U.L. Harper: Content Without Words
Sometimes you get so hung up in making your story exciting and appealing for the readers that you forget to satisfy yourself. Uh huh, I said it. I mean, put it this way: What’s the point of writing a novel if no one is going to read it? It’s too much work to not be read. With that, obviously you think of your readers and potential readers. You think about the genre, the tone and do they match up. You think about the similes and the timing. Does it work? No, but really, does the tone and the timing work? You have to know. If you’re me you forget about elements you once strived to execute the best as possible.
But there is one element that I want to bring back into my writing—not that the element is absent all together—layering. I still try to do this, but at one point I was simply dedicated to it, not that anybody else cared but me.
So what do I mean by layering? Well, let’s see. In any scene there can be a multitude of layers. Most people mention the layer in the dialogue. You know, what the characters say. Another layer obviously is in the exposition, or can be in the exposition. And let’s not forget about the inner narrative. Oh yeah. That’s a biggie. I used to love to this type of narrative.
But this is where I ran into problems. There is a layer of a scene that really good authors can pull off well. These authors are sometimes considered boring or quite misunderstood. These authors write scenes about what characters aren’t saying or doing. That’s right. Really good authors will have a number of scenes in the novel where the characters don’t say what is actually going on. It might sound like normal talk to the average or below average reader and the well-read might not be impressed but I love it. It’s something I once strived for but have somewhat gone away from. Being misunderstood can only take you so far.
So maybe you’re wondering when you might have read something like what I’ve mentioned above. Think Catcher in the Rye. Most of the story is about what’s not actually being said. Holden Caufield seems to gather his observations from more places than just his eyes and ears and he talks about his observations in subtext, plenty of times. It’s why some people like the story and just don’t know why. Vonnegut layered his stories pretty well too. In one of his post humus short story books, Armageddon in Retrospect, he talks about war but always from a different angle, always with a different meaning. What that meaning is, you can’t easily shrug off, but it’s there. You know it’s there because when you talk about the story, it’s that layer that you’re trying to convey.
In my writing group, I regularly tell the writers to stop telling me everything. Let me figure out what I’m reading. Let me be creative. Let me connect the dots. Let me read and think and surmise, all the good stuff that comes with reading. But many choose to turn to adverbs and basically explain the story for me because, you know, why trust the reader?
Unfortunately, I’m no better most of the time, because, well, like I said, you want to be liked and understood. Let’s just say that I’m the only one of my friends who likes Cormac Mccarthy. I thought The Road was great. Apparently, it was just stupid and made no sense and had no chapters.
Apparently.
For me, it’s all going to change, I think. I don’t think characters need to respond to one another in dialogue. They need to respond to the scene. Sounds funny, but isn’t it an illusion that they’re speaking to one another in the first place? Let’s play with the idea. I don’t think characters should do what they’re expected. They need to do what’s in their heart, as cheesy as that sounds. You just have to make their heart make sense. It’s time to rerecognize that the most exciting part of the story, the most lasting elements are what’s not expunged or figured out in dialogue or exposition or even action but floating in the air, waiting for the reader to grab it.
A tough sell, I know. At the same time, it’s too hard to write a book to not even like it when all is said and done.
My new novel is called In Blackness check it out when you get a chance. Or take a look over on Goodreads.
U.L. Harper
But there is one element that I want to bring back into my writing—not that the element is absent all together—layering. I still try to do this, but at one point I was simply dedicated to it, not that anybody else cared but me.
So what do I mean by layering? Well, let’s see. In any scene there can be a multitude of layers. Most people mention the layer in the dialogue. You know, what the characters say. Another layer obviously is in the exposition, or can be in the exposition. And let’s not forget about the inner narrative. Oh yeah. That’s a biggie. I used to love to this type of narrative.
But this is where I ran into problems. There is a layer of a scene that really good authors can pull off well. These authors are sometimes considered boring or quite misunderstood. These authors write scenes about what characters aren’t saying or doing. That’s right. Really good authors will have a number of scenes in the novel where the characters don’t say what is actually going on. It might sound like normal talk to the average or below average reader and the well-read might not be impressed but I love it. It’s something I once strived for but have somewhat gone away from. Being misunderstood can only take you so far.
So maybe you’re wondering when you might have read something like what I’ve mentioned above. Think Catcher in the Rye. Most of the story is about what’s not actually being said. Holden Caufield seems to gather his observations from more places than just his eyes and ears and he talks about his observations in subtext, plenty of times. It’s why some people like the story and just don’t know why. Vonnegut layered his stories pretty well too. In one of his post humus short story books, Armageddon in Retrospect, he talks about war but always from a different angle, always with a different meaning. What that meaning is, you can’t easily shrug off, but it’s there. You know it’s there because when you talk about the story, it’s that layer that you’re trying to convey.
In my writing group, I regularly tell the writers to stop telling me everything. Let me figure out what I’m reading. Let me be creative. Let me connect the dots. Let me read and think and surmise, all the good stuff that comes with reading. But many choose to turn to adverbs and basically explain the story for me because, you know, why trust the reader?
Unfortunately, I’m no better most of the time, because, well, like I said, you want to be liked and understood. Let’s just say that I’m the only one of my friends who likes Cormac Mccarthy. I thought The Road was great. Apparently, it was just stupid and made no sense and had no chapters.
Apparently.
For me, it’s all going to change, I think. I don’t think characters need to respond to one another in dialogue. They need to respond to the scene. Sounds funny, but isn’t it an illusion that they’re speaking to one another in the first place? Let’s play with the idea. I don’t think characters should do what they’re expected. They need to do what’s in their heart, as cheesy as that sounds. You just have to make their heart make sense. It’s time to rerecognize that the most exciting part of the story, the most lasting elements are what’s not expunged or figured out in dialogue or exposition or even action but floating in the air, waiting for the reader to grab it.
A tough sell, I know. At the same time, it’s too hard to write a book to not even like it when all is said and done.
My new novel is called In Blackness check it out when you get a chance. Or take a look over on Goodreads.
U.L. Harper
No comments have been added yet.
