So first of all, thank you for “gummy” as a description for books. I think of a lot of fiction — much of it the variety of thing you’re writing about, I think, the ones where the interior and the exterior are oil and water — as “damp.” I’ve never heard anyone else use a similar simile to describe it but “gummy” resonates.
The division of plot and character is such a disservice to young writers or at least it did a great disservice to me. I think a lot of this is because writers tend to be drawn to their own ideas either because the concept is of great interest to them (plot) or the psychology and actions of a person are of great interest (character). And writers, especially starting out, tend to be lopsided, tending to be drawn to one or the other. For me, character psychology was the spark that lit the wick of my stories. And I saw other “beginning” writers (and some professionals) who wrote those books you’re talking about, where the characters are dragged nonsensically through a series of events, and I knew I didn’t want to write like that, and so I got this idea that the tools those writers relied upon — stuff like notes and outlines — were bad tools, because they were creating bad fiction. But of course the tools are not the main problem — that would be like saying like a hammer is responsible for shoddy construction. (I mean, I guess it’s possible, but the hammer would have to be utterly fucked, like shattered maybe?, for that to be true. It’s hard to imagine.) Once I began using actual planning and structure (it took an embarrassingly long time), I discovered that that was how I could put together all the stuff that was fun — the character stuff — with the events. And create resonance not by forcing it through in a series of bullet points, but by looking for the ways the interior and exterior create counterpoints and rhymes. And then feeding the things that are good and resonant and growing them up.
Thank you for making me think about all this. I always look forward to seeing Sweater Weather in my inbox.
A book that I think articulates well how a novel of situation becomes a novel of character and the tension between the two is “Gaudy Night” by Dorothy Sayers. Which is a mystery novel that’s also a romance that’s also a novel of both situation and character.
"The story of character is like watching people walk by your window for three hours and then trying to tell your friend about it. And the story of situation is like if all those people passing your window stopped so that they could be sure of your watching them pass your window."
Jesus, that's a bar.
I appreciate this essay, but it also makes me scared to ever write another sentence for fear that I am falling into these traps, especially as someone who tries very hard to ground my writing in the physical world.
Do you have a sense of how this happens, just in terms of the writing process? Do people sit down and overwrite a scene with the intention to come back and edit and just end up not cutting enough? Why do editors let this stuff go?
Brilliant essay. Feels like this also broaches on the idea of aesthetic and substance and more often than not, contemporary literary prioritises the former. Thanks for articulating it so clearly in this wonderful piece of writing.
Also, I wanted to ask if you have any recommendations on creative writing reference books?
I feel I have to ask since no one else has -- why the refusal to mention the gimmicky novel? I am not in any way saying this is done out of cowardice or allegiance (or simple politeness, or a desire to "be positive;" my intention in asking, as far as I can tell, is curiosity, not name-calling or derogation), but since I have no access to any author's intention, and since you mention that you adore both Knausgaard’s My Struggle series and Johanna Lindsey’s The Heir (with, to my POV, an implication that plenty of readers find those books gimmicky or trite one way or the other), I just found it somewhat surprising that you withheld the title/author in question and was wondering if you'd considered mentioning it. It was, to this individual reader anyway, a notable omission, and not least because you generally name the works you are critical of/give a negative or mixed review; recently Mike White's The White Lotus, for example.
brilliant content, as per usual! i can’t even begin to list the number of novels i’ve read that displayed this particular flaw in narrative you described so perfectly, and it’s just great to finally see someone FINALLY put it into words. your blog is one of my favorites and i’m sincerely glad to see you’ve returned with new updates once again. :)
This was great. I finally know exactly why I don’t like so many books that I have read. Especially the contemporary books, young writers etc. Also, as someone pointed out, now I am really scared to write anything in fear of not being able to solve these writing problems.
This was such a delight to read, thank you. I must admit you make me want to rip out my hair along with everything I've ever written but such is the effect of brilliant literary dissection, I suppose. looking forward to the next one!
I recently took a course where they taught that perfectly plotted novel with a slaggy middle and all the beats in place. Very boring. I was annoyed at the perfunctory process but their position on dialogue took me over the edge. Anyway, lovely exploration of what can be. I look forward to more. Thank you.
So first of all, thank you for “gummy” as a description for books. I think of a lot of fiction — much of it the variety of thing you’re writing about, I think, the ones where the interior and the exterior are oil and water — as “damp.” I’ve never heard anyone else use a similar simile to describe it but “gummy” resonates.
The division of plot and character is such a disservice to young writers or at least it did a great disservice to me. I think a lot of this is because writers tend to be drawn to their own ideas either because the concept is of great interest to them (plot) or the psychology and actions of a person are of great interest (character). And writers, especially starting out, tend to be lopsided, tending to be drawn to one or the other. For me, character psychology was the spark that lit the wick of my stories. And I saw other “beginning” writers (and some professionals) who wrote those books you’re talking about, where the characters are dragged nonsensically through a series of events, and I knew I didn’t want to write like that, and so I got this idea that the tools those writers relied upon — stuff like notes and outlines — were bad tools, because they were creating bad fiction. But of course the tools are not the main problem — that would be like saying like a hammer is responsible for shoddy construction. (I mean, I guess it’s possible, but the hammer would have to be utterly fucked, like shattered maybe?, for that to be true. It’s hard to imagine.) Once I began using actual planning and structure (it took an embarrassingly long time), I discovered that that was how I could put together all the stuff that was fun — the character stuff — with the events. And create resonance not by forcing it through in a series of bullet points, but by looking for the ways the interior and exterior create counterpoints and rhymes. And then feeding the things that are good and resonant and growing them up.
Thank you for making me think about all this. I always look forward to seeing Sweater Weather in my inbox.
A book that I think articulates well how a novel of situation becomes a novel of character and the tension between the two is “Gaudy Night” by Dorothy Sayers. Which is a mystery novel that’s also a romance that’s also a novel of both situation and character.
"The story of character is like watching people walk by your window for three hours and then trying to tell your friend about it. And the story of situation is like if all those people passing your window stopped so that they could be sure of your watching them pass your window."
Jesus, that's a bar.
I appreciate this essay, but it also makes me scared to ever write another sentence for fear that I am falling into these traps, especially as someone who tries very hard to ground my writing in the physical world.
Do you have a sense of how this happens, just in terms of the writing process? Do people sit down and overwrite a scene with the intention to come back and edit and just end up not cutting enough? Why do editors let this stuff go?
Brilliant essay. Feels like this also broaches on the idea of aesthetic and substance and more often than not, contemporary literary prioritises the former. Thanks for articulating it so clearly in this wonderful piece of writing.
Also, I wanted to ask if you have any recommendations on creative writing reference books?
I feel I have to ask since no one else has -- why the refusal to mention the gimmicky novel? I am not in any way saying this is done out of cowardice or allegiance (or simple politeness, or a desire to "be positive;" my intention in asking, as far as I can tell, is curiosity, not name-calling or derogation), but since I have no access to any author's intention, and since you mention that you adore both Knausgaard’s My Struggle series and Johanna Lindsey’s The Heir (with, to my POV, an implication that plenty of readers find those books gimmicky or trite one way or the other), I just found it somewhat surprising that you withheld the title/author in question and was wondering if you'd considered mentioning it. It was, to this individual reader anyway, a notable omission, and not least because you generally name the works you are critical of/give a negative or mixed review; recently Mike White's The White Lotus, for example.
so so good.
North Star!
This post is exactly what I needed at this moment in my writing. Thank you.
brilliant content, as per usual! i can’t even begin to list the number of novels i’ve read that displayed this particular flaw in narrative you described so perfectly, and it’s just great to finally see someone FINALLY put it into words. your blog is one of my favorites and i’m sincerely glad to see you’ve returned with new updates once again. :)
This was great. I finally know exactly why I don’t like so many books that I have read. Especially the contemporary books, young writers etc. Also, as someone pointed out, now I am really scared to write anything in fear of not being able to solve these writing problems.
This was such a delight to read, thank you. I must admit you make me want to rip out my hair along with everything I've ever written but such is the effect of brilliant literary dissection, I suppose. looking forward to the next one!
fascinating and thoughtful takes--thank you!
Such a brilliant essay. Funny and insightful. Thanks so much!
“A good novel...is all motion” music
I recently took a course where they taught that perfectly plotted novel with a slaggy middle and all the beats in place. Very boring. I was annoyed at the perfunctory process but their position on dialogue took me over the edge. Anyway, lovely exploration of what can be. I look forward to more. Thank you.
Such a gift, thank you
That was an absolute delight to read. Thank you <3