James O. Born
It's time to get back to the nuts and bolts
of writing a novel. Sure, we took a
break to talk about the fun stuff like promotion and other things that don't
necessarily affect your actual writing.
Now it’s back to work.
Evaluating our work. This is not necessarily an artistic
evaluation, but more of a statistical evaluation. This falls in line with my background in
statistics and I’m comfortable thinking of most things this way, but writing is not like "most things". There are as many ways to look at a novel
statistically as there are to examine anything.
What got me started along this line of the inquiry was an article by
Clive Thompson that was in the May, 2014 print edition of Wired magazine. I was unable to find a link to the actual story online and provide a link. I went the
extra step and contacted Mr. Thompson via e-mail to make sure he didn't mind me talking about it.
The one-page
story covered a study that put 19th-century British novels through various
computer analyses and looked for patterns.
They discovered that as the century advanced, the number of terms
describing action doubled as well as words that describe people's bodies. There are several theories as to why this
occurred, but the fact that this was discovered at all is what's interesting to
me. Just as something like the computer
and word processing programs have changed novels in the last thirty years
everything from the migration patterns of 19th-century Brits to the
availability of writing implements could create a change in trends. Perhaps it was something as simple as the
reading public's case. I will leave the
article's conclusions for you to find yourself.
You don't have to use the power of the
computer at a major university to dissect your work. I have known several authors (who may or may
not wish to be identified) who went to great lengths to study the patterns of
action versus description in their novels.
They would literally chart the level of action in each scene, then look
at the chart to make sure it grew like a wave and descended into the next
action sequence. And by action, I don't
mean gunfights and stabbings, but something that propels a thriller or crime
novel.
I personally disagree with this type of cold,
analytical dissection of one's own novel.
While I am fascinated with the work done by academics using computers
and well-written articles like Mr. Thompson's, I prefer to have my novels
obtain a sort of organic progression.
Obviously, due to the nature of most crime thrillers, there would be
more action towards the end of the book.
But as things occur, I like them to be the result of the actions and
intentions of my characters and I also like those actions to surprise me as I
am writing the book. This is not an
unusual experience for most writers. (We
will cover outlines next week.)
Some would say it comes down to writing
versus storytelling, but I think it is more a function of personality. Some people are more comfortable telling a
story in a simple and straightforward manner and, at least in my case, know how
stories like this in real life would unfold.
It would break my concentration and momentum in writing a novel to stop
and study how it rises in crescendos and dips in certain places. Don't get me wrong, like all writers, I
review what I've written and hope I have an understanding when a book is lagging. I don't always take Raymond Chandler's advice
on this subject but I like it: When in doubt how to end a
chapter, bring in a man with a gun.
Mr. Chandler offers other device that's very
close to our topic today: And here I am at 2:30 A.M.
writing about technique, in spite of a strong conviction that the moment a man
begins to talk about technique, that’s proof he is fresh out of ideas.
Once again, as with
almost everything we've discussed, the choice is up to you. I like to enjoy creating a novel from
beginning to end and everything in between.
Using these kind of analytics would crush my soul, and frankly, at this
moment, I don't make enough as a novelist to give up my soul.
Todays other quote is
more about reading:
If you only read the books
that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is
thinking. –Haruki Murakami
Based on the number of posts between my two, I want to rename the Blog "Jim's Blog on Writing."
ReplyDeleteI'd love to be able to put my finished manuscript through a computer program and have it tell my where to drop a few bodies. I want one of those charts used by certain unidentified authors.
ReplyDelete"Jim's Blog on Writing"...I LIKE IT!!!
James, thank you for blogging today. I wondered what happened to the others. I noticed that Ridley Pearson and Cornelia Read have not blogged for a while.
ReplyDeleteIf it's Thursday, it's James O. Born's day for blogging.
~Diana
At least I am dependable.
ReplyDeleteI think Raymond Chandler's line was "When things slow down, bring in a man with a gun." But your point is well taken, in any event. Another excellent blog on the Writing Process. It is a process, right?
ReplyDelete