Dealing with weaknesses in your style?

[Xelah]

I don't know what the rest of you consider your weak points, but as long as something is exploding, getting shot at, making snarky dialog, or involved in a high speed car chase, I think I'm pretty well within my forte. I still prefer to have somebody else look it over to make sure it makes sense though.

On the other hand, when I start trying to write about something graceful or romantic... the entire state of Wisconsin produces less cheese (they make a lot of cheese there btw).

I've just finished all of the Dresden Files books, and from what I can tell, Jim Butcher has similar . . . if not difficulty, aversion to romantic encounters. Harry Dresden is clueless when it comes to what women think and the romantic interests pretty much have to throw themselves at Harry. This isn't a dig at Jim Butcher, just using this as a perceived example.

I was just wondering how the rest of you deal with your weaknesses as the Harry Dresden model doesn't fit.

 

[Malloriel]

I think that there are many ways one can deal with areas seen as weaknesses. One could put out a more concerted effort to write little vignettes of scenes within that weak area and have others critique it. Rather than have those moments critiqued in a piece you're dedicated to, just focus on the -types- of scenes you feel you struggle with, and others with a better eye may be able to point out what sorts of things you could do to improve.

One could also adapt their style around that weakness. I haven't yet read the Dresden Files, but I hear wonderful things about them, and if Jim Butcher has difficulty writing romantic scenes, then it's perfectly valid to write about a character who has difficulty even recognizing a romantic situation. Not every story needs romance, so you shouldn't feel a need to squeeze some in there if it's not going to work properly.

So, instead of writing a romantic scene you're going to feel is weak, you could either adapt to yourself, or practice those scenes specifically. And I always recommend reading authors who do a good job expressing things you feel you're not quite as adept at expressing to analyze how it is they manage to get the feeling across so well, and what is it you're -not- doing that makes the difference.

Best of luck, mate.

 

[J-WO]

There's something to be said for 20th century Russian military thinking. No, really. They'd pretty much ignore where they were losing and pour all their resources into the wherever they were breaking through. The enemy would have to pull back from where they were winning in the long run, because they'd end up getting surrounded otherwise.

What I'm getting at regarding writing is, why not give your weaknesses only a cursorary glance and get on with giving your strengths your full focus and energy? After all, all the great writers have at least something wrong with them. My suspicion is, if you try and cover every base you end up with something that's capable on every front, but not incandescent.

 

[HareBrain]

There's a saying in cycling: "Train your weaknesses, race your strengths", which I think is useful to bear in mind.

 

[The Judge]

Apparently** a sporting aphorism runs: race your strengths and train your weaknesses.

Which (I think) means practising the mushy romantic stuff until we smell roses not gorgonzola, but when you're writing for real -- eg short stories sent to magazines -- write what comes easiest.

As for Russian military thinking, that's fine unless the weak spot is so weak it allows the other side to ravge your supply lines to your break-through point, in which case you're buggered. If your thriller stuff rates 95% and your romantic stuff only 60% you might get by on not spending time on training. If the proportions are 75% and 20% it's a lot less likely the good bits will carry your reader over the whiff of ripe Stilton.

As Malloriel suggests, find an author whose work you admire and see how he/she handles scenes of this type. Do a proper literary analysis - what words used, imagery, sentence length, structure, POV -- all of it. Then try and use that to produce your own piece. Then post it and we can eviscerate it for you... but in a nice way... with Rachmaniov playing in the background and the scent of lilies drifting across our words...


** Blame HareBrain not me.

PS He wasn't there when I started...

 

[Mouse]

I think my strengths are characterisation and dialogue. But I suck at everything else, particularly descriptive stuff, so lately I've been trying to write stories which are pretty descriptive, just to try to get better at it. Practise makes perfect, right?

 

[chrispenycate]

Unfortunately, all my strong points seem to cluster in the negative side. An impressive control/understanding of technical detail = infodump. A passion, nay even an obsession, with world building = the same, but more boredom added. A lack of understanding of human relationships and feelings which leads to poor characterisation. An over-active vocabulary, which leads to purpling of descriptive passages, and demands to 'dumb it down' for the American market. Weakness in plotting which frequently leads ro my characters deciding for themselves to go off and do something I hadn't planned for them – and I could go on.

If I were sensible I'd just dump it there, and raise chickens.

But I'm not, so I'll just go on, tackling each shortcoming in turn.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My theory has always been that the kind of words that come out of my brain depends on the words I put in.

I try to find books by writers who handle brilliantly those things I want to do well. Then I read them, taking special note of the best parts. The more of these things you assimilate into your thought processes, the easier it will be to bring forth something along those same lines (although stunningly original, of course) when you need to.

Sometimes when I'm just stuck for words, I'll grab a few books by writers who are inspiring in their use of language.

My husband has come to understand what I mean when I say, "Quick, take me to the library. I need more words."

 

[Xelah]

Hmmm, seems to be an even mix of full steam ahead with what you know and research the heck out of stuff you don't.

I think I'm going to have to pitch in with the research team. As much as this is going to pain me to do, I'm probably going to pick up a couple of romance novels the next time I go to Books-A-Million.

Anyone have any recommendations?

 

[The Judge]

I've no idea what is going on at current romantic fiction -- but I do know** that Mills & Boon are a lot less old-fashioned romantic and more erotic nowadays.

Your style, it seems to me, is very cool and slightly ironic, and I don't think you'd do yourself any favours by immersing yourself in the Barbara Cartlands de nos jours and trying to copy the overblown stuff. How about the subtlety and elegance of Jane Austen? Yes, I know. Nothing much happens. But everything is under the surface. And if nothing else, it avoids all the shame-faced excuses ("It's for my mother/aunt/cousin") when the shop assistant queries your "Torrid Love Stories" collection.

Thinking about it, there's always Twilight... Seriously. I read it very quickly last year at the behest of my 15 year old niece, and as appalling as the writing was, sex was on every page but never referred to in those terms, so Stephanie Meyer (?sp) was getting something right.


**from what I've read in the press and generally, not through close analysis of my own, I hasten to add.

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree, and wonder slightly if romance novels are the best place to go for romance. The more stereotypical romances always seem to work to the conventions of the genre instead of real life. I have never heard of two real people hating one another and then getting together, for instance. Everything must stay in character, after all, and if that's not how your characters work, then I doubt it would suit them to be written that way.

As the Judge says, what about the romantic subplots from books similar in style to your own? James M Cain and Raymond Chandler had romances (usually doomed and lethal) in their noir stories. Even the tech-and-satire world of The Forever War contains a very likeable romance.

I am somewhat biased against Jane Austen, having had to read her for my exams years ago. "Nothing much happens" seemed like something of an understatement back then!

 

[Mouse]

Might just be my mood at the moment, but I'm currently reading Queen Victoria: Demon Hunter by AE Moorat, and was just thinking last night that it's actually quite romantic. There's romance between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, which is quite sweet sometimes, especially when he gets taken by werewolves and she tries to save him. It also features zombies. So win-win I reckon!

Apart from that, I can't really think of any particularly romantic books. Not on my shelf anyway.

Depends how you define romance, I guess.

 

[Nik]

Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue...

Write, re-write, edit recursively, re-write to cull bloopers, revise to make stilted dialogue flow, then go through twice more, specifically to fix the punctuation and attribution...

No surprise that I've written ***-all this week...

Admittedly, 'P for Pleistocene' has hit a flat patch, where-in the weary away-team must rest-up for a couple of days before their next outing, a hunting expedition. I suppose I could just have it rain and keep them indoors. The problem then is they'll talk to each other...

 

[J-WO]

I have never heard of two real people hating one another and then getting together, for instance.

Thank heavens someone else has noticed this! Why is it such a perennial trope of both literature and film, anyway?

 

[The Judge]

Because the other way round -- two people getting together and then hating one another -- is too realistic for comfort? As well as being the staple of French films.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

Because realistic romance is often rather boring to outside observers. If I tell you the story of how my wife and I met over dinner and drinks, you might pretend to be interested for a while (especially if I'm picking up the tab). But if I hand you a 300-page printed version, the chances that you'll read it all the way through approach nil.

So writers try to inject conflict, and the "I hate you but suddenly I find myself attracted to you" technique worked for centuries. It's a little lazy, but lazy prose is usually better than boring prose.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I too would not recommend going to "romance" books for actual romance - the emphasis is not really on character interaction. I'll side with the Judge and spruik Jane Austen - my personal fave is "Persuasion" - because aside from the romance, which is nice and low key (no Jane Eyres in Jane Austen) she is a master of character portrayal. And good romance needs good characters, both male and female. You don't need much nitty-gritty if you have good characters.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

And then there's writers like me, who go beyond any work that can be classified in polite conversation......I think I'll leave it at that.



But dealing with weakness in style? I'd just say take a look at your favorite authors and perhaps some that aren't such a favorite but still very popular, and see how THEY do their jobs. I'm not telling you to plaigerize, oh no. But, see what styles they do and perhaps take up a grain here, a grain there, maybe even some mix-and-match, and see what might work and what might not.

 

[The Judge]

I too would not recommend going to "romance" books for actual romance - the emphasis is not really on character interaction. I'll side with the Judge and spruik Jane Austen - my personal fave is "Persuasion" - because aside from the romance, which is nice and low key (no Jane Eyres in Jane Austen) she is a master of character portrayal. And good romance needs good characters, both male and female. You don't need much nitty-gritty if you have good characters.

Seconded!! There are no lovey-dovey scenes , but moments of awkwardness and anguish -- which work far better than mush.

 

[J-WO]

So writers try to inject conflict, and the "I hate you but suddenly I find myself attracted to you" technique worked for centuries. It's a little lazy, but lazy prose is usually better than boring prose.

Yeah, I'll go with that. I think a lot of its also to do with pressing the reader's 'matchmaker' button. 'C'mon, you guys!' Thinks reader 'Get it together! Can't you see your made for each other!'