Writing is an art

In a Youtube video an artist mentioned three dynamic laws that made him a better painter:

1) Preserve the integrity of the brushstrokes
2) Be authoritative with the decision
3) Use enough paint.

As a painter, that makes a lot of sense to me, but I also play music and write. Artists need to create. It’s like the need to eat. What is equally strange, though, is that it hardly matters which form the art takes. We can feel just as fulfilled painting, writing, dancing, acting or playing music.

The natural extension is that quality in one art should apply to different art. So, how might these three concepts of watercolor painting apply to writing?

1) Preserve the integrity of the brushstrokes

I’m inspired to correlate the first idea to essay writing. As well, the Chicago Book of Style comes to mind. I know some writers who are journalists, and they sometimes have a rigid slant on writing. One rule in particular comes to mind: Avoid alliteration (Really?). Another might be, never repeat yourself (Always?).

Just the other day a journalist told me she’d not have my character say that another one was pretty because, “Everyone has a different idea regarding pretty and you used the word two paragraphs up.” Good point.

I replied, “But this is how this POV thinks. She wouldn’t think to micromanage how the girl in question looks at that particular moment. She’d just say, pretty. That’s her head, and that’s where we’re at in that part of the story.”

Essay writers need things orderly, all the details smoothed out and in their place, conforming to some set of rules, most of which are often correct. The King’s English and the Chicago Book of Style predominate. Art is different. With art, you are on a more human level. You have to understand the Chicago Book of Style and live by it most of the time, but once in a while you don’t get out the brush and blend to make that shadow look perfect. Once in a while you leave the imperfection, so we know that we are really here, in someone’s human space.

2) Be authoritative and bold with your decision

I like this idea the most. While writing Satan’s Daughter Walks to Portugal (my current project), I lamented how I might actually get this crazy girl to walk to Portugal. It occurred to me that maybe she could walk on a boat (too much of a cop-out). After landing her car in the Atlantic, I imagined writing her walking the bottom of the ocean, all the way there (too much of a stretch of believability, even for a farce). I told all my friends that I was never going to figure it out.

I sought something bolder. And, once I found it, I dove to it. They snuck into the space center, put on some spare spacesuits, shoved three astronauts into a closet, and since nobody could see past their faceplates, ended up in outer space. Ruth took a spacewalk while looking for her waylaid angel boyfriend (perfect).

To me, this is a law. Always seek the unusual, and give your readers something special. It should pain you when you are predictable. While being unpredictable make utter sense. That’s the dichotomy that makes anything worth reading. You want your readers to be subconsciously thinking, “Oh my God! But wait, that makes sense. How whack!”

Be dynamic. When I took sculpture class at CCAD, I sucked. It was my worst class. But, one thing I learned was to be dynamic. The imperfect departure from the plain sphere or the plain white canvas has to move people to the point where they at least think the cost of the materials was worth it.

3) Use enough paint.

This relates to the notion of being direct and dynamic, but I think I’d rather illustrate my thoughts on it with some text from a short story I wrote for “Loconeal” last week:

“I’m letting my toenails dry,” I said. Stupid, stupid, stupid; it will only encourage her.

“I do that at home. You know, a place with walls and a roof, not aluminum and likely to blow away, along with the outhouse, in a tornado.”

“If there was someone else here, would you be talking to me?”

“No.”

Imagine, for a moment, each line of this dialogue as paint. Are any of the lines transparent washes, or has it been applied in thick layers that present unavoidable attitude, points of view, directness, detail and color?

While this example is pretty dramatic, I know enough about art to appreciate white on off-white, if it can be pulled off nice and thick. Subtlety can also be very dramatic when applied with a deft hand. Drama is not always about a hammer, but like art, we know it when we see it.

What I detest is wishy-washy, plain, drab writing. The fact is these two girls don’t really like each other. They might have beat around the bush. They might have said their peace in four times the number of lines. Someone might have even mumbled hello. Or, avoiding item two above, they might have found more conventional ways of saying they disliked each other.

If you really want to do art, though, it’s often a good idea to get the big tube out, squeeze half of it onto the pallet, and get busy being direct.

Point of View: One Simple Rule

It is my hope that this post bores you. In fact, I’m going to start off slowly, so it’s pretty much guaranteed.

Back in high school my teacher told me there were three points of view (POV): First person (I), second person (YOU) and third person (HE or SHE).

I’ll start with first person.  This is from my novel Satan’s Daughter Goes to Pittsburgh.  Satan’s Daughter, Ruth, is conversing with a hovering angel who is trying to impress a Bolivian town with an angelic revelation:

Liwet gave me a smirk and said, “His loins are girded with bronze armor.”  He rocked his head from side to side, like telling me so there!

Lot of good it did him.  I had no idea what a loin was and the Bronze Age was over hundreds of years ago, if not nines and eights of decades even.  I made it a point to not show him any reaction, knowing it would bother him worse than anything else I could do.

“His loins are girded with bronze armor.  Oh, praise God!” yelled Sister Margaret.  She ran up to the villagers and said this over and over again, touching each of them as if giving out hats.  All the other nuns hopped up and down as if their feet were tied together and on fire.

Notice that Ruth (the ‘I’ in this story) is the one through which all thoughts, vision, smell, taste, touch and hearing occur.

Moving on, that English teacher told me third person was the technique that allowed you to be any and all the people on the stage.  In addition, you can even be God, or the bird floating overhead.

THIS IS WRONG.

A little less boring, huh.  A rock solid rule in all genre fiction is that you must pick a POV.  Knowing that, we can even toss out the terms, first, second and third person.  The new rule is this: Pick a POV! That’s it. Simple.  Direct.  And, one of the most violated rules new writers expose to the slush editor.

So, how does this work in 3rd person?  Simple, actually.  If you want to be God, you are.  Easy as that.  Just don’t be someone else.  If you want to be Mary, fine, be Mary.  Just don’t be anybody else.  How about the dog, Spot.  You’re spot.  You can’t jump over and be the cat too.

There are a lot of sub-categories to 3rd person.  There’s the journalist style and the pure omniscient style, for example. The first means a non-objective POV, and the second is kind of like God.  Those each imply a singular POV, so no violation there.

The most common POV in genre fiction is called limited 3rd person.  The difference between first person (like my example above) and limited 3rd person is virtually non-existent. Raise your hand if you’ve ever heard someone say, “I hate 1st person, but I like 3rd!” Lots of hands, and to the reverse of that comment as well, I suppose.  I repeat, there is no meaningful difference between 1st person and 98% of all accepted genre 3rd person (limited 3rd) writing.  The rule is the same.  One person is your POV.

In the case of the portion of my writing above, my POV is Ruth.  Let me show you Ruth, my POV, in 3rd person limited:

Liwet gave Ruth a smirk and said, “His loins are girded with bronze armor.”  He rocked his head from side to side like telling her, so there!

Lot of good it did him.  She had no idea what a loin was and the Bronze Age was over hundreds of years ago, if not nines and eights of decades even.  Ruth made it a point to not show him any reaction, knowing it would bother him worse than anything else she could do.

“His loins are girded with bronze armor.  Oh, praise God!” yelled Sister Margaret.  She ran up to the villagers and said this over and over again, touching each of them as if giving out hats.  All the other nuns hopped up and down as if their feet were tied together and on fire.

There it is.  Five changed words in all, simply altering ‘I’ to she, her or Ruth. Everything else is identical.  And, this is no odd example. This would be the case for the majority of the entire novel. Notice all the thinking and seeing here happens to Ruth.  Even Sister Margaret yelling is reported because Ruth is present. Otherwise, no dice. When Ruth leaves the scene, the section/chapter/novel ends because no eyes exist on the stage.

This is mother-nature speaking. We are all trapped within a body.  The most natural way of thinking about a story is through a body. Weird is being everybody or floating about in the ether.

What I want to do next is show you how to do this wrong.  Notice what happens when I violate the ONLY RULE TO POV (Only one person can be your POV):

Liwet knew he had her.  He gave Ruth a smirk and said, “His loins are girded with bronze armor.”  He rocked his head from side to side, letting her know so there!

Lot of good it did him.  Ruth had no idea what a loin was and the Bronze Age was over hundreds of years ago, if not nines and eights of decades even.  She made it a point to not show him any reaction, knowing it would bother him worse than anything else she could do.

“His loins are girded with bronze armor.  Oh, praise God!” yelled Sister Margaret.  Thrilled to the bones, she ran up to the villagers and said this over and over again, touching each of them as if giving out hats.  All the other nuns hopped up and down, filled with glee, as if their feet were tied together and on fire.

There you have four POVs.

1) Liwet knew.  He let her know.

2) Ruth had no idea.  She knew it’d bother him.

3) Sister Margaret was thrilled.

4) The other nuns were filled with
glee.

This is a mess. I can write a long time about the many major ways this will plague the ongoing story and fatally weaken it. Some contend, “Well, I just want the reader to know what Sister Margaret is thinking.” To this I say there are plenty of better ways to SHOW what Sister Margaret is thinking, and in the two former examples, I do.

Maybe some other time I’ll write about how one breaks this one rule (or seemingly so).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 178 other followers

%d bloggers like this: