Last Step: Poetic Language

[Poetic Language: Icing on the cake. Source]

I've blogging about how to write in a literary fashion. Someone recently asked about writing poetically. Most literary pieces give careful attention to the details of individual words. They're polished, and there's frequently something poetic about the words. But if I sit down to write something "poetic" with careful word choice, that becomes the focus. The meat of the story gets lost in the precious language. It doesn't make sense to decorate a raw cake. Bake the cake then decorate it, polish it, and make it unique. Preoccupation with perfectly polished and poetic prose comes post the writing of content. 

[Only add the color and beauty after the building has been built; source]

Step one is often the concept. Then, one does prep work, which can involve reseach, brainstorming, characterization, world-building, outlining, and several other steps. Then, one puts pen to paper, metaphorically or literally, to build up the story. Missing any of these steps can lead to an empty-feeling or incomplete piece. But only after you have actual content to edit do you start to look carefully at the punctuation, analyze each chosen word, and the careful crafting of language. Otherwise, it's like decorating a wall that's likely to get torn down or restructured, making all of that focus on the façade a waste of time. Only add the beauty, the shaping, the color, and decoration after the structure 

has been built. 

[Whimsy of Dr. Seuss]

Once you have the piece to the point that you feel confident in the story do you then look carefully 

at the individual punctuation, words, and overall shape of the prose/poetry. One can look at the sound of the 

piece, including repetitive sounds, some kind of rhyme. Alliteration, the same consonant sound repeated, 

or assonance, repetitive vowel sounds, can tie words together and emphasize individual words. It can also create

a sense of whimsy, as in Dr. Seuss and Shel Silverstein. Repeated hard sounds can make a text sound harsher, 

letters like a hard g, d, k, b, etc. An emphasis on softer sounds can soften the entire passage, letters like s, j, l, m, etc. 

[Vivid imagery pops off the page; source]

Good poetry also involves imagery and metaphor. If there are large spans where you're just telling the story instead of 

painting pictures with your words, there's a good chance it's not vivid enough. There is, however, a balance. If there is 

so much imagery that your story slows or even stops due to an excess of imagery, it may be a good idea to 

tone that down and use imagery to emphasize the important moments, to make them more vivid and visceral. 

[When the icing on the cake gets too purple; source]

Furthermore, one can structure sentences to enhance or reduce the intensity of sections of writing. Longer 

sentences make the text feel more relaxed, while shorter sentences make a piece more intense and frantic. 

If you're describing the beauty of the world you have designed, it's fine and expected to write long sentences. 

Though really long sentences, unless you're Charles Dickens, can often lose the reader. Sentences so full of

purple prose (elaborate description) can make the reader joy in the words, but long passages like that can 

bring any drama and tension to a screeching halt. I once read a book entirely written in purple prose. Nothing

happened for long pages at a time, even for the entire book. 

[From MacBeth; source]

Once one gets to the intensity of a climax, it's a good thing to write in shorter, more clipped sentences. A book written entirely this way, 

however, can wear on the reader. If everything feels like tension, it can become overwhelming. It's a good idea 

to have moments of tension interspersed with more relaxing moments to give the reader a break. This brings to mind

Shakespearean porter scenes. He'll include tense moments like those throughout "Macbeth," broken up by moments

of humor and whimsy, like the scene in which the world was first introduced to knock-knock jokes. 

[Your own writing; source]

Look over your pieces. Is there a place where it needs more poetic language? Are there places that could be tied 

together better with rhyming sounds? Are there places that could be enhanced with imagery or that could be 

sped up with a reduction of imagery and description? Look carefully at each word, each punctuation point. Reshape your 

writing for beauty and/or intensity, and your piece will have more power. 

Satire as a Funhouse Mirror

 

[Satire mirroring back the world; source]

I've been blogging about how to write in a more literary fashion. One kind of literature that has existed as long as literature has, back to Greek plays and possibly beyond, is satire. Satire is comedy, but it's not just that. It's a way to make a statement about something going on in the world in a way that engages the reader through humor. It twists an image of society like a funhouse mirror twists one's image when one looks inside. Satire is a useful literary device that should be used wisely.

[Shakespearean Clowns; sourcesource]

As with Shakespeare's clowns and modern comedians, purveyors of humor can tell truths that others either don't notice or choose to overlook. According to Merriam-Webster's definition, "A satire is a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn." Shakespeare's clowns say what others don't dare, mocking the members of regular society, from the royals to the peasants. These clowns stand outside regular society and hold up a mirror to society to show, "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" (As You Like It, Act V scene i). Satirists exaggerate events and characters to inspire laughter, which makes people feel and opens hearts and minds to a new perspective.

[Gulliver's Travels; source]

Satire takes something from the world and twists it until it's a ridiculous and extreme version, like a funhouse mirror flips, enlarges, and twists the images of children looking inside. There are many literary satires including Wilde's play The Importance of Being Earnest, Swift's Gulliver's Travels, A Modest Proposal, and Tale of a Tub, and Orwell's Animal Farm. These satirists make people laugh at themselves and their culture.  The Importance of Being Earnest takes the upper crust of British society of the 19th Century and makes it ridiculously self-indulgent and narcissistic. Gulliver's Travels mocks the intellectuals as well as the uneducated. Tale of a Tub mocks religions as well as academic writing through an extended allegory. A Modest Proposal sends up the racism of the British for the Irish and transforms it into shock over suggestions of cannibalism as a solution. Animal Farm roasts the Russian Revolution of 1917, showing it as the transition as one form of tyranny for another. All of these use humor and extremes to illustrate issues with society. 

[Finding Something to Mirror in Your World; source]

In order to craft a satire, one needs to first look around at the world and find something that is causing a problem, something that needs to be exposed. Then, push it to its humorous extreme through a story. If you see a problem with your school, your town, or anything else, you could find a way to twist it and turn it into an over-the-top version of itself to communicate a message. What could you do with satire?

Choosing a Head

[Choosing a perspective: source]

I've been blogging about literary writing. One of the first things a writer must choose when writing is what perspective to use when writing the book. There are many advantages and disadvantages to each kind of perspective. Third-person tends to be distant, though it doesn't have to be. Third-person omniscient, wherein the narrator knows everything about everyone and can show the thoughts of many parties, is an older approach and tends to be less common than it once was. Third-person limited is more personal, like first-person, but speaks from outside the main character's head with his/theirs/hers. This is one of the most common kinds of writing. First-person is a more intimate kind of writing, writing from the point of view of the main character(s). Everything is written in I/me/us/we. Second-person is somewhat rarer unless one is writing instructions. The writing speaks directly to the reader with you and your. This can work with fiction or poetry, but it takes a careful hand and isn't that common. Before one starts to write, one must choose one's approach because it doesn't work to hop between perspectives. 

[Third-person omniscient: the God's eye view; source] 

Third-person omniscient is one perspective, and this was once the most popular kind of storytelling. If one character's perspective isn't enough to share the full story, many heads can be used. Fairy tales and folktales as well as many classics were written in this form. The reader has the advantage of seeing all pertinent events from several perspectives. The reader can listen in on several people's heads in one scene, hopping back and forth to learn everyone's thoughts. When not handled with finesse, this method of writing holds no mysteries. If you're hopping back and forth between the main two leads in a romance, the reader knows all the time what everyone is thinking and feeling, so there's little tension. Hopping heads several times in a scene can get confusing for the reader, especially the young reader. It's often best to spend at least a scene with one character, so the writer can hold the reader in suspense for a short time. Spy thrillers, action stories, sci fi, horror, and similar books can work really well from this perspective. Timothy Zahn books often use this perspective successfully, including with his Star Wars books. 

[Seeing from a distance means seeing more and less; source]

There are benefits and drawbacks to the third-person omniscient perspective. There's a distance in this perspective that many modern readers don't love. Sometimes, in seeing all, the reader feels less. Yes, you hear a little about a lot of characters but less about just one. A perk of third-person omniscience is that the reader knows many things the characters don't, so the reader can use this to build dramatic irony, which is suspense based on the reader knowing something the reader doesn't. Dramatic irony can be used for horror, humor, or any number of other styles. Many classic works make this work; however, many writers have moved away from this omniscience of the narrator in favor of a more intimate kind of writing. 

[First Person: up close and personal; source]

First-person tends to stick to one head and explore the world and story from just one point of view. The writer dives deeply into that person's head and heart as in Twilight, Percy Jackson, and a large percentage of romance novels. Some successful stories tell a first-person story from two or more perspectives. Romance novels will often bounce back and forth between the two romantic leads, usually switching between heads every section or chapter. Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus series, for instance, spends chapters with each of five main characters. The more perspectives, the more chances the reader has to be confused. Each perspectival shift needs to be clearly labeled. It needs to be clear who the "I" in the text is for each chapter. 

[Head to head; source.]

There are challenges but also unique opportunities to writing in first-person perspective. For one thing, first person can be limiting because everything has to be told from one character's perspective. If the writer is describing what's in ANYONE else's head, it has to be a judgment based on appearances or insights. If you're in Mom's head, you can't suddenly jump to a view of how Dad views the world. It's okay to say, "I stared and dad as he shrugged, showing he had no idea." It doesn't work to say, "I stood there, looking at Dad. He didn't understand why." That's a head-hop and doesn't work in first-person perspective. Furthermore, it can be hard to describe the protagonist's appearance and the reality of the story if it's different from what the protagonist perceives. 

[Getting creative with perspective; the unreliable narrator; source]

Many writers use first-person to give the reader an honest view of the story, the characters, and the events. However, this is a great perspective for presenting an unreliable narrator, a narrator who cannot be trusted. It can be tricky to make the difference between the main character's perceptions and the reality of the story clear. If you want to try it, you'll want to research and read books with unreliable narrators. A lot of solid literary works have been based on that questionable gap between the truth and the questionable perspective of one character. In the doubt, a lot of meaning can be born. One way or another, first-person perspective can bring in an intimacy and personal touch other perspectives may lack. 

[Harry Potter as an example of 3rd person limited; source]

A lot of writers and readers are drawn to third-person limited. It has the advantage of intimacy, zooming in on one character's perspective to an intensive degree, like first person. For instance, the Harry Potter uses this perspective. If the reader learns about things external to Harry Potter's immediate vicinity only through dreams and similar experiences. It also has the advantage of flexibility, meaning one can focus one more than one character but do a deep dive in each. There's a bit of a distance, but it should remain in the eyes of the character featured in that book, chapter, or section. Once again, head-hopping can get disorienting to the reader, especially the young reader. 

[Different perspectives; source]

There are other kinds of perspectives, but they're more rare. There are second-person perspective stories that walk the reader through what is happening, but that takes a very very careful hand to pull off and isn't common at all. Also rare is the kind of perspective featured in "A Rose for Emily" in which the main character is part of a chorus, a chorus of "we" and has nothing to do with the actual thoughts, feelings, or actions of one character. It's a more observatory approach. I've also read a book or two in which the third-person narrator slowly goes mad over the course of the story, Ever After High book 3 by Shannon Hale. The narrator went from reliable and omniscient to thoroughly unreliable. A character within the book took over at that point as the first-person narrator. In other words, it's possible to start with one perspective and switch, but it's not often done. 

[Exploring perspectives; source]

Perspective dictates the reader's experience with the events of your story. The very same events can feel very differently if you're observing through the eyes of a kid vs. the eyes of an adult vs. the eyes of a distant, third-person narrator. One can choose a perspectival approach and switch it, but it's easier to choose which perspective works for your story, start there, and stay there. It's helpful to read what you plan to write and figure out how it's done then go with it. Does the perspective you are using work for your story? If not, is there another that can work? 

The Real Step One to Writing

[Clarity and broken things; source]

I've been blogging about how to write in a more literary fashion. This week's point is a little more basic than that. I've been saying step one to good writing is to make the reader care. To do so, you need to make a character care about something or someone--fiercely, if possible--then, show they are broken in some way, often that their heart is broken. If the character isn't broken, the world needs to be, something that needs to be fixed. At the very least, there ought to be a compelling question to move the story along. Something needs to drive the narrative, or the reader will drop out. Else where is the story? But it turns out there's something even more urgent that needs to be established. And that is a clear center of gravity. Above all, the reader needs to understand what is going on and who the characters are, so they can begin to care. 

[Chaos and Clarity; source]

I have read a few novice manuscripts in which nothing is clear. Because it's not clear, I have a hard time caring and will often drop out. It may be because the writer is trying to keep mysteries from the reader or are trying something mindbending in their manuscript, like "Loki" season 2. It tries to bend the mind so hard that the audience can't tell what's going on much of the time. "Loki" season 1 works so well because we first understand what's going on and care. Mindbending can work if the audience/reader has something onto which they can hold. It may be a character, a situation, a relationship. Something to hold onto, something to care about. But if the reader doesn't have that, it's hard to keep rule number two, which is to make the reader care. 

[Work with not against your reader with mysteries; source]

Rule numbers one and two create a firm foundation for everything to come. Mysteries in the mind of a reader can keep the pages turning if the mysteries are useful and not just to confuse. The reader wants to know you're working with them to reveal the truths of the narrative rather than against them by confusing them. If you can make the reader both understand and care, then, you can do all sorts of things with the narrative to come. Establish a character. Build that character and their world to a convincing and believable degree. Show the character's normal world, the relationships that show why they should care. It helps to show loss and pain but only if they matter, if they affect the character on a deeper-than-surface level. Basically, start in a place that makes sense and helps the reader invest in the character(s) and their world. 

[Hamlet; source] 

Only after you invest the time in your character and their world, enough to get the reader invested, can you take them where you want them to go. Hamlet's mind games with he court and particularly his uncle/stepfather work only if you understand what's really going on in his mind first, the way his father died and why that matters to Hamlet. You need to understand what's really going on to understand what comes next. Movies like "Across the Spiderverse" or "Inception" can go wild with mind-blowing events simply because you first have something or someone to care about. 

[Read together; source]

You may have achieved both of these items in your mind, but does the clarity and feeling in your text extend beyond your mind? Sometimes, what we're writing seems to be clear and gutwrenching, but is it really? It's critical to have readers confirm that they both understand and care. It's helpful to read your writing aloud to and with others. It's also good to get others, including a writing group, to support your confidence in your fulfillment of both rule one and rule two. Take your piece to someone else, possibly several someones. Ask them if you achieved clarity and caring. If so, wonderful. Proceed. If not, ask your reader what you're missing and fix it. 

Emotional Appeal that Transcends Language

 

[Godzilla Minus One; source]

I've been blogging about making any piece more literary. Mostly, I've focused on writing, but I've been thinking a lot about a recent movie I watched, "Godzilla Minus One." It was a hit not because of big Hollywood names or even English but because it spoke in a way that transcends language: storytelling of the heart. Such storytelling makes the audience care in a way a lot of recent big-budget releases don't because they fail to make the audience feel. 

[Emotional impact of good storytelling; source]

Good storytelling, whether it be with a movie, a book, or any other medium, makes the audience care. Good writing can open the mind, but often, step one in opening the mind is to open the heart. That's why so many articles start with personal stories about tragedy or loss. It's also why humorous articles tend to stick in the mind. If a storyteller can make the audience feel, the audience is more likely to listen/watch the first time and come back for more. This is what works about "Godzilla minus One." 

[Pilot: Source]

"Godzilla Minus One" had a budget of about  $15 million, far less than the average Hollywood blockbuster. It tells the redemption story of a kamikaze pilot who fled the military during WWII. When people learn of his past, they look horrified because he was supposed to give his life for his country. The audience watches his heartbreak and pain as he becomes a member of a found family who helps reassemble their country in the wake of the war, even as he ends up in situation after situation that brings him face to face with the titular monster. Each time and throughout the story, we feel the main character's pain and understand his motives. We are in his head. This can be the most emotional and inspiring kind of storytelling. 

[The Villain/central symbol; source]

The monster doesn't remain just a thing on the screen causing problems. Like the best villains, it externalizes his internal drama. Godzilla clearly symbolizes grief, pain, death, and so much more. It is the fear and agony that he, alone, can face, which continues to grow and become more dangerous every time he fails to defeat it. We forget we're in a theater reading subtitles but get swept up in his story. So much of the story is told in visuals that the minor matter of having to read subtitles hardly interferes with the reader's experience. It's a sci-fi story, but it has the potential for such wide appeal because of its emotional depth. Its storytelling transcends language and genre-specific appeal. 

[When storytelling becomes a chaotic mess with the emotional appeal of a mud puddle; source]

A lot of big-budget stories that have been released recently lack this or any emotional impact. Their creators seem to think that as long as there are heroes doing things on the screen, people will pay. But if all one feels when one watches or reads a story is frustration and/or boredom rather than the emotions intended by the movie makers, it's hard to make people want to come back for more. 

[Emotional storytelling; source]

Ideal storytelling elevates the material because of the emotional connection with the audience as happens in this story. Look at a piece of writing you've done recently. Can the reader feel the characters' pain? Are there specific emotional appeals to the main character? If not, what can you do to change that?