Are We Wrong?

Mark Paxson

We spend a lot of time around here bashing the idea of rules for writing. Particularly in our video chats. But …

The local writers’ group is hosting a conference in September. I was looking at the speakers. One of them teaches creative writing at a local community college and will be teaching writers how to write a dynamic scene that moves the story along.

Just the idea of teaching a creative writing class made me wonder and ask the question in the title of this post. Are we wrong about our ridiculing of the rules of writing?

The reality is that all writers are guided by conventions or rules or structures or something similar in their writing. Whether writing to the conventions of a particular genre or following the three act structure or paying attention to voice or countless other things, we all do some of this. Some more consciously than others.

I know that if I do it, it is in my subconscious. I just come up with an idea and start writing and go from here to there and to over there and eventually wind my way to an ending. Without regard to genre needs or three acts or needing a conflict here or a dramatic scene there. I just … write.

But I do know that there are things that I’ve learned in decades of reading books voraciously. That had to do something to me that impacts how I tell a story when I sit down to write. All of the books I’ve read over the years taught me something. They must have. And so, maybe the “rules” have been embedded in my subconscious and I follow them, or at least some of them, without even thinking about it.

But back to that speaker who teaches creative writing. I shudder at the idea of taking a creative writing class. I shudder at the idea of an MFA program. I just feel like those are environments that demand … rules!!

A couple of months ago I participated in a book fair at a local book store. they had an author speak about her writing and publishing process. Throughout her presentation she kept on saying things with the lead in “okay, you have to do x.” I wanted to run up there and tell her to stop. To knock it off.

But maybe there is a point to some of this for some writers. Maybe a lot of writers. Maybe the “rules” need to be stated for some instead of being processed below the surface by others. Maybe there’s something to be said for providing the guidelines and structures for writers and not being so dismissive of the “rules” of writing.

I don’t know. I still think that a lot of what passes for the “rules” is nonsense, but if it helps some writers do their thing, I’ll let it go. Even if I occasionally ridicule those “rules” here and elsewhere.

What Is Literary Fiction?

By Audrey Driscoll

This question came up at the most recent WSW chat session (which will be posted here in the near future). It looks like we will need yet another session to thrash it out further, but I thought I would muddle some ideas around before that.

Here are some irreverent descriptions of literary fiction:

  • Books you have to read in English Literature classes
  • Great literature (they say)
  • The Classics (whatever that means)
  • Long, boring books written by dead guys
  • Long, boring books written by snobs
  • Books that critics write about
  • Books that get awards like the Pulitzer, the Booker, or the Nobel
  • Books that are good for you but no fun to read
  • Books with symbolism and allusions to stuff in other books
  • Books that don’t really have a story, just words
  • Books where you can’t tell what’s going on
  • Books you put on your shelf.

I’m sure you can add to this list.

It’s a lot like the question of what is “classical” music, and where is the dividing line between (hoity-toity, highbrow, inaccessible) music and the (familiar, predictable, head-bobbing) sounds of popular music. A question with no easy answer, it turns out.

And not one I’m about to debate here.

Getting serious, here is a definition from the Wikipedia article on literary fiction: “…novels that are character-driven rather than plot-driven, examine the human condition, use language in an experimental or poetic fashion, or are simply considered serious art.”

The main characteristics of literary fiction are:

  • Character-driven
  • Realistic examination of the human condition
  • Uses language in an artistic way.

It can be argued that literary writing refers more to style than to actual genre. After all, a romance, a mystery, a fantasy, or a thriller can possess these characteristics along with the necessary genre tropes. In fact, such a story would probably be richer and more interesting than one focussed primarily on plot.

There is also the problematic implication that literary fiction is somehow superior to genre fiction, that its readers are more intellectual and sophisticated than those who read for entertainment and just want to find out who did the murder or how the couple will achieve happiness.

I think it isn’t really necessary to classify books by genre unless you are running a bookstore. These classifications are part of the book trade. Even online ebook stores use some form of genre labelling, with “Literature” being given its own slot. I wonder how useful this is, really. Book retailers must make their products searchable, but surely that can be done through tags and keywords?

Genre labels—assuming “literary fiction” is a genre—do tell potential readers what to expect, up to a point. The trouble with this term is it covers a vast territory, everything from serious, slow moving, socially-conscious novels to plotless experimental fiction. Moreover, there’s a lot of genre bending and genre lumping going on, even by “literary” writers.

You want to know what I think? It doesn’t matter. Now that books no longer have to pass the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, there is no need to adhere to the labels of that world. Any book, no matter its genre, can be “literary,” meaning it’s character-driven, presents the human condition in a realistic way, and is written with an awareness of the artful possibilities of language.

Not every book needs to have these qualities. It’s perfectly okay to write and publish books where plot is the main driver and the characters are recognizable genre types. As for language, all writers should use it competently, if not always artfully.

Readers are quick to recognize books they like. Some will keep reading even if the style or content is unfamiliar or uncomfortable, but many will not. That’s perfectly okay too; there’s no shortage of books. Every reader can find more than enough to suit them, and those who cannot are free to write and publish whatever they like.

Fellow writers, do you read or write literary fiction? Do you think it’s a separate genre, a style of writing, or something else altogether? And do you even care?

Photo by Ravi Kant on Pexels.com

Looking For Some Advice

I’m faced with a potential conundrum, one of my own making, and I’d be curious to know what the collective writer/reader wisdom around here might think.

A couple of years ago, I published a contemporary YA novel. It is a story that isn’t necessarily finished and I planned on writing another volume in the tale at some point. And maybe even a third. The story about these characters could go on for some time, if I wanted to let it.

But there are other stories and characters I want to spend my time with. There is, however, an open storyline from what I published a couple of years ago that I want to provide closure to. I’ve now started writing what comes next. Which leads to my question.

The published book consists of three parts that are each in the 25,000-30,000 word range. If I do what I am planning, I’ll be writing a fourth part of comparable length. (There is a slim chance that I’ll end up writing more as I get back into the story, but for sake of this question, assume that I’m just writing one more part equal in length to the first three parts.)

How do I go about publishing that? Do I tack it on to the end of the first book and publish the entire thing? (What does that mean for the people who have already purchased and read the first three parts? I’m assuming they won’t really want to pay for what is essentially 75% something they’ve already read before.) Do I publish the fourth part separately? (If I hit 30,000 words, it can be a stand alone ebook and a slim paperback. But then how do I market it to make clear that potential readers should buy the novel first.) Do I do both? Or maybe none of the above? Or … do I suck it up and write a full novel-length sequel to the thing?

AI As a Fiction Writing Tool

by Audrey Driscoll

As an experiment, I wrote a short story I called “The Green Flash” and then presented its basic elements to ChatGPT and asked it to produce a short story incorporating them. You can read the results in this post on my personal blog.

It took the AI a few seconds to produce its 755-word story. It took me the equivalent of 2.5 standard working days, spread over several weeks.

I did not refine the ChatGPT story in any way. But I reduced mine by a third to make it more comparable to the AI version.

I have to admit, the AI’s version of the story, which it titled “Run for Janey,” isn’t bad. It has an arc, it hangs together, it’s even mildly exciting and ends with an “aww” moment. Many would say it’s a perfectly good story.

A few observations:

  • My prompt didn’t say it was the couple’s 50th anniversary. ChatGPT added that detail independently.
  • I did not specify that either of the photographers took photos of anyone, but I guess ChatGPT knows about Chekhov’s gun.
  • ChatGPT seems to have a positive, sentimental outlook, as well as a sense of humour.
  • ChatGPT doesn’t always show rather than tell, and it doesn’t mind using adverbs or stock phrases (i.e., clichés).
  • The green flash is more dramatic in the AI version.

Based on this rather superficial test, I conclude that AI may be a useful tool for fiction writers, especially those under pressure to produce text quickly. It would probably be a good idea for those writers to work on creating effective prompts and refining their inputs.

Have I done that? No. Do I intend to? I’m not sure. I have admitted that crossing the gap from story idea to a first draft is my toughest writing challenge. It’s obvious that AI can do that easily, but I don’t know how much effort would be needed on my part to revise prompts and repeat the AI’s text generating routines before the results would match my intentions for a specific story. It could be I’d rather stick to using my aging brain.

Take the story in my “experiment.” I think “The Green Flash,” written 100% by me, is a better short story than “Run for Janey” by ChatGPT. If I had started by prompting the AI and working with the resulting text, I don’t know what sort of story I would have ended up writing, or how much time and effort would have been required to produce something I thought worthwhile.

Logically, the next experiment would be to prompt an AI with elements from one of the many story ideas in my notebook, and see if I could turn the results into a real story more efficiently than my current process.

The real question is which method of producing written fiction is more congenial and effective for any individual writer. Some may have no interest in engaging with AI; others may be motivated to try different AIs and learn how to use them effectively.

In the latter case, should the human writer credit whatever AI they use as a co-writer? Or is the AI analogous to all the mental inputs a writer has had over their lifetime, from everything they’ve ever experienced, read, and learned, all the movies they’ve watched, all the conversations overheard. Because really, our minds are repositories of all this stuff, and it’s from these wells we draw the ideas for stories and the words in which we embody them. It could be argued that AIs do the same, only more efficiently.

Writers, what do you think of artificial intelligence as a fiction writing tool? What sorts of writing projects have you used it for?

Feature image photo by Audrey Driscoll enhanced with Canva.

Lost Stories

I’m not the most organized person.

In the early years of my life as a writer, I was in a writing group. We would start each session with a short writing exercise. One such exercise went like this. Write for five minutes about a place. Then five minutes about a person in that place. And finally, five minutes about something that happens in that place.

I wrote about a church on a hill and an old priest who presided there. And finally, about a man who came to the church to find answers to his life’s struggles. When we read our efforts, others seemed to really like what I had done, and I did feel like I had caught something in those 15 minutes of writing.

I didn’t follow up on what I produced for a couple of years. Why? Because I lost it. At some point, I decided to return to that piece and carry it forward. I searched everywhere and couldn’t find it. I gave up.

Around six months later, I thought of it again and searched again. I couldn’t find it anywhere. At some point, I decided to try to recreate it, but what I produced lacked what I had captured in the earlier piece. I gave up again.

Around another six months later, I searched again and found it buried in a notebook. I then took that piece and wrote my second novel — what I think is my best work, but it was published for only a short period of time because it has some autobiographical details that caused too much hurt for others.

More recently, I was searching on my blog for something I wrote for Father’s Day a number of years ago. The search terms resulted in the first result being a story I wrote in response to a writing exercise on Toasted Cheese. The exercise was a more manageable version of NaNoWriMo. Instead of 50,000 words in a month, write 167 words a day for a 5,000 word short story.

I have absolutely no memory of the story I found. It’s not complete and now it’s been added to the ever-growing list of ideas, starts, and half-completed stories I hope to get to before my time on earth is done. Finding this story makes me wonder what else I’ve forgotten about, either in notebooks or in the bowels of my blogs.

So … how do you maintain your story files? Like me, are they everywhere and anywhere? I have notebooks from the early days of my writing life, scraps of paper, folders and piles from those days. These days, everything I write ends up on the computer, on my laptop’s hard drive, an external drive, and more recently in the OneDrive Cloud. But there may be other things on my blogs that aren’t in any of those locations.

Or, have you managed to maintain some semblance of organization and know that all of your stops and starts are in one location and you remember everything you’ve written?

Is the Grass Greener…

If you have ever wondered what you’re missing as an indie author vs a traditionally published author, now you can find out. All you have to do is listen to the Publishing Rodeo Podcast to hear traditionally published authors candidly talking about their experiences in getting their books published and then decide for yourself if the grass is really greener on the trad side.

I find myself looking forward to it each week, even though I have no interest in traditional publishing. I just find writing and publishing a very interesting subject. If you are interested, it is best to start at episode 1, as that episode lays out what most traditional authors won’t say for fear of getting on the wrong side of their publisher.

Going Straight To The Source

With all of noise about AI and whether creative folks, including writers, should be worried (yes, there was just a tweet asking this very question … again), I decided to go straight to the source.

I asked ChatGPT whether writer should be afraid of artificial intelligence. Here is the answer that I hope settles the debate. 😉

As an AI language model, I can understand why some writers may have concerns about the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of writing. However, I don’t believe writers should necessarily be afraid of AI. Here are a few points to consider:

  1. Augmentation, not replacement: AI technology can be seen as a tool to enhance and support the writing process, rather than a direct threat to human writers. AI can assist with tasks like grammar and spell checking, generating ideas, providing suggestions, or helping with research. Ultimately, the creative and critical thinking abilities of human writers are still invaluable and difficult to replicate.
  2. New opportunities: AI has the potential to create new opportunities for writers. For example, AI-generated content has been used for various purposes, such as generating news stories, product descriptions, or sports reports. While this may raise concerns about the authenticity of the content, it also opens up new avenues for writers to collaborate with AI systems or explore creative projects that incorporate AI elements.
  3. Uniquely human skills: Writing involves more than just assembling words; it requires emotional depth, unique perspectives, and the ability to connect with readers on a personal level. These are aspects that AI currently struggles to replicate convincingly. Writers can focus on developing these distinctively human skills, which are highly valued in creative and literary works.
  4. Ethical considerations: It is important to be aware of the ethical implications of AI in writing. Issues like plagiarism, copyright infringement, and the responsible use of AI-generated content need to be carefully considered and regulated. By upholding ethical standards, writers can ensure the integrity of their work and maintain trust with their readers.

In summary, rather than being afraid, writers can view AI as a powerful tool that can complement their skills and offer new possibilities. Embracing AI and understanding its limitations and potential ethical concerns can help writers navigate the evolving landscape of writing in the digital age.

It is #3 which is why AI just isn’t much of a risk, at least currently. I believe that AI will always struggle with that. It’s one thing to be able to vacuum up data and predict an answer. It’s a whole other thing to be able to inject human emotions into the output. We shall see.

WSW Chat – Progress Report and A.I. : Threat or Menace?

The latest WSW chat is up! We discuss progress on our latest projects, as well as our thoughts on what AI means for writers.

(Apologies for some technical issues. Edited most audio-related issues out, but the result is that Lucinda moves around the screen a bit.)