I have been playing around over the last few months with a Novel I have been writing. I go through phases where I'm not inspired and don’t want to ruin it. I also find that I have different writing styles and I want my novel to obviously flow. To help me understand how I write and to help give me motivation and new and interesting twists to write into my story, I have continued to write lots of short stories, some of which I hope will slot into my novel.
I’m curious if anyone else uses this method of writing, and how successful it is. Or whether simply knuckling down and ploughing through with a continuous story is something more effective, and perhaps something I should try?
I would love to get some views on this, and any tips, or advice would be gratefully received!
Thanks
Emma
chuck | October 1, 2008 - 15:35
I work like that too (I use the word 'work' loosely). I think the thing is to just get the stuff written and worry about fitting it all together later. Same with getting a consistent 'voice'. Wait till you have enough bits and pieces then keep going over it until it reads smoothly. The hardest part for me is the plot.
Emma White | October 1, 2008 - 17:22
Yes, I assume you mean keeping the plot interesting! I also worry about that, which is why I tend to put the work to one side for a bit.
Also when I read 'women’s novels' I find that often they are written in the first hand... 'I felt, I saw, I didn’t like' etc, but some novels are obviously written as a viewer i.e. Jennifer felt, John saw, Fred didn’t like'. Is there a certain type of story to write in a certain hand, as a rule of thumb, or would most say it is entirely the writer’s preference?
I also think in words, i.e. I could be walking down the street and describe what I’m seeing as though I was reading a story. This brings out some great writing except I never seem to get it on paper as well as when I first thought it. Unless I can somehow perfect the art of writing whilst walking! LOL.
Em.
chuck | October 1, 2008 - 18:39
I read somewhere there are only about five basic plots. I know a story is needed to keep readers interested but whatever I come up with seems hackneyed.
Same problem with narrator. I'm always aware of an author somewhere trying to be omniscient. I almost prefer non-linear fiction to something contrived.
Mitchell's 'Cloud atlas' is a good example of what I'm after. A series of vignettes that somehow fit together.
Walking is great for ideas....always have a notebook.
FTSE100 | October 6, 2008 - 10:44
The trouble with first-person (or first-hand as you call it) writing, so far as I can see, is that you can only tell things from one point of view (sometimes two if two different characters narrate in the first person), and you're always speaking as a character rather than as an author, so everything you say is your character's opinion. In particular, the narrator has to be present at all the action, or has to make their own guesses at what happened where they were not present.
If you write in the third person you can tell the story from many points of view, have all kinds of sub-plots with different characters, and so on. If you make a statement in a third-person story, you speak as the author, so you're telling it as it is, not what a character thinks it is. It's more flexible.
If your story is about one person's view of the world, write in the first person; if it isn't, third-person is usually the best choice. So says professor FTSE, who you are free to ignore.