January 3, 2005
I've gotta run, but if you go to Paul Guyot's blog (see link above), he references Jim Warren's blog. I've got an excerpt here, and I'll get back to you later for a few more comments.

"Likewise, I find that experienced writers talk about technical things. I've never had another writer ask me where I got my ideas. The other writer wants to know how I thought of structuring a scene in a particular way, or what techniques are appropriate for a short piece but not for a novel, or whether using multiple POVs will make a story more interesting or not. In many ways, they are more interested in the choices we all make in telling the story than the story itself. They care less about what we write than how we write it."

Okay. I'm back now. What Jim's probably talking about is the difference between a good story and good storytelling. Because sometimes--not always--but sometimes, that's the difference between published and unpublished. A lot of unpublished writers have a good story. They just don't tell it well. A lot of how to do this comes from practice, from reading a lot (critically) and writing a lot and getting some sort of feedback and paying attention to it.

Caveat: not all unpublished writers have a good story. They have a good IDEA. This is worthy of a blog entry itself, probably. A good idea can be: Drunken man and family take job in isolated hotel for winter and it's haunted. How Stephen King wrote "The Shining," however, is both a good story and good storytelling. The good story part has to do with drama and conflict more than anything, which may or may not be separate from character. But conflict is what I'm after when it comes to a good story, because everything else falls into place.

I think when professional writers get together we have a tendency to talk less about technique and more about business-related issues like agents and contracts and marketing, dancing around any detail that might make us look unsuccessful, but I think Jim's right in that the professional, successful writer looks at technique differently than the unpublished.

Tim Drumheller, a friend of mine I worked with at Henry Ford Hospital, went on to get his PhD and now directs a laboratory somewhere--Colorado? I think. Anyway, like most degree programs at most levels, he had to take a lot of coursework that he suspected he'd never actually use. He asked his advisor about this and that gentleman said, "Do you have tools you your garage?" Tim says yes. "You have any tools in your garage you almost never ever use?" Of course, Tim says yes. "But you've got that tool just in case you need it."

Professional writers not only have more tools in their garage than the typical aspiring writer, but they know how and when to use them--usually. The when, in particular, is the art of writing, whereas the how and the specific tools you use--pov, word choice, pacing, what to leave in and what to take out, etc--is the craft. You can learn the craft. You can learn the art, too, but it's a much more subjective issue.

Best,
Mark Terry