There is an idea floating around in my head; I may have referred to it previously, it is a structure or a formula for writing and one that I think has been used by authors in the past but I am putting my imprint on it for my own purposes. A method of adding engaging detail to a story to keep the reader entertained.
Imagine a spread sheet with the story line going across the top row; each cell is a discrete part of the story, a segment where several related segments are/ become a chapter. In the second row is the first layer and so on through all of the sensual layers of the scene; time, time of day, place, lighting, temperature, color, location description, sights, sounds, smells, feelings, others in the scene- each on a line with descriptors of them, the details of which depend on the importance of the character. There is also a grammatical line where the tense of the segment is set so as to prevent morphing tense as the story unfolds.
The writing of a story is more than sitting down and letting imagination flow. The technicalities of it are such that one has to engage a reader from start to finish. I just finished a Michael Robotham book wherein he did just that. Some of it I could see coming as the story unfolded but there was a structure to it that allowed it to make sense from start to finish. Some of the story was quite titillating, shocking, even erotic, but as a whole it engaged me to the point that I had to finish the last few discs all at once instead of hearing it out as I drove in the car.
The structure above was evident in this latest story and was suggested by a writer’s workshop program that I had. It runs afoul of what Steven King, says in his treatise on writing; he proposes the stream of consciousness approach. The structured approach seems more business-like and lends itself to development of an integrated story that can be consistently told; I’ve read/heard too many that are not.
I am reminded of advice I gave to a fellow working for me about how to write a rather long paper about cost accounting for the machine shops at NNS. I told him to spend a lot of time on an outline of it and then write the paper. He eschewed my advice and wrote it in the “Steven King” style. He wound up re-writing it several times until he finally went back, made an outline, and then wrote the paper. It works in that context and it probably works in the context of fiction. Well, in effect that cost accounting method was a fictional story and not the reporting of facts.
A longer story, book length, would be about 200 to 250 pages; if my arithmetic is correct that there are 3 pages per 1000 words, it would seem that a book would be about 83,000 words, which is equal to 83 blog entries and I made 88 in two years. A book is a formidable undertaking.
The Time-Life books of the presidents that I am reading average about 150 pages. They are condensations of many references and not supposed to be at all fictional although they contain some opinions of the author. With a ton of material from which to choose the authors have to decide what to include and still tell the story as objectively as they think possible. These 150 pages represent about 50,000 words and deal with the birth, upbringing, professional, political, presidential, and post-presidential (where there was one) lives of the presidents; a lot of ground to cover in such a few words. Mercifully complete for the casual reader and a bibliography that will satisfy the scholar who wants to get deeper into the subject.
I think I got away with stream of consciousness for the few stories I wrote because they were short and could be revised/ parsed without much difficulty. But even The Ball Hawk seems to be a little more than one would want to read in the form in which it is presented. It is 4,000 words and 11 pages. It seems to be too long for my taste and no one else has commented on it. It seems that there would have to be a number of hooks included to bring the reader back to a level of enthusiasm necessary to finish the story. This is what Michael Robotham does so well.
The Ball Hawk would have to be rewritten with the structure above in mind and the length, without adding to the plot or story line, may increase by more than twice to get all of the layering and subplots necessary to make the story interesting for the reader. It is an oral story written without the reader in mind and, therefore, does not engage a reader all the way through in an entertaining way. The House With Six Chimneys is likewise an oral story that was written down from its original form; I find it engaging because I am listening to it as it is told, not necessarily reading it but that is just me.
The conclusion I am reaching is that a story that can be told orally is not a good candidate for a book unless it is written with a reader in mind as opposed to a listener. A listener can be engaged by the story teller’s performance as well as his words but the reader has to be engaged only by the words. Audio books are an anomaly in that the listener is not seeing a performance as he hears the words so he patiently listens to the whole story. A good plot, enhanced by engaging detail is what is necessary for the success of a written story.
No comments:
Post a Comment