Do you understand what you're writing?

[Dan Jones]

I recently did an interview with @The Big Peat for his blog, and as I've been going over the transcript something I said leapt out at me, and while I didn't quite understand it at the time, I've since managed to connect it to some similar things that other writers here have mentioned, most notably @Phyrebrat but there are doubtless others too.

The thing is this: I mentioned that, at times, when I'm writing that I don't fully understand the things I'm trying to grapple, that it's somehow just beyond the edge of my understanding, and that by writing it down I'm trying to transform it into articulated knowledge. The question Peat put to me was to do with the extent to which I consider things like theme, and the initial answer was, well yeah, I consider it, of course I do. And then as I thought about that response some more, and I thought actually, what I'm doing when I'm writing is I'm tackling all the difficult things you need to tackle when you're writing, such as dialogue, plot, grammar, sentence structure, clarity etc etc. And the themes are there, but it seems to sit just above the text, like a separated abstraction that defies categorisation until all the words have made it onto the page (and sometimes not even then). And just to clarify, a theme can be something quite simple (but immutably powerful, and therefore archetypal) like good vs evil, but from that one can extrapolate more complex things, or start to peel away why they're archetypal.

When I read MOW back for the purposes of interviews or readings or whatever, these themes and ideas seem to have become more concretised in the text, and they suddenly make more sense, in a way I couldn't reliably explain during the writing process.

So the question I have is: do the other writers out there understand what you're writing all the time, or do you feel you have to sacrifice some surety in order to wrestle with things that are beyond you? And I'd love examples because a) I'm nosey and b) I'm thinking about this a lot right now.

And the reason that I'm asking the question is because, after having thought about it some more, I think there are certain psychological / ontological truths, or not even truths but experiential modes of being, that we can somehow know as part of the state of being human, but which defy language - and yet we try and capture them and wrestle them into words anyway (and I think wrestle is the right word, because they sometimes resist), because that's part of what we're all about.

 

[Ihe]

I think this question harkens back, in part, to the age-old pantser-plotter dichotomy. There are several different ways plotters organize their structural focuses, and one of them that I personally subscribe to, is to use theme as a filter for everything else. It's the base of my "priority pyramid", so I first think of the theme, then the best ways to break it down/branch out through story. Some people might leave theme for the end, but not having that compass would drive me crazy and would probably entail hefty re-writes. More often than not, my themes inform every big characterization point/plot twist/ or development, as well as the throughline.

Obviously, I will lose my way at times, but even that is not a big issue, as you can't follow theme all the time or you run the risk of becoming predictable.

Writing without theme in mind, for me, is like trying to do a puzzle with all the pieces face down. It'll take longer, you'll end up with pieces left over or missing, and the image on the other side might not make sense when turned face up.

 

[Juliana]

So the question I have is: do the other writers out there understand what you're writing all the time, or do you feel you have to sacrifice some surety in order to wrestle with things that are beyond you?

No, I usually don't recognize what I like to call my underlying themes until I'm done. (I even blogged about it here.) I think when I write I do exactly as you say, Dan: focus on plot, character, etc, but that there is a deeper layer of storytelling that filters in regardless, and that's the one that when it's all over and finished, you look at your work and go: "so THAT's what my story is about..."

Edited to add: now that I read Ihe's post, I'm a plotter, not a pantser, and still I surprise myself at the end.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I put very little active thought into a story until it is time to edit. In my experience themes etc insert themselves into stories they don't need anything from me except an abilit to type.

The only things I tend to focus on before I write are quite superficial. Does my character wear glasses, how do they walk, what are their favourite outfits, how many cats do they have, what car do they drive etc.

It was a reader who pointed out the similarity between my wingectomies and male circumcision. Gender politics plays a big part in Black's Nest but it all started because I had a male domestic abuse victim and a despotic fairy queen.

Homicidal big sisters and mothers appear in my stories a lot.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I have recurring themes which must be things I want/need to explore - family dynamics, characters on the edge of falling on the inside, existentialist characters, that sort of thing. I don’t consciously set out to explore them but I’m quite used to them popping up now

 

[sknox]

I don't lean too heavily on theme. I certainly don't have it in mind while I'm writing the first or even the second draft, except as a kind of separate consideration, thought about when I am not actively writing. I do pay attention later, mainly looking for places to add a few grace notes here and there.

I tread lightly in part, as others have said, I serve story first. The plot must work. The characters must work. I've written stories that had no theme at all, or at least not one I consciously put in there. A locked-room mystery story, for example, doesn't necessarily need a theme, it just needs a clever puzzle with an even more clever solution.

But the main reason I don't push too hard on theme is because readers have an uncanny knack for seeing themes I did not. I want to leave them room to discover meaning for themselves. I believe that if I write good characters and run them through a good story, readers will find their own themes or will see no theme, or will even see a theme that I had had in mind from the start.

To put it another way, if my readers hate my characters or think my plot is contrived or are not convinced by the setting, then I regard the work as broken, in need of fixing. But if I think my novel is "about" X (a theme) and readers don't see that, I shrug and move on.

 

[The Big Peat]

I could absolutely litter this thread with quotes from big name authors who don't understand what they're doing at first. Pratchett, King, Melville, Tolkien, Pullman... a lot of authors only see the fuller picture as they write it down. I think it's the norm for authors. The Vandermeer article that Toby posted in Writing Resources is, I think, very relevant here because it makes a lot of good points about our subconscious and I think that's relevant here because a lot of not knowing what you've written until you've written it down is not knowing what your subconscious has been stewing on until you can see all the pieces.

 

[Mouse]

No, I understand nothing. I don't even understand what you just said. I don't tend to think a whole lot when I'm writing (other than 'what is this sh*te?).

 

[Phyrebrat]

So the question I have is: do the other writers out there understand what you're writing all the time, or do you feel you have to sacrifice some surety in order to wrestle with things that are beyond you? And I'd love examples because a) I'm nosey and b) I'm thinking about this a lot right now.

All the time? No. A lot of the time? Perhaps. It's a conundrum because on one hand I'm a discovery writer, but then I also need to know my end point - and stations along the way - so it's a question of left/right brain balancing.

However, when I read the OP I took it to be a larger question than simply understanding or planning the thematic content of a story we're writing, and more a case of are we in a state of high receptivity where we're downloading the story. Some people call it inspiration, some call it the muse, and I call it Jung's Aerial because 1) it sounds a bit rude, and; 2) The Sea of Consciousness and the potency of thought forms are very real (to me). I think you've mentioned me in the OP because of blogs such as (sorry, Dan, not to hijack your thread with links to my blog entries, but...):

(on theme)
(on brainwaves)
(on Jung's Aerial)
(On freeing the story)
(On who/what you are defines your story)
(Using Adlestrop to illustrate the Sea of Consciousness)

I think there are certain psychological / ontological truths, or not even truths but experiential modes of being, that we can somehow know as part of the state of being human, but which defy language - and yet we try and capture them and wrestle them into words anyway (and I think wrestle is the right word, because they sometimes resist), because that's part of what we're all about.

This is much more my way of thinking - or rather my imperative/compulsion/mandate. As a Johnny Head-in-Air, I struggle to keep my philosophy grounded in what is tangible and find I very much have a huge other 'experience' in whatever we come to call the ether of the mindstate, and existentialism. I've not studied any of these things, though, and am not even a layman - more an armchair enthusiast - but it's informed from my personal experience, my personal findings.

As far as do I know what I'm writing: I'm motivated constantly to write about Oatlands Park - the village of my childhood - and death of the family. Venusianbroon has pointed out (or it might have been you, Dan) that I write a lot of bodyhorror which is something I loathe. My passion is gothic horror, whether Southern or Victorian, and blood/gore bores me. But I do realise that my short stories, e.g. The Long Haul, Gash, The Unshakeable Decency of Trees and Tall Man, all have a common amount of body horror in them. (And I won't even mention my entry in Woodbridge Press' Lake Manor anthology.)

To me, your question divides writing into two categories: writing mindfully, or on autopilot/psychically.

So, do I write knowingly, or on autopilot? I think it depends on the project. If it's my usual contemporary urban horror then no, I'm on autopilot and download the story easily, but if it's something that requires research - like my WIP - then I am much more mindful and conscious of what goes on the page. I knew the themes of the WIP would be appropriation, Religion, serendipity and racism because the overall story came to me in one go and those issues stood out, but the details, the stuff I had to write to birth that wasn't anything I could have predicted. I didn't know anything about history, and still now I run things past The Judge. That affects the speed I can write, and a slower process means more conscious awareness of what I'm putting down.

I'd say, though, my writing style (i.e. my practice) would be much more a psychic process than a mental one. I reserve the mental process for the crafting of what I receive.

But please don't send whitecoat men after me.

pH

 

[CTRandall]

As far as understanding goes, my characters are often dealing with stuff that is far beyond my experience--extreme emotional and physical circumstances that push yhem to the border of reason. At that point, I find it difficult to understand the characters, to get inside their heads and report what I find back to the reader. I find that part of writing both challenging and, in a weird way, fun (though it sometimes involves some very unpleasant research).

On the flip side, for the sci-fi idea I'm working on at the moment, there's a lot of mathematics and computer science that I don't understand. I can rectify some of that with research but I'm also using a couple of themes to help work my way through possible future technologies. Ultimately, I think only the actual writing will clarify in my mind how it all works.

 

[The Big Peat]

Riffing off of pB's point -

I often have *some* idea of what I'm writing about. I usually start stories off with some idea of what the theme's gonna be, what the mood and tone's gonna be.

But once I get into it, I start finding quite a lot of stuff I hadn't really thought about.

An example -

In Gumshoe Paladin, in the first scene, there's an axe. It's there (in the world) for the pub's landlord to keep order with.

It's in the story for a lot of reasons - but mainly because the 12 chapter mystery formula said have something that can serve as a unifying motif. So I picked an axe. I made the most of it in the scene, because just having it there for no reason does nothing, but that's why it is there.

At some point a bit after selecting it, I realised that axes are cool because they have a duality as weapon and tool.

I think it was quite a bit later again when I realised that a theme of duality of weapon and X worked really for my book of knights and murderers. I don't think I have the ending I wrote without it (no spoilers).

This is despite musing on Identification As Person vs Identification As Profession quite early on in the brainstorming process. I'd never realised I'd made that link until I'd started writing.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Actually and at risk of sounding up my own arse (a dire act in Norn Iron) I have recently started to embrace themes I previously rejected. And those are the NI themes in me.

So for those new to me I grew up (unmarked and on the surface unaffected, or as much as any of us are) in the Northern Irish Troubles. So, yeah, soldiers on the street, bag searches, bus searches, I know the sound of a bomb de-nada-nada. And segregated by religion in schools, where I live etc etc.

I’ve started to recognise the NI themes in my writing. Humour and light in the darkness; threatening lives and containing oneself within; conflict and the need to find yourself to withstand it; lots of others.

I wrote about this in my blog last week about the fact I’m a NI writer with a voice and commentary on my place and a sf writer with themes outside NI.

And yet, really, it all comes down to this little torn up, divided littke place and my place within it.

I still try to tell a good yarn though

 

[sknox]

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” – Flannery O’Connor
"I write in order to find out what I truly know and how I really feel about certain things." - Leslie Marmon Silko
"I write entirely to find out what I’m thinking..." - Joan Didion

In other words, you ain't alone in this. Not quite on topic but it's still one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite writers

"A writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people." -- Thomas Mann

 

[monsterchic]

I often don't recognize a theme until I'm two or three edits in lol. I'm a pantser through and through--I come up with so many ideas and change so much during the course of my days that if I try to lay out a solid plot and theme and all that jazz, the words just don't come. Also, my characters always, ALWAYS run away from me.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I never think about theme, because if I write a coherent and complete story it generates a theme or themes. And readers will come out of left field with other themes after you have gone back after finishing and identified your own. My latest blog piece tackles - and makes fun of - this issue, so I'll post it later.

 

[Toby Frost]

Not really, no. Generally, it's a question of what would be entertaining/funny. In the Smith books and the more serious things I've attempted, I've always been fascinated by the world I've been depicting, and I've ended up with loads of useless general knowledge as a result. I think Smith is informed by certain ideas - an attempt to say something about Britain (maybe just England and Wales sometimes) more intelligent than just "good" or "bad" - but I certainly didn't write it to do so.

The thing I'm writing at the moment, though, is a bit more conscious - but not much. One of the lead characters has lost part of his memory, and the other in an android who finds it hard to "read" other people. I can't quite explain it myself, but the characters share a sort of confused feeling, a sense of distance from everyone around them. I'm not sure that I set out to do that, but that's what it's turned into. Of course, there are also explosions, spaceships, robots and gunfights. It's a strange feeling, to be writing about something but not really knowing what that something is.

 

[Ihe]

If we're talking in more general terms, ie, about the connectedness of a writer's mind to his/her work, I'd say writers are the most rationally disconnected people on the planet, although not so emotionally. If you write fiction, you are fantasizing about non-worlds, where non-events happen to non-people. The writer can pour heart and soul and raw emotion into it, but it won't make it his. Art is an idea, and ideas are everyone's to share because even if authorship is relevant, ownership of it isn't, and being an author and being an owner are very diferent things. Your idea is no longer yours the moment it touches another life. So there, I like to wax poetic every now and again too!
Back to practical aspects, theme is good! Don't run from it! If you have it, you'll never get stuck for long. It's a compass.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think that this goes back to the question I hear most often from people once they learn I've published a novel. And how that same question might relate to when I say I'm writing a novel that is not yet published. The question being...

What is it about?

It's always good to have an answer for the question whether you have it finished or not.
I don't think it makes much difference whether you are plotting or pants-ing. And either way the answer might be quite different depending on which stage in writing you are. Or who is asking the question.

I think that the question begs questions that might be hard to get answered. What I mean is that there is a wide difference from person to person as to what they want to hear.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I’m not sure @Dan Jones is talking about plotting vs discovery writing. I think he’s asking if we know what we’re ‘mining’ when we start to write a story. (Although I might be putting words in his mouth there.)

pH

 

[logan_run]

no I DONT..