![]() Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 June 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 October 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 November 2005 October 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December My Links Home TaBoo's Ezine Navigator The Greatest Maze Sudoku Tips and Tricks Joe User The Phallic Suggestion tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog |
posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 02.06.07 (3:47 pm) I will not cut and paste... This was a great post! Come to think of it, I do cut, but I never paste - unless it's within the same sentence or paragraph where I find I've decided to run a sentence on too long and I feel it needs to be reordered to make more sense to the reader, though I make sure I never do it with sections of a story; just run-on sentences like this one which reminds me of something I've always wondered; should "run-on" be hyphenated or is it two distinct words? posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 02.06.07 (6:53 pm) Reply to: surrogate Thank. You. Surrogate (periods. pasted. into. sentence.). and, for the record, run-on is a singular holy word that we writers of glorious fiction like to flourish in the collective faces of nonfiction editors. taboo posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 02.10.07 (7:12 am) So what do you do when you're writing something and it takes on a life of its own. Changes from what you'd planned almost entirely... Do you go back to what you'd planned or let the thing evolve on its own? posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 02.10.07 (9:38 am) Reply to: surrogate tough question. i talked about it a little in my new post, but no matter how you look at it, a story's evolution becomes a dilemma during revision. i think good writers find the answer by understanding their story's central question. my professor loves to ask, "into what life has this trouble come?" if a writer understands the story he is writing, he understands that character well enough to know what the character was like before the trouble comes rumbling forth (into what life), and also understands why this particular trouble forces the old dog of a character to change. that's the story. if after a few revisions you don't really know why this trouble affects this character, you'll need to let the story fade away until the real story emerges. that's not revision, though--that's writing a new story. here's my own rookie's perspective: you can't really revise a story--you revise the narrative. either you have a story, or you haven't found it yet. if you have one, the next step is to revise, revise, and revise some more until you're TELLING that story in the way it needs to be told. if you don't have a story, the revision process will let you know the hard truth, and revision becomes a way of starting a new story. taboo posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 02.10.07 (2:37 pm) Reply to: tabootenente Well, actually, I wasn't talking about a revision. I mean, right from the get go, when the story takes a radical turn that's come to you as you write, is it wise to let it go that way and see what happens? Or is it better to slowly pump the brakes and get things back under control, forgetting about the fork the car itself wanted to follow. I think I'm wondering if you believe there can be inspiration contained in spontaneity... posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 02.11.07 (7:34 am) Reply to: surrogate hmm, an even more searching question than the other, this question of spontaneity--especially when you first sit down and write a story. stephen koch, the one-time director of columbia university's writing program, said, "how can you know your story until you've told it?" i agree with him. that half-formed, resinous idea that you're trying to identify when writing needs expression before the story takes shape. if you already know the story, then you probably do not need to tell it. f. scott. fitzgerald said, "character is plot," and i agree with this too, to a certain extent. your character is the life into which trouble comes (to use professor pam painter's line again), and your character's desires shape his responses, his responses define the action, and that action is the story. you are the writer, and it's your job to box your character into a corner until he must act. but plot comes from the narrative, the telling, not from the story. your spontaneity is how you express the story of your character's life; your spontaneity is NOT how your character responds. when you first tell the story, the spontaneous crap you throw at him will help you learn who your character is and what he will do. similarly, henry james said, "character is action." aristotle said, "character is fate." in the end, character is the story. but the text itself, and its ordering--how you tell that story--shows who YOU are, why you're writing THIS story. i think the process, or the writing of the story itself, is more important than the story. after all, there are no new stories. but the way we tell them--that's the heart of Being. taboo |
|