Where do I start

pickarooney

dawvee wrote: »

Oh, I'm not saying that every detail has to follow from the POV character's perspective, but the example of saying a car was a '78 Buick is a far cry from a full paragraph describing the minutiae of the jungle ecosystem when the character's direct speech refers to the jungle dismissively in the very next line.

I put that in quite deliberately. It was a cheap gag originally, with an even longer, overindulgent description followed immediately by Olaf saying "This is so boring" thereby I suppose in a roundabout way informing the reader of what he was not experiencing.

EileenG

The trouble with that sort of thing is that if you are not very careful, you can really piss off the reader. If they don't get the joke, they are annoyed, and if they think you are talking down or lecturing them, they get annoyed. As long as you stick to your character's POV, it's the character being annoying, not the author.

My feeling is that your own writing is much stronger when you stick to what your characters know or say or do, than when you are putting in all sorts of extra information.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

My feeling is that your own writing is much stronger when you stick to what your characters know or say or do, than when you are putting in all sorts of extra information.

That's the vicious circle I'm trying to understand and avoid. If the narrator intrudes, he's getting in the way of the story evolving naturally - I get that. However, if he doesn't, it's impossible to reveal important information about the various characters without 'head-hopping'.

The extract above has been re-written about eight times since with some radical changes but I've not yet been able to find a way to show the reader the following.
1. The jungle is, pretentious as it sounds, a character itself - it's grand, it's complex, it's nourishing and it's merciless
2. Ulrike is only there as a kind of favour to Olaf, a minor concession to having him travel 10,000 km essentially just to massage her ego
3. Olaf is there on the misassumption that he will see loads of cool animals
4. Fausto is there because until he has made enough cash to move to the big city he has no other choice. He's bored of the jungle and though he's supposed to know everything about all the plants and birds, he's never been all that interested in the place.
5. They all end up fighting one another with hilarious consequences.

EileenG

Dialogue! Let them have a difference of opinion and either say this stuff outright, or NOT say it in such a way that the reader gets it anyway. All you need is someone to roll his eyes when someone else rabbits on about the glory of nature, and you've told the story.

pickarooney

No - then the characters themselves would know what all the others are keeping to themselves! And the fights would start about eight pages too early

The Sparrow

This thread seems to have derailed a good bit from the what the OP asked!

I'm going to be a bit controversial and say that just sitting down to write a lot is not the wisest way to approach a novel. Having said that, I have not finished a novel or submitted one to a publisher.

You can get caught up on rules about doing one thing or not doing another thing and all you end up doing is spending your time worrying about whether you are breaking any of these 'sacrosanct' rules.

Also, everyone always says just write. Well actually it seems to me that if you want to write a novel, the worst idea is to open your laptop and start writing. If you think that you can write a novel, then by definition you must consider yourself a good writer.

A novel has to be a good story that is engaging to the reader. That is the number one most important thing about a novel. Author's like Dan Brown have proven that a good story is even more important than writing skill.

So it seems to me that the place to start is on your story and making sure that you have it all mapped out before you begin to write. I was listening to an interview with Jeffrey Deaver this morning and he doesn't write a word of his novel's for the first 8-10 months. Instead he works on an outline of the story and does the hard slog of researching everything.

Only when he has a detailed outline of about 100 pages and has researched every element of the story, does he sit down and start writing. Then, he said he can have fun and lock himself away and use his writing skills to tell the best story that he can. It is only then that I would worry about any so-called rules.

And the best thing about rules is that they are there to be broken. So don't listen to people who just talk about what rules or other nonsense about too many POV's and how stuff can or can't be broken.

I say do your own thing and then worry about all that nonsense. if you think you can write a novel then you obviously think you are a good writer so have confidence in your own ability and come up with a great story, research the life out of it and then sit down and enjoy writing it.

Memnoch

The Sparrow wrote: »

This thread seems to have derailed a good bit from the what the OP asked!

I'm going to be a bit controversial and say that just sitting down to write a lot is not the wisest way to approach a novel. Having said that, I have not finished a novel or submitted one to a publisher.

You can get caught up on rules about doing one thing or not doing another thing and all you end up doing is spending your time worrying about whether you are breaking any of these 'sacrosanct' rules.

Also, everyone always says just write. Well actually it seems to me that if you want to write a novel, the worst idea is to open your laptop and start writing. If you think that you can write a novel, then by definition you must consider yourself a good writer.

A novel has to be a good story that is engaging to the reader. That is the number one most important thing about a novel. Author's like Dan Brown have proven that a good story is even more important than writing skill.

So it seems to me that the place to start is on your story and making sure that you have it all mapped out before you begin to write. I was listening to an interview with Jeffrey Deaver this morning and he doesn't write a word of his novel's for the first 8-10 months. Instead he works on an outline of the story and does the hard slog of researching everything.

Only when he has a detailed outline of about 100 pages and has researched every element of the story, does he sit down and start writing. Then, he said he can have fun and lock himself away and use his writing skills to tell the best story that he can. It is only then that I would worry about any so-called rules.

And the best thing about rules is that they are there to be broken. So don't listen to people who just talk about what rules or other nonsense about too many POV's and how stuff can or can't be broken.

I say do your own thing and then worry about all that nonsense. if you think you can write a novel then you obviously think you are a good writer so have confidence in your own ability and come up with a great story, research the life out of it and then sit down and enjoy writing it.

That's ironic that you say that... especially since you use Dan Brown as an example considering...

1) He writes like a million words for every 100k novel he puts out. i.e. he works INCREDIBLY hard at his craft.

2) He used to teach a creative writing class espousing these "rules," while he worked on his own novels.

3) He does seem to apply these rules even though he isn't considered to be a good writer by "critical" standards.

And it's doubly ironic that you bash "rules" and yet preach a rule that you should outline everything in detail before writing.

Here's the truth about outlining. Every writer is different and has to discover his or her own process.

Some writers HAVE to outline before they write, it's the only way they can tell a story. Others write better organically.

I'm one of the latter. I never outline. In fact, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to outline. Yet I've managed to complete two novels. Admittedly the first one was horrible. It's all about your creative process and how you think and this varies from person to person.

I'll say it again. It's one thing to not allow the rules to control your writing (which is good) it's another entirely to be ignorant of them.

The reason these rules exist is because these are mistakes that writers typically make. eg over-rely on adverbs. That said, one of my favourite novels of all time uses adverbs a lot. (A suitable boy).

The Sparrow

Memnoch wrote: »

That's ironic that you say that... especially since you use Dan Brown as an example considering...

1) He writes like a million words for every 100k novel he puts out. i.e. he works INCREDIBLY hard at his craft.

2) He used to teach a creative writing class espousing these "rules," while he worked on his own novels.

3) He does seem to apply these rules even though he isn't considered to be a good writer by "critical" standards.

And it's doubly ironic that you bash "rules" and yet preach a rule that you should outline everything in detail before writing.

Here's the truth about outlining. Every writer is different and has to discover his or her own process.

Some writers HAVE to outline before they write, it's the only way they can tell a story. Others write better organically.

I'm one of the latter. I never outline. In fact, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to outline. Yet I've managed to complete two novels. Admittedly the first one was horrible. It's all about your creative process and how you think and this varies from person to person.

I'll say it again. It's one thing to not allow the rules to control your writing (which is good) it's another entirely to be ignorant of them.

The reason these rules exist is because these are mistakes that writers typically make. eg over-rely on adverbs. That said, one of my favourite novels of all time uses adverbs a lot. (A suitable boy).

It's actually not ironic at all. Would you not agree that the thing that sells Dan Brown novels is not the writing skill but the plot line? The same plot that he must have spent so long coming up with and researching?

Also I didn't bash rules per se. I bashed the idea that when someone asks how they should approach writing a novel, all they get is rather pointless discussion on what rules should or shouldn't be broken.

And unless you are just writing for yourself (and fair play if you are) it doesn't matter how many novels you have completed. It only matters how many you have had published and how succesful they were.

Finally, I didn't preach any rule about outlining. I just wrote how I would approach writing a novel. Which was what the OP asked.

dawvee

The reason nearly everyone gave the advice to sit down and start writing was because that's really the crucial step. All the planning in the world won't matter in the slightest until you've sat down and bashed a story out of it. If you've never gotten that far (and many never do), then you're not really a writer. Writers write.

Though you're right that rules don't matter if you can't tell a good story, but the trick is figuring out how to tell a good story, isn't it? That's why all the various rules exist in the first place - to help you tell a good story without getting tripped up or held back on little things. They're not laws from some high and mighty authority, they're the voice of experience from other writers. They exist primarily as guidelines for the inexperienced. The less experience (and success) you've had as a writer, the more foolish it generally is to dismiss them out of hand.

The Sparrow

dawvee wrote: »

The reason nearly everyone gave the advice to sit down and start writing was because that's really the crucial step. All the planning in the world won't matter in the slightest until you've sat down and bashed a story out of it. If you've never gotten that far (and many never do), then you're not really a writer. Writers write.

Though you're right that rules don't matter if you can't tell a good story, but the trick is figuring out how to tell a good story, isn't it? That's why all the various rules exist in the first place - to help you tell a good story without getting tripped up or held back on little things. They're not laws from some high and mighty authority, they're the voice of experience from other writers. They exist primarily as guidelines for the inexperienced. The less experience (and success) you've had as a writer, the more foolish it generally is to dismiss them out of hand.

I'm assuming that if somebody wants to write a novel, they consider themselves to be a good writer. Of course they may be wrong, but why would someone who doesn't consider themselves a good writer try and write a novel?

So you believe yourself to be at a certain level as a writer. Therefore the next most important (and I would argue most important full stop) is to come up with a good story and then research the hell out of it so you have every single angle covered and you can tell the story in your sleep.

Then sit down and spend time worrying about how to write it and what rules do or do not apply. It is then that you can perfect the craft of writing and you can concentrate on your writing 100% without having to worry about the plot. It is hard enough to fill a page with great writing without having to also worry about what your plot is, where it is going and if it is coherent and making sense. Not too mention having to research on the fly as well.

I know plenty of writers do that but it seems like a crazy way to approach it to me.

And obviously if you are not 100% confident in your writing ability you should practise on short stories etc before even attempting to write a novel.

pickarooney

Not every novel needs research and I'd bet that most of them change plot ans structure dramatically as they're written and rewritten so to me it seems a bit of a waste to spend too much time on that early on.

The other point is that it's easy to convince yourself you're structuring your novel or researching while you're actually arsing about on the internet or staring at a half-full page but harder to make yourself believe you've written something you haven't. Also, how many times has an idea seemed great until you actually put it down on paper and realise it's unworkable or plain dull?

The Sparrow

pickarooney wrote: »

Not every novel needs research and I'd bet that most of them change plot ans structure dramatically as they're written and rewritten so to me it seems a bit of a waste to spend too much time on that early on.

What novel doesn't require any research?? And if you prepare properly there is a lesser chance that you will need big plot changes.

pickarooney wrote: »

The other point is that it's easy to convince yourself you're structuring your novel or researching while you're actually arsing about on the internet or staring at a half-full page but harder to make yourself believe you've written something you haven't. Also, how many times has an idea seemed great until you actually put it down on paper and realise it's unworkable or plain dull?

It's also pretty easy to waste time writing something that is badly paced and doesn't make narrative sense because you are too busy being a 'writer' and not willing to spend enough time on the key point of a novel... the plot.

As I mentioned before a novel will sell if it has bad writing but a gripping plot (take a bow Mr. Dan Brown) but the opposite is rarely true. It doesn't matter how great your writing is, if the story doesn't make sense then nobody will want to read you book. So that seems to suggest to me that the story is the most important element of a novel and therefore it should receive a lot of your attention. And it is very difficult to do that if you are worrying about prose and various rules at the same time as coming up with a plot.

pickarooney

The Sparrow wrote: »

What novel doesn't require any research?? And if you prepare properly there is a lesser chance that you will need big plot changes.

Anything written directly from personal experience. I can't imagine there's much research you could do for a fantasy or sci-fi novel either.

It's also pretty easy to waste time writing something that is badly paced and doesn't make narrative sense because you are too busy being a 'writer' and not willing to spend enough time on the key point of a novel... the plot.

True enough, but you can at least salvage/recycle much of it or at worst rule out a possible plotline by elimination.

As I mentioned before a novel will sell if it has bad writing but a gripping plot (take a bow Mr. Dan Brown) but the opposite is rarely true.

I can't agree. For a start it will be nigh on impossible to get a publisher to read, let alone publish a novel that's not well written. It'll be discarded long before anyone can even work out what the plot is. Same goes for the bookshop - a reader will have no idea what the plot is beyond a basic back clover blurb until (s)he has read a good chunk of it, which will not happen if it's badly written.

Memnoch

The Sparrow wrote: »

It's actually not ironic at all. Would you not agree that the thing that sells Dan Brown novels is not the writing skill but the plot line? The same plot that he must have spent so long coming up with and researching?

Also I didn't bash rules per se. I bashed the idea that when someone asks how they should approach writing a novel, all they get is rather pointless discussion on what rules should or shouldn't be broken.

And unless you are just writing for yourself (and fair play if you are) it doesn't matter how many novels you have completed. It only matters how many you have had published and how succesful they were.

Finally, I didn't preach any rule about outlining. I just wrote how I would approach writing a novel. Which was what the OP asked.

My advice about basic story structure is quite pertinent to writing a novel, especially if someone is stuck about where to start.

It's hard to publish a novel if you can't complete it, so errr, in that context it does matter very much if you can finish your novel.

Also my statement about finishing a novel was in direct response to your assertion that outlining is necessary. And there are countless successful authors who don't outline.

So feel free to take your snide snipes and please shove them somewhere impolite.

The Sparrow

pickarooney wrote: »

Anything written directly from personal experience. I can't imagine there's much research you could do for a fantasy or sci-fi novel either.

I disagree. Even if you are writing directly from personal recollection, there is no way you can remember everything and you will still have to research incidental things like places and how certain things work. A sci-fi novel would need a tonne of research. You need to understand science to make it believable. So if you are writing a sci-fi novel set on Mars, you would have to do a load of research on space travel and Mars itself.

pickarooney wrote: »

I can't agree. For a start it will be nigh on impossible to get a publisher to read, let alone publish a novel that's not well written. It'll be discarded long before anyone can even work out what the plot is. Same goes for the bookshop - a reader will have no idea what the plot is beyond a basic back clover blurb until (s)he has read a good chunk of it, which will not happen if it's badly written.

How do you explain the Da Vinci Code? Or what seems like most of the chick lit around?

DublinWriter

greengirl31 wrote: »

So I suppose my question is can anyone recommend such a course or give any tips or advice ?

Forget courses, forget writing groups, find yourself a 'space' and just write.

If it's in you, it will come out.

The Sparrow

Memnoch wrote: »

So feel free to take your snide snipes and please shove them somewhere impolite.

That's the best insult you can come up with? Jeez maybe if you had done a bit of an outline and gave a little thought to it, you would have come up with something better!

pickarooney

Memnoch wrote: »

So feel free to take your snide snipes and please shove them somewhere impolite.

Less of that please.

The Sparrow wrote: »

I disagree. Even if you are writing directly from personal recollection, there is no way you can remember everything and you will still have to research incidental things like places and how certain things work. A sci-fi novel would need a tonne of research. You need to understand science to make it believable. So if you are writing a sci-fi novel set on Mars, you would have to do a load of research on space travel and Mars itself.

You can write a novel set in your own house, in a magical land of your own invention... Maybe I'm being naive, but how exactly would you research a Harry Potter book?

How do you explain the Da Vinci Code? Or what seems like most of the chick lit around?

The Da Vinci code was certainly well written. It might not use particularly elegant language or well fleshed-out characters but the pacing was phenomenal. I don't really read chick-lit but it must be well-written for its audience in that it pushes the buttons of the paying public who lap it up. It's probably safe to say the writing is at least as good as the plots.

The Sparrow

pickarooney wrote: »

You can write a novel set in your own house, in a magical land of your own invention... Maybe I'm being naive, but how exactly would you research a Harry Potter book?

Off the top of my head and after only seeing the films, they get an old steam train to Hogwarts. So surely you would have to do some research on steam trains.

pickarooney wrote: »

The Da Vinci code was certainly well written. It might not use particularly elegant language or well fleshed-out characters but the pacing was phenomenal. I don't really read chick-lit but it must be well-written for its audience in that it pushes the buttons of the paying public who lap it up. It's probably safe to say the writing is at least as good as the plots.

IMO the pacing in the Da Vinci code is as much about the fast moving plot as it is about the writing.

EileenG

For what it's worth, I write first, research after. Any time I come to a point in my story where research is needed, I stick in ??? and keep writing. Later I go back and replace all my ??? with the appropriate information. Researching first can be so fascinating you never end up putting pen to paper. Or you become determined to share all the fascinating stuff you found, and bog down your story as a result.

I'm in the middle about outlining. I think you need to know your characters, and in particular, whose story you are telling, and you have to have a good idea of how they get from the beginning to the end, but I like to let them work out some of the details on the way.

Right now, my characters are cold wet and tired, and stuck out on a mountainside for the night. They are about to be hunted by some nasty aliens. I know they survive, but I have no idea how they are going to manage it. Should be interesting....

pickarooney

Explosions and heli.... never mind

EileenG

Just met Eoin Colfer today, and among the funny stuff (he gets his ideas out of Philip Pullman's rubbish bin etc), he said that he always had an outline and a plan before he started work. The one time he wrote a novel because he had a great idea but no plan, it turned out be a waste of six months work: it just didn't go anywhere.

desolate sun

EileenG wrote: »

The one time he wrote a novel because he had a great idea but no plan, it turned out be a waste of six months work: it just didn't go anywhere.

Writing organically didnt work for Eoin, but it does work for other writers. I've written 2 novels, one was outlined(ish, as in I knew the beginning and ending and some of the middle beforehand but there was room for change) and the other wasn't. I had more fun with the un-outlined one. In fact I will approach my next book the organic way as it suits me much better.