Welcome to Gaia! ::

<3 </3

Show me poll love!

Love 0.64052287581699 64.1% [ 98 ]
Just gimme gold, dammit. 0.35947712418301 35.9% [ 55 ]
Total Votes:[ 153 ]
1 2 3 >

Now I’ve lured you in with a facetious title (breast jokes optional), I will proceed to shock you all with AN ACTUAL SERIOUS THREAD!

This thread is a response to two things. Firstly, as a antidote to the plethora of character threads and their ilk, that while diverting, don’t have much in the way of substance and secondly, as a reaction to the recent necro’ing of the ‘Write Interesting’ thread – in my mind a thread that is genuinely useful, thought-provoking and proof of what this forum and members can be capable.

Moreover, I thought it was about time I got off my a** (metaphorically speaking) and actually did something for the forum where I spend so much time.

What I have to say is pretty simplistic, not particularly groundbreaking and may be the ultimate example of preaching to the converted but if I can get at least one person thinking about their writing more then it’ll be worth it.

But enough digressions – let’s get on with it, hm?

I give you….DOLL’S 3 D’S!

When I think about effective stories, about any kind of good prose writing, for me it all boils down to three things: DETAIL, DIALOGUE and DESCRIPTION. I honestly believe that if you have these three components in your writing then you can’t go far wrong in any aspect of constructing a story – be it plot, characterisation, setting or anything else you want to throw in there. Let’s look at them more closely:

Detail

They say the devil is in the details and if this is true, then the devil does indeed have the best tunes. It is details that make people care about your story, about your characters, about the world you present. It is detail that makes your story memorable, that sets it apart from other stories, that makes it interesting.

I don’t want to know that your character simply ate a meal – I want to know what they ate. Did they have chicken McNuggets or foie gras? Did ketchup dribble down their chin or did they dab the corners of their mouths delicately with a napkin? Every single detail shows the reader about the character…and this is the key. Don’t tell us, show us. Don’t tell me a character is uncultured. Show me his love of Monster Trucks, how he likes to burp in his wife’s face, how he only ever reads pizza menus.

On a larger scale I’d like to refer to The Secret History by Donna Tartt. In this novel, we know the plot from the very start, we know that a group of friends kill their friend (and as it is clear from of the offset, I don’t feel this is a spoiler) so why do we read on? For the details! We want to know how and why such a thing occurred, who was involved and where it happened.

On a smaller scale I’m reminded of the scene where Holden sees a ‘******** you’ on the wall of his sister’s school in Catcher in the Rye. This scene doesn’t further the plot or really tell us anything more about Holden as a character but it is memorable and poignant and the kind of detail that remains with the reader after they have long finished the book.

Ok, moving on!

Dialogue

I remember when I first started writing I was so hell-bent on asserting my authorial voice, on letting the reader know what I think, that I never let the characters speak for themselves. As a result my stories were like lectures, boring lectures. Much like this post – ha! Generally speaking, the reader doesn’t want to know your thoughts on the story – they want to know what’s going on, and there’s no better way to find out than eavesdropping. A hint of an accent, vocabulary, verbal tics say far more than any amount of exposition. Dialogue takes skill but it is a skill that can be learned. Listen to people talk, even try transposing a conversation. Dialogue is ragged, incomplete, and non-standard. We don’t speak in complete sentences and neither should your characters. There is no simpler way than drawing your readers into a story, try starting a story in a middle of a conversation and see what effect it has.

Vernon God Little by DBC Pierre is a book that springs to mind when it comes to using dialogue effectively. The way the protagonist speaks is so idiosyncratic, so inherently comedic that it makes the ensuing mayhem in the book ten times funnier. Look at the dialogue in A Clockwork Orange – you’ll either love it or hate it. Personally it gives me the happy shivers.

And finally…

Description

This is where I advise all prose writers to go and stalk a poet, ‘cos they really know their s**t when it comes to this. Imagery is key – the basics – metaphor, simile, personification, all the things your English teacher has you point out in set texts over and over again. Language is an imprecise science, especially when it comes to explaining human experience. Think on this, how do you truly know that the things you experience and feel are the same as what other people experience and feel? Here’s the thing, you don’t. So for you to have a ghost of a chance of your readers understanding what the hell you are talking about you have to describe for your life. Compare the abstract to the concrete, make things real for people. Think of the senses – get your readers to see, smell, taste, hear and touch. Real is waking up next to someone and wanting to kiss them even if they have morning breath, not waxing lyrical on how non-specific angelic choirs sing every time you see them.

Um…example? Read One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest…or don’t. I don’t want to seem preachy, preachy.

ANYWAY, that’s enough of me being serious for at least six months. Hope this is helpful, which was my intent. Tell me what you think, or hell, throw in a breast joke. I tried, dammit.
Thus why THIS was created.

To focus on all three D's and anything else, the hope is that someday it shall eat most of the game threads

Edit: All of these, however, should not be overdone. All 3 D's, when not actually helping give the reader a feel for the setting, characters, plot, or situation, all tedious and annoying.

I would like to cite the book The Lover by Margeurite Duras, an autobiographical story. One the first page, she is stopped by 'a man' in front of 'a public building.' No other detail or description is given of these thins. The point of the paragraph is the dialog and the subtext and hints buried in it. This was a beautiful peice of the book. However, a few pages later, she goes on and on for page about how beautiful, wise, and sexual knowledgable she is. That part was aggravating tiresome.
I do so love when people put thought and effort into their posts. You should really mention though the whole thing of 'a good balance' because too much of anything is a bad thing these days. Even fantastic details that make for a whole picture. You only need a hundred percent, no need for a hundred and thirty.
A lot of novices seem to either be ignorant of or often forget about these things, and focus on the characters and the plot and the setting instead. I think that's the reason why most fail; they try to come out on top with the beautiful finished products without knowing the base ingredients. They'll focus and slave over individual parts without knowing what drives them, so when they attempt to put it all together the story deflates like an undercooked souffle.

I think this might be a tad off-topic, but a mistake I see often when it comes to description is to rely too much on visual images and not enough on the other senses. Humans are visual creatures but we do notice other things than just colours and shapes. I read lots of fantasy, so I often come across lots of swordfights and battles in the books. Usually the author describes the blood and the gore in great detail, but leaves out on the stench of the blood and the sweat, how hot it is under that heavy armor and the noise of swords clashing and the dying men's cries. Even the pain the character feels is left out. Often it's a simple "The sword cut through his mail and he felt great pain." To me, pain is a word devoid of most feeling because it's just so general; there are different types of pain, and I like to know specifics.

I'm going to stop ranting in your thread now. sweatdrop
I don't know, I think depending on the story not all of these issues need be adressed. Recently I wrote a short story containing almost no dialogue that I believe was plenty strong, probably because nobody talked much.

I think that perhaps what is a more important "D" might be depth.

I find that the stronger stories resonate more, and that's what makes them strong, not necessarily the descritions or details. Afterall, I don't care if he dribbled ketchup down his chin if the entire story is about "him" eating a cheeseburger.

I'd rather forego eating habits for a story that hits harder and makes a strong impact.
Hey, thanks for the replies people.

@Yami and Sugarpill - I think you're both making a similar point and I agree - balance is needed, as in everything and I think this comes with experience of both writing and reading...a good editor works too. Oh, and Sugarpill - it's nice when someone notices you've made an effort - thanks.

@Miss Obvious - rant away! Yes, again I agree. It makes me wonder our reliance on visual mediums affects the way we write. Might be another thread in there somewhere.

@Maljax - you make a good point. Not only is balance needed, but as with anything there are exceptions to the rule. I'm not saying that a story without dialogue couldn't work - I think my explanations are aimed at writers who are just starting out. Y'know, know the 'rules' before you break them kinda thing. The ketchup thing is just a dumb example of what I'm trying to get across.

What I am interested in, is how you define 'depth'. It's another one of those slippery terms that's meaning is hard to ascertain. How would you say depth is achieved? I know in my stories I aspire to achieve depth precisely though detail, dialogue and description - that these are the basic tools I use in my plotting, characterisation and language to produce an impact.

5,900 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
The Maljax is Me
I don't know, I think depending on the story not all of these issues need be adressed. Recently I wrote a short story containing almost no dialogue that I believe was plenty strong, probably because nobody talked much.

I think that perhaps what is a more important "D" might be depth.

I find that the stronger stories resonate more, and that's what makes them strong, not necessarily the descritions or details. Afterall, I don't care if he dribbled ketchup down his chin if the entire story is about "him" eating a cheeseburger.

I'd rather forego eating habits for a story that hits harder and makes a strong impact.


Not to say you're wrong (quite the opposite), but how do you apply depth to a story?
Yami_Again
The Maljax is Me
I don't know, I think depending on the story not all of these issues need be adressed. Recently I wrote a short story containing almost no dialogue that I believe was plenty strong, probably because nobody talked much.

I think that perhaps what is a more important "D" might be depth.

I find that the stronger stories resonate more, and that's what makes them strong, not necessarily the descritions or details. Afterall, I don't care if he dribbled ketchup down his chin if the entire story is about "him" eating a cheeseburger.

I'd rather forego eating habits for a story that hits harder and makes a strong impact.


Not to say you're wrong (quite the opposite), but how do you apply depth to a story?


Turn it into an origami boulder.

Might not cover Doll's 3 D's, but it will at least be 3-D.

Learned Gaian

5,750 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Member 100
  • Cart Raider 100
The problem with depth is you can't rely on it. There needs to be a blanace of it.

Too much depth in the story takes away from the actual story. Sure, The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Catcher in the Rye have great depth in them, but if someone misses them, they'll probably think the stories suck balls.

However, being too didactic with morals, alegory, social text, etc. is also going to bore the s**t out of people.

Depth is harder to do, because with the other D's, it's easier to go through the sotry and through out everything that isn't relevant (Doll has said she wasnt' trying to tell everyone to write uber-purple).

Depth, unlike the other D's is also less concrete than the others. While Dialog, description, and details are definites in the story, people can take away different things, depending on who they are. For instance, in The Bible, the story of Adam and Eve is explicitly told by god, but people still take away different morals. Sometimes is a metaphor for puberty, sometimes it is representative of a desire to return to the womb, sometimes it is an explanation for gender-roles. A person can read Romeo and Juliet and say it is about the power of true love and someone else can say it is an argument not to let young teenagers take thier lives into their own hands.
Yami_Again: I feel that depth is simply adding a second layer to the story, whether it creates some emotion, whether it changes your mind somewhere along the way, when you leave the story feeling something else other that "that was good/bad/okay"

As I said, I don't care if I read a detailed story that describes how a man eats his cheeseburger, that also includes dialogue. It has to leave me with a feeling, it's just making something a little more complex through any of the things that Yami_no_eyes mentioned.

And Yami_no_Eyes: You are also right on the money, you can definitely have too much depth. However, it's also possible to have too little depth. It's a very tricky little thing to deal with.

Learned Gaian

5,750 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Member 100
  • Cart Raider 100
The Maljax is Me

And Yami_no_Eyes: You are also right on the money, you can definitely have too much depth. However, it's also possible to have too little depth. It's a very tricky little thing to deal with.


I think my last point touched on this. A story can be presumed to have either a lot of depth or not enough, and it's a personal opinion. My teacher called me wrong when I pointed out that Huckleberry Finn said there was no depth in the forward. I thought it was an amazing story, but I didn't agree on a lot of dpeth the teacher said was in there.
It's interesting how you mentioned Catcher in the Rye earlier because I had the exact same conversation with my English teacher about how deep the story was. What we in the end agreed upon was that the depth is all relative to the experiences of the reader and of the author. What may have seemed profound to Salinger might not be strange to me. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, I don't think many will argue with me when I say that Huck Finn and Catcher in the Rye are much deeper than The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants.

Learned Gaian

5,750 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Member 100
  • Cart Raider 100
I have a story with lots of depth (lots of storytelling on the surface too.) Half the people who read it don't see the depth. Half who read it see all the depth. There's only been one middle-ground person. It's really odd.
I'd love to read it, if you would be willing to send it to me.

And what I always find interesting is when people over analyze so they find little pieces that perhaps you didn't mean to include but they also end up missing the larger theme.

I've had people do that to me with colors, I was describing a picture and someonw thought it was symboloic that the girl wore gren shoes in the picture.
ANYWAY!

*points to the topic at hand*

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum