I think I just had an apostrophe.
Feb. 13th, 2007 05:00 pm... You mean an epiphany, Smee.
As those of you who've been reading this blog for a while have probably figured out, I've been having some difficulties in the past year or so with my writing, much like the centipede who made the fatal mistake of thinking about its feet.
Roughly two minutes ago, I figured out exactly what those problems are and how to explain them, at least to myself.
To do so, I have shamelessly misappropriated terms from linguistics: deep structure and surface structure, which are not unlike genotype and phenotype, to misappropriate along a different axis of metaphor. The surface structure is what you see; the deep structure is how it got there.
In writing terms, the surface structure is plot and character. The deep structure is theme and symbolic correspondences and, well, structure. It used to be that my problem with deep structure was that I didn't have any--like most beginning writers. All plot and character, and you know, there's nothing wrong with that. But recently, stories have been coming to me with their deep structures articulated, so that I can tell you what any of the, er, twenty or so unwritten ideas I have is doing thematically, structurally, intertextually, intragenerically, etc. etc. etc. But I can't tell you the plot. And even if I know more or less what the plot is, I seem to have lost the widget that lets me actually write it--convert it, that is, from idea to story. The last three stories I've broken have broken because I've ignored the deep structure to write the surface structure.
And what I must now accept is that that does not work. Not for me.
(Creativity is subjective. My process is not your process is not that other guy's process. You do what works for you.)
And I have to figure out how to translate the deep structure into surface structure, how to take the thematic and symbolic armature and put flesh on its bones. The bones may be beautiful, but nobody's going to dance with them.
I don't know how to do it. But I refuse to believe it cannot be done.
As those of you who've been reading this blog for a while have probably figured out, I've been having some difficulties in the past year or so with my writing, much like the centipede who made the fatal mistake of thinking about its feet.
Roughly two minutes ago, I figured out exactly what those problems are and how to explain them, at least to myself.
To do so, I have shamelessly misappropriated terms from linguistics: deep structure and surface structure, which are not unlike genotype and phenotype, to misappropriate along a different axis of metaphor. The surface structure is what you see; the deep structure is how it got there.
In writing terms, the surface structure is plot and character. The deep structure is theme and symbolic correspondences and, well, structure. It used to be that my problem with deep structure was that I didn't have any--like most beginning writers. All plot and character, and you know, there's nothing wrong with that. But recently, stories have been coming to me with their deep structures articulated, so that I can tell you what any of the, er, twenty or so unwritten ideas I have is doing thematically, structurally, intertextually, intragenerically, etc. etc. etc. But I can't tell you the plot. And even if I know more or less what the plot is, I seem to have lost the widget that lets me actually write it--convert it, that is, from idea to story. The last three stories I've broken have broken because I've ignored the deep structure to write the surface structure.
And what I must now accept is that that does not work. Not for me.
(Creativity is subjective. My process is not your process is not that other guy's process. You do what works for you.)
And I have to figure out how to translate the deep structure into surface structure, how to take the thematic and symbolic armature and put flesh on its bones. The bones may be beautiful, but nobody's going to dance with them.
I don't know how to do it. But I refuse to believe it cannot be done.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 11:23 pm (UTC)"I don't know how to do it. But I refuse to believe it cannot be done."
Awesome quote.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 11:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 12:10 am (UTC)The trick in any kind of writing is knowing which thread to pull first; if you grab the right thread, the problem falls -- or can be shoved -- into an elegant shape. Hooray for figuring out yours.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 02:33 am (UTC)For a good way of converting theme to story, check out the story analysis stuff by the people who did Dramatica and Story Mind. I found it a useful tool when I had a thematic concept and didn't know how to illustrate it to move the story forward.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 01:01 pm (UTC)Usually if I have the characters and the thematic stuff and the shape, plot will generate itself. (Except this time, of course, when there's some shape thing I'm missing.)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 03:46 pm (UTC)Or not...
no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 04:31 pm (UTC)I want to say that I've conquered this and am now writing a book with plot and story intertwined, but I'm still fumbling along. My centipede has all left feet, apparently.
I love your journal, it makes me think about things like this. You rock so much.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:44 am (UTC)On the other, and totally off topic:
"The bones may be beautiful, but nobody's going to dance with them."
Makes me wonder how a Rengeek could say that without thinking of umpteen art examples of death and other skeletons dancing happily with the living...? Admittedly, it's more late Medieval than Ren, but it's still around for a while.