Home Games All LiteraryClubs Forums Green Room Poetry Prose Roleplays

what writing level should be used?

napalmerski · 2010-05-02T15:17:50Z

Hi everyone, I've been musing... What do you think should be the correct ration between writing on one's true level, writing slightly below one's true level, and trying to transcend one's true level? Let me elaborate by way of James Patterson and Dean Koontz. James Patterson wrote one novel at his very best ability back in 1976. Transcending himself and reaching levels of Chandler. His thrillers since then are on his true level, without forcing himself to trancend his limitations, he uses them as a formula for adventure. When writing Maximum Ride, he writes below his true level, successfully mimicing a juvenile style in spite of being sixty. Dean Koontz on the other hand, is in the throes of transcending his stylistic limitations roughly between 1970 and 1990, with each new book trying to expand his ability to weave mesmerising descriptions through a rich vocabulary. When reading Koontz chronologically one sees the torturous process of him trying to lift himself by his own hair out of avarage city and turn into an awsome writer. By 1975-6 he is almost there, with outstandingly described scenes followed by awkward metaphores, and by 1979 - 1980 he is finally there, impeccable by the measures of the suspence thriller style. By 1986 he outgrows the genre boundaries. So, on one hand we have Mr.P, who stopped the struggle to better himself as an author at a very early stage and decided to stay on his existing level, and sometimes to dip below it. On the other hand we have Mr.K, who constantly tortured himself to transcend his real level, and after about a decade succeeded. All three approaches have something to recomend themselves with. When writing below one's true level, one makes the impression of being very, very good. The reader gets the feeling that the author is capable of much more and thinks "there's a master sleeping here" When one writes at one's existing level, then the flow of the narrative is super-smooth, and the reader thinks "there's a dude who doesn't pretend to be better then the rest of us." When one writes above one's existing level, one reaches a weird state of being an "awkward master" I think is the most fitting description. So, when being aspiring unpublished authors like us, what ratio of the three approaches do you think should be used when wrting? To me it seems for now that one should write 40% of the time below one's level, in order to create texts which make the reader think he/she is in the hands of a hidden master; write another 40% at one's true level, in order to keep solidifying the gains of progress /assuming we are all progressing as time passes/; and the remaining 20% - torturous attempts to truly transcend one's level, if for no other reason, then to slowly help the lower two levels evolve. And if one actually succeeds in writing a convincing novel above and beyond one's existing ability - so much better. A bit convulted this long question, but I'm sure someone will understand it :D

Gender

Points 1090

Reviews 5

Sun May 23, 2010 9:56 pm

W says... · Sun May 23, 2010 9:56 pm

napalmerski wrote:In the end, I've come up with the following attempt at balance - writing in three-stage ascending waves:
1. write stuff I can handle
2. write stuff I can handle with difficulty
3. write stuff I can't handle
and then start over again.
This could be the best formula that combines feeling about in new territory while consolidating achieved gains

What exactly do you mean by things you "can't handle" or "handle with difficulty"? I always think when writing that if I like the story I'm writing about, it's not the idea of the story i'm having trouble with, it's the process of the creation of the story. I mean, if you actively think "this is hard, I can't handle 'this'" (whatever 'this' is supposed to mean) obviously it'll be more difficult to write.

el oh el

Quote

napalmerski

Gender

Points 1040

Reviews 117

Mon May 24, 2010 9:40 am

napalmerski says... · Mon May 24, 2010 9:40 am

Yo, W,
about feeling that one can or can't handle a project:
For example, if I plan writing a story about a kid walking in a park and meeting some elves and having some minor adventures, there's nothing there I can't descibe, so I think: "I can handle this."
If I plan writing a full-length fantasy novel where I have to describe majestic panoramas, complicated plot-twists, cities, battles and war-gear, port-towns and villages, I think: "maybe I can handle that, but it's gonna be very difficult."
If I plan to write a spy novel about a dude who flies all over the world, uses new technology, knows the procedures of all local police forces, and on top of all that I have to describe people's clothes, cars, gadgets, and have them maintain different authentic accents, I think: "I can't handle that. It will be an unconvincing pile of crud when I'm done with it."
There :smt003

she got a dazed impression of a whirling chaos in which steel flashed and hacked, arms tossed, snarling faces appeared and vanished, and straining bodies collided, rebounded, locked and mingled in a devil's dance of madness.
Robert Howard

Quote

There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.
— W. Somerset Maugham

what writing level should be used?

About / Info

Forums & RPG

Literary

Resources