Young Writers Society

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So, when being aspiring unpublished authors like us, what ratio of the three approaches do you think should be used when wrting?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

A question for you: What if one's true level isn't good?

I believe one should always reach for a higher level. If you do not reach, you can never hope to improve. There wouldn't be masters if they didn't constantly reach for their limits and pound their way past them. I, personally, have found if I do not reach for better writing, if I do not take the time to look at the craft and try to use every aspect I can to create richness in the story and translate that richness to the reader (a very important step) then my story is lacking and is forgettable.

One of my favourite authors, Tamora Pierce, can show this reaching past limits well. You can almost track her progress as an author in each book she writes, and she writes about a book a year. Are her books formulaic? To a degree they are, but those formulas are slowly getting stripped out. This is why I still look forward to the new books she produces: each book is fresh in its own way, and I can't predict each one using her past methods of getting from point A to point B. Each book has its own twist, yet none of them are truly ambitious in breaking limits. But because Pierce is looking to improve her writing, she pushes her limits with each story.

A purely formulaic author would lose my respect quickly if I caught on, and they would lose my respect if a friend who's judgement I trusted in books gave me solid evidence their books used formula.

So always reach, especially if you're just starting out. If you don't reach, then you cannot hope to have truly great, or even truly good, writing.

I say you go to the level which will give you the most money.

Snoik, I had hoped at least you wouldn't push me towards writing 300 word vocabulary flying teenage werewolf magician latex vampire porn

Thanx for mentioning Tamora, Rosey, I'll check her out! ...though admittedly it does sound like an endless soap opera, from what I've seen in the web. None the less, I'll sample a book. If you can suggest which book should be sampled - super
Update: I chose 'street magic'

You might be a bit lost then, haha. That's book 2 of a quartet, and that quartet is after another one. So all the characters have a ton of history already and it might take a bit to get into everything.

I'd suggest "Terrier", which is the start of her latest trilogy. It's got a bit of previously-introduced characters at the beginning, but not much else. (She only has two worlds for the number of books she has produced. All the books in each world are interconnected in some way)

Thanx Rosey, Terrier it is!

In the end I read Street Magic. Terrier just didn't click, I was totally not in the mood for first person journal entries, I wanted a 'real novel'. Well, now it can be said that I've sampled Pierce's style. Mary Stewart or LeGuin she ain't, but it was enjoyable. There were no plot elements or descriptive moments which would make me say 'wow', or giggle, or grind my teeth, or think 'I wish I'd written that', but, as I said, enjoyable.
A bit tedious, like David Eddings, or post 80's Pratchett, doughy strands of TV serial subplots, with blunt social allegories lurking in every corner. At times the rhythm seemed to go into slight convulsions, with people speaking and behaving in improbable or identical manners, but that was balanced by bursts of 'Samuel Delany for kids' social details, which suddenly made everything very real for a while, before the fog crept back in again.
Thanx for introducing me to Mrs. Pierce, Rosey!

Considering that work was written the early 2000s, in a less-developed world than Tortal (next recommendation would probably be Protector of the Small for some good dialogue), I'd call taht pretty good. Circle does tend to have a few more social analogies, just from the nature of the world.

Yup,
so many writers out there, and it would take half a year just to assimilate the major works of each one. Ever since I realized how much reading I have to do, I keep feeling that I'm running out of time I have to stop that, that's an unhealthy attitude. There's more than enough time napalmerski, chill out! Stop inventing distractions and start writing, you lazy person, you!
Anyway, I pledge that by or before May 31st I'll have delivered my own sword and sword epic and it will show if the time in YWS has been enough to turn me into a passable storyteller. Blah, blah, drivel, gibber

I'm not entirely sure what to think of all that you said in the original post.

For me, I don't feel like I have a set level which I should write under, above, or directly at. How can one write above there level, anyway? Wouldn't writing above one's previously level make the new "above level" the current level? That's just my thought. Since you're never at a set point. I've always thought of writing as a perpetual movement towards perfect, but not in that perfection is a destination. It's a point to move towards. (Not a destination because it cannot be reached.)

I'd wonder why anyone would ever want to write below there level. If I wrote below my level I'd feel like I was throwing trash into the world and I'd feel ashamed to have shown that part of myself that had not given 100% to make the best thing I possibly could. I could understand, perhaps, the laziness that comes about when getting older, but at present for me writing below my level would probably mean writing bad. No one wants to write poorly.

Maybe I just don't fully understand what you're trying to say about this level stuff.

I myself am not sure what I mean:)
Maybe I'm looking for rationalizations to not constantly strive to jump higher than myself, but only part of the time.
The last real novel I wrote was a novel I didn't have the skill to successfully write. So faced with the choice of writing stuff I can write and concentrating all energy on reaching the level the novel showed I don't have, I guess I'm trying to not feel guilty about finding a working balance between the two approaches

By level, do you mean style (in terms of how formal/elaborate the writing style is)? I think one demonstration of writing talent (in stylistic terms) is the ability to control and vary one's writing style. This helps greatly with dialogue; especially jumping realistically between quotes from characters of different ages, backgrounds and/or education levels. Someone who can write sustained prose that realistically reflects the voice of a ten-year-old could be demonstrating more control than if they simply wrote as formally/elaborately as they could manage.

Yo Kibble,
I meant more or less the opposite
If, for example, someone writes a Maximum Ride type of book, a Silence of the Lambs type of book, and a American Psycho type of book, and realizes that one has almost reached the level for a good Maximum Ride type of book, but is light years away from being able to write quality Silence of the Lambs or American Psycho, and has in fact produced amateur crud, what should one do? Throw all energy into gradually being able to write what one has failed to write, or concentrate on polishing what one has already almost achieved?

Throw all energy into gradually being able to write what one has failed to write, or concentrate on polishing what one has already almost achieved?

Maybe a combination of both? You can write in more than one style simultaneously (on different projects). I guess it depends what you want, as well. Some people want to be more literary writers, some more mainstream. But I think you could potentially edit and rewrite more than one book at once.

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