I always despised when someone would come on the boards and say they write fiction, but don’t read it. Firstly, I had no interest in nonfiction. But more importantly, I thought that with not experiencing what you hoped to achieve, you really can’t do it properly.

A football player who never watched football? A violist who never listened to orchestra music? Didn’t make sense.

Well, I got the idea in my head of writing a historical fiction piece. (ideas to try a new genre usually start with me saying to myself, “I could never write a _________ novel.” Which then becomes a personal challenge to not only my writing chops, but my manhood as well.)

Anyway, I chose the American Revolution as I’ve always had a passing interest in the epoch, and my casual research soon turned into a full blown obsession with late 18th century American History. I bought a cocked hat, and a years pass to Colonial Williamsburg, and read nothing but history books for the last year. (may a suggest anything by Gordon Wood and Joseph J. Ellis)

During that time, I hadn’t written much (absolutely nothing on the historical fiction piece I had floating around in my head) and I started to dust of one of my stories I’ve been trying to get up to snuff for a while.

I have to say that it’s a painstakingly agonizing experience. Nothing flows, nothing comes easy. All the sentences that used to be on the tip of my fingers are no longer there. They’re all choppy and awkward. Everything sounds amateurish and worst yet, half-assed.

So, anyone think this has anything to do with reading only nonfiction for the last year? Anyone have a similar experience.

This may be totally of the wall, and if so, just shrug and blow me off (my wife does it all the time!), but I think it has nothing to do with reading non-fiction and everything to do with:

1) getting out of the habit of writing, and
2) having the emotional need (that was fulfilled by the writing) satisfied instead by the research/reading.

No?

quote:

---

1) getting out of the habit of writing,

---

yeah, that proably has a lot to do with it, and I think the nonfiction on top of that didn't help.

quote:

---

2) having the emotional need (that was fulfilled by the writing) satisfied instead by the research/reading.

---

This was what I was afraid of.

I had been working on a 140,000 tome, that I had finished. It's a story of unrequited love, inspired by this girl, Samantha, I'd been chasing for a couple of years. Well, we had a fallen and shortly thereafter ( a little over a year ago) I met my current girlfriend, Charmaine.

Well, with Charmaine in the picture, Samantha was out, and while I always intended (and still do) to get back to the novel Samantha inspired, it doesn’t hold the same interest.

Gotta say, my writing has been crap ever since.

I guess Charmaine was that emotional need. As much as I love her she hasn't been great on my writing. A story where everything is great just isn't that fun.

Just need to figure out a different place to write from.

JOHN!

[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited September 24, 2004).]

quote:

---

During that time, I hadn’t written much (absolutely nothing on the historical fiction piece I had floating around in my head) and I started to dust of one of my stories I’ve been trying to get up to snuff for a while.

---

Something that I know to be true for myself (and something I've heard others say, too) is that when I take a hiatus from writing, I come back to my old stuff and I can see just how bad it is, where I need to improve and what needs to be cut.

It can be difficult getting back into the writing because I can now see what I did wrong, but that doesn't mean I know how to make it right.

All this can be a good thing! ! When it happens it is usually a clue that you are growing and maturing as a person and as a writer.

How can you do X if you have never experienced it? Good question. In writing there is more than one way to interpret this:

1. How can you write about history if I don't know about history?

2. How can you write fiction if you don't read it?

3. How can you write something people will want to read if you don't know what makes something readable?

It sounds like you have done more than just research history, you have researched how to write interesting, informative prose. If you have spent the last year doing proportionately more reading than writing, you should have a better feel for what is good and what isn't. It will take a while to encorporate that into writing better, but it will come .

quote:

---

So, anyone think this has anything to do with reading only nonfiction for the last year?

---

Ya know, I gotta agree with mikemunsil on this. You just don't want to write.

I absolutely could not read just nonfiction for a year and not find something totally fascinating to put into my writing, and not be totally on the prowl for fiction about the subject of the nonfiction.

The books I've read are so god awful (ie Jimmy Carter's The Hormet's Nest), I want to write something good. My style, and themes trasnported (in a historically accurate manner) into 18th century America.

I have some ideas floating around just nothing concrete, and EVERY time I try to work on ANYTHING it just doesn't come out.

It just seems...lacking...muddled...i don't know.

I'm gonna keep plugging away. I think part of the reason is I'm putting a lot of pressure on myself to comeplete (a totally edited beginning, middle, and end)

I'm gonna get!

Sure, that sounds funny, doesn't it? But it's true on several levels. For one thing, well written prose is well written prose. Vivid and engaging description, a solid focus on the main points of the story, writing so that the reader can understand, these things are not different between good non-fiction and good fiction.

Also, as a reader, I never turn off my BS detectors. I always read everything as if it were a fictionalized account that may (or may not) have something to do with reality. Frankly, given the amount of different "non-fiction" I read, this is the only way to avoid living inside a psychotic episode (like most people seem to do ).

Or perhaps more Christianized, as it seems probable that if there was a "real" Arthur, he might well have been nominally a Christian.

It even seems probable that the "original" Arthurian story was a tragedy about how a promising young king of Briton ruined his life by converting to Christianity. So the story started as a bit of propaganda to promote adherence to the old pagan religion.

I'm just trying to say that you can write nonfiction about fiction. I remember being told one time, after saying that I had written some articles about the STAR WARS movies (particularly THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK), that you couldn't write nonfiction about STAR WARS because STAR WARS wasn't true.

The real reaoson I logged on is to let you all know I'm changing my name to Stella...

BECAUSE I JUST GOT MY GROOVE BACK!!!!

JOHN!

Back to Arthur:

Kathleen is absolutely right. There are dozens and dozens of nonfiction books that examine the legends or examine the evidence of the truth of Arthur. You don't call a college textbook studying short stories a work of fiction. It's nonfiction because it's ABOUT works of fiction rather than actually being a self-contained work of fiction. Get it?

Second, I'm an Arthur geek. I've read so much about Arthur my eyes are turning royal purple. The VAST bulk of the evidence concerning the 'so called' High King of Britain was written centuries after his lifetime. We can't rely on any of it, particularly since it's so OBVIOUSLY dramatized. Do I believe Arthur existed? Absolutely! Do I believe he was High King of Britain? I have serious doubts. After much reading and research and pondering of my own, I'm tending to fall in this guy's camp, though some of his assertions are not as well backed as others, and he admits as such:

http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/

It's a downloadable 118 page Adobe Acrobat file. Very interesting.

Pandemonium ensued!

quote:

---

...our charming lecturer walked in, welcomed us and informed us that Arthur never existed.

---

Not an uncommon theory these days, and the arguments have merit. However, the preponderance of stories as well as the endurance of them leads me to believe otherwise. I, personally, believe that all legend has basis in fact. I'd just really like to know the facts, or at least to come to a soundly reasoned theory of what they might have been. That's why the book in the link above is so intriguing for me.

And as far as people writing books about something for which there is so little evidence--when you have an appealing and enduring story there will always be people interested in reading more about it. And for me it is the LACK of evidence that keeps me reading and searching and hoping that one day some great breakthrough will be made and I shall finally KNOW Arthur. Until then I amuse myself with the theories--both ridiculous and plausible.

My greatest trouble with all the other versions written from some observer's POV is that Arthur seems so often to become lost in his own story, ya know? For instance, Jack Whyte's stories lose Arthur in the milieu of the fifth century Britain. The Broken Sword series loses Arthur in the telling of Galahad's story. The Mists of Avalon is Morgaine's story. The Once and Future King is about a simpering fool who can't make decisions on his own. The Crystal Cave series is Merlin's story with just a flavor of Arthur. The original tales are simply ridiculous.

I want to know Arthur. I want to explore his heart. Shakespeare does an amazing job of exploring the heart of his tragic figures, and telling at least much of the story from their POV. Hamlet's laments, etc. Sure, I know, it's a play. Plays are different. But really, can't something like that be done in a novel? And done well? I assure, if I can't do it well, I won't do it. Which is why it's a future project, rather than a right now project.

Stephen R Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle is good, too, though I haven't read it in a while, and I can't remember how exactly it compares.

Ni!