http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/03/selling_yourself_as_a_writer.html

Oh and this is cool too.
http://www.dansimmons.com/writing_welll/writing.htm

Louise was asking about him (BTW, welcome Louise)

Tracy

Obviously the interview is constructed since Simmons was a boy when Hemingway deleted his talent with a shotgun in 1961 and Fitzgerald died in 1940 before Simmons was even born. However FSF and EH were indeed friends and the quotes are verbatim. These are the legitimate opinions of two of the greatest American writers (not to mention the most in need of therapy) so well worth discussing.

I didn't know Hemingway... He died before I was born. But one of my instructors at ITT Tech claimed to have known him. The one who convinced me I was talented enough to write a novel. For the short time I was in the class, we were talking Hemingway. I don't remember the "Unhappy Childhood" quote. But I *was* 25 at the time.

But what he was saying about needing to know poetry... Which I would contest that if you understand the second part of what you said, the first part becomes a natural exension... The ability to write something in such a way that the reader begins to suspect it happened to the author. What Hemingway is talking about is intimate knowledge. Not simply picking up an encyclopedia and reading what it so scientifically has to say about the subject. But having the ability to string together words in such a way that you provoke an appropriate emotional response in a reader, convincing them that you understand the subject better than anyone else. You have to be able to say exactly what the reader would have said had they experienced that situation... That is to say if you've managed to get your reader so lost in your prose that it flows through their brain as naturally as water in a stream.

And that is essentially the nature of poetry. Poetry is the literature of emotion. Good poetry illicits the appropriate emotional responses in the reader. Which is why (and I by no means mean to sound derogatory about this) women love poetry. Because women love and understand emotion more than men do.

Which as a side, I will say that of all the authors I have read, I've only read one woman, and she has by far trumped all others in quality. But that author is J.K. Rowling, so that may not be a fair thing to say that all women are better writers... just because I read one who is definately among the best... But my point is, women understand emotion better than men do.

So Appling this to writing: What about what Hemingway said about writing as if the event really happened to you. If I keep this in mind as I write, what do you think will happen? Would it change your writing at all to wallpaper your imagination with this rule?… Writing as if you are trying to make the reader believe you are just recalling things the way they happened, relating instead of telling a story.

"Tom sighed as he passed the welcome sign to Smalltown, America. It reminded him of the town he'd grown up in, and while he wasn't eager to engage in the local scene he found himself getting hungry. He decided to stop at the first establishment that presented itself, which was the Nickleback Lane Bar and Grill. Tom exited his car and noticed that the skies were growing dark. It would probably rain soon. As he entered the smokey bar a short waitress politely handed him his menu. Nothing looked particularly appetizing, so he decided to be safe and order a burger to go."

I dunno, I just came up with that, top of my head. But if I wrote it like this:

"Tom leaned on his hand and sighed as he continued on through what seemed like a no mans land of endless pavement. Eventually a sign presented itself at the corner of his attention: Smalltown, USA. As Tom drove through the town, it reminded him of the admittedly small town he had grown up in, more churches than businesses. His stomach began to growl, and while he was eager to reach his final destination he decided there wouldn't be any harm in stopping for a bite. He caught sight of a neon sign, the Nickelback Lane Bar and Grill. The place didn't look entirely like it had grown up through the forest, so he figured what the hell. Pulling in and exiting his car, he noticed the sky was turning dark. The air had that cold taste of electricity, like a storm was coming. He decided he'd best get some food and get back on the road as soon as possible. Tom was blasted with the smell of musty nicotine as he entered, and a short, red haired waitress with a smile that could have brought him to his knees gave him a menu."

I dunno. Not exactly pulitzer material, but maybe you get my point. You gotta write like you understand a few things. Thats all he's saying.

I interpret what Hemingway is saying as meaning that we should be certain that what we write should be so believable that the reader wonders if its true. So instead of writing inflated drama we should seek real reactions. Perhaps even asking friends, “If someone said this or that to you, how would you react, what would you think?” Look for believability in dialog and reactions. Steinbeck’s, Of mice and men, was that way for me. The dialog and reactions, while dramatic, were so believable it did seem as if he had been there and experienced that life. You wondered if he’d modeled George and Lenny after workers he’d seen pass through the ranches… actually I still suspect he knew these characters intimately from somewhere. The point is there was not one line in that story that made you say, “come on, who would react that way.”

How do we get away from the soapy high drama that is so rife in the media and write something that is literary in quality. Even the highly regarded “FireFly” is continuously ridiculous and should be taken as seriously as a TV show called Hero’s. Don’t get me wrong, I am entertained by FireFly, but I feel immature for being able to relate to dumb male fantasy like that. Is this what we have become since Hemingway blew his brains out? It frustrates me on some levels. On the other hand, I find OSC characters to be quite believable. He was even able to sell me Enders computer program as a viable character, lets face it, that’s pretty good. So even in Sci-Fi its still quite possible. There has to be a simple way of thinking about it that would keep you in the margins of believable. There has to be Hemingways and Fitzgeralds and Steinbecks in this generation of writers.

Maybe I’m promoting an unmarketable style here. For me, its sad if that’s become true.

Tracy

I'm probably one of the few people who understands Hemingway while having read very little of his work. We studied him a bit at ITT, before they told me I was too good for the class. (If thats an arrogant thing to say I'm going to have to stop saying it... I mean the instructor did say it, but I dunno why I keep repeating it...) My therapist and I were discussing Hemingway today, and she said he was bipolar too. I have no idea if that is true or not, but if it is, it would certainly explain why he blew his head off with a shotgun.

I think you're on the coin though. You have to write in a way that the reader has no trouble walking into your world... And this is true of all genres. Characters, scenes, plots, they all need to be so believable that the reader accepts them as you've presented them, and understands them not only as you've written them, but perhaps even as you haven't written them.

I'll add this, and this may not even be true so just take it as it is. If Hemingway was bipolar, than something I can say with personal experience is that in moments of lucidity, after many years struggling with the pains of depression and the euphoric fever of mania, many if not all sufferers of bipolar disorder come to realize that truth, in all forms, is completely subjective. I mean look at religion. If everyone behaved and believed and felt the same way, we'd really only have one religion. But religion is, at least it should be I think for the claimer of it, about passion. Yes faith obviously plays a part, but you could argue that faith is a form of suspension of disbelief. If you read the Bible, in one of it's myriad of translations, or the Koran, or any of the other religious books out there, and it evokes a passion in you that makes you believe what others believe is impossible... Then for you, that passion becomes truth. And it is truth. Is it disprovable? Quite likely. But if its your passion, it will be the truth.

Which is why, and this is absolutely true, not everyone is going to like your work. Chances are, even if you completely suck and write cardboard characters with reused plots *cojamesbondugh*, someone out there is likely going to like what you've written. But even if you've written the greatest book in the world (like some argue that the bible is) not everyone is going to like it, no matter how well its written. Especially if its science fiction. Theres probably 80% of America that believes that if it's Science Fiction, it's crap. And then they go about watching Lost, Desperate Housewives, Bones... The X-Files... (I still can't believe there were actually people out there who didn't think that was science fiction)

I thought Firefly was ok, it wasn't my favorite show on TV. Whedon's best work was definately, to me anyway, on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He did some amazing things with that show. I'm probably leaning towards OSC's opinion that Serenity was the greatest Science Fiction movie ever. But I would believe that only if we accept that it was because it was written for that medium.. Movies. Crossing mediums in my opinion, is fraught with disaster. Take Michael Crichton for instance. Most of his books were works of pure genius... Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, Congo... Sphere still probably holds for me the title of greatest science fiction book written of all time. But all these movies were absolutely terrible! Now, Michael Chrichton writes ER for TV and Twister for the movies... Completely awesome. And it doesn't stop with Crichton. Translations, simply put, suck. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire came about as close as we'll ever get to seeing a good translation.

As for Orson Scott Card, beyond his books on writing I've only read Ender's Game. And if it hadn't been for my own childhood (which probably sounds strange) I would not have believed a word of it. OSC took Ender on such an emotional beating in that book, it seems to me like it would be hard to understand any child being able to bear that, if the person making that statement had no understanding of child abuse. But my next book will probably be Speaker for the Dead, simply because after reading Ender's Game I read American Gods, and I tried to read Spin, and now I just desperately want to delve into something that doesn't even remotely suck as bad as those two did.

I guess I'm a hard critic. I'm probably preparing myself to do my own work after I finish my rough draft. It's going to be really hard for me to hear someone say something worse about my work than me, so I've got to portray myself as badly as possible to myself.