Comments on: Thomas Sullivan: TIME TO JUMP THE SHARK

By: THOMAS SULLIVAN: STRIVING FOR IMPERFECTION | Storytellersunplugged

THOMAS SULLIVAN: STRIVING FOR IMPERFECTION | Storytellersunplugged — Fri, 16 May 2008 04:52:00 +0000

[...] I wrote with an airless clarity that was logical and absolute. I think a certain kind of beginner writer does this to a fault. Usually they are male. Usually they write about “things and events” or “ideas,” as opposed to incorporating “emotions.” I’ve covered all three of those elements in a five-part series here on StorytellersUnplugged, which is central to my writing philosophy. What the hell, here are the links: [SU 2006 04-16 SPIDERS AND SPUDS SU 2006 05-16 HORNED OWLS & OTHER HORNY BEASTS SU 2006 06-16 NAME THE BABY SU 2006 07-16 MARMADUKE (ER…???) GOES TO COLLEGE, or WET, NAKED & SCREAMING SU 2006 08-16 TIME TO JUMP THE SHARK ]. [...]

By: Sully

Sully — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:58:00 +0000

Thanks, Christine. The balance always seems to be the thing. Inevitably I look back at a novel of mine and think what it would be if the proportion of things-and-events, ideas and emotions were different. It’s nice to know what you’re looking for, but even when you do, you have to decide on degrees.

– Sully (Thomas Sullivan)

By: Christine

Christine — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:22:00 +0000

You nailed a bunch of somethings for me. But one of them is this: 2) Writers who write only things and events tend to have unconvincing characters.

I just finished 2 category romances in the same line, each with the premise of a couple on the run from trouble. Story A was gripping, Story B left me cold. And confused. I can usually follow things, I cut my teeth on Ludlum, but here I was lost in the ping pong match. I couldn’t get into the characters, and your #2 is why. The book was one action after another with no thought, or emotional introspection, except: hey, that dude/chick I’m stuck with makes my motor run. I blogged about it today, been trying to figure why A and B didn’t compare and then I popped over here, and mystery solved. I’m going to have to read the rest of your series. Very insightful.

By: Sully

Sully — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:03:00 +0000

Hey, John, thanks for zeroing in on things. Guess we could all opine on the aspects you cite, and in the end we’d have just that: opinions. But that says something too. Would you argue with me that the importance depends on each reader? For instance, when I want true word indulgence — for sound, for poetic devices, for rogue usages, for wit wedded to wisdom, for sheer beauty and expressive brilliance — I read someone like Nabokov. But ol’ Vladimir can be pedantic, obscure, full of self-told jokes, and if I want the same fair with a little less pointing at itself I’ll turn to someone like Mark Helprin. If I want honesty flat-out, I might go for some of Annie Proulx’s stuff or Cormac McCarthy, and if I want simplicity done with idiomatic panache there is always William Goldman. These are just touchstones for my mood. Every reader has them. Some crusade for one specific style and only one. Others, more eclectic, take styles in their own terms. As a writer, I want to HEAR what I write. I want those rogue usages if they come closer to artistic truth than mere functional language. Dunno if that’s major or minor. It’s major to me. If the reader has to consciously notice it, maybe that’s going too far. I like to think I have many styles. I’m never more flattered as I am when someone says, “Oh, you wrote that, and you also wrote this — but they’re so different!” I see you as having that kind of word motility. Dave has it right — it is like accents. But there are people who speak in several of those. Ever know a black person who has white idioms down and then you hear him speak in a patois to his rural southern family? What is it Twain is supposed to have incorporated in HUCK FINN, 37 separate colloquials regions? I don’t think you can spend too much time on language, even at the microcosmic level you bring up. Not that a writer has to. Honest Hemingwayesque tellings are a virtue. But if you do work at the obsessive level with words, in the end it still has to look effortless, else you’ve made yourself the show — or tried to. … Oh, I’m abusing my wrists today, not just because it’s my column day, but because whatever stress I create tonight gets neutralized tomorrow by the surgeon… Cheers and thanks.

– Sully (Thomas Sullivan)

By: David Niall Wilson

David Niall Wilson — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:07:00 +0000

Styles (to me) are sort of like the accents in different areas of the country…you can say the same thing a million ways…

Dave

By: John B. Rosenman

John B. Rosenman — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:56:00 +0000

I've enjoyed your series, too, Sully, as well as this last piece. You may have put your finger on the essence or major factor of style. Three languages, with three largely different effects on the reader. Also liked your suggestion that good genre writing should balance all three.

What I'm wondering about is this: most people, when they think of "style," think about words, types of words, arrangements of words, lengths of sentences and the like. Also, word choice. Faulkner, for example, used and perhaps overused "avatar," "repudiate," etc. My question is: how important an aspect or ingredient is that of style?

Hemingway's style tends to be simple and economical, with rarely a word you need to look up. Faulkner tends to write complex marathon sentences that sometimes
drive you to a dictionary. Is that a major part of "style," or only a minor part?

By: Sully

Sully — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:10:00 +0000

Nailed. Two ops tomorrow. Dental implant in the morning followed by a second carpal tunnel on the left hand. BUT…I am wearing a brace on both wrists when I paddle a canoe, and it is just a swan-song voyage (opposite of maiden voyage). If I had half to endure that you do, I’d tell you and I’d behave, honest. I do enjoy milking the sympathy, however. And anyway, my muse likes to canoe and all that other stuff. Write on and thanks, Janet.

– Sully

By: Janet Berliner

Janet Berliner — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:55:00 +0000

Terrific essay, but you’re off to canoe? Sullyman! Didn’t you have business to do today regarding teeth, gums, and tunnels of the carpal persuasion? When I grow up I want to be strong enough to keep you well and writing. Janet

By: Sully

Sully — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:20:00 +0000

Does that porcine porn version of THE THREE LITTLE PIGS star Miss Piggy? Think I’ve seen it. I’ll take the oink-link anyway. Thanks, Frank. If only they had flamingo XXX so that I could reciprocate. I’m off to canoe. Oinkers away!

– Sully

By: Sully

Sully — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:10:00 +0000

You know, David, that’s exactly what I feel I’ve done since coming back after dropping out of publishing to finish raising my son: written “…balanced meals of words and images” with a genre spin. Trouble is, if the genre hooks don’t catch on it, as you put it, you are floating out in open water with no “flare” that invites visitors to come rescue you from oblivion. That’s the problem. King, Koontz and the like transcended it in different times, but most writers will never get an audition across the stream that leads to general readerships and thus any label is a life jacket. We are all sideshows in this ever-burgeoning market of niches, grateful for what we have, but wishing we were not reflexively by-passed by readers of general tales, who might find something quite different from their expectations if they gave us a shot. Genre readers generally know this. The astute cadres of loyal fans understand it much better than mainstream readers. … Also, I’m glad to know it was not so damn easy for you to think as much as you do, because you think more than the rest of us put together. Fortunately, you also act. A “thinker” AND a “doer.” Aren’t you worried that’s a little ostentatious? Cheers, amigo.

– Sully