CLICK PLAY BUTTON TO LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW

(more…)

ShareThis

Some people, and some craft books claim that dialogue is more difficult to write then narration or action. Personally, I disagree. Writing dialogue has always been something I was good at. I think the trick is to have a good ear, and to have a good imagination for the way people communicate in a given situation. No craft book can teach this. But there is some very useful information about dialogue, more importantly, the mechanics of dialogue, to keep in mind.

The number one rule with good dialogue, is that it needs to be strong enough to function on its own. Often we think that we need to attach a character attribute, which bluntly states what the dialogue should have expressed. Example:

“You can’t be serious,” she said in astonishment.

The reader does not need to be told that she was astonished. Writing this way comes off as amateurish because it shows that the author is not confident enough in his/her writing, and feels the need to explain what should be expressed dramatically. The emotion belongs in the dialogue, not smuggled in through speaker attributes.

I say “emotions,” because this is most likely what we as writers are trying to express when we misuse speaker attributes. The other major reason to avoid this habit, is because applying these emotional tags at the end of a piece of dialoge will take the reader out of the direct scene, even if only for that brief pause. It is a distraction and will break up the flow of the action.

This is why “said,” is almost always the correct verb, as in “He said,” “She, said.” Said, is read in complete transparency, meaning it will only serve the function of letting the reader know who is speaking. This is extremely important to understand. The only reason for speaker attributes, is so that the reader knows who is speaking. All other information should be unnecessary, as in the obvious example of:

“I’m sorry,” he apologized.

You might have the urge to look at a page full of “he said,” she said,” and be nervous that you need to find a way to get rid of them. First, it is not as bad as it may seem. Readers do not pay attention to these things, only the writer does. But, if you want to break up the monotony of a scene cluttered with “said” attributes, one way is through beats.

“Beats,” are those little bits of action interspersed through a scene, such as a character walking to a window, or putting on his glasses. You could use them to remove a “said” or two, but be careful as this will certainly backfire if used incorrectly. And example that would work might be:

“Don’t even think about going out tonight,” she said.

He walked toward the door, pushing her out of the way. “Don’t wait up.”

The above example was able to rid itself of “he said,” by using a beat. This can work sometimes, but often it is best to get rid of the fear of using so many “saids,” and just go with it.

One thing to avoid completely, when looking for a way to replace all the “saids,” (if you still feel you have to) is adding awkward direct addresses inside the dialogue, in order to convey who is speaking. Example:

“Now Diana, you know better then to ask me that.”

Generally, people don’t talk that way, addressing each other directly. All these so called “tricks,” like the above example, only fool the writer. Readers know better and can spot it as lazy writing, or worse, hack work.

While editing, you might try to take a highlighter and mark every place an emotion is mentioned outside of the dialogue. Try to remove it, and if the dialogue is not better without, you might reconsider rewriting it so that it is strong enough on its own. As with everything else, balance is the key to everything.

“Good luck,” said the writer of this article to whoever has read it.

ShareThis

Q. How do we meet people in real life?

A. A little at a time, gradually getting to know them over time.

I think that this is important to remember when introducing characters to our readers. One of the most obvious ways we fall into this trap is through character summary. Why would we feel the need to introduce them all at once? You could also think of it like watching a play. A character does not need to be clearly understood by the audience before they appear on stage.

Character summary has its place, but when looking at ways to characterize, as opposed to summarizing our characters, remember that characters which are summarized become boxed in. It flattens them out from the beginning, leaving future actions which might not hold up to this initial summarization. My argument is that character summary which is shown, is characterization.

Defining a character the moment they are introduced creates boundary lines which the reader will use to interpret their actions. What I meant above by showing a character, is essentially to let the reader use their own interpretations/imaginations of a character’s actions to develop a sense of “who” they are.

Now, it is essential that we as the creators know who these characters are, their past, their motivations, etc. But, does the reader really have to? I like to think of it as less is more in the sense that more information does not make a character round.

Remember, character summary involves the past, which takes the reader out of the present. This is not all together a bad thing, but it has its time and place, and can when used properly not only develop a character, but it can also develop the rhythm of the narrative.

Here are some ways to establish character gradually:

• Through the way they react to a situation directly.
• Characterized by another character, NOT THE AUTHOR!
• Dialogue

Remember, we learn about people by what they say and do (dialogue and actions). That is the rule in real life, and to understand that and apply it to your story only makes it that much more real. All the information we wish to expose about a character must be done unobtrusively. Give only what is needed at a given time. One final point to consider which applies to using dialogue as a means of characterization:

• Look out for dialogue which is exposition or character summary in disguise. It reads like a trick.

I hope some of these thoughts make sense. Again I am not a fan of strict rules in art, but these techniques can add depth to your work, if that is what you are looking for. Keep this in mind when revising, and ask yourself if you have told us too much about your characters, when there should be enough information already shown for us to bring the character to life as readers.

ShareThis

This is our answer to the recent question we posted on Twitter:

JOSEPH CONRAD

What is your response? Leave us a comment, or tell us your pick.

ShareThis

The MFA Students of the Creative Writing Program at the University of New Mexico have started The Creative Writing Blog.

There you will find information about on-campus events of a literary nature from colloquiums and seminars, to theater, open mics, and readings.

You can read news about professors and students (past and present), publication progress of the Blue Mesa Review, and podcasts of the Works in Progress events.

They also post about events happening off-campus at local book stores, cafes and galleries around town. Albuquerque is a very cool town, so please check it out.

Jennifer Simpson contacted me to inform everyone of this new blog the students have started. She hopes this site will give folks a taste of what is happening at UNM, and around Albuquerque. Jennifer is currently enrolled in the MFA in Creative Writing program (creative non-fiction) at University of New Mexico. She has maintained a personal blog since 2004. You can check her blog out at akajesais.com

ShareThis

This is probably the most talked about situation that a writer faces, and there are many books which try to force us into the habit that “showing,” is better then “telling.” I hate these books, and I hate this rule even more. One is not better then the other. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to us in the revision process to decide which is better to use. By understand the uses each have, and deciding which one will make the writing stronger at any given time, we as “editors” engage our stories on a deeper level, and end up learning something about them we as “writers” maybe did not know.

A scene happens in real-time. Summary takes place after the fact. A scene happens someplace, so it is a good idea to describe that place. Using a scene to show something that happened, and describing the setting, invites the reader into the story. Without this invitation you run the risk of your story becoming a lecture, and will be received as enthusiastically. As important as “narrative summary” (telling) is, it is just not as compelling to read as a drawn out scene. Think Henry James.

Some aspects of the story are better off being shown, exactly because they are more engaging. This could be a character emotion, or an important plot development. One way to show an important aspect of a character’s personality, is through dialogue.

Telling:

“She was a very emotional girl, filled with a deep hatred for her father.”

Showing:

“Fuck you dad!” Marlyn said.

The trick is to know which information is important enough to find a way to bring it to life as strongly as possible, and which is better off being conveyed in less dramatic ways.

Now the reason I hate the theory (even if only implied) that showing is somehow better, is because if this were true there would be no contrast within the story. Narrative summary has its own set of strengths and is just as important to master. For one thing it sets the rhythm of the writing off, and provides needed breaks. Brief, intense scenes become exhausting. Not all information needs to take place in real-time, therefore a narrative summary of events provide these breaks and shifts in rhythm. These pauses in action build up the tension and provide the accent mark on the scenes which will be dramatized, making them that more powerful and important.

An example could be for scenes where there is a lot of repetition. If the story is about a race car driver, and you dramatized every race, what would be the thrill of reading about the really important one which happens at the end?

The only real rule of thumb I would suggest is that anything which is not absolutely necessary for plot development, could be summarized, so long as those scenes which are important are given the proper attention. It comes down in my opinion to a matter of rhythm, which is perhaps the most important thing to consider as a writer. Yeah, you could get away with anything so long as you have the ability to pull it off, and here I think rhythm is what gives certain writers the ability to pull it off. Think Henry James.

In this article I talked about the old showing vs. telling debate, but only really on the large scale issues, like plot development. Keep in mind these decisions apply to issues on the smaller scale, such as characterization, and with that I mean the urge to apply a million details about a character. A round character is not always so because every detail of his/her life has been explained. A few good scenes relating the same information might make the character more memorable, but it is up to you as the writer to figure out where, when, and how.

Finally, I tried to strike upon some of the positives and negatives of both. I tried to stress the importance of understanding your story enough to know what has to be shown, and what can be summarized, and to think about rhythm to keep that balance interesting.

For the next post, which will be shorter I promise, I will talk about characterization vs. exposition. Please comment on this post and let me know your thoughts…uncensored of course.

ShareThis

“I suppose some editors are failed writers; but so are most writers.” –T.S. Eliot

This is the first in a series of articles which will cover the art of editing. I am a fiction writer, so what I am contributing is based around the editing process involved when working on a novel or short story. That is not to say that some of the techniques do not apply to other genres, it is just beyond my expertise to say exactly where they overlap.

I thought I would start out this series with an answer to a very simple question. Why self-edit? That answer is of course, because nobody else will.

“From my experience, there’s very little editing being done in the publishing houses anymore,” said Mr. Demaris, the author of 15 hard-cover books.”

The above quote is taken from an interesting NY Times article, titled, “A New Deal for Editors.”

The truth is that the days of thoughtful, supportive editing and editors are over with. Nowadays, authors, and especially first time novelists, are being “printed,” rather then “published.” Do to slipping sales, publishing houses are editorially short-handed. It is a fact that behind almost all of the great writers, was a great editor. Would Hemingway and Fitzgerald have written the way they did without Maxwell Perkins?

Now, what does that mean for someone like myself who is working on a novel? Since the goal is to see our work into its fullest potential, it means that it is going to be up to us to see to this, for the most part, alone. I do not think, no matter how inspired the writing gets, that my work would ever be able to stand alone without the help of someone else’s reading. One of the aspects of my MFA that I appreciate most is to hear what others have found lacking when they read my work. We have to learn to accept that if we want to be published, we must also work for our readers. Editors are a good bridge between these two extremes.

What I think needs to be understood is that if this role is going to be left almost entirely up to us, we have to develop a split personality in regards to our work. On the one hand we have to allow ourselves the freedom to create, and the freedom to express ourselves and to tell our stories for the pleasure of what it means to us. On the other, when that is over, we have to completely shift gears and focus on making it the best it can be for other readers. One is not always the same.

As cliché as it might sound, we have to read our writing like editors. We have to see our work the way an editor might see it, and do to it what a publishing house might have done. With that said, the time to edit is in my opinion not while writing the first draft. The processes of writer and editor are too far off.

In the series of articles which are to follow, I will be talking about some of the main points to consider during the revision process. It is important to keep in mind that these rules which relate to craft are not always open to the artistic, creator side of our personalities. But that is fine, because we are not working in that element for the time being. We are going to be looking at our work like editors, and in the end by combining the two we will hopefully bring our work to the best that it can be.

ShareThis

Ohio University is one of the first universities in the country to offer a Ph.D. in Creative Writing. It is home to a thriving, widely respected graduate program with concentrations in poetry, fiction, and creative nonfiction. Small by design, the graduate program offers a comprehensive curriculum, an award-winning faculty, and the intimacy of small classes.
Students in M.A. and Ph.D. programs enjoy:

• Nationally competitive graduate stipends, up to $15,000 per year, with opportunities to teach a wide range of courses, including creative writing workshops

• Generous graduate student travel funding

• Editorial fellowships on New Ohio Review, Quarter after Eight, and Brevity

• Opportunities to interact with distinguished visiting writers, including funding for long-term mentoring arrangements

M.A. candidates complete two years of study and write a thesis of creative work in their genre. Doctoral candidates must complete five years of study, comprehensive exams, a major critical essay, and a creative dissertation.

For more information, visit them on the web at: http://www.english.ohiou.edu/grad/cw/

ShareThis

Brian Russell wrote this response to an original post written about some of the drawbacks of the low-residency MFA model, originally titled “Low-Residency MFA Thoughts.” He expressed how he could relate to some of the points of the original post, but wanted to use his experience to show that the low-residency program does not always have to be that way.

I thought I’d take a moment to share some thoughts. I read a posting written by a man who is attending the brief-residency program at Murray State in Western Kentucky. He expressed the frustration with getting close to people during the residency portion and then losing touch with them during the “at home” time.

I hear what he’s saying. And, it doesn’t have to be that way.

I am attending the brief-residency program at Spalding University in Louisville, Kentucky. This coming May will be my third of five residencies, and I will soon be beginning my third of four terms in the MFA program. First off, let me say that my experience at Spalding has been very, very good. Wonderful faculty, rigorous program, intense but hugely rewarding residencies.

I am fortunate to have become involved with a group of fellow Spalding students, and we email each other every single week. We share what we’re up to in our reading and our writing and, in this way, we are able to keep some semblance of that deep connection that students (artists) develop and enjoy and thrive on during the residency period in such a program.

It doesn’t take that much to do, but what it provides in terms of continuing support, of reminding one’s self that you are not alone in the challenges you face, is priceless. So, I encourage all students enrolled in brief residency programs to find a way to keep connected through the many months between residencies. Email each other. Talk on the phone. Write letters. Whatever works. We aren’t alone, but only we can make sure that we don’t feel alone!

–Brian Russell

You can read more from Brian Russell by visiting his blog - Another Chicago Writer

ShareThis

Currently I am attending a low-residency MFA program offered through Murray State University. Overall the experience has been good, and now that I am in my final year I have started to reflect on it more and more.

First of all, I am no freshman when it comes to the low-residency model. I did almost three years of study this way at Goddard College as an undergrad, and I have always felt that in some ways this system is more challenging then the traditional, classroom approach.

First of all, when you explain to someone that you are in a low-residency program, no matter what, the first thing you will hear is, “Oh, is that like an internet program?”

I know this seems like no big deal, but trying to explain to people the unique challenges and opportunities that are available through low-residency programs, quickly gets old. At Goddard they told us it was not our job to explain the way the system works, and I think this is good advise to follow into any MFA.

The other drawback comes from the intenseness of the “residency,” or the time you spend in the company of other students. For that week or ten days, you will feel so at home, have so many good experiences, and learn so much about yourself as an artist. The whole time you will come to understand the importance of being around other artists. You will exchange emails and promise to keep in touch and critique and support each other throughout the semester, and then everyone will go home, go to work, and most likely not talk with any other students until the next residency.

I have found that the intensity of the residency really motivates me, but that momentum always fails after the first few weeks out. There is something to be said about being in constant contact with other writers and artists, and when you have it, and have it taken away, it can be a huge let down.

I know it might sound like I’m coming down hard on low-residency MFA programs, but after reflecting on my own experiences at Murray State, and having grown used to these major flaws in the system, I still think that for some people, myself included, it is the only way to go.

I have learned how to keep myself focused, even if I am not surrounded by a bunch of creative people who support everything I do and write. I was able to live for three years overseas because I was not confined to one campus the whole time. By taking part in these intense residencies, I know that the “workshop,” atmosphere is something I really enjoy being a part of. And, most importantly, I have discovered what it means to design my study around myself, and how much more practical that can be.

In a year I will graduate, have to adjust to the changing times, and most likely the people I have met at Murray, or Goddard for that matter, will just become people I email less and less. But I will always be able to push myself to keep at this writing thing, and the one thing that I absolutely know for sure, is that I am a better writer because of the last two years I spent going down to Western Kentucky twice a year to share my work and my time with other writers and mentors in the program, and I am also a better writer because I was able to pursue other passions which took me other places, while I was earning my MFA.

– Bryan Marovich

ShareThis