There have been some good articles about writing over on io9, but this isn't one of 'em. This reads like a list of, "Yeah, well you could be the next author X who can pull it off," rather than learning to color by staying in the lines. Yeah, Picaso went outside the lines... after years of staying inside them. Articles like this never seem to mention that. Hmm.
Best part of the piece was the old pulp covers.
Echoed.
What I find strange is that I don't see much talk about the tools of writing, and how different authors use different techniques in different ways for different effects.
The other day someone was telling me how they were finding it difficult to get into Lies of Locke Lamora, because the characters don't appeal emotionally as yet - you don't see their
internal conflict (obviously a major writing tool).
But that's the point - the starting chapters are not Locke's, but instead close to Father Chains and the Beggar King. They view Locke as a dangerous enigma. And that's what Lynch is doing, IMO, at the start of the book - he wants to introduce Locke as an enigmatic figure and draw reader interest that way. It's a different tool - he's using
anticipation.
But too much would be flat, so he splits chapters between the past and the present - and pushes the reader on with end of chapter hooks that are not addressed either in the following scene or the one after that!
By the time the biggest questions in the flashbacks are answered to the satisfaction of the reader, Lynch has completed his introduction of Locke
in the present along with his Lucas Fehrwright ruse which is the foundation for the rest of the story.
It is a clever and daring way to structure the start of a book - the pacing is very controlled, and it's designed to push the reader deep into the story before they realise it. And judging by the popularity of the book, it worked for a lot of people.
No, not everyone will like it - but the point is to recognise how a writer has used a tool and to what effect - and what the alternatives would be.
Lynch could instead have used
sympathy to open with, by showing a late chapter with Locke beaten up to force a reader connection.
Or open the book using
conflict as a driver of pace and character development (but the warning is, conflict works best when internal - some writers externalise it far too much, such as Richard Morgan in 'The Steel Remains' (but perhaps he was more interested in using a different tool to make his point?)) etc etc.
I get really tired of reading fluffy "write the best you can" because unless you are aware of the tools you are using, then all you are doing is stringing words together, and
not telling a story.
That's why I really liked 'Save the cat' - lots of other writing books focus on characterisation, dialogue, POV use, etc - but to me, these are the basics - these are the pieces in the game you have to play with.
Instead the book underlined the need to use the actual tools - sympathy, anticipation, conflict, etc. These define how you actually use your pieces for best effect.
A lot of people will use them subconsciously to some degree, but unless you understand what you are using and why, your writing won't be living up to its potential.
Maybe other writing books do talk about these tools, maybe I just happened to be at the right state of mind to understand what was being communicated when I read 'Save the cat'.
But the bottom line is that - to myself - a story is not about one or more characters going through a series of events: instead it's about the emotional journey of the one of more characters you choose as your protagonists. You can have good stories that don't do this, but consistently the best ones will tend to be focused on the internal journey, not external one - because this is the journey you need your reader to take to enjoy it most.
IMO, anyway, and I think I'm waffling now.
