Tag Archives: Story Creation

Just tell a goddamn story

Another writing post from the indefatigable Caleb J. Ross… — PJ

Just Tell a Goddamn Story

It’s been my experience that new and veteran writers alike would often do well to circumnavigate classically learned fiction processes entirely and instead focus on one universally important guideline: tell a goddamn story.

By graduation, any university-trained fiction writer will have hacked through years of jargon-infused, overwrought bramble en route the elusive Perfect Piece of Fiction, emerging from the academic experience with a portfolio a few inches fatter, but eluded still.* I’ve met graduates who were stunned, yes stunned, that their nautical themed prose poetry chapbook, despite its technical and linguistic superiority to the mass market paperback tomes filling Wal-Mart shelves, somehow evaded the throngs of avid readers and with them the six-figure advances thrust upon those “Pattersons and Evanobitches” and their knee-padded, open-throated agents. Yes, stunned.

Why the disconnect? Why, after years of studying and perfecting the mechanics of writing are would-be professional writers left to roam as hobbyists?

Two reasons: 1) a false belief that consumers need art, and 2) a false belief that the literary, and all that term implies, is meant to supplant plot.

Function first, then form. Never, for the professionally minded writer, the other way around.

Consumers don’t need art

Fiction writing students are encouraged the way any visual artist is encouraged, to create something of beauty, something with cerebral staying power. The problems is that while this mentality is great for holistic self-worth and liberation (re: liberal arts) from the hard sciences, in the all-important supply v. demand economy not many people care that you created something pretty. People can see pretty for free by looking out their windows.

What people do want is comfort, an escape from everyday life. I know what you’re thinking: “But Caleb, there are plenty of literary masterpieces that make fortunes for their authors.” First, there are fewer than you probably imagine. Second, those literary masterpieces may be technically and linguistically brilliant, but they are amazing stories as well. They sure as hell aren’t prose poems chapbooks.**

Function first, then form. Wall first, then paint. Story first, then the flourishes.

During the 2010 AWP conference in Denver, Colorado, author Tod Goldberg said something important. Very important. He revealed that he teaches writing in his classes as a trade. It’s his job (I’m paraphrasing) to ensure writing students are able to actually work as writers. What a concept, right? This concept once again came to my attention just a few weeks ago when Jan Friedman authored a blog post titled “Commodity Publishing, Self-Publishing, and The Future of Fiction” which explores the idea of story as a product, writing as a commodity. Be sure to check out the comments; to some readers, Jane’s words come across nothing less than sacrilege. ***

Calling a work literary should never be a way to mask your terrible story-telling

Most university level writing classes emphasize all else above plot—focusing on elements such as character development, empathy, metaphor, allegory, and on and on, which I will refer to as “academic elements” for the sake of simplicity—to the extent that a susceptible student might truly believe that round characters and a few footnotes (to help out all those future critics, of course) are all that a story needs. While I agree that academic elements are an extremely important component of a strong piece of literary fiction, the remaining portion—plot—cannot be forgotten.

Function first, then form.

The priority placed on academic elements may be the result of an assumed understanding and appreciation of plot. Perhaps the thought goes that since writing students have spent the first 18 years of their lives watching mainstream, plot-heavy television sitcoms and dramas that professors are basically playing catch-up, trying desperately to elevate an understanding of the academic elements. So, plot gets tossed aside in favor of what is assumed to be lacking (never mind for a moment that the best fiction professors will help students deconstruct those plot-heavy television sitcoms and dramas to help them better understand why they work).

I understand this assumption. I really do. It makes sense. Add to the assumed understanding of plot the fact that academic elements—developing a rounded character, for example—is generally more difficult than creating a plot, and you can see why university writing classes legitimize themselves by liberating students from their self-acquired storytelling knowledge. Anyone can tell you that a man is traveling through dangerous lands to rescue a princes (plot) but it’s much harder to give me a compelling reason why this particular man is traveling through these particular dangerous lands to rescue this particular princess (character development).

A commercially successful fiction writer has to fool readers into art. Feel free to elevate your language, to invert established tropes for the purpose of witty culturally commentary, to craft a page full of beautiful words, but please, don’t forget to tell a goddamn story.

*It is very important that I note how pivotal my university writing experience was. I was one of the lucky ones, instructed by a fantastic professor (Amy Sage Webb, author of the recently released story collection Save Your Own Life), who never overpromised the commercial validity of finely crafted fiction. She is a realist. But I’ve met plenty of writers who weren’t so lucky. This article is for them.

** Prose Poem is certainly a term invented by some writer to appease his own need for categorized validation; the term prose poetry surely isn’t one invented for readers.

*** I must say for the sake of full disclosure that I do not support myself and my family on my fiction writing alone. Every-once-in-a-while I make enough to pay my mortgage, but that’s a stretched every-once-in-a-while, for sure. Personally, I write for the story and the beauty of the language.

A note on the tragedy of children in fiction

I just googled “children artwork” and this was one of the first results:

It’s roughly what you’d expect. Colors and stick figures, a sun with rays that look like hairs, flowers all facing a single direction.

I’ve never looked into it, but I wonder how much anyone’s ever taken the time to analyze the most frequently recurring symbols in the art of children. Why are their pictures so often set outdoors on a sunny day? Why do flowers feature so prominently? Why are there more smiles than frowns? Why is the sun in the corner of the sky?

I had an idea yesterday for a story I can’t be bothered to write. Perhaps someday it’ll feature in something I do. A teacher is surprised to find that one of his young students can only draw abstract representations of things. While all the other kids are outlining little people next to houses with trees and flowers and a sun in the corner, this kid is drawing uninterpretable shapes. The teacher asks him to talk about the drawings, and the kid points at each shape and says: “That’s my house.” “That’s my mom.” “That’s the sun.” He gives the exact same answers all the other kids do, but his pictures are incomprehensible.

At this point the story can go in radically different ways:

It could be a corny morality tale: maybe the teacher is a simple-minded but friendly villain and he gently encourages the kid to make the drawings more accessible so everyone can enjoy them, and the kid, so very innocent, complies. The world is thereby deprived of a great individualist.

It could be structured like a detective story: something about this child is mysterious, and the teacher decides to find out more. At the end of the story, it is revealed that the child has some special quality that explains his drawings.

It could be a story about friendship and un-learning: the kid and the teacher talk about life in a way that never strays too far from the pictures, and the teacher ends up learning far more from his own student than he could ever have expected.

Or maybe the whole point isn’t the child, but the teacher himself, who, it is revealed at the end, was an unreliable narrator who misinterpreted the drawings. They were perfectly normal all along, and the teacher is the real inventor, in some sense. You could cheapen it with an emphasis on his insanity or something.

The only kind of ending that I can think of without instant disgust would be something more ambiguous: something without a twist, without a moral message, without even much of a resolution. Perhaps the teacher accepts the kid’s explanations — “I see. Very nice!” — and moves on to the next student.

That seems sufficiently tragic, realistic, unrealistic and satirical to me, and it almost avoids the trap of “necessary resolution” that bugs me about stories involving children. The child never stands alone: he or she is always in contrast to the adult world, an emblem of secret untainted wisdom, or a symbol of the protagonist’s very real need to “grow up” or assume responsibility, or a glimpse of hope amid the story’s present chaos. It’s rare to find a film or novel that grants a child the kind of tragic mundanity that writers so subtly grant to people generally.

Secondary characters are “secondary”; the protagonist is “the main character” while the antagonist is “the character that opposes the main character” — and somehow children are a subspecies of character that can’t be left to sit in with the rest of the crew. The protagonist must protect the child, the antagonist might very well kidnap or molest the child. Among children, one must be the bully because that creates instant dramatic tension. There’s nothing quite as formulaic than children when it comes to portraying characters by age group.

A teacher who chooses to ignore the radical weirdness of abstract artwork in his class of six-year-olds has already done something significant in a story. Anything that gets too close to the mystery is in danger of losing sight of the mystery.