Live Writing Class: How To Write When You Don’t Know How To Write (Writing My Novel #20)

[@glittergem5770]

I don't know about "scared copied writing" because every story is based on borrowed elements and not all writers who borrow elements do it "scared". You can look at any big office hit that has a good rating with critics and review and immediately see it's borrowed framework. For example, I rewatched Joker (film) last night. That has taxi cab written ALL over it. Earlier this year, Longlegs (film) became a hug sensation, with some saying it was creating a new kind of horror, but if you know anything about asian cinema then you could see the Cure (film) all over it. Very little from Longleads was actually original. As a horror buff, the Cure isn't the only obvious reference. Scene by scene, I can point to references, some even very direct and less inspired. My point is that it's pretty obvious that successful movies do more than pay homage to films they like and often actively take the framework of popular but obscure or older films and repurpose them into their films and those films are very well received. Quentin Tarantino did the same with literal scenes and was more open about weaving together new stories from favorite scenes. But my point is, since when is borrowing elements (major and minor) from great writing considered bad writing? All we do is borrow things, subconsciously, anyway. We don't exist in a vaccum. We grow up absorbing stories from films, books, comics, true crime, etc. Then we borrow from this material and weave our own. It just feels like you're saying anyone who studies a film and deconstructs it and borrows parts is doing uninspired writing but there's no such thing as writing any novel without borrowing (consciously or unconscious) from other sources.

[@writingforscreens]

Oh, gosh - not at all what I meant! I am a big proponent of "stealing" (as in TS Eliot's line - "bad poets borrow, good poets steal" - meaning you make it your own). No, I was talking exclusively about sentence style in fiction! If you take a formula of writing STYLE, the shapes and patterns of sentences, it gets stilted and dull. Any formulaic approach to creative work tends to become heartless. (For instance the "studio coverage style" of wide shot/medium shot/close up - or even, sadly, the writing style of one of my favorite writers, William Goldman, whose novels got more and more dependent on certain quirks especially ellipses (...).) Most of us want to develop a style...but when you steal a style or rely on a style too much, you tend to get empty. Or even when you develop an original style of your own! Sorkin and Mamet have great styles.but they get to be less appealing when repeated over and over. Great artists, I think, find ways to be original and alive WITHIN their styles. Like the painter Edward Hopper, I think. Or Hitchcock. I absolutely agree with all of your points, above.

[@glittergem5770]

@@writingforscreens Apologies for misunderstanding you.. I thought you were talking about writing not style. I'm not quite sure if sentence construction would fall under "style" but if so, my opinion carries that borrowing sentence style/structure is a good thing. However, I'm not sure I'm talking about what you're talking about with the punctuation part. The way I do is deconstruct any text I enjoy and then learn the "rule" or "formula" or "tecnique" behind it. Sometimes, it's just preference, for example, I realized that I really enjoy descriptions that use anatomical terms; i also like color-descriptions that use the names of metals over any other color words (like food-colors, nature-based colors, etc). Say you are obsessed with Stephen King and read his entire body of work and derive from it 1000 style rules, I don't see a problem with using them. Your style would literally mirror his, but it doesn't seem uninspired. Again, maybe you mean more literal or on the surface style, but I think you can borrow anything as long as you deconstruct it to extract patterns.

[@writingforscreens]

@@glittergem5770 I get it. This is just my opinion - but I feel that unless one adds a bit of personal impulse and flavor/texture, relying exclusively on rules tends to make for a somewhat "lifeless" art. Yes, deconstructing and extracting patterns is probably essential to what every artist does - but I also think there is an element of chance, emotion, impulse and the irrational that helps. I explain it in more detail here: Instinct - kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXmbpqaXnMalqKc. That said: if your art "feels right" only following rules - do that! My rule is "no absolute rules" - so of course even my own rule requires me to allow for...rules :) If it's working for you, marvelous!

[@glittergem5770]

@@writingforscreens I understand. In my perspectively, relying on impulsivity alone isn't the best way to make art. My "rules" become just another tool in my toolkit. I can now use them whenever I feel like it. By having MORE rules, techniques, strategies, I can be EVEN more free than if I just relied on random inspiration and random flights of fancy. Those happen anyway. As rigidly as you can plan for a novel, the vast part of creation is random and impulsive, so I never worry about not having enough creative freedom because that's almost all there is when you create. The rules and technique, no matter how much diligently you use them, are literally just one dimension of story.

[@All4Tanuki]

4:24 😬😬😬 Machine Learning is just as bad for the visual arts as it is for writing

[@writingforscreens]

Yes - sorry! I spoke recklessly, and wrongly, to suggest it was okay to use AI for illustration. Thank you for the comment, it is good to be alerted when one is foolish and wrong :)