The Art of Fiction and The art f Non-Fiction.

[D'kian]

I read The Art of Fiction last year, and I'm reading The Art of Non-Fiction right now. These two books are the best guidance I've ever seen for beginning writers (and Fiction is a good guide for veteran readers, too).

For example, I have heard often enough how every story has to ahve conflict in it. I'd never heard why it has to. Ayn Rand asnwers by exemplifying the conflicts of values within her heroes. She goes into Dominique's and Dagny's conflicts, and explains why they are necessary in terms of a good plot. After all, had Dagny not been conflicted, she'd ahve gone on strike right off the bat and there'd be no story. Had she not been conflicted in the other direction, she'd be a female Mr. Mowen. But her strugle is interesting and necessary for the plot, so it isn't a mere plot device. You can see how this applies to Keating's own conflicts, although Keating isn't anywhere near so conflicted.

Roark isn't conflicted. He knows what his values are, and they're all rational and compatible. neither is Toohey, even if all his values are irrational and, worse, he knows them to be so (he is the most evil of Rand's villains).

Well, a conflict of values can create conflict between people. Dominique should, by all rational standards, support and love Roark with every ounce of strenght. Instead she tries to ruin his career, although he does love him (that's the conflict shwon through actions).

That's a great deal more interesting than an undefined kind of conflict. And that's helped me a great deal thinking up plots of my own. I had trouble making up coflicts of any kind. You can have stories without conflict. Adventure stories, for example. Say in a rational society, two underwater builders journey to a distant planet to build an underwater tunnel, then one of them suffers an accident and hangs precariously near a crushing death at 2,000 meters. That's supense, but there's no conflict.

Now say that two engineers, both very intelligent, able and very driven, both want to build better rockets and lower the cost of space travel. But one holds that the only reason to go to space is to improve life on Earth (it is a good reason), while the other wants space travel as a means of expanding human space, making more worlds accessible and habitable, learning new things, exploring, etc etc. of creating a myriad earhts, so to speak, with great quality of life. That's a conflict of values between people, even if the people themselves are not internally conflicted (the former is wrong in his appraisal, but not in his values).

There's a lot more in the book. Plot, theme, plot-theme, style, all the elements of the novelists trade. Rand gives each a thorough treatment. Her examples of style, particularly when she discusses her own style, are illuminating.

Anyway, I highly recommend both tomes.

[softwareNerd]

I haven't read the non-Fiction book yet; but I agree that the Fiction one would be really helpful to a budding fiction writer.

What you say about conflict is true. Even in the non-conflict example, don't you think problems are key to plot? In a way it's a conflict between hero and reality (not reality as such but some part of it that he seeks to tame, the sea, the mountain, the atom...)

You can have stories without conflict. Adventure stories, for example. Say in a rational society, two underwater builders journey to a distant planet to build an underwater tunnel, then one of them suffers an accident and hangs precariously near a crushing death at 2,000 meters. That's supense, but there's no conflict.

Not sure where I read this, but I've heard three of Hugo's books described as "Individual's conflict with society" (Les Miserables), "Individual's conflict with Religion" (Hunchback of Notre dame), and "Individual's conflict with Nature" (Toilers of the Sea).

[D'kian]

What you say about conflict is true. Even in the non-conflict example, don't you think problems are key to plot? In a way it's a conflict between hero and reality (not reality as such but some part of it that he seeks to tame, the sea, the mountain, the atom...)

Problems, sure. Conflict? I'm not so sure. Remember, Nature to be comanded must be obeyed. A conflict would entail something like wanting the laws of nature to be different from what they are. Sure, a mountain may prove tougher than expected to blast a tunnel through (a harder mineral composition, say), an ocean more turbulent, and so on. But in the end there's no compromising with reality, no beating reality, no defeating reality.

A duel, a fight, a struggle, yes, but not really a conflict. since in the end you must do as reality demands. Want to split the atom, you have to bombard it with enough energy. Want to anchor your bridge, you have to make it strong enough to withstand the currents, or figure out a way to manipulate the currents.

[JMeganSnow]

What you say about conflict is true. Even in the non-conflict example, don't you think problems are key to plot? In a way it's a conflict between hero and reality (not reality as such but some part of it that he seeks to tame, the sea, the mountain, the atom...)

AR explains that this is the difference between drama and melodrama. In a melodrama, the only conflict exists between the protagonist and some kind of antagonist (whether this is another person or whatever). It may be fun to read, but it's also very shallow and fails to illustrate the protagonist's choices, which is what Romantic literature is all about.

[softwareNerd]

Thanks for the reference Jenni; I just re-read it. Rand explains why the ideal writing brings together great melodrama and great drama, with neither of them that good on their own.

To chew on this, the example that D'kian gave us has melodrama, but no drama.

Say in a rational society, two underwater builders journey to a distant planet to build an underwater tunnel, then one of them suffers an accident and hangs precariously near a crushing death at 2,000 meters. That's supense, but there's no conflict.

To add drama, we'd have to create a situation where the second engineer can save the first, but only by doing something that will destroy everything he's worked for, and we can add in the fact that nobody else would be the wiser if he simply hesitated for a few minutes and let the other guy die, and... one can go on, building reasons why there would be inner conflict and drama.

[D'kian]

To chew on this, the example that D'kian gave us has melodrama, but no drama.

Absolutely. I said as much myself: no conflict.

The idea is an adventure story, of sorts, focusing on the many joys the three main characters derive from their work and business. I admit it is shallow, too.

[BinniLee]

Oh, i'm very interested in writing an wrtie all the time. Well I am writing a stroy about a neurotic Asian chick which changes into a rational being after she gains selfconfidance. She wants to set an example of a rational society and after managing to recruit a handful of people she sets out into to jungles of Colombia and starts a mining colony. She is haunted by all sorts of mishappenings and must deal with them in a rational manner. In the end they fight of socialist geurillas, but the colony is destroyed and some of their friends too. Then she returns to the states as a celebrity, becouse CNN had been following up on them, as their venture attracted nationwide attention.

I focus mostly on internal conflict, but I'm going to antogonize the geurillas. I ordered the book of amazon a few days back and when I get it i'll read through it as fast as I can. I'm so interested in learing more about the craft. Especially from my favourite writer. Well the other day I discovered I mostly read about Tyrrany. Like, Raise the red lantern and Nabokov, and offocurse Rand.

But offcourse it is in Icelandic...

Edited April 20, 2007 by BinniLee

[Adrian Hester]

I haven't read the non-Fiction book yet; but I agree that the Fiction one would be really helpful to a budding fiction writer.

I haven't read the one on fiction, but I have read The Art of Non-Fiction, which is, as you would expect, superb. It's good for improving your ability to read critically, too.

[DavidOdden]

But offcourse it is in Icelandic...

Ég dýrka þig þvi að þú prövandi.

[DavidOdden]

Oh, I see, not just trying, but doing. I thought you were kidding.

[Eurynomus]

I read The Art of Fiction and found it good for several reasons.

First, and obviously, it's a great guide to writing.

But second, maybe more importantly -- if you are brand new to Ayn Rand's ideas, interested in learning more about them, and have started your journey by reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as I had, I would say this book is almost a must-read.

A while ago on this forum, somebody had brought up the topic of whether or not their boyfriend was a "Howard Roark"... and there was a reply that a lot of people, after reading books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged get this "rockstar" mentality, where they follow the characters' actions without knowing why... in this case, I believe it was that the boyfriend was acting indifferently towards the poster, seemingly like Roark. To an extent, I was guilty of doing that, as well --that is, imitating the characters' actions and attitudes -- after having been introduced to these brand new ideas. But the Art of Fiction gave some insight into why Rand has her characters behave the way they do, and I saw that I was acting the way I was for all the wrong reasons. ... of course, I'm sure all I really had to do was step back and look at what I was doing, why the characters act the way they do, etc., and it would be pretty easy to figure out. But the book is a good slap in the face if that's not happening.

I'm sure there are other pieces of literature where Rand discusses her characters, etc... but I definitely recommend this book, especially for anyone with that "Rockstar syndrome".

[BinniLee]

Ég dýrka þig þvi að þú prövandi.

I worship you becouse you are... ...Experimenting?

what?

[DavidOdden]

I worship you becouse you are... ...Experimenting?what?

Ah, fug. That's the last time I try to write in Icelandic. So, not "praise" and "try". For faen.

[BinniLee]

Ah, fug. That's the last time I try to write in Icelandic. So, not "praise" and "try". For faen.

You were close to making a plausable sentance.

Prövandi isn't a word, and it needed another ert after þú.

To get your mening:

Mér finnst gott að þú skulir reyna.

(Literaly: Me-feel-good-that-you-should-try)