posted
I was reading The First Five Pages by Noah Lukeman earlier today, and I hit somewhat of a contradiction I think:
Showing Versus Telling chapter, end of chapter exercises, page 126: "Introduce a new location solely by describing it. Don't tell us what it's like. Just describe it. Let us come to our own conclusions. Is it scary? Imposing? Barren? Evoke the mood by the description, not by telling us what the mood is."
Setting chapter, solution #5, page 182: "Good settings are distinguished from great settings in that the former will name details, but the latter will go one step further and use these details to make an impression. For instance, a setting can be well described by saying 'It was a small, dark room, poorly lit and airless,' but better described by adding 'It was oppressive, like a tomb.' Remember that the best settings are there not for their own sake but as a means to making an atmospheric impression."
Well, which is it? Is there some distinction I'm not making in what he prescribes?
posted
I've not read this book, but it looks to me like he wants you to avoid mood words in the setting for the purpose of the exercise. It is, after all, an exercise in showing not telling.
posted
Sometimes the point of an exercise is not necessarily to practice the thing that it describes, but to take away a tool that a writer usually uses and have him flounder around with their other ones. Sounds like they're a couple of that type.
[This message has been edited by Jeraliey (edited April 24, 2005).]
posted
I'd say that, purposes of the exercise aside, the advice in the first example is better than the advice in the second example. I agree that setting needs to do more than just be there, but the example given of naming the mood you're trying to evoke seems very weak to me.
I remember that The First Five Pages started out really well, but got weaker and weaker as it went along - it doesn't surprise me that advice from p. 126 is stronger than advice from 50 pages later, and contradicts earlier material.
posted
I've struggled through one and a half of his books now and have not been impressed. He might want to reread his own advice about avoiding repetition.
I'm in close to the end of The First Five Pages and I keep skimming. He'll make a point, then remake it, reiterate it, expound on the reiteration and then sum up. It's driving me crazy.
At the same time there are some good things in there, so it's worth wading through. I just wish it weren't quite such a slog.
posted
I think that it has to do with learning the difference. Since the target audience is people who want to write, and there are millions of those. For people who are serious, we don't need it beaten into our skulls. Some people do need it repeated over and over.
As for describing something for effect. If you are going to describe a room that has a sinister feel. You can say it feel sinister, but that's like cheating, it needs to be backed up. If you describe a room with hanging manicles discolord by blood, and other instruments of torture, that description will imply it's own feeling.
Once you know how to describe things to give it a certain feel, then it can be emphisized by adding a feeling as well.
Together I think it is saying to do more than just "say" it is something, but back it up with things that will add the proper texture to make it real to the reader.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
