to learn how to plot is by reading a lot of stories and thinking about their plot structure, and writing your own stories.
posted
I should probably add that if you look at both those bits of advise, that's all you're going to need. Think about it. You need to know they whys of your story, and you need to know the end. If you know both these things, what else do you need.
Let's look at LOTR--the novel, not the movies--and think about these questions.
Why did Frodo go into Old Forest? Why did Frodo go to Bree? Why did he go to Rivendell? Why did they go through Moria? Why did they go to Lothlorien? Why did Frodo leave the Fellowship?
Here you have the basic movements of FELLOWSHIP. There's a compelling, dramatic reason--a reason rooted in the story itself--of why the story moves like this.
And if you take the LOTR as a whole, the dramatic question that ties it altogether is this: Will Frodo destory the Ring? The answer is No, he won't--he can't--no one can. And if you read the LOTR carefully, you'll see that Tolkien prepares you for this ending from the very beginning, when he emphasizes that ONLY Bilbo has been able to freely depart from the Ring.
Provided that I explained myself clearly, you either understand this or your don't. If you don't, then I'm sorry to say that you're not a writer.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited July 30, 2004).]
posted
Okay, perhaps my last post was a bit acerbic. I don't believe writing can be taught, but I do believe writing can be learned by reading a lot and writing a lot.
Though I think "talent" is highly over-rated--hard work is the key to success, not talent--on some level there has to be talent, and it's that which is honed through constant reading and writing.
I believe part of one's talent is the innate ability to understand plot and character, as well as a basic admiration of words and sentence structure.
How does one know if one has talent or not? I don't know for sure, but it seems to me the sure-fire way is the ability to quickly grasp the essentials of storytelling, and the ability to see real improvement in your writing ability with each story.
Thus, PROVIDED THAT I EXPLAINED MYSELF CLEARLY, if one doesn't understand my above posts then I am going to assume one doesn't have the talent of writing. So don't waste your time doing it, and don't endure the frustration of trying to hone abilities you don't have. And if my words are enough to discourage you, then you're certainly not a writer, becasue even if you disagreed with me you'd say, "To hell with him, I'm gonna write."
posted
I happened to have just listened to an interview with Tom Shippey, author of 'J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century' on volume 52 of the Mars Hill Audio Journal during my commute this morning. Anyway, in it he talks about how LOTR is unique from earlier fantasy in that the plot is an anti-quest (i.e. Frodo seeks to destroy the ring, not find it - as would have been the case in the medieval works). It's an obvious point, but one that had never occurred to me before.
posted
Also, how much does theme drive plot? If the 'dramatic question' in LOTR is “Will Frodo destroy the Ring”, the ‘thematic question’ might go something like, "What is the nature of evil?". I guess if everything Frodo does (going to the Old Forest, to Bree, to Rivendell, etc.) seeks to answer the dramatic question, then maybe the answer to the dramatic question seeks to answer a larger (thematic) question.
Why couldn’t Frodo destroy the ring? Because he had already lost himself in its power.
Why did it take a hobbit to get the ring to the crack of doom? Now this is a big question. We should all be….as hobbits. That is if we wish to have any hope of overcoming evil in ourselves.
Peter Kreeft gives a great lecture on this here...
posted
I would say that a story's theme is derived from its plot--not that its plot is derived from its theme.
I read somewhere that Tolkien said that during the first draft all he was concerned with was telling the story. It was during the second and third revisions that he started figuring out his themes and clarifying his any symbolism within the story.
I completely disagree with the English department theory that writers mean to do what they do. Good writers write, and it's only after they write do they try to make heads or tails of the their story, trying to figure out what it means and what they're trying to say.
Regarding LOTR, it seems to me that THEME is very important for understanding everything that takes place AFTER the Ring is destory. The fact is, once we defeat the Great Evil of the world, we still have Lesser Evils we have to deal with. Evil is one theme in LOTR. So is the notion of home (which is why the Ring must be destoryed--and which is why the hobbits homecoming is so important. We can go on, but I think the point is clear.
posted
YES! And wasn't that the worst part of Peter Jackson's LOTR? That in the end the Shire was completely unaffected by evil, as though it were a kind of Rivendell or Heaven on earth?
posted
Contrary to Balthasar's opinion, there are lots of good books on plot development. Saying that writing cannot be taught is like saying that music cannot be taught. Of course it can. While it is true that one can figure it out by reading a lot and having an innate sense of what makes a good story, researching how other people work can keep you from needing to reinvent the wheel.
Sure, I can pick up a violin and make sound with it. I might eventually compose a truly lovely piece of music, but it will happen faster if I take lessons.
I enjoyed, Immediate Fiction by Jerry Cleaver.
I'm currently reading "How to Write Killer Fiction" by Carolyn Wheat, which is a nice study about the diffences between mystery and suspense. One of the things that she says is "The mystery reader opens a book with certain expectations, and the writer who knows what those expectations are can give the reader what she wants in a way that delights and surprises her."
For me, that sums up why it's important to know what the classic plot structures are, so we can use what works and so that we can break those rules when we need to.
posted
No, writing CANNOT be taught, and neither can music.
I took guitar lessons for years, and the only thing my teacher could do for me was point me in the right direction. But point as he did, it was up to me to sit down and practice day-in and day-out. And all of those guitar lessons didn't turn me into Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton.
I've read dozens of writing books, and they can't teach you how to write. All they can do is help you think about fiction--but its up to you to figure out how to make it work by reading a lot and writing a lot. Study and hard work is what makes a writer, nothing else.
* * * * *
Okay, I think this is my fifth post of the day--a record for me, to be sure--so I'm calling it quits.
quote:the only thing my teacher could do for me was point me in the right direction.
Got news for you Balthasar. That is teaching. Did someone teach you to tie your shoes? Yes. Ride a bike? Yes. Learn to read? Yes. How? By showing you examples, by giving you exercises, and by pointing you in the right direction. Did you have to practise those to do it well? Yes.
Can the same thing happen with writing? Absolutely. No teacher can help a student in any field who doesn't study and work hard. But a student who wants to learn can make significant improvements with a good teacher. Heck-- even Placido Domingo still takes lessons.
posted
Just read Kress' book, Beginnings, Middles & Ends, as well as several other writing books. I'm on a reading about writing binge, I guess. Lotsa good stuff. Lots of stuff confirmed, reinforced, lots I'm seeing from a new perspective, and lots, too, I'm learning. I especially like the examples used. Some books on writing are only writers talking about writing, but I prefer some concrete applications.
Read Maass' book awhile back. Also lotsa good stuff. In fact, waiting on my shelf is his workbook. (Like I said, I'm on a binge.)
Ansel Dibell's book, Plot (also recently read) was just as informative and worth the read.
Can a person learn to write from books? I guess depends on the definition of 'write' and all the variables that represent different people. Can a person become an author without ever reading a writing book? Of course. Can writing books improve a writer's skills? I think so.
posted
I'm gonna go a little zen here, Writing cannot be taught it can only be learned.
And this may be a little off subject but Sam also could part with the ring freely.
Personally I think writing to a plot isn't good. (but as is the major subject here every writer must find their own way.) To me a Plot is something natural. (that being said I think I'll look up those books.)
posted
No, Mary, it's not. When I pick up a book on science, say, Almost Everyone's Guide to Science, John Gribbin is going to teach me a bunch of things I don't know. After I read his book, I'll know them.
This is also true of history, and philosophy, and English, and math, etc. But no so with writing--or any of the fine arts. Someone can tell me all about technique, but NO ONE can teach me how to apply it. That comes only after a lot of hard work, and usually after a lot of failure.
Of course, the only similarity these two kinds of "learning" have is that the student has to be receptive. John Gribbin's can teach me a thing unless I want to learn it. But I may really want to learn how to write, and I may be really open to every book I read, but that doesn't mean I'll ever be a good writer. It doesn't even mean I'll be a competent writer. But after reading John Gribbin's book, I'll be a little conversant in the world of science.
* * * * *
You're right--Sam does give the ring, but he didn't have it nearly as long as Bilbo or Frodo did.
posted
You can "teach facts" very easily. Techniques are a bit more tricky, but can still be taught if the student is receptive. But art cannot be taught. I think that you can easily teach people the basics of what is a plot, particularly if you restrict yourself to teaching them to identify plot elements in existing literature (which explains why this is the most common way literature is "taught"). You can also teach someone a method or two for constructing a plot. It's more difficult, and results vary widely, but it can be done.
But insofar as writing is an expression of individual creativity, it cannot be taught, anymore than you can teach the average person to make new breakthroughs in science and mathmatics. In science and math, we recognize that there is a huge difference between learning what others have done and applying that to do something completely new. To some extent, the line is blurred in writing because the standards for what has been done before are somewhat different. Mathmaticians know what has been proven and what hasn't been proven, writers do not know what stories have been told and which ones are new.
And of course, the fact that the above sentance makes no sense illustrates one of the problems, as does this argument. We writers are simply not as careful about distinguishing knowledge of the elements in existing stories from knowledge of techniques to compose stories with similar elements from the genius to write an entirely new story. We don't have some set standard by which we can inarguably establish that work A is totally original and work B is utterly derivative.
posted
I think we have a couple different views of the same concept her.
Perspective, well, that is a major factor in life. The only constants in life are what we can all agree on. As we all look at this post I think we could all agree that we are reading it on some for of monitor screen, who knows, could be a tv. Unless you are blind and using some form of brail reader, which I'm not sure if it would work on a web site (don't actually know), back to the point - All of us are reading this site on some form of electronic device that hooks to the internet, and uses some form of device to allow it to be read.
That said, I can agree that each individual can learn through lessons or books. How you interpret the exact classification is irrelevant. You learn, or you don't. That is your choice.
As for talent....you need it. When I was younger I took a few lessons from a lady on how to paint. I really just needed a few clues that showed me how to go about it. Even though she did teach me what I needed, I got an extra which I will remember for the rest of my life. Many people have talent, some more than others. The difference is the ammount of effort required to make it great. She claimed to have a little talent, and massive effort. Her stuff was pretty good.
So if you have absolutely no talent, you will never create a masterpiece. It doesn't mean you can't produce something good, but without talent it will never flow, never be exceptional. End result, don't worry about it.
As for plotting, I read "Plot", in the writing fiction series. If you run out of writing books to read, well, it has some usefull info in it...more of what you don't want than what you do want. I think it would be a cold day in hell before I used melodrama to try and inspire emotion. I see it in the Soap my wife watches. Cheap ploys to try and gain a emotional response from the reader. The book is the most boring I have read so far.
My personal concept of plot is determining what I think should happen. Of course it often times changes along the way. I personally liked the color coding concept on another thread, if it wasn't so much work it would be interesting to see how it resulted...
posted
Wow. Talk about pressing every one of my buttons. I majored in art education. That's right-- I studied to be an art teacher, and according to you I wasted my time in college because not only is it impossible for me to have learned anything there, but it's also impossible for me to pass on anything I learned. Gosh. What did I think I was doing?
And all of those writing classes... what a waste of time. I'd be much better off if I didn't spend any time learning about arcs or character development or any of the other techniques that I've been using.
About the only thing that I've agreed with is that you can't teach talent. Some people are naturally gifted, but that doesn't mean that you can't teach art or writing or music. Anyone can become better at any of those things with a good teacher. Can they become great? Maybe, but that's where talent comes in, and I'll agree that not everyone has the same gifts there. I can pick up a calculus book and know less than when I started, despite the facts presented in it.
I'm also happy to agree that individual style cannot be taught, but again, I'll say that the right teacher can help develop that style.
posted
Here is a quote I found in Stephen King's ON WRITING:
quote:This is not an autobiography. It is rather, a kind of curriculum vitae -- my attempt to show how one writer was formed. Not how one writer was made; I don't believe writers can be made, either by circumstances or by self-will(although I did believe this once). The equiptment comes with the original package. Yet it is by no means unusual equptment; I believe large numbers of people have at least some talent as writers and storytellers, and those talents can be strengthened and sharpened. If I didn't believe that, writing this book would be a waste of time.
What this is saying to me is that both Mary Robinette and Balthasar have it partly right. You have to have that certain something built in that enables you to be a good storyteller. Other than that, it is all up to you and how much effort you put into honing that capability. And along the way we do LEARN a few things, by people or by books that have TAUGHT us those principles. A teacher can teach all they want, and it won't mean a thing unless the student is willing to learn. Teaching co-exists with learning and vice versa, you can't have one without the other, even if you are teaching yourself.
Now I did find a bit of a contradiction in Balthasar's post (at least it seems that way to me).
quote:When I pick up a book on science, say, Almost Everyone's Guide to Science, John Gribbin is going to teach me a bunch of things I don't know. After I read his book, I'll know them.
Yes, you will KNOW them, but can you apply what you just read? Knowing and applying are two different things. Then he said:
quote:But no so with writing--or any of the fine arts. Someone can tell me all about technique, but NO ONE can teach me how to apply it. That comes only after a lot of hard work, and usually after a lot of failure.
Isn't the application of both of these crucial to the learning? Don't they both take alot of hard work to apply what is learned? I think that both circumstances can be taught, but the correct application of the knowledge is up to the student. I can read enough on both subjects to be able to use the critical points in conversation, but does that make me a scientist or a writer? No. Both things are tested, honed and put to good use in the application.
I am just saying that you both are saying different things that have the same or similar meaning. IMO
[This message has been edited by TruHero (edited July 31, 2004).]
posted
I never said one can be taught to be a scientist . . . but one can be taught science. If you don't believe this, read Dr. Asimov's autobiography; he'll tell you he had not talent to be a chemist.
Mary -- Why do all of these discussions suddenly become "personal"? I never tried to push your buttons. I never said you wasted your time in college studying art and writing. Did I? Why is it so damn hard for people around here just to have a discussion rather than transform everything into a personal attack?
Strange, no one has picked up what may be the most seemingly contradition in everything that I've said so far. I play the guitar, yet I took lessons for years. I write, yet I read books on writing. I took guitar lessons and I read these books becasue I needed to be pointed in the right direction. But when I was a teenage and sat down to practice a piece by Bach, or when I sit down tonight to work on my story, no one is there to help me. Either I teach myself how the lesson, or I fail.
quote:Either I teach myself how the lesson, or I fail.
So are you teaching yourself new things? Or, are you learning to apply what you have been learning in the books?
TrueHero has a very good point, there is learning knowledge, the theory, and there is learning to use it, application.
I'll be the first to admit you could know every facet of writing, and without application you will never be able to write a good story that people will want to read.
When I sit down with my guitar, I am learning to make it sound like music. (I would do better with more practice) But I am not learning how to play the guitar.
Theory is good, but without the ability to apply it....it is good for a conversation. Just as an example, I have read some science books and articles, but could I do the math to come up with any realistic values? No. So knowing some of the concepts are good for knowing how it is supposed to work, but I couldn't do the math to back it up.
I AM a scientist, and I CAN do the math, and it is overrated. Should any scientist EVER imply that you are inferior if you can't do the math, then refer them to me. I'll rip them a new asshole. Or whatever the politically correct term is (it still hurts).
Science is ALL about communication. And with all due respect for my fellow scientists, I think the people I have met here at Hatrack are generally leagues ahead of most of us scientists in communication.
Do me a favor, and read some of Loren Eisley's prose, for exAMPLE: "The Star Thower", and tell me how much math you see.
Loren was one of my generations's better scientific communicators. I can only hope to be that good.
And, sorry,if this seems too intense, but you DID manage to hit one of my hot buttons.
A person who TRULY is a scentist, TRULY learns the meaning of humility.
posted
mikemunsil, one of the happiest days of my life was when a tutor told me it was okay to count on my fingers. Ah the glories of not feeling inadequate because I can't do arithmatic in my head.
Lord Darkstorm said,
quote:I'll be the first to admit you could know every facet of writing, and without application you will never be able to write a good story that people will want to read.
Oh, totally. I think there's difference between talent and skill. I believe that skill can be taught, and that a good teacher can improve one skills in any subject--creative or otherwise. I even think that it's possible to do good work despite having little talent, but it takes a lot more drive and determination. On the other hand, if a person has a lot of talent they may still make basic mistakes, like POV violations. Fortunately that's a "rule" that can be taught. And that's where a good teacher, or a good book come in handy.
[This message has been edited by MaryRobinette (edited August 01, 2004).]
I'm going to see if I can "bridge" the gap here. If Balthasar will allow me to draw a few assumptions here (I'm sure he'll correct me if I make the wrong assumptions), Let me off my 2 pennies here:
I think that perhaps what's being argued is not the ability and viability of teaching/learning vs. applying and implementing that knowledge. Its hould be clear that just about anything can be taught, and just about anything which is taught must still be applied and implemented in practice (or otherwise) to be properly mastered and understood.
So yes, you CAN teach a man to write, and you CAN teach a man to play an instrument.
HOWEVER, you cannot teach such things as emotion, feeling, instinct, ambition, and desire. You can often GIVE these things, but they cannot be taught. If an author does not have the desire or ambition to complete a work they'll never complete it. They also need that same drive as they're beginning to push themselves to constantly seek improvement and understanding. This takes a great amount of ambition and desire, and requires you to be willing to question just about everything -- and that applies to a story as well. If you're not willing to question every event in your story to make sure you've got valid motives and consequences for actions, then you're not yet a writer. If you never are willing to question yourself and seek incessant improvement then you're not going to become a writer, either.
Let me use a personal non-writing example: I teach private trumpet lessons. When I first began teaching several years ago I was of the opinion that some people simply had it and some people simply didn't, and those who didn't could never truly hope to become a decent trumpet player.
I was wrong, dead wrong. Fortunately, I have a strong passion for music, and this passion spilled over into my teaching. One thing I hate (despite how often it happens) more than anything is being wrong. So I never wanted to lead any of my students astray. I began researching the instrument in all it's variant flavors. I even went so far as to take voice lessons for a while and learn flute to hone my own breathing skills. I began directing and leading other groups as well. In the end, I finally became the teacher I wanted to be.
Along the way I learned something very valuable -- ANYONE can learn to play an instrument and become reasonably proficient at it. Those with the talent won't have to work as hard, but music definitely IS teachable.
What is NOT teachable is the style, instincts, ambition, and dilligence that goes into becoming a good musiican. I switched a clarinet player to trumpet some time ago, she struggle mightily. She did NOT have the talent and it did NOT come naturally to her. Yet a year later, she's now a section leader and is starting to sound great. She still has a long ways to go, but she's already surpassed severl more talented students. Why? Simply put she had the motivation and ambition to work at it. She practiced three to four hours a day. She read everything I gave her and wasn't afraid to ask me anything. She remained humble and hard working throughout. She refused to give up.
And she succeeded.
But here's another thing I learned and this is where I think I part ways with Balthasar the most -- and where I think Mary's education really DID matter: The most important thing we can hope to learn from someone else is how to teach ourselves.
Simple, eh? If your teacher can give you that, you CAN learn how to play guitar, trumpet, piano, sing, or learn to write. THAT is how I focus my trumpet lessons now. I teach my students how to teach themselves. I teach them what to listen for, what I'M listening for. I teach them WHY (there's the main thing we ask relative to PLOT as it happens) they do the things I have them do. I teach them HOW things work, and HOW to analyze their progress as they practice. Then I teach them how to put it all together to maximize their practices so they're not just "going through the motions" every day.
And isn't learning any art kinda similar? We can be given the knowledge of how paints mix, how words work, etc. But it's up to us as individuals to apply that knowledge, gain experience, and master the skills necessary to become a great painter or writer or musician. A good book will give us a world of knowledge, but a good teacher will show us how to USe that knowledge. While learning to use a trumpet to CREAT music is unteachable, it IS learnable. (I just love contradictions). The teacher and textbook give you the knowledge...YOU give yourself the experience, and the experience and dedication give you the ability.
I dunno...I think I'm rambling now. Tough. It's 1:30 am and the brain has gone into self defense mode.
Bottowm line -- I cannot TEACH someone to become a great musician, but I can teach them how to make themselves a great musician. Likewise with writing -- nobody can teach (er..MAKE) me a great writer. But they can give me the tools to become a great writer. Once I've got those tools...once someone has TAUGHT them to me, the rest is up to me.
my 2 pennies...(okay, you got about a dollar's worth in this post...but I'm not sure if that's US, Canadian, or Euros...)
I agree with MaryRobinette. A person can learn how to do anything as long as they are receptive to being taught and are willing to put the time and effort into making it happen. My favorite show is the Pretender because I totally believe that it is possible to do that. If you read any well-known writer's bio they all, to some extent, say that writing is 1% inspiration (talent) and 99% perspiration. If it were true that a person could not be taught a skill in which they had no natural talent for then some of the worlds most beautiful art, music, writing, medical and technological advancements would not exist.
Having said that, there is nothing "evil" about plotting. Plotting is what keeps your story on track. It's like driving a car. You need to get from A to Z. How do you get there. Do want the shortest route or do you want to take the scenic route. Some people have a GPS tracking system for a brain. I, however, am one of these people who frequently get lost so I have to have a road map. Plotting helps keep me organized and make sure I'm still headed in the same direction. I can see where my story is weak and make changes as needed to smooth things out. It also makes writing subplots easier and helps make sure those subplots stay in line with main story.
I used to think plotting was evil because I always thought in some weird bizarre way that if I put a plot on paper then I would have to stick with it no matter what.The trick is to write your plot in pencil so you can easily make changes.
On a tangent, I'd have to say that I was disappointed that Frodo wasn't able to get rid of the ring of his own will, that he had to have his finger bitten off to do it but I can't say that I was disappointed with the ending either because I could see it coming.
Frodo DID have the ability to yeild the ring initially. When he picked it up (Gandalf refused to hold it) he quite willingly stuffed it in an envelope and hid it without much regard. This is after he physically touched the ring. He was also able to make it available to Elrond at his council at Rivendell despite having even worn it a couple times at that point. It wasn't until the bitter end where it had taken it's hold of him (and where he was closest to the Ring's true master--surely the power of the ring intensified as he drew nearer) that he was ultimatley unable to destroy it. Yielding the ring to another vs. destorying it are different actions anyway.
Sam, for his part, bore the ring but a short while. His exposure to it was so short as to not completely consume his reason yet. Had it been Sam who had to carry it across the land to Mordor, it would surely have weighed equally on him.
The ring affected all who beheld it, and the truly wise were the few who simply refused to possess or touch it -- Gandalf and Aragorn. (And without making much of a to-do about it, Elrond refused to touch it as well).
And as for why a Hobbit? Who else? A man would be consumed with lust for the power it contained. Elves already have magical abilities...the ring would be a disaster in their hands. The wizards would suffer much the same problems with it. Dwarves would be easily corrupted, seeking riches as they do. Only a Hobbit...only these mild, humble creatures who are not given to adventures and fame so easily as the other inhabitants of middle earth would be able to resist the pull and temptation the ring provides.
In the end, we learn that NONE are completely immune to the pull of the ring. But Hobbits, by their very nature, were the only ones who could bear the ring for such a long time and still maintain their reason.
quote:My favorite show is the Pretender because I totally believe that it is possible to do that.
You are correct. It CAN be done. In fact, that show, or at least the idea behind it, is loosely based on a real life person, one Ferdinand Waldo Demara, Jr. From 1942 to his death in 1982, this man masqueraded as everything from priest to teacher to psychologist to cancer researcher. He even did a stint as a surgeon, and yes, actually performed surgery! A movie of his life, "The Great Imposter", starring Tony Curtis, was made in 1961.
And this man taught himself the knowledge he needed to pull off these fabulous hoaxes.
posted
Last Saturday I attended a writing class taught by David Gerrold (probably most famous as the writer of the Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles," but he's written quite a bit more than that.) Here's my interpretation of what he said about plot development, boiled down to the barest essentials.
1. A story is about a person with a problem. If you have a person with no problem, or a problem with no person, it's not a story.
2. The beginning of the story sets the stage, introduces the character, and introduces the problem. The end of the beginning is when the character realizes that the problem is his problem, and that therefore he must do something in reaction to it.
3. The middle of the story is about the character attempting to deal with the problem, and the problem turns out to be even bigger than anticipated. In the middle of the middle there is a "flipover" scene, in which the nature of the story changes. Before the flipover, the problem drives the storyline, and the character is mostly forced to react. After the flipover, the character drives the storyline, and the rest of the middle involves the failed attempts of the character to solve the problem. (By way of illustration: Before the flipover, the monster hunts you. After the flipover, you hunt the monster.)
4. The end of the story is when the character resolves the problem.
posted
An interesting thing that Gerrold explained about the person and the problem: a problem only exists for a person who cares. In a sense, the person creates the problem by investing emotion in it.
The conflict between the Empire and the Rebellion is not a problem for Luke Skywalker until it affects things he cares about. If he didn't care that his aunt an uncle were killed, he could have lived out the rest of his life tending his moisture farm.
Until he really cared about the outcome of the conflict, it was not his problem. When he comes to the conclusion that the Empire is his problem (he "takes ownership" of the problem), the beginning of the movie is over, and the middle begins.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited August 02, 2004).]
posted
Thank you for suggesting some books, several of you recommended some that I had been looking at, so I will go with one of those.
The reason I've decided to go looking for a bit of help with plots is that I've realized that nothing happens in my stories. EJS has some good points that maybe I am missing. I have a world, I have a conflict, I have a character, but I guess the part I don't have is making my character respond to the conflict. Maybe the conflict isn't specific enough. Or maybe this is a character development problem or just that I'm too wordy. When I go back and read what I wrote, I think, "Nothing actually happened." Not in the sense of "action" but in the sense of even getting to know the character better. Thus, I'm not doing my job as a writer.
Anyway, this are all things for me to work out. Thanks again!
edit: just some gramatical errors! ACK.
[This message has been edited by Lorien (edited August 02, 2004).]
posted
EricJamesStone, that's a really interesting idea. "A problem only exists for a person who cares." It's one of those ideas that make me thing, "well, duh, I should know that."
One of the things that Carolyn Wheat says in How to Write Killer Fiction is that every scene basically has a question. Your character wants something, will she get it? The possible answers are, "Yes", "No", "Yes, but" and "No, and furthermore..." Her point is that the first two do nothing to further the plot.
She uses the scene in It's a Wonderful Life when Jimmy Stewart's character goes to ask the miser for a loan. If the miser says "yes." The story is over. If he says "no" then Jimmy Stewart is no worse off than before. What the miser does in the actual movie is "No, and furthermore I'll see that you're sent to jail and that your entire bank is shut down." So he's worse off. She suggests he could have also said, "Yes, but you have to give me your soul in return."
posted
I would add something else to the discussion, but in looking it over, everything's already been said. And I really don't want to say, "I agree," because it'll sound like I'm sucking-up. What I will say is that I think writers should always strive to learn new things of every field of endeavor. And as for people having talent, you never really know if you have talent until you try. And really, the only one who knows that for sure is the person doing the creating (though American Idol makes me wonder how true that is).
When I was young, I loved singing. But when I got to college, I realized I just didn't have "it" -- that indefinable something that distinguishes a person who's good at singing from a good singer. You can call it drive, you can call it whatever you like, I realized I didn't have "it".
Do I have "it" when it comes to writing? I know it sounds arrogant, but I say I do. I'm humble enough, though, to know I can improve quite a bit. That's why I'm here. And that's why I'm grateful there are other, more experienced writers who are willing to discuss things like this and help out beginners like me.
Sorry if that sounds like a suck-up. My ego is still at the dry cleaners. It'll be back tomorrow.
posted
Keeley, I certainly wouldn't call it arrogance when you recognize your talents. We all have them--you could say we all have "it" in some field--and knowing where "it" lies for us is intelligence, not arrogance.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
I'd like to talk about the Frodo tangent for a moment. No one has yet brought up the fact that Tom Bombadil was not affected by the ring. I believe that the reason he was not is because he was from outside of middle earth. Tom had been around since even before elves, and I think was a type of angel (or something like that, I can't quite remember). And it is for precisely that reason that the entire plot of even having Tom Bombadil is a digression. It doesn't further the novel or answer any questions (although I would like to say that it is a beautiful digression, and I absolutely love Goldberry so don't think I'm bashing the scene). Our heros cannot learn much from him because his abilities lie so completely outside the realm of their experience or need. Tolkien did not let the hobbits leave the ring with Tom for good reason. In the book he says Tom would be forgetful or careless with it, but I think the real reason was because the problem could not be solved by a deus ex machina, which is what Tom Bombadil would have been.
As to the talent/ability topic, I think I'll leave that one alone, but regarding plot, I feel your pain. I am definitely still on the beginning of the journey of plot, but I agree that to enhance plot, try to answer the question What if? in a variety of ways, and choose the way that opens up the most options, or resonates with you instinctively. I am a big truster of instincts; my subconscious mind has got a much better handle on this whole writing thing than my conscious mind.
Here's a theory I just thought up on the spur of the moment: maybe what we call talent is really just the ability to access the subconscious? Maybe any one of us could be a Rembrandt, but some people's mental doors are more rusty than others, and the advantage of learning is that it puts WD40 on the doors? Maybe some of us have a lot of access to our subconscious in some areas already, and learning just enhances that. But for others, maybe the more we practice and learn the more access we have to what we subconsciously knew all along, but could not express? I am talking about the abstracts here, not necessarily things like calculus, but more like, what is beauty? Just a thought. And since it is 2am, maybe that's just my feeble mind losing its last marbles.
[This message has been edited by autumnmuse (edited August 03, 2004).]
quote:An interesting thing that Gerrold explained about the person and the problem: a problem only exists for a person who cares. In a sense, the person creates the problem by investing emotion in it.
In his book, Worlds of Wonder, he goes further. He states that problems are _caused_ by people not caring about them until they grow to something that is large enough for them to start caring.
He gives examples that seem to work, but I think there are also a lot where it doesn't. And those are probably the more interesting ones, from a fictional point of view.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Lotsa good stuff. Lots of stuff confirmed, reinforced, lots I'm seeing from a new perspective, and lots, too, I'm learning. I especially like the examples used. Some books on writing are only writers talking about writing, but I prefer some concrete applications.
and all the variables that represent different people. Can a person become an author without ever reading a writing book? Of course. Can writing books improve a writer's skills? I think so.
