Robert Steedman

[RobertSteedman]

THE WRITING LIFE by Annie Dillard

 

 

1. How did the book help you as a writer? What overall aspects of it taught you something?

 

 

As a visual artist for over forty years, I have always known that art is challenging. The art of writing is no different. Writing is hard. THE WRITING LIFE by Annie Dillard confirmed that mantra. Writing is hard. Good writing even more so. It takes discipline, tenacity, and a thick skin. Just like Dillard and thousands of other writers, I struggle with writing. As Dillard stated, “... it is a lion growing in strength. You must visit it every day and reassert your mastery over it. If you skip a day, you are, quite rightly, afraid to open the door to it’s room.”’. I concur. Dillard’s coping mechanisms when attempting to tame the written word (chopping wood, gulping coffee, freezing in a cabin, taking long walks, more coffee, smoking cigarettes, etc.) demonstrates that even the most gifted writers struggle. They struggle hard.

Overall, Dillard taught me that even Pulitzer Prize winning authors struggle. Art is hard. Writing is an art. Therefore: I will struggle.

 

 

2. What two or three major lessons did you learn from the book that you can apply to your writing and/or your novel?

 

 

Lesson 1: Write about a subject you love that is unique. Dillard stated: “A writer looking for subjects inquires not after what he loves best, but after what he alone loves at all.”

It is through my own astonishments, idiosyncrasies, and pursuits of things that fascinate me, and me alone, that I should choose subjects to write about.

 

 

Lesson 2: Writing any type of book involves a structural problem. Dillard wrote: “ The problem is structural; it is insoluble; it is why no one can ever write this book. Complex stories, essays, and poems have this problem, too - the prohibitive structural defect the writer wishes he had never noticed. He writes in spite of that.”

Any writer worth his words will work with some type of underlying structure, whether its academic, commercial, or literary fiction. Writing isn’t ethereal as most non-writers believe.

 

 

Lesson 3: The art of writing is never over. Re-examine each word, paragraph, and chapter of your novel. Make it better. Make it sing. “Push it.” Dillard wrote. “ Examine all things intensely and relentlessly. Probe and search each object in a piece of art. Do not leave it, do not course over it, as if it were understood, but instead follow it down until you see it in the mystery of its own specificity and strength.”

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to re-examine my novel.

 

 

 

3. Was there anything in the books that obviously conflicted with lessons and readings in our novel writing program. If so, what were they?

 

 

Annie Dillard’s literary life grew up in a very different time and place when compared to today’s market. Back then, she loathed commercial fiction. She wrote: “Commercial intrusion has overrun and crushed, like the glaciation, a humane landscape. The new landscape and its climate put metaphysics on the run. Must writers collaborate?” She also wrote about moviegoers: “I cannot imagine a sorrier pursuit than struggling for years to write a book that attempts to appeal to people who do not read in the first place.”

 

 

I don’t believe today’s writers can afford to think as Dillard did in 1989. The world has changed dramatically. Today, less and less people read. When they do read, it borders on a FAHRENHEIT 451 approach: reading short snippets, getting the basic facts - if facts at all. Blogs, tweets, text-messages, and other forms of social media swarm the minds and lives of Americans swept away by a myriad of visual entertainment. We now think and visualize as if at the movies. It's in our social DNA. Dillard’s world of upmarket, intellectual writing is admirable, separating the men from the boys. As a culture it will always be necessary to have art of the highest order. But much to Dillard’s chagrin, today’s readers are visually savvy moviegoers. We emerging writers can’t afford to simply hope being the next Dillard or Chabon by ignoring this new cultural dynamic.

 

 

Author Salon’s approach to writing is, no doubt, commercial. It demands that students provide a rich cinematic verve within their novels. It stands in contrast to Dillard’s opinions. But I believe Author Salon’s approach is necessary in order to survive in today’s market. Its noisy out there. The AS Novel Writing Program levels the playing field, having students create works of fiction that read like cinema, offering brave, new writers a shot at being heard through the growing congestion of commercial noise.

[RobertSteedman]

WRITING THE BREAKOUT NOVEL by Donald Maass

 

 

1. How did the book help you as a writer? What overall aspects of it taught you something?

 

This book, unlike others that deal with writing, offers a far more intricate look at the New York publishing scene, how it operates, and the professional joys and pitfalls of being a commercial writer in that world.

 

While Elizabeth George and Annie Dillard write about the creative process, Maass goes one step further, offering insights into things like finding an agent, publishing deals, advances, and the like. These are all things we writers must consider if we get published. To an unpublished writer like myself, any insight into this alien world is greatly appreciated.

 

2. What two or three major lessons did you learn from the book that you can apply to your writing and/or your novel?

 

Lesson 1: Think big and bold. Half-measures avail us nothing. Make the personal and public stakes high, the characters larger than life, and the gut-emotional premise (no matter how implausible) logical.

 

Lesson 2: Use your setting to move the story along. Don’t just describe the setting. Characters must react to it, thus helping the reader understand the psychological point of view those characters are feeling.

Lesson 3: Be careful with your subplots. Introduce them quickly. Although they can enrich the novel, keep them to a minimum. They must add to the overall arc of the story. If they don’t - get rid of them. Or perhaps that overwritten subplot is bursting off the page because it wants to be the main plot or a different novel all together.

 

3. Was there anything in the books that obviously conflicted with lessons and readings in our novel writing program. If so, what were they?

 

I found nothing that contradicted the AS Novel Writing Program. It only confirmed AS. However, Maass does ruminate about Robert Mckee’s three act plot structure and other writing formulas. Maass writes, ‘I have come to feel that the hero’s journey is not a universal plot cure. The novel is too fluid a form to have one basic structure.’.

 

That said, Maass goes on in the next chapter about other structures/formulas used in contemporary novels, offering ideas on how to approach plot. Formulas serve as guideposts when writing. But one must be careful. They can appear obvious and clumsy when poorly written. A good writer can take formulaic approaches and worn-out tropes and turn them on their ear, making them appear fresh and original.

[RobertSteedman]

WRITE AWAY by Elizabeth George

 

1. How did the book help you as a writer? What overall aspects of it taught you something?

 

I’m always fascinated when learning about how another writer approaches his or her work. Elizabeth George approaches her writing very differently than Stephen King. King is different than Annie Dillard.

 

George’s approach to character development, plotting, and research is, to say the least, methodical. Her in-depth, chapter by chapter explanations of craft, technique, and process offers more tools for a writer to use when developing a novel. I learned how she fleshes out her characters by writing an extensive backstory for each. As an art historian, I particularly enjoyed reading about her approach to research when visiting and documenting architectural sights by taking photographs as well as creating a written catalog of sounds, sights, and smells of the places she visits. Most those details eventually end up in her writing, creating a believable reality, and making the setting a separate character of its own.

 

George’s methodical approach taught me that not all commercial fiction is written slap-dash. Good storytelling takes time and discipline in order to create something well-written and unique.

 

2. What two or three major lessons did you learn from the book that you can apply to your writing and/or your novel?

 

Lesson 1: Backstory. Backstory. Backstory. George scripts out detailed backstories for nearly every character before one word of her manuscript is ever typed. Much like Author Salon’s approach to character development, George’s is a well-tested method for fleshing out characters, making them easier to write about, bringing them to life when your fingers finally hit the keyboard.

 

Lesson 2: Like George, I usually plot out a skeletal framework of my stories on lined paper, somewhat knowing how my novel will end. George’s technique confirmed my approach. Now, when combining this approach with the Six Act Two Goal, I can firm up a plot even more before starting the first chapter.

 

Lesson 3: Most writers doubt their work. George’s journal writings before each chapter bravely displays her vulnerability as a writer. What author hasn’t thought as George did when comparing one’s work to great authors: ‘What am I doing? My God, I am so insignificant a storyteller than these guys. But then I tell myself that all I can do is my best, telling the story as well as I can, leaving the rest up to God.’

 

 

3. Was there anything in the books that obviously conflicted with lessons and readings in our novel writing program. If so, what were they?

 

If something greatly conflicted, I couldn’t find it. George’s thoughts and methods about creating rich characterization and careful plotting is spot on with the AS philosophy.

[RobertSteedman]

THE ART OF FICTION by John Gardner

 

1. How did the book help you as a writer? What overall aspects of it taught you something?

 

Far more esoteric than the three previous readings, Gardner made me dig deep as a student and a writer, forcing me to consider not only the techniques used in my writing, but my philosophical approach as well. I’m a technical and intellectual gnat next to Gardner. I highlighted with marker more passages in this book than any other. Gardner taught me to not be of afraid of an intellectual approach, tempering it with wise choices - and that perhaps, just perhaps, I may someday write a piece of commercial fiction that blends philosophy, good technique, and a darn good yarn into one.

 

 

2. What two or three major lessons did you learn from the book that you can apply to your writing and/or your novel?

 

Lesson 1: THE ART OF FICTION provided the foundation for a new philosophical approach: ‘Literature - is that of a vivid and continuous fictional dream.’ Gardner also wrote: ‘In bad or unsatisfying fiction, this fictional dream is interrupted.’

The dream is everything. Poor writing, poor word choice, and bad dialogue breaks the dream. My words and thoughts must flow, keeping the reader entranced from the first page to the last.

 

Lesson 2: Watch my vocabulary. Gardner wrote: ‘The immediate risk for the writer who works at developing vocabulary is that his style may become texturally over rich, distracting from the visual dream.’

How true. Clean, simple writing is probably best when creating the dream. But Gardner warns: ‘Limited vocabulary, like short legs on a pole-vaulter, builds a natural barrier beyond a certain point.’

Lesson 3: Listen to the rhythm. Gardner wrote: ‘In good prose, rhythm never stumbles.’ Also: ‘A good writer works out his rhythm by ear.’

I now read my prose aloud, listening to the beats.

Gardner was also correct when stating: ‘What an honest writer does when he’s finished a rough draft, is go over it, time after time, refusing to let anything stay if it looks awkward, phony, or forced.’

Not only does this technique help determine my rhythm, it forces me to revise or remove anything that breaks the dream. After reading Gardner, I went back to the first chapter of my novel and removed a descriptive passage because it felt forced, thus breaking the rhythm. The description was added later in the novel, flowing much better within the given scene.

 

3. Was there anything in the books that obviously conflicted with lessons and readings in our novel writing program. If so, what were they?

 

I found little that conflicted with the AS Novel Writing Program. Gardener confirms what AS has taught all along. Gardner prefers the authorial-omniscient point of view which operates much like the four viewing techniques used in Author Salon's 3POV. He believes good description moves the story along; all characters must struggle for goals; and an elegant plot must be developed to express the dream.