Story Writing Technique

[DragonMaci]

I was curious what sort of techniques, styles and practices would help in story writing, so could you please tell me what you think. Hopefully this will become a constructive debate that we can all learn from.

[dondigitalia]

I don't have much to offer in this arena, but I do want to make sure you are aware of Ayn Rand's fiction writing course, which is availabe for purchase at the Ayn Rand bookstore. It's a little pricey (over $300), but depending on how great your interest in writing is, it may be worth the money.

[BurgessLau]

DragonMaci, are you referring to fictional or nonfictional storytelling? Either way, I recommend two books as a start:

Ayn Rand, The Art of Fiction.

Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction.

Both books are edited versions of her taped lectures and both are available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore in inexpensive paperback form. The second has quite a bit of material that is also useful for fiction writers. Our local Objectivist Storytellers group met monthly to discuss each chapter of TAN. Both nonfiction and fiction writers gained from this slow reading of her work.

[BurgessLau]

I was curious what sort of techniques, styles and practices would help in story writing, so could you please tell me what you think. Hopefully this will become a constructive debate that we can all learn from.

First, why are you asking for a debate rather than a discussion? I would suggest that debates are more appropriate for individuals who have mastered their subjects and want to sway the opinions of their audience. (Debates for purposes of practice, in a protected environment, are also appropriate sometimes.)

Second, if you want others to discuss or debate this issue, then I suggest that you go first: What storytelling techniques would you recommend?

[jrs]

I do not know much about writing in general. But I would like to make two points.

1. When you write fiction, do not include any time-travel. Time-travel guarantees that a story is irrational.

2. Also do not have any shape-shifting characters who can look like other characters.

[dondigitalia]

I do not know much about writing in general. But I would like to make two points.

1. When you write fiction, do not include any time-travel. Time-travel guarantees that a story is irrational.

2. Also do not have any shape-shifting characters who can look like other characters.

Not a fan of the Dune Chronicles, eh?

[DragonMaci]

I don't have much to offer in this arena, but I do want to make sure you are aware of Ayn Rand's fiction writing course, which is availabe for purchase at the Ayn Rand bookstore. It's a little pricey (over $300), but depending on how great your interest in writing is, it may be worth the money.

Well I don't like Ayn's style, she drones on too much.

DragonMaci, are you referring to fictional or nonfictional storytelling? Either way, I recommend two books as a start:

Ayn Rand, The Art of Fiction.

Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction.

Both books are edited versions of her taped lectures and both are available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore in inexpensive paperback form. The second has quite a bit of material that is also useful for fiction writers. Our local Objectivist Storytellers group met monthly to discuss each chapter of TAN. Both nonfiction and fiction writers gained from this slow reading of her work.

Well, non-fiction books are not stories, so obviously I mean fiction books

First, why are you asking for a debate rather than a discussion? I would suggest that debates are more appropriate for individuals who have mastered their subjects and want to sway the opinions of their audience. (Debates for purposes of practice, in a protected environment, are also appropriate sometimes.)

Second, if you want others to discuss or debate this issue, then I suggest that you go first: What storytelling techniques would you recommend?

I said "debate" becuase I am realistic enough to realize not evryone will agree on every point and so I believe it will become a constructive debate as opposed to a debate that is more of an argument or a discussion.

Well I thought the reason I wasn't going first was obvious, but apparently not. It is because I am curious what others think, but fine.

I think that structure is an absolute must for story writing. Without structure a story is simply a random collection of words.

I do not know much about writing in general. But I would like to make two points.

1. When you write fiction, do not include any time-travel. Time-travel guarantees that a story is irrational.

2. Also do not have any shape-shifting characters who can look like other characters.

Well i agree with the time travel one 9though terry Pratchett managed to make it funny instead in Night Watch and Last Contitent).

However I am curious to know what you think of shapeshifting characters that can shift into a unique alternate form. An example is the dragon Teleris in my book Freedom I am working on (all dragons in my books have shapeshifting magic).

[BurgessLau]

Well I don't like Ayn's style, she drones on too much.[...]

Indeed. What do you mean by "drones on"? What is an example passage from Ayn Rand's fiction writing? And, by the way, do you agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, or do you consider that to be just droning on too?

(Customarily, use of a person's first name alone indicates earned familiarity. How well did you know Ayn Rand personally, and for how long?)

Well, non-fiction books are not stories, so obviously I mean fiction books [...]

Why do you think that a story of actual events -- for example, a news story or a biography such as Jeff Britting's Ayn Rand -- is not a story? You would aid this whole thread if you would define your terms. Specifically, what do you mean by "story"?

I think that structure is an absolute must for story writing. Without structure a story is simply a random collection of words.

What do you mean by "structure"? How does that differ from plot, as Ayn Rand defines it?

Well i agree with the time travel one 9though terry Pratchett managed to make it funny instead in Night Watch and Last Contitent).

Do you write your stories with the same meticulous care you devote to the spelling and grammar of your posts to ObjecvtivismOnline.net?

[hunterrose]

I was curious what sort of techniques, styles and practices would help in story writing, so could you please tell me what you think. Hopefully this will become a constructive debate that we can all learn from.

Boy, this topic got testy pretty fast

I can think of a couple of things I find make for good writing:

Subtlety

I personally don't desire novels to beat me over the head with its theme; I'd rather it be developed slowly (and IMO more effectively.) Let me connect the dots instead of connecting them for me! Not necessarily so vague and obscure that it requires multiple readings and annotated texts (though that can be good sometimes too ) but not so heavy-handed that it seems like a philosophical treatise. I'll put forward The Lord of the Rings as an example (hey, love it or leave it )

Dialogue-driven descriptions

Allowing the nature of a character to be inferred through what she says is much better IMO than using actions to portray a character (Victor Hugo IMO often effectively uses a character's actions however.) The Idiot is very good on this, I think. Dialogue descriptions allow interpretation, instead of force-feeding the nature of a character. You know a novel's good when you can't wait to see what characters say to each other.

Complexity

Ohh yeahh... complex plots and character relations are cool From byzantine ( I, Claudius) to ...unique (Invisible Man) to just putting volatile people into a pot and letting them explode (Dostoevsky's Demons,) the elaborate and intricate always has a place in my literary heart.

Atmosphere

I love fiction that makes you feel you are experiencing another world/society/perspective - or at least something special. This can be accomplished by a novel's setting (The Tale of Genji), characters (Catch-22,) plot (Dune series ), etc. Of course, one can't write something special about the mundane (see: The Catcher in the Rye )

Stream-of-consciousness

While I find this abhorrent in some books (anything by Joyce...) sometimes it works out, to me anyway (Under the Volcano, The Sound and the Fury.)

Sci-fi

Sci-fi allows one to probe the nature of reality (though that's not the only reason for writing/reading sci-fi.) And, being a Dune freak, I find nothing wrong with time travel or shape-shifting in literature. You people act like you've never read comics

[Prometheus98876]

Subtlety

Dialogue-driven descriptions

Atmosphere

I will agree with Hunterrose on this bit and as a [unpublished] author will give some of my 'insights' into the some of the things he brings up:

I agree with the subtlety thing, this is something I sometimes find I have to check my stuff for. Sometimes I tend to be a little too blunt myself, so I have to make sure I am not bludgeoning my readers over the head with my point. I find it easy to fix this problem once identified, but one thing I have learnt that it can be a fine balance at times.

Dialogue Driven descriptions:

I agree that this is a good way to develop ones characters and to describe them. This allows one characters to have a greater depth than a focus on action would allow. And it alllows the reader to "really get into the characters head" and to better understand their actions in the more action-driven scenes. I personally think this is one of the great strengths of Atlas Shrugged.

Of course, one difficulty some authors havge is that some authors have dialogue scenes that go on and on for way too long without really saying anything meaningfull, seemingly as an excuse to break up the action for a time. And some authors gloss over the dialogue and their characters end up seeming shallow. The balance can be hard to get right at times, but it is definetly worth it.

Atmosphere:

Definetely extremely important. A novel needs a well-defined and fitting background in order to work. You want your characters to be memorable, but without the right background they will fail. Without a good world for them to act in they are not convincing and their actions etc seem less meaningful.

I personally disagree with using time-travel (and to some extent shape-shifting), as most authors whom employ this seem to be tempted to use it as a "quick-fix" out of problems they see no other fix too. That and it really makes not sense, even in a magical universe. Some familar laws of reality should be adhered to or I just feel that I am being expected to beleive too much.

I would like to suggest, some of this might be obvious, but here goes:

Pace and timing: A good author needs to make sure the right events happen at the right time and at a suitable pace. Some authors forget to pay enough attention to this, putting events where they do not belong, and extending scenes to be longer than they need to be.

Revelance: A good author needs to make sure that everything they put in is relevant to the theme. Try to resist the tempation to put something in because you cannot bear to cut it out, or because you think it might be popular. It is important that every part of the novel contributes to the theme. Alot of authors slip up here too.

Edited October 20, 2005 by Prometheus98876

[jrs]

However I am curious to know what you think of shape-shifting characters that can shift into a unique alternate form. An example is the dragon Teleris in my book Freedom I am working on (all dragons in my books have shape-shifting magic).

If that alternative form does not look exactly like someone else, then I would not object to it. The point is not to violate the law of Identity. Unlimited variability violates that axiom.

Subtlety

I personally don't desire novels to beat me over the head with its theme; I'd rather it be developed slowly (and IMO more effectively). Let me connect the dots instead of connecting them for me! Not necessarily so vague and obscure that it requires multiple readings and annotated texts (though that can be good sometimes too), but not so heavy-handed that it seems like a philosophical treatise.

Do not forget foreshadowing. When there is a plot development, you do not want it to be either too much or too little of a surprise.

[DragonMaci]

Indeed. What do you mean by "drones on"? What is an example passage from Ayn Rand's fiction writing? And, by the way, do you agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, or do you consider that to be just droning on too?

(Customarily, use of a person's first name alone indicates earned familiarity. How well did you know Ayn Rand personally, and for how long?)

Why do you think that a story of actual events -- for example, a news story or a biography such as Jeff Britting's Ayn Rand -- is not a story? You would aid this whole thread if you would define your terms. Specifically, what do you mean by "story"?

What do you mean by "structure"? How does that differ from plot, as Ayn Rand defines it?

Do you write your stories with the same meticulous care you devote to the spelling and grammar of your posts to ObjecvtivismOnline.net?

Firstly I mean exactly what I said. And an example is John Galt's 60 or so page speech in Atlas Shrugged. No matter the content that is too long. And yes I do agree with Objectivism.

Seconly I disagree with that usage of first names.

Thirdly I mean fiction not news... but yes I suppose there are news stories too.

Fourthly by structure I mean the way the individual parts (plot, characters, theme, etc) are arranged.

Lastly I put A LOT of effort into my books, they mean too much to me for me to stuff it up.

[DragonMaci]

If that alternative form does not look exactly like someone else, then I would not object to it. The point is not to violate the law of Identity. Unlimited variability violates that axiom.

Do not forget foreshadowing. When there is a plot development, you do not want it to be either too much or too little of a surprise.

Well I feel I should clarify that only her physical form changes, not her identity.

[jrs]

Well I feel I should clarify that only her physical form changes, not her identity.

Physical form is a major part of an entity's identity. By identity, we mean the attributes that make an entity what it is.

[DPW]

Firstly I mean exactly what I said. And an example is John Galt's 60 or so page speech in Atlas Shrugged. No matter the content that is too long. And yes I do agree with Objectivism.

Well, you obviously don't understand it, since no one who understands Objectivism could see Galt's Speech as anything other than the most economical, eloquent statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I mean this literally -- there are no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech. If you think so, you haven't understood a thing.

Of course, as it stands, that's just an assertion on my part. So let me say this to you: if you say you agree with Objectivism, you must have thought long and hard before you so blithly insulted Ayn Rand's work: what reasons led you to conclude that she was "droning on" in Galt's Speech?

[hunterrose]

If that alternative form does not look exactly like someone else, then I would not object to it. The point is not to violate the law of Identity. Unlimited variability violates that axiom. [hunter's italics]

I don't think that perfectly mimicking someone's physical form would be a violation of the identity axiom. In fact, I doubt the axioms can be violated by any literary effect anyway. That's not to necessarily say the same for the axiom's derivatives, though.

no one who understands Objectivism could see Galt's Speech as anything other than the most economical, eloquent statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I mean this literally -- there are no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech. If you think so, you haven't understood a thing.

That's seems a bit of an exaggeration.

The first time I read AS, I read about ten pages into the speech, then skipped past the rest of the speech. Later on, I did go back and read it. It definitely should be read IMO, but I don't find questioning its literary significance to be "irrational." From my perspective, it's about as fundamental to AS (qua novel) as the Waterloo chapter is to Les Miserables.

Eloquent and important from a philosophical sense? absolutely.

Pivotal from a literary sense? well, I wouldn't say so

Economical?

[dondigitalia]

I don't think that perfectly mimicking someone's physical form would be a violation of the identity axiom. In fact, I doubt the axioms can be violated by any literary effect anyway. That's not to necessarily say the same for the axiom's derivatives, though.

I agree with you here. It is impossilbe to even concieve of a violation of identity, much less portray it artistically. An exact physical clone is not a violation of identity, because there is still the fact that they are two separate entities. In the case of a shapeshifter in fiction, there is still the fact that one is the acutal person, and one is a fake--important aspects which give each a different identity.

That's seems a bit of an exaggeration... [and all the rest]

I disagree here. Galt's speech is the pivotal point of the novel, i.e. the climax, of the plot and thematically. In the case of a novel as philosophically complex as AS, to distill it all in 60 pages is a tremendous feat of conciceness.

[hunterrose]

I disagree here. Galt's speech is the pivotal point of the novel, i.e. the climax, of the plot and thematically. In the case of a novel as philosophically complex as AS, to distill it all in 60 pages is a tremendous feat of conciceness.

I won't argue whether it's the pivotal point, but I do agree that the speech is important.

I'm probably likely to draw fire for this, but...

Given a 2005 choice, I wouldn't remove the speech (I hate abridged books ) and the speech is important to the novel, a godsend to philosophy. However, I don't think it unreasonable to think, from a literary, if not philosophical perspective, that it would have been better if it were shorter.

If you wish to know how I have done it and what I have told them to make them quit, you are hearing it now. I told them, in essence, the statement I am making tonight. They were men who had lived by my code, but had not know how great a virtue it represented. I made them see it. I brought them, not a re-evaluation, but only an identification of their values.

There are about 50 more pages beyond this point in the speech. By my (rough ) estimates, Galt's speech was about 2 hours long. A possibly interesting question is to whom was such a long speech directed to. From a literary perspective, why not make the radio statement to the world in essence too?

I don't question Rand's choice to put such a speech into her novel, but I wouldn't necessarily advise anyone to use such a device in their own literature either.

On a side note, are there any monologues longer than Galt's in fiction - I'd seriously like to know if there are.

From a more constructive position, what advice would you give a budding novelist on inserting such monologues into his creation? Specifically, how would one know such a speech is not in their novel's best interest?

Edited October 23, 2005 by hunterrose

[dondigitalia]

However, I don't think it unreasonable to think, from a literary, if not philosophical perspective, that it would have been better if it were shorter.

I do, given the context of someone who understands the principles of literature. Ayn Rand strived to be clearly understood in everything she wrote (and she did a damn good job, too!). This means making explicit connections between very abstract ideas that might be overlooked by the average reader.

Think of the scope of Atlas Shrugged. It's theme is: the role of the mind in man's life. What an immense topic to cover! It permeates into every corner of human existence. To comprehensively show what that role is, in all of it's manifestations, is one of the most immense tasks imaginable. For a reader to integrate all of it into a managable number of concretes is near impossible, so Ayn Rand presented an integration for us: in the form of Galt's speech.

Theme is one of the fundamental aspects of literature, and ensuring its clear understanding is literarily necessary.

On a side note, are there any monologues longer than Galt's in fiction - I'd seriously like to know if there are.

*points to the entire body of stream-of-consciousness literature*

From a more constructive position, what advice would you give a budding novelist on inserting such monologues into his creation? Specifically, how would one know such a speech is not in their novel's best interest?

My advice: don't try it as a budding novelist. Wait until you are a master; my guess is that once you've mastered the art of the novel, you'll have a pretty good idea what you need. I'm not a master, so I'm not even going to attempt giving any criteria.

[hunterrose]

*points to the entire body of stream-of-consciousness literature*

Good point, especially considering Ulysses... bleh.

[DragonMaci]

Physical form is a major part of an entity's identity. By identity, we mean the attributes that make an entity what it is.

Well I tend to go off the dictionary definition for words rather than altered ones, which only includes personality not appearance. Appearance isn't who we are but what we look like. Who we are is determined by our personality, not what we look like. At least that's what the dictionary says.

Edited October 23, 2005 by DragonMaci

[RationalBiker]

Firstly I mean exactly what I said. And an example is John Galt's 60 or so page speech in Atlas Shrugged. No matter the content that is too long.

You do realize that is a value judgement on your part, and not an objective fact?

Edit:

As an aside, this reminds of the scene in Amadeus when Mozart performs a piece of music before some important people (can't remember who they were) and they decided that the music had "Too many notes."

Edited October 23, 2005 by RationalCop

[DragonMaci]

Well, you obviously don't understand it, since no one who understands Objectivism could see Galt's Speech as anything other than the most economical, eloquent statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I mean this literally -- there are no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech. If you think so, you haven't understood a thing.

Of course, as it stands, that's just an assertion on my part. So let me say this to you: if you say you agree with Objectivism, you must have thought long and hard before you so blithly insulted Ayn Rand's work: what reasons led you to conclude that she was "droning on" in Galt's Speech?

It is unreasonable to say that I do not understand it because I think it is too long. All that indicates is that I am of the the opinion that it could be shorter or broken into smaller peices that tie together, without lessening its impact or effect. I obviously do not find it to be so economical. And on what basis do you say there is no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech? I assume you mean because of its message. Which implies that you think that the message overrides the weither or not more words than neccessary. That is irrational. Weither or not someone drones on is based on weither or not they use an excessive number of words not what there message is.

I think that regardless of the message 60 pages is too much for one speech.

"Blithly insulted Ayn rands work"? I did not intend any insult.... I said only that I think she goes on too long... which is something that no author can avoid. I've done before myself. Even Pratchett has done so and of all the authors I know he uses the fewest words. Hell, I'm not too proud to admit that I've done it before, though my problem is usually that I use too few words when i do my writing.

[DragonMaci]

From a more constructive position, what advice would you give a budding novelist on inserting such monologues into his creation? Specifically, how would one know such a speech is not in their novel's best interest?

Here is my advice: it is not generally a good idea to include such long monologues.

Here is why: most people generally don't like to listen to speeches that long, so I doubt they would want to read one that long.

This is not to say you should compromise your novel because of what others want. However, the author that totally ignores what the readers want does so at his novel's peril.

You do realize that is a value judgement on your part, and not an objective fact?

Edit:

As an aside, this reminds of the scene in Amadeus when Mozart performs a piece of music before some important people (can't remember who they were) and they decided that the music had "Too many notes."

Yes, i do realize that. I meant that in my opinion she goes too far, not objectively. I will admit did make that clear with my wording and I apologize.

[RationalBiker]

Here is my advice: it is not generally a good idea to include such long monologues.

Here is why: most people generally don't like to listen to speeches that long, so I doubt they would want to read one that long.

This is not to say you should compromise your novel because of what others want. However, the author that totally ignores what the readers want does so at his novel's peril.

Given how well Atlas Shrugged has sold, given how well it continues to sell today (for example, it's in the top 800 books in sales on Amazon) some 48 years after it's introduction into the market, given that it's one of the most influential books ever written (at least for Americans), I think the novel is in very little "peril". I think it would be difficult for you to pick a worse example of a novel to criticize based on the criteria listed above.