Writerly Advice #2

[justine_currie]

From the awesome agent, Nathan Bransford, some general writing advice to keep in mind:

Writing isn't about capturing real life as it actually happens. We have, well, real life for that.

Instead, writers have to elevate life and add spices and all the rest. Writers interpret real life, elevate it, reorder events, and serve up something perfectly balanced and ready for public consumption.

Your thoughts?

Comments

[delorispea.livejournal.com]

I agree but disagree. Sometimes the most simple pleasures of real life described can be just as stunning.

[justine-currie.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Yes, but aren't the best descriptions of real life made through someone else's eyes, their thoughts and feelings added to them? That alone would elevate them, no?

For instance, describing the evening sky as pink and purple or a stormy sky as dark and grey would be to describe them, but expressing the first as uplifting, calming, soothing, beautiful, exquisite, etc., or the latter as forbidding, frightening, menacing, reflective of the mood in the room, etc. would bring the reader into the story.

Make sense?

[faithwood.livejournal.com]

I don't really agree with the general statement, but I do think RL can be stranger than fiction and, also, what's interesting in RL, doesn't always work on paper. When someone says, "But this is how people actually talk," or "This actually happened," it doesn't necessarily justify what's written, but to say that "writers have to elevate life and add spices and all the rest," wouldn't really be my argument there.

That said, I just overheard the most boring conversation ever; if someone tried to include it into a novel and then say "But that's how people talk, so don't tell me it's boring and stilted," I fear I'd slap them silly.

[justine-currie.livejournal.com]

Hee. There are some people's conversations that should never be translated to paper. *nods*

Absolutely RL can be stranger than fiction.

The way I choose to interpret this nugget of advice is to ensure the way in which you tell the story is interesting. You may describe the mundane, but adding your own (or your main character's) voice helps elevate it. If you relate what you're describing to something the character feels, it is no longer simply writing what's happening, but enriching it with that filter, you know.

('Cause I'm lazy, I'll copy/paste my previous comment/example):

For instance, describing the evening sky as pink and purple or a stormy sky as dark and grey would be to describe them, but expressing the first as uplifting, calming, soothing, beautiful, exquisite, etc., or the latter as forbidding, frightening, menacing, reflective of the mood in the room, etc. would bring the reader into the story.

Make sense?

How are your hands, by the way? Hope you're on the mend. *hugs*

[stellamoon.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not a writer, so my opinion might not be as helpful. But I agree with delorispea. I enjoy very astute descriptions of real life pleasures and experiences. I think that elevates life without having to add spice. But everyone has a different opinion, I suppose.

[justine-currie.livejournal.com]

I totally hear you. The thing is I interpreted it to mean that the writer needs to go beyond describing. Adding spice doesn't necessarily mean changing reality. Sometimes yes (elaborating, filling in missing details, exaggerating, making stuff up), but sometimes merely describing through your character's voice/mind/filter. I'll copy/paste my response to delorispea here:

For instance, describing the evening sky as pink and purple or a stormy sky as dark and grey would be to describe them, but expressing the first as uplifting, calming, soothing, beautiful, exquisite, etc., or the latter as forbidding, frightening, menacing, reflective of the mood in the room, etc. would bring the reader into the story.

Make sense?

[stellamoon.livejournal.com]

Sure it makes sense. It feels very intimate and engaging to read not just the basics of how something looks, but more what the writer's experience of it is. Absolutely!

However, I just don't think that's what Mr. Bransford is saying at all! I think you're giving him too much credit, tbh. But it doesn't matter, because you know what you're doing! :D

[justine-currie.livejournal.com]

Maybe not, but I'll stretch the interpretation to suit my needs. *nods* I'm pushy like that. *g*

But I do agree with him, to a certain extent, that books are there to help you escape reality. Also, he's a kids' book author and agent, so the exaggeration element is perhaps stronger in that genre/type of book. Make sense?

[stellamoon.livejournal.com]

Well, knowing he's a kid's book author actually kinda changes my impression of what he said. In that case, I do agree with him. :) But as an adult reader, I definitely value more the impact of bare truth and stark reality, over a jazzed up story made to be more exciting. But that's just me!