craft of writing

7/29/2019 Craft of writing

1/17

The Craft of Writing

or,Yes, Virginia, It's a Learned S ill

C1998, rev., Macedon

Having been blessed to enjoy the friendship of many fellow writers, publishedand unpublished, I've been party to many conversations on the art and craft ofwriting. I've also occasionally been as ed to critique stories. So I collected some of the things I've learned over the years into a short essay. Then (somewhat arrogantly, I admit!) I decided to put it up on my web page in case others might be interested. (Further lin s to writers' resources are at the pagebottom.)

Those who write purely for their own and others' entertainment, or aren't interested in critical feedbac or going pro--bail now. Please note: there's nothing wrong with eschewing critical feedbac . Ultimately, to entertain is thegoal of ALL writers, even Pulitzer winners. In writing fiction (fanfic or original) the writer attempts to touch the capacity of the heart. Stories which f

ail to do so are meaningless, no matter how stylistically artistic. Myself,I prefer stories which have heart and are well written. The better written the story, the more effective it is at entertaining readers and conveying any themes or points the author may wish to convey.

So studying the craft of writing is not elitist, but very, very pragmatic.

What follows is commentary on various technical aspects of writing: the nutsand bolts of narrative. Only 10% of writing is talent (maybe less), another 30% is having something interesting to say. The rest is being able to say it well. Talent and content amount to little without s ill, and s ill is what welearn. So yes, Virginia, you can learn to write (more) creatively.

To be fran , the best way to learn is to find a mentor who will teach and dothat tedious--but very necessary--tas of detailed critique on a hardcopy manuscript. Writing, li e bread-ba ing, is fundamentally existential: a hands-onexperience.But not everyone is luc y enough to find a writing mentor, so general scatter

-shot advice does have some value, particularly concerning those things which are frequent technical offenses among beginning and intermediate writers.

So, how can one now if he or she is guilty of ____? I have found that as soon as a particular problem was pointed out to me, I could recognize it in my wor . I simply hadn't realized it was a problem before that point, and so had

failed to 'see' it. If you thin you're guilty of ____, you probably are. (If however, you thin you're guilty of everything, you're probably just paranoid!)

Finally, these are rules of thumb, not absolutes. Some of them are mattersof debate even among award-winning authors. Ultimately, the only real rule in writing is, "Can you ma e it wor ?" If you can ma e it wor , you can get away with it.But some people thin they can get away with what they can't, too. "That's


2/17

just my style" isn't a valid excuse for bad writing. There's a big differencebetween style and technical proficiency. e. e. cummings didn't capitalize anything, but when you write poetry li e cummings, you can do whatever the hellyou want, too. The people who play fast and loose with the rules are usuallythose experienced, s illed authors who ept those same rules until they learnedtheir art. Most of us are not Carson McCullers, to pen a classic at the tender age of twenty one.

So, on with the show...

WRITING BASICS

1) DIALOGUE TAGS: The Dreaded Said-Boo ism and other Strained Prose, or, Get Rid of those Damned Adverbs!

At some point in every wannabe writer's career, he or she had someone--in an effort to expunge the overuse of certain common descriptors li e 'really good'--say, "Hey! Vary your word choice and go buy a good thesaurus, id!"

It's generally sound advice based on the theory of choosing the best word,not just any word. But it becomes problematic when ta en to the extreme foundamong some beginning writers, particularly regarding substitutions for 'said.'

In an effort to avoid 'said,' the aspiring author tries a variety of other dialogue tags: quip, growl, express, utter, expound, cry, declare, observe... etc. ad nauseam. The dreaded said-boo ism. In short, the aspiring author has opened that newly-bought thesaurus, loo ed up 'say' or 'statement' andthen started employing all the choices therein.

Don't do this! It's not artistic. It's annoying, distracting and occasionally outright funny.

Simple fact: with use, 'said' is a transparent word. When a writer employs a substitute, it's loud--i. e. really noticeable. So don't have your characters 'growl' their comments unless they really are growling them and you want

to call specific attention to that fact. And the word 'quipped' should appearperhaps twice in a 1000-page novel, otherwise the guilty author should be ta en out and shot.

Dialogue tags can be divided into three basic types: nonexistent, soft, and hard. The best of these is nonexistent, allowing the dialogue to stand free and clear of narrator intervention (which in turn allows the reader to hear the dialoguemore purely). In two-person dialogue, one can sometimes go for half a page ormore without the need for any "he said/she said" tag. With multiple-spea er conversation, that's harder and tags more necessary. Rule of thumb: be unobtrusive.

Sometimes action can substitute for he said/she said. As yourself, Do Ireally need a tag at all?

Soft dialogue tags include: said, as ed, told, replied, answered, (andoccasionally) pointed out, and remar ed. These are soft because they're transparent to the reader: that is, they carry no visual or audio sense and no connotations -- they draw no attention to themselves and are the next best thing tono tags at all.


3/17

Hard dialogue tags are basically anything else. That is, words which convey a sense of how the spea er is spea ing (cry, growl, snarl, quip, laugh,huff, etc.). They also include uncommon synonyms for said li e declare, expound, utter. These words are li e pepper--best used sparingly. It isn't necessary to describe how the spea er is spea ing all the time. One may as well shout all the time: it loses its impact. The overuse of strong tags comes out asaw ward--even amusing--not descriptive. Don't be the little writer who criedwolf!

Another frequent fault of beginners is not use of the said-boo ism directly,but the overuse of adverbs in conjunction with said, especially -ly adverbs.

Don't do this, either.

Li e hard dialogue tags, adverbs should be used sparingly. If you noticeone quarter or more of your dialogue tags include an adverb... that's too damned many! First, it's not necessary to describe how the spea er is spea ing every time (as I said just above). Second, adverbs distract from the dialogue itself. Remember, transparent is best except in those cases where one wants todraw attention to the how.

So, you fear you may be guilty of the dreaded said-boo ism, what do you do

? First, go through your manuscript and convert every dialogue tag to 'said.'(I'm serious--every tag.) Then go bac over your manuscript to see where you can

eliminate a tag entirely, or where another word really is necessary. Sometimes the only change needed is another soft tag, li e as ed instead of said.Save the hard tags for those places where you need them.

2) CHARACTER NAMES AND DESCRIPTORS: Pic One and Stic With It.

Li e the word 'said,' characters' names become transparent. And as with said-boo isms, there are always beginning writers who thin they need half a dozen synonym-descriptors to substitute for characters' names in order to be artist

ic. It'snot artistic. It's confusing. I've read scenes of dialogue between two characters where it sounded li e six people tal ing! ...all because the writerept subbing "the tall boy," or "the red-haired pilot" or god- nows-what instead of the

name. Unless one needs to use a name three times in the same sentence, never use a substitute just to use the substitute. As I said, character names become transparent. Li e adverbs and hard dialogue tags, the use of a descriptive synonym

in place of the name draws attention to it. So unless you mean to draw attention to it, don't do it. For instance, in the following case, the use ofa descriptive synonym adds punch:

"Philippos' affairs never last beyond a season," Leonnatos said."True--fidelity isn't the ing's strong point.""Maybe it should be," said the ing's son, stepping out from behind a hed

ge of boxwood.

A writer often does need at least one synonym for a character besides the pronoun he or she. So pic one and use it consistently: don't invent ten. Oreven three. Occasionally, one might need a second, but it should be fairlygeneric: the


4/17

boy, the man, etc. Too many and it gets confusing as to just who is who!(For some reason, poor Paris in Voyager fanfic is particularly subject to too

many descriptors. I've seen--in the same story--"the pilot," "the tall man,""the blond

young man," "the lieutenant," "the coc y young lieutenant," etc. Um...just how many people are we tal ing about here?)

3) VIVID LANGUAGE: Chose the Best Noun or Verb, or, Get Rid of Those Damned Adverbs, Ta e II.

When we write, we convey a mental picture to the reader. Thus, and to that end, the more vivid our language, the better. But truly vivid language isnot achieved by the use and abuse of adjectives and adverbs. It's achieved bythe choice

of the precise noun or verb and by the level of detail.

For instance, "he raced" is always better than "he ran quic ly." Attaching adjectives and adverbs wea ens the noun or verb: these are called 'qualifiers,' and they're best avoided. So for this endeavor, get out that thesaurus and stretch

that vocabulary. A writer's most precious tool is not good characterization, good dialogue, good plot--it's a strong, diverse vocabulary. Without thevocabulary, none of the rest is possible.

I once sat down with John Crowley's Aegypt, to study what he was doing. (Don't now Crowley? He's arguably the best stylist writing fantasy today.) Idid a word count on adverbs and adjectives. In a ten-line descriptive paragraph, he

averaged only three adjectives and one adverb. Yeah, really. Yet theseare some of the most vivid descriptions I now of in prose. He achieved it allwith the right noun or verb.

He also achieved it by his attention to detail, and not just any detail butthose details which ma e description live. For instance, in one brief scenewhere he describes a hot evening in summer, he spea s of a fire hydrant left to

gush water into the street. Instead of saying it was full of "garbage" or "flotsam," he pic s out three items from that garbage, and unusual items at that(a condom is one). The reader can, therefore, see it.

Or let's ta e an example from A. S. Byatt's recent collection of modern fairytales (The Djinn in the Nightingale's Eye):

"Once upon a time, when men and women hurtled through the air on metal wings, when they wore webbed feet and wal ed on the bottom of the sea, learningthe speech of whales and the songs of the dolphins, when pearly-fleshed and jewelled

apparitions of Texan herdsmen and houris shimmered in the dus on Nicaragu

an hillsides, when fol in Norway and Tasmania in dead of winter could dream offresh strawberries, dates, guavas and passion fruits and find them spread next morning on

their tables, there was a woman who was largely irrelevant, and therefore happy."

What a collection of things to characterize the modern world! It's lovely--and very, very vivid. (And if that opener doesn't ma e someone want to readthe story, they're dead to language.) Notice that she doesn't say "fresh frui


5/17

t," she tellsyou WHAT fresh fruit. More, she doesn't pic out just any ol' fresh fruit

to name, but chooses those which further the point/picture. If she'd put "apples, grapes and pears," it would lose a lot, no?

A sub point to this cry for linguistic vividness concerns descriptions of characters and sex. I've read stories with great place description but lousy sexscenes or dull characters. Place description is among the easier things aboutwhich to be

original. Sex is perhaps the hardest because it's too easy to fall into cliched phrases. If I read one more "He devoured her mouth" I'm going to go bayat the moon. I don't now about y'all, but I have yet to "devour" anybody's mouth--and

no, I wouldn't call my sex life dull. When I read about devouring mouths,I always wanna as , "Does he li e etchup or mustard with that?" (O ay, so

I'm an iconoclast; what can I say?) Beware not only of cliches, but of unintentionally

funny cliches.

As for characters, it's too easy for authors to get lazy and fall into whatI thin of as "driver's license descriptions": height, eye color, hair color. Some of the best character descriptions I've seen employ none (or only one)of those.

Don't tell us a character's height unless they're unusual in some way: veryshort or very tall. Six feet is a tallish man, it's not a tall man. Now, Ja e Sis o is tall; it's worth noting. So is Hercules, so is Xena for a woman,so is

Jadzia Dax. But Fox Mulder and Cha otay are not exceptionally so--why mention it? Pic something else. Avoid overstatement. And if inventing one's own characters, please don't ma e them all tall (or all short). I recall one delightful

fanfic story which described a character as not-quite-tall, not-quite-blonde and not-quite-pretty. What a terrific description!

The same is true of hair and eye color. Unless it's unusual, don't botherwith it. Descriptions of people should pic out those features which are dist

inctive. A cleft in the chin and no earlobes is better for descriptive purposes than brownhair and eyes. Mention the interesting things. (Also mention of one will

sometimes allow the reader to assume the other: if a character has brown eyes,more than li ely the hair will be some shade of brown, too. If the hair is

blond, morethan li ely, the eyes will be some shade of blue or grey; if the eyes are

brown or hazel--li e Callisto from Xena--then it's worth mentioning.)

4) SENTENCE LENGTH: Short Ma es the Breath Race

A general rule of thumb: if one is writing action, go for shorter sentence

s. Run-on sentences do NOT convey a sense of breathlessness, they convey a sense of confusion for the poor reader who is trying to eep trac of what the hell is going

on. If one is engaged in introspection, one can get away with longer sentences. Part of the reason for this is that longer sentences require more thought on the part of the reader. Thus, shorter sentences are both more immediate, and have

greater emotional impact. (Curtin's Law)


6/17

Now, here we do get into a bit of disagreement about style. Some people write short. I do. But some write longer. A. S. Byatt, for instance. The quote used above is both a single sentence and the whole damn first paragraph. But Byatt

is good. She can get away with it. It's not a run-on sentence... and that's the ey. Some writers write run-on sentences and excuse it with "that's just my style." Uh--and just how many "and"s and "but"s have you got in there?

Put simply, the longer the sentence, the better the writer had better be or it becomes confusing and unreadable. Ideally, sentence length and grammar should vary. If all your sentences are short and all begin with a subject--"Hewal ed to the

store and saw a blue car"--it's boring. Try, "Wal ing to the store, he saw a blue car." Or maybe, "On the way to the local Giant supermar et, he spotted a screaming-blue corvette careening along at speeds that would earn the driver a traffic

tic et in triple digits."

Variety is the spice of life (and of good prose).

5) POINT OF VIEW: First, Third-Limited and Third-Omniscient, or, The Point of View Character Can't See Himself!

Understanding the use--and abuse--of point of view is critical to penning readable narrative. Most writers understand the difference between first and third person. One uses 'I,' the other, 'he' and 'she.' But sorting out the two types of

third person can be more tric y.

First Person is simultaneously the easiest and most difficult point of viewto use. It's the easiest because the writer has no trouble staying in the headof the POV (point of view) character. But it's the most difficult to use well--with

nuances. John Irving is a master of first person, so is James Kir wood,and Charolette Bront. By nuances, I mean can the author convey to the reader t

he biases of the narrator even while stuc in the narrator's head?

Third Person comes in two flavors: Third Limited and Third Omniscient. The difference is where the reader is "placed" in the story. With third omniscient, the reader stands beside an impersonal, third-person narrator who plays God and can see

into the heads and hearts of all the characters. It's hard to do well. With third limited, the narrator is in the head of one of the characters in thestory. It's not as close a point of view as first, but it's far more intimatethan third

omniscient. It's also the most common point of view employed in fiction,particularly in genre fiction (and fanfic).

All of these POVs have certain advantages and disadvantages. The writer has to ma e a choice as to which one will best accomplish what the writer wishes to do. Often we ma e that choice unconsciously: we just sit down and start writing and

automatically fall into one.

The problem arises with the two third person POVs, as some writers try to have their ca e and eat it, too. That is, they wish the freedom of third omni


7/17

scient with the intimacy of third limited... and wind up with a mess. Frequently, the

writer isn't even aware of what's happening. Even published authors committhis sin. That doesn't ma e it o ay. It's a problem, plain and simple--inmy not-so-humble opinion. Pic third limited or third omniscient and stic with it.

The author must learn to place the camera (if you will) for the reader. Solet's ta e a loo at what each placement permits, and what limitations it imposes:

A) First:

First person is, obviously, a great choice to allow the reader intimate nowledge of the thoughts and feelings of the main protagonist. It also permitslongish internal monologues, as well as retrospective and forespective comments, such as:

"I didn't now then..." or "When I was seven, I... but as an adult..." It does require a strong narrator's voice or it descends into mundanity, li e reading the average grunt's diary. Boring.

But it does not allow similar intimacy with other characters. We only and

always see people and events through the narrator, and are subject to all the narrator's biases. If the author wishes the reader to realize that the narratordoesn't see

a particular character fairly or completely, it can be a tric to let the reader in on this. In other words, a good first person writer can avoid merging the 'truth' with what the narrator thin s, allowing the reader enough distance from the

narrator to see that truth--even while maintaining the intimacy and empathyof first. Quite a feat, no?

B) Third Omniscient:

I thin of this one as the master's POV because it's so damn hard to do well... and tiring, too. It's hard because it requires the writer to be able toma e profound commentary on the human condition without sounding either pompousor

obnoxious. Li e first POV, it also requires a strong and distinctive narrative voice. In first, one is a character in the story itself, in third omniscient, one is an external observer... but both are narrating the story and soare

therefore free to comment on characters, events, action, etc. What third omniscient permits which none of the others does is free access into the thoughts and motivations of all the characters, and awareness of all events and action.

But it doesn't allow the intimacy of either first or third limited. The unseen, omniscient narrator stands between the reader and the characters, mediating perceptions. It's got a bit of a patronizing tone which some writers (andreaders)

disli e. After all, the narrator is playing God, telling the reader whathe or she ought to thin about the characters and action.

This type of POV is particularly valuable for stories which are heavy on characters and theme, those that "say something." One wouldn't ordinarily choose


8/17

it for a PWP (plot? what plot?) romp unless engaged in mannerpun . (And I'mnot sure I'd

consign mannerpun to PWP romps, as it usually has a stylistic goal, if not a thematic goal. So, you as , What the hell is mannerpun ? Read Emma Bull and Steven Brust's recent SF collaboration, Teresa Edgerton's Goblin Moon, or anything by

Ellen Kushner.)

To ma e third omniscient wor , one has to have something profound to say about the human condition. Otherwise, it's trite, pompous or just plain dull.

C) Third Limited:

This is a happy medium between the other two POVs, allowing a little of both--but it does carry certain limitations. In third limited, the reader is putin the heads of characters to see events from their points of view. Thus, ithas some of

the intimacy of first. But because a little more distance is maintained via the use of "s/he" instead of "I," the reader may be permitted into the heads of a couple of characters instead of only one, thus allowing the greater awareness of events

that one gets with third omniscient.

BUT in order for it to wor and not bleed into (bad) third omniscient, a little more rigidness is required. First, the writer must eep in mind that thePOV character (whoever it is) cannot see him or herself. I can't say how manyboo s and/or

stories I've read where we're supposedly in the head of X character only tohave the writer drop out of that character's head in order to give a descriptionof what the character loo s li e: "Her wispy red hair streamed out behind her..." Ouch.

How does she now what her hair is doing? She can only describe herself ifshe's loo ing in a mirror or other reflective surface. Yes, there are published authors who do this. I still personally consider it bad, lazy writing.

Third limited wor s best if there is only one POV character per scene. Theauthor should avoid hopping heads within scenes. If he or she does, the result is "POV ping pong" which ma es the reader dizzy trying to eep trac of whosehead one's

in now. Certainly the writer should avoid doing it within paragraphs. Mae it easy on the poor reader--pic a single person's POV and stic with it.

"But I really, really wanna show a scene from both character's points of view!"

This is where the choice comes in, my friend. The writer must ma e a decision: is it third limited he or she wants, or third omniscient? Also conside

r, does this scene really need to be seen from two points of view, or do you just thin it

does? Let it be a challenge to write it from only one point of view. Itis possible to change heads within a single scene, if handled well, but the privilege shouldn't be abused. Some tips:

a) Change only once, or at most, twice. Add a few lines of "brea " to alert the reader that a change has been made.


9/17

b) Or settle on a very distant 3rd limited POV. This is hard to do, but some manage. For example, ta e a loo at SF author Kit (Katherine) Kerr's fiction. Most of Kit's wor hovers somewhere between third limited and third omniscient.

Another example is historical novelist Mary Renault. Renault changes headsa little more often than Kerr does, and for the most part, she manages to pull it off without confusing the reader as to the "he." But even so, I do stilloccasionally

get thrown when reading her wor and have to stop, go bac and re-read theparagraph to be sure whose head I'm in.

You don't want to ma e your reader have to stop to re-read!

That's the real reason for pic ing one head and staying in it for the wholescene. I'm not trotting out rules for the sa e of having rules; there's a point behind them. It's o ay to as the reader to wor a little, but if your writing causes

the reader to have to stop and re-read on a regular basis, at some point the reader will just stop reading, period.

6) INTERRUPTED DIALOGUES: or, I Don't Want to Hear Every Thought a Character Has while Tal ing to Someone Else.

How much internal thought/description occurs during dialogue is somewhat a matter of personal preference and style. Some writers do a lot, some do very little. I happen to prefer less... But too much is too much! What is "interrupted

dialogue"? It's dialogue which is interrupted for a few lines or paragraphs of internal observation/thought from a character. But it also includes one-liners meant to wor as action dialogue tags:

He raised his hand. "Yada, yada, yada...""Yada, yada, yada." She thought he loo ed sad and sighed."Yada, yada, yada." He wal ed away.

Yeow! We don't need these interrupting descriptions of mundane (and not very illuminating) actions on the parts of the spea ers. So, unless a gesture or action gives meaning to the conversation (showing, say, increasing alarm),or is

necessary to facilitate the plot (one needs to get X character over near thewindow so the sniper in the building across the street can get a bead on her)... eliminate the one-liner deadwood. It ain't description, it's fluff. Filler. The

reader really doesn't need to now every gesture the characters are ma ing.

(Oh, on that topic--try some different gestures. All writers can be guilty of falling into ruts: nodding heads, ta ing a step up, bac , turning aroun

d, etc. How about putting hands behind the head? Scratching the bridge ofa nose?

Crac ing nuc les? Twitching a foot? Be... well... creative.)

My reason for warning against interrupted dialogue--whether with lots of one-liners or extended bouts of internal thought--is that it's easy for the readerto lose trac of the conversation. This is not a good thing. When using internal

thought, I find it best to aid the reader:


10/17

A) by alternating sections of dialogue with descriptions. Have several lines of uninterrupted dialogue, then intersperse description or internal thought.

Don't do tal -thin -tal -thin -tal . That's hard to follow.

B) by repeating part of the previous statement if a long paragraph (or several paragraphs) of thought or description has intervened. This is particularlyimportant if the spea er is answering a question. "What do you thin , Jim?"... [long

extended meditation on what Jim thin s]... "I thin we should..." No,we don't do that in real conversation. But a writer doesn't write 'real' conversation. If we did, it'd be dull, confusing and full of "um, ah, hmmm," and run-on

sentences. So cut the reader some slac .

7) TALKING HEADS: The syndrome, not the roc group.

While interrupted dialogue ma es conversations difficult for a reader to follow, don't be guilty of the other extreme: "tal ing heads." Yes, conversation should stand clear and clean, but it's a story, not a screenplay. Sometimes you will

need to insert taglines, action, imagery, or commentary into a conversation in order to give it depth.

The ey here is twofold, as noted above: not to confuse the reader by adding too much and thereby cutting up dialogue so that it becomes difficult to follow; but also not to add unneccessary commentary, images, taglines and actions. How does

one now what's unnecessary? As oneself a couple of questions: How doesthis comment/action further the readers' grasp of the conversation dynamics, orthe reader's grasp of characterization itself? If you present a character ashabitually

pacing when nervous, or have one who scratches the bridge of his nose whenhe's feeling shy or uncomfortable, that's a subtle clue--and it's not unncessary, is it? But don't join every exchange in a conversation with some action on

the part ofthe spea er as a substitute tagline, or under the misguided notion that thereader has to "see" everything the characters are doing. The reader doesn't.Keep it balanced. Or, as Apollo would say, "Moderation in all things."

8) SHOW, DON'T TELL

This is a cardinal rule of writing, and what ma es creative writing different from most other forms of writing, such as journalism, essays, technical writing, et cetera. Some new authors understand it instinctively, others--particularly

those who thin linearly, or have been trained in scientific or other forms

of logical thin ing--don't.

How does this manifest itself in actual fiction writing? By telling us facts about your characters--what we call 'expository lumps'--rather than showing us these things. Yes, it ta es longer, but the show is what ma es fiction interesting.

There are two basic ways to show: either through dialogue, or by creatinga scene in which the information is revealed. If you want to convey that yourcharacter is impulsive, ma e a scene in which s/he acts impulsively. Don't just tell us


11/17

that fact. Why should we believe you? If you want to pass certain information on to your readers, do it in a conversation if possible, not by just dumping it straight into narrative.

Yes, there are times when telling is to be preferred to showing, particularly when a story is already in danger of being too long and the information given is somewhat peripheral to the main plot so that showing it would introduce unnecessary

tangents. But I've seen far too many stories which read more li e plot synopses than story. The author drops in to tell the reader what the characters loo li e, what their personality is li e, and any and all bac ground information the author

thin s the reader should now. That's not a story: it's a profile. Onedoes not need to describe one's characters in detail upon the first meeting. One does not need to inform the reader about the character's childhood and what she had for

dinner last night. In short, one does not need to hand out potted characterizations. Show these things. Give me a scene, not a summary.

[Exception: If one happens to be writing third omniscient, such commentaryis the name of the game. But what ma es it wor is the vividness (and occasionally the quir iness) of the narrative voice. Remember not to confuse what onecan get away

with in third omniscient with what wor s in third limited.]

9) WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW

Write what you now or research li e hell because there will be someone reading your story who's an expert on whatever subject you choose to explore. Thatpretty much says it all. If you tac le a subject about which you now nothing--or only

enough to get you in trouble--you'll just wind up loo ing li e a fool.

No, this doesn't mean writers can only write semi-autobiography. What it

does mean is that if you've never been to Las Vegas, don't choose it for your story's main setting. If you now nothing about fly fishing, don't ma e it your protag's

favorite hobby. Or go tal to someone who does now about fly-fishing. Read a few boo s. Do your homewor . Or--hitting closer to home--if you're notan Indian, have never met an Indian and now squat about Indians, don't pic Cha otay for

your main point of view character or dwell on his Indian-ness. If you're writing Scully and are not a medical doctor, nurse, or other medical personnel,or don't wor in a hospital, try to avoid medical jargon because you'll almos

t certainlyget it wrong.

Finally, if you're going to ta e on a controversial or emotionally-laden topic, dear god, now what you're tal ing about. Don't romanticize trauma or use it as a springboard to get character A together with character B. Don't assume people

get over rape, incest and other such traumatic situations overnight or as aresult of a couple coversations full of potted psychobabble. And please, please don't fall into the plot cliche of "fuc ing her all better." These are nottopics to be

employed for emotional chain-yan ing. That's not only lazy writing, it'sinsensitive and irresponsible writing.


12/17

In general, now your limits. Don't be the lazy author who decides to wing it on a prayer and a remembered conversation between your father and an unclewhen you were seven. A little nowledge is a dangerous thing.

10) LESS IS MORE

This is a point on which not all authors agree, but enough do agree that it's become a maxim. Don't go for over ill; remember that a point or feeling can be conveyed more powerfully by understatement than by banging the reader overthe head with

it. Simplicity is classy. (Give me a woman in simple blac velvet over spar les and spangles any day.) Or, as I heard one author put is once: "'Jesus wept' carries a hell of a lot more punch than 'Jesus threw himself on the ground, ic ing

and screaming.'"

Related to this is nowing when to enter a scene and when to end it. Frequently, authors enter scenes too early, or let them run too long. As author Joy Anderson once said jo ingly, "Write your first boo chapter to get you going, then toss

it in the trash." That may be overstating the case a little, but she has

a point. When editing your wor , learn how to cut your material, particularly to excise the unnecessary. Bigger is not necessarily better. Are you overtelling? Do

your scenes start too soon, end too late? These are questions to eep inthe bac of your mind as you edit.

11) BEGINNINGS SET THE TONE

How and where you begin a boo or story will set the tone for the entire thing. Give it a lot of thought. You have to catch your readers in that first few sentences or paragraphs. This is called the "hoo ." They won't give you more than

that, not when there're a ton of other boo s (or other pieces of fanfic) tochoose from. That doesn't mean you have to start with exploding buildings ormurder or hints of deep dar secrets in the main character's past. But do thinsome about

how to set your hoo s, so you can reel in that reader and eep him or her following you for the rest of the story. Expository lumps are not the way to open your narrative. Consider the opening lines of these award winning authors/novels:

"124 was spiteful. Full of baby venom."Toni Morrison, Beloved (novel/mystery/horror)

"I've watched through his eyes, I've listened through his ears, and I tell you, he's the one. Or at least, as close as we're going to get."

Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game (SF)

"The child was wa ened by the notting of the sna e's coil about his waist."

Mary Renault, Fire From Heaven (historical)

"'I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father I have


13/17

sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thyson.' These were not perhaps the actual words which Edward Baltram uttered tohimself on

the occasion of his momentous and mysterious summons, yet their echo wasnot absent even then, and later he repeated them often."

Iris Murdoch, The Good Apprentice (novel)

"At the beginning of the summer I had lunch with my father, the gangster,who was in town for the wee end to transact some of his vague business."

Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburg (novel)

"The snow in the mountains was melting and Bunny had been dead for severalwee s before we came to understand the gravity of our situation."

Donna Tartt, The Secret History (murder mystery)

12) FORESHADOW, FORESHADOW!, or, How Do You Get There from Here?

When plotting a story, be sure to avoid unexpected, and illogical, plot twists. This means that one has to give a modicum of thought to one's story arc. If you plan to ma e a revelation in your story, or ta e it in an unexpecteddirection,

foreshadow. Good foreshadowing is an art. (Ever read Asimov's Foundation

Trilogy? Brilliant foreshadowing.) Avoid the Big Neon Hint--the sort any fool can spot a mile off. Sometimes this type of foreshadowing is fine, but notif one is

aiming for surprise. (Much depends on a writer's goal.) Of course, theopposite extreme is no better: the sudden abrupt plot shift which is so unexpected that it rudely tosses the reader out of the story world onto his ass. Thebest

foreshadowing is the ind that, when the truth is finally revealed, causesthe reader to say, "Ah, of course... but I never saw it coming!"

This goes not just for events, but for character traits as well. Don't have your characters respond to situations in unpredictable ways which don't mesh

with anything we've seen from them before--or anything we might expect from whatwe havepreviously seen. If they're original characters, yes of course they're yo

urs to do with as you please... but that doesn't mean anything goes. Keep your characters consistent. In fact, you must eep characters more consistent than people are

in real life because there is less room for complexity in stories. I'm allfor complex characters, but it is possible to ma e them so complex that you lose your readers. As for borrowed characters, I thin it goes without saying that you can't

ta e them too far from how they've been shown on the screen or you've simplycreated your own character and wrapped an actor's loo s around him/her. (Seebelow under "Comments Specific to Fanfic.")

Finally, a related point: if you plan to hint at deep dar secrets in thepasts of your characters, be sure they're not cliches. If I read One More Incest Story, I may hurl. As a former counsellor, I firmly believe that this isa matter

which should be spo en about openly and brought to public attention. But as a writer, I recognize that it's become a plot cliche. Twenty years ago--even ten years ago--it was shoc ing. Now, it's blas because it's been done to death. (See

above under "Write What You Know" for warnings against emotional chain-yan i


14/17

ng, too.) To avoid writing a cliche requires both extraordinary realism and extraordinary empathy, not to mention a unique angle. But really--there are other

interesting things to write about.

13) DON'T USE DIALECT, or, O. Henry You Ain't

Very, very, very few writers can pull off dialect. It's better to assumeyou aren't one of them. Don't give Scotty a brogue, or Che ov a Russian accent, by deliberate misspellings and unfamiliar contractions. It's not convincing, it is

difficult to read, and fran ly, it stri es as ridiculous. Instead conveydistinctive spea ing styles by grammar. This means developing a really good ear for language. For an example of an author who does this particularly well,ta e a

gander at the writing of Clyde Edgerton (Wal ing Across Egypt, Rainey). He conveys a perfect western North Carolina accent without misspelling much of anything--all by the grammar the characters use. And by grammar, I don't necessarily mean

bad grammar. For instance, the combination "might should" is something you rarely hear in New Yor City, but you're very li ely to hear it in Macon, Georgia. Li ewise with "gotten," and "drug" (the 'past tense' of drag, not a pharmaceutical

item). These are southernisms. Li ewise, you won't hear many Americans

say "we're getting up a party," or "I'm great for you," but you're li ely to hear an Irish woman say that. So listen for distinctive speech patterns and usethese to

convey dialect--don't use lots of contractions (goin' instead of going) or bad grammar to denote rural or linguistically unsophisticated characters, and don't, please, please don't use misspellings to convey dialect. It's unreadable.

[A few exceptions which are commonly seen enough to use: ain't, gonna, wanna, y'all, 'tis, 'cept, ol' and a few more. But use these with care.]

14) AVOID DEUS EX MACHINA, or, Euripides You Ain't, either

What is deus ex machina? In Latin, it means "the god from the machine" and relates to ancient Gree theater, but what it really means in modern usage isto ta e the easy way out at the end. That is, such quic -fixes as "it was all a dream"

(or a holodec adventure) which results in automatic rewind, or inserting a"miracle rescue" or "miracle medicine moment." Yes, TV shows are guilty of deus ex machina all the time. That's not an excuse; that's bad plotting. Bebrave and

permit actions to have consequences. Euripides used deus ex machina in order to ma e fun of the Gree tendency to anthropomorphize their gods. But lazywriters use it to get themselves out of a plot pic le, to ma e a story end the

way they wantit to--not the way the course of action demands, or because they're too laz

y to thin out a more complex solution.

Another ind of deux ex machina, or at least unbelievable manipulation on the part of the author, is the illogical situation or conversation--especially when its sole function is to drive apart (or drive together) the hero and heroine(or hero and

hero, as the case may be). Please. Assume that your readers have some common sense--and that your characters do as well. People may say and do stupid


15/17

things, but they often recognize they're stupid even while doing them, or recognize it

shortly thereafter. And there are limits. (Stories aimed at romantic entanglements are by far the worse offenders in this category.) Don't allow yourself to be swept up in your own emotional tidalwave. Thin about what your characters are

doing, or saying. Is it improbable enough to ma e a James Bond movie looli e real life?

COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO FANFIC:

1) Please don't open a fanfic story with the full name and title of a series regular. This is one way fanfic is not li e original fiction. Ain't li elyto be anybody reading your Voyager story who doesn't already now that Paris isLieutenant

Thomas Eugene Paris, pilot for Voyager. Or, if you're into the X-files,don't start your first (or even second) sentence with "Special Agent Dana Katherine Scully..." We now her name and title, than you. For fanfiction to introduce

characters in such a fashion is both unnecessary and annoying.

A writer of fanfic can assume a certain level of nowledge on the part of re

aders which a writer of original fiction can't; ta e advantage of it. Assume in your readership the same basic familiarity with facts that the show's script writers assume

for their episodes. They don't introduce every DS9 episode with a Sis o'sfull name and ran ! Same goes for semi-regulars li e Du at or Nog, or (for the X-Files) S inner or Margaret Scully. The exception, of course, is if one brings bac a

guest star from one or two episodes. Then one might remind the readers whothis person is: _____, Worf's adopted father. (See, I can't even rememberhis name!)

I'm not against incorporating the information somewhere in the story, but please: not in the first paragraph. And try to find a creative way to do it.

Instead of beginning "James T. Kir , captain of the USS Enterprise was wal ingalong thecorridor," Try: "Captain!" It was Spoc 's voice. Kir stopped his prog

ress down the hall outside sic bay and turned.

[Exception: if posting a crossover, you might need to include more information, depending on where you're publishing it. Should you write a Star Tre -Avengers crossover and post it to alt.startre .creative, you should include moreinformation

about the Avengers characters since there may be people reading the piece who are unfamiliar with the Avengers. If you're writing an X-Files-Homicide crossover and posting it to alt.tv.x-files.creative, you will need to give more inf

ormationabout the Homicide characters. If it's a generic list with all sorts of fa

nfiction, you should include more information period. Where you're posting,then, governs the amount of information included.]

2) Don't exaggerate aspects of a series regular's appearance. Janeway's hair is not red or strawberry blond. It's dishwater brown with red highlights.Scully's eyes are light grey blue, not baby blue, and Kir 's are hazel, or

maybeswampwater green, not gold, gold-flec ed, or honey-colored or any of a ha


16/17

lf-dozen other exaggerations. Cha otay is not a big man (nor does he have bighands). Kevin Sorbo is big, Arnold Schwartzenager is big; Robert Beltran ison the bul y

side of average. Try for accuracy, not purple prose. I now what thesepeople loo li e; I see them every wee .

3) Just as aspects of a series regular's appearance shouldn't be exaggerated, neither should aspects of his or her personality. For example, two characters who are subjected to the worst offenses... Yes, both Tom Paris and Fox Mulder are

troubled individuals, but they are also 30-something adults with a measureof social savvy and some life experience. They are not truly dysfunctional.(I now dysfunctional; I counselled dysfunctional.) Ma ing them act and reactli e

fifteen-year-olds with a terminal case of angst, or li e men who should becommitted, is not engaging; it's silly.

4) If writing original ships or characters, don't put a long list of whatneato-cool-techno-gee things the ship can do, or include the cast of characters at the beginning of your story. If a reader can't eep up with the story without all that

stuff, the writer is being lazy--and most readers won't bother. It's boring, fol s. If you want to include story bac matter li e casts of characters,

technical information, pronunciation charts, then put it at the bac .

(On a side-note, I never personally read stories in screenplay format. Other readers don't mind, perhaps, but I want my fiction in narrative form, than you.)

If you found the above essay to be of use and wish to set pointers to this page, please feel free. Also feel free to distribute the above in the public domain but, of course, eep my name attached. I'd li e to than Mary Ellen Curtin, anne inchicago, and Laura Taylor for suggestions and comments which became additions

or revisions to this essay. I'd also li e to than the fol s on alt.startre .

creative for a lively discussion of this essay which allowed me to further refine it.

OTHER WRITING RESOURCES

Garbl's Writing Resources Online: A page of lin s for grammar and other writer's concerns.

The English Department, DangerMom's Handy-Dandy Grammar Guide: An alt.startre.creative denizen has composed a page of grammar problems frequently found in fanfiction.

Mary Beth Kipler's The Elements of Phyle: An alt.tv.x-files.creative denizenwith a page similar to the above with helpful color coding (but a large pictureta es up most of the page top so page down to find the grammar--and if you havea slow modem,turn off your images).

Elements of Style, Strun 's original in hypertext; personally, I prefer Strun & White, but both editions are among the more famous boo s on style ever pu


17/17

blished (and published, and published, and published...) Just... go read it.

NovelDoc: A webpage gateway to apply to a listserv devoted to serious critique of completed novels for purposes of revision--what amounts to an online writer's group. Of particular interest: the site maintainer has a long and annotated list ofresources available to authors. See the "boo store" section.

Bac to Macedon's Taberna, Redux.

craft of writing

Documents