Grace notes in writing

[Phyrebrat]

{Disclaimer: films are not books, but...}

Over the weekend, I watched William Friedkin's video essay on Shudder (a Prime channel), about The Exorcist.

Leap of Faith is a great watch, not just to marinate in that nostalgia of The Exorcist and the 70s, and not really just because of the actual film itself, but because of Friedkin's meandering asides.

I found myself agreeing and even shouting at the TV when he was discussing some things, a lot of which involved affirming my position on putting more than just character and story in your writing. I also learnt the particularly disturbing fact that Friedkin sounds so much like he who must not be named, I thought I might've been playing a round of golf in Mar a Lago (really, it's uncanny!).

Anyway... It's always nice to have your practice or style validated in some way, and hearing it from an auteur gives a lot of permission and encouragement.

Somethign that really stood out In particular is his thoughts on the use of grace notes (reductively put: grace notes aka Blue notes are the notes in --typically-- blues/jazz/soul/rnb that really bring an emotional sense to the song. For example, the pentatonic scale is commonly used and where F is not used in that scale, it's rare use lends a melancholy or uplifiting change. Motown, Amy Winehouse, Gospel -- Black music, tbh have the most examples). I know many of us on Chrons experience an almost symbiotic (haha - nearly typed "probiotic") relationship between music and our writing, often listening to particular songs or scores before or during writing, so when he mentioned the inclusion of grace notes in The Exorcist, my ears perked up.

He goes on to mention scenes which are not germane to the plot, the character or the growth of either, but are responsible for tone and atmosphere (although, he did not say that's why he uses such scenes). The scene of the dog running in DC adds nothing to the plot, but hearkens back to the fighting dogs in Iraq at the prologue. The nun's walking past Chris McNeill in Georgetown as autumn kicks in has no narrative place in the film, but the image of the two ladies' habits billowing out like angel wings (or dark cloaks?) is a joy. There were so many -- and he referenced others in movies like Citizen Kane -- I forget them, but it was such a lovely section to watch in the documentary.

I'm so inspired by certain art, artists, music, to the point that I've often produced a competent enough story but I bin or trunk it because it doesn't have the tone -- the feeeeeeeling -- I want.

Part of this is because I had never written till I came to Chrons, and did poorly in school, and so I used to ask for help (from writers/chrons/betas etc) that was seeking more permission than advice. A lot of advice here on Chrons is pertinent or specific to genre, and often the responses some newer or less-confident members receive in the crits threads are polar opposite to what I "feel" regarding literature.

We're urged to write pared-down, 'hooky', efficient, character-led prose, without exploring the lyrical. Sometimes (often) I've read books or what have you where it seems like the author's main goal is to get the story down, rather than include the odd narratively-irrelevant passage, word, or turn of phrase.

Is this just preference in our own reading habits or is it because we're trying to fit to a submission?

I've read countless grace notes in Stephen King's literature -- not necessarily poetic or lyrical, but also not utilitarian. Ray Bradbury and Thomas Ligotti are my favourites for this kind of beautiful writing, and their writing also has floods of grace notes. That's for horror. In other non-genre lit, I've found the king of grace notes to be Pat Conroy (@TheDustyZebra bought me Beach Music which is one of the most beautiful books I've ever read).

The things that curl my toes in delight when I'm reading are these lyrical asides. I just wanted to be a bit of a bannerman for lyrical (nb, not forced or contrived) fluorishes in our writing, and remember character and story are not the be-all and end-all of a nice read.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Somethign that really stood out In particular is his thoughts on the use of grace notes (reductively put: grace notes aka Blue notes are the notes in --typically-- blues/jazz/soul/rnb that really bring an emotional sense to the song. For example, the pentatonic scale is commonly used and where F is not used in that scale, it's rare use lends a melancholy or uplifiting change. Motown, Amy Winehouse, Gospel -- Black music, tbh have the most examples). I know many of us on Chrons experience an almost symbiotic (haha - nearly typed "probiotic") relationship between music and our writing, often listening to particular songs or scores before or during writing, so when he mentioned the inclusion of grace notes in The Exorcist, my ears perked up.

Good post, although my inner musical pedant is itching to correct this, many apologies.

A grace note is a musical notation detailing ornamentation.

Blue notes are notes from outside the "usual" scale - in a major scale this would usually be b3 or #4/ b5 or b7 - in c major this e flat / f sharp (g flat) or b flat - generally it's a lowering of the third / fifth or seventh.

It can also refer to microtones.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I totally get where you are coming from, Phyre. Books that read like action film scripts, as they focus on plot (and perhaps sometimes character!) are ten a penny and can feel rushed and very samey. A truly wonderful read, IMO, needs as you put it, some lyrical tone at the very least. Something that speaks to you more than plot logic. Something that gives it depth.

However I do think it makes the work much more personalised and therefore far more subjective - hence tending to give rise to a "marmite style". You are going to get a wider spread of hate/love. Plus you have to be a good writer to make it work, I feel. Which is probably one of the reasons that beginners are advised to pare down prose and make it efficient - lyrical is technically more difficult and needs much more practice (? feel free to disagree!)

However, if one has a clear idea of what one wants to do, please go ahead!

 

[Phyrebrat]

However I do think it makes the work much more personalised and therefore far more subjective - hence tending to give rise to a "marmite style". You are going to get a wider spread of hate/love. Plus you have to be a good writer to make it work, I feel. Which is probably one of the reasons that beginners are advised to pare down prose and make it efficient - lyrical is technically more difficult and needs much more practice (? feel free to disagree!)

I totally agree re the subjectivity of writing, yup. It is hard and might marmitise one's work, but ... well, I think of other artistic pursuits -- Pollack, Seurat, Dali, Magritte, PiL, Timbaland, Tori Amos, and on and on are also marmitising, but they stuck or stick to what makes them happy; what they want their craft to say.

I don't like the idea of fear-mongering writing outside the lines, so to speak, and I often see some very earthbound and pre/proscriptive comments on writing here. I suppose it comes down to are you writing for mass-market, or yourself? I agree too, that the execution of lyrcisim or whatever needs practice, but that is never mentioned on Chrons. It's always the nuts and bolts.

It's my position that a writer can learn how to write lyrical licks here and there, but we seem to be trained -- conditioned -- to think in terms of micro-attention spans etc. As quick entertainment, even (there's also a lot of "I don't like this, so its wrong" goes on).

 

[The Judge]

Hmm. Grace notes, yes -- I love a well-turned sentence and lyrical phrasing. But if you're suggesting grace scenes and chapters, not for me, no. Atmosphere is necessary and in the right hands can be wonderful, but there's a difference between atmosphere and wilful padding -- shots of a dog running or two nuns walking presumably only took up a matter of seconds in the film, corresponding to a sentence or two in a book. That's fine. Whole pages is another matter as far as I'm concerned.

It's my position that a writer can learn how to write lyrical licks here and there

There I'd definitely disagree with you. I've tried. Years ago I came across some lovely stuff about flowers and ripped out the article and studied it and I've even pinched some of your wording and tried to use it in a WiP, but where in your piece it seemed magical, in my work it was no more than a flat piece of description. Even when I descend into actual versification, my poetry isn't poetic, it's utilitarian.

To me, lyricism is a way of seeing the world. Your eyes don't see what mine do, and as a result my brain can't process a scene and write it as you would. It's like someone who is tone deaf trying to write about music -- the words can be copied, but the actual feeling is left far behind.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Yes and no.

I believe every word in my writing should serve a purpose. If, for example, I have two characters meeting in a laboratory, I must ask myself if the appearance of the room is important. If it is, then I should describe it. But the worst thing I can do is waste endless words describing something that does not matter. It is actually worse than simply wasting words. My reader probably has their own mental image of the laboratory which will, by nature, seem very real to them. Why would I try to displace their own vivid mental image and replace it with my own? Unless there is something important to be gained in so doing. And that might be something concerning plot or character development, but it may also be something important to tone (and this is perhaps where I am more in alignment with you). Of course, especially in the horror genre, tone (the feeling imparted to the reader by places and events) is very important. "Lyrical phrasing" can certainly serve a purpose (passing my criteria for inclusion).

 

[Venusian Broon]

I totally agree re the subjectivity of writing, yup. It is hard and might marmitise one's work, but ... well, I think of other artistic pursuits -- Pollack, Seurat, Dali, Magritte, PiL, Timbaland, Tori Amos, and on and on are also marmitising, but they stuck or stick to what makes them happy; what they want their craft to say

I don't like the idea of fear-mongering writing outside the lines, so to speak, and I often see some very earthbound and pre/proscriptive comments on writing here. I suppose it comes down to are you writing for mass-market, or yourself? I agree too, that the execution of lyrcisim or whatever needs practice, but that is never mentioned on Chrons. It's always the nuts and bolts.

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Most advice for writers is how to write for the market. How to try be a Britney Spears rather than a Tori Amos. If you were on a MA for Creative Writing I'm sure the opposite would generally be true. so....

It's my position that a writer can learn how to write lyrical licks here and there, but we seem to be trained -- conditioned -- to think in terms of micro-attention spans etc. As quick entertainment, even (there's also a lot of "I don't like this, so its wrong" goes on).

....perhaps genre forums are not quite the place to for up and coming writers who are focused solely on Art rather than market? Of course, I generalise. Great art can be mass-market too and there are many wonderful genre writers who are able to be more artist than market-chaser.

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree with @Christine Wheelwright . My own feeling is that, by and large, every scene should either deepen the book or move the plot forward, and preferably both. Of course, "deepening" if pretty vague and different people will do it in different ways, but for me, most fancy stuff from authors just tends to feel self-indulgent. That said, one of my favourite books is Titus Groan. Maybe the moral is that if you're going to do something like this, make very sure that you do it well.

 

[Danny McG]

. It is hard and might marmitise one's work

10 points for usage of 'marmitise'
I love words like that.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Just to clarify, I think the term grace notes, (or blue note @Mon0Zer0 ) in itself makes it clear that I'm not referring to reams and reams of florid or lyrical prose.

It's a note -- a phrase/word -- and it can transform, elevate or otherwise help.

Some of the responses here do underline my point inasmuch as there's an almost chicken-licken type fear of doing something that others might see as 'wrong'. To each their own, of course, but the reason I have this bee in my bonnet is I spent (wasted) at least half of my time here as a noob listening to prescriptive advice, because I thought there was a right way to do something. I have become more vocal about it, because our chats with various agents and authors on the podcast have been quite clear on the absence of rules in this respect.

And to be sure, I'm not saying others should write lyrically, but that the received wisdom often touted here should be tempered and less proscriptive when it comes to such.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But the worst thing I can do is waste endless words describing something that does not matter.

But, in fact, some of the best writers could create a complete idea of what that particular laboratory looks like, not with endless words, but with a few well-chosen words. (It is also possible to waste endless words writing about things that do matter, but in an utterly dull and lifeless way. The answer is not always to describe more or less, but to describe better.) And for me, as a reader, one of the "worst things" a writer can do is write a story where the characters move through a sort of grey void. It is the equivalent of scenes where characters are just "talking heads." (Not that I am saying that this is what you, personally, do, because I haven't read any of your pieces and so how would I know? For all I know, you may describe just enough to bring your worlds vividly to life.)

Sure, I could imagine the laboratory for myself, but I don't read other people's stories so I can imagine their worlds for them, I want to see the world that they imagine. It's one of the reasons I am reading the story, a chance to inhabit other writers' worlds. (I can and have imagined whole worlds for myself, but that is as a writer, not a reader.)

I have also noticed that when readers are expected to do too much of the imaginative work in terms of setting they can often get things very wrong, seeing things that aren't there, and this can impact their opinion of the story. (Of course they can also do this if they are the kind of readers who rush through a story, and miss all the clues that the writer provided, or if they are going back and forth between reading different books and mix up the details. Some readers can keep these things straight, but some can't. There is nothing that we, as writers, can do about that.) You can see this if you read reviews of books that you have already read, where it seems like you and the reviewer have read completely different books.

Of course we all have different tastes as readers and as writers. What you like or dislike I may feel very differently about, and vice versa. But to expect everybody to write the same way would make for a dreadful sameness. And I think that is what Phyrebrat is talking about. Not that everyone should write the same way that he does, or the same way that his favorite writers do, but that those who choose to do so should not be discouraged by others from the very beginning. (Of course if a writer has a clear enough and compelling enough vision of what they want to do, they won't be discouraged no matter what other people say. But for most beginning writers there is a point where their vision is still taking shape, and they can be very vulnerable to discouragement.)

 

[Wayne Mack]

The scene of the dog running in DC adds nothing to the plot,

My take on this is that a description of the setting does help set the tone for the story and support the plot by putting the reader in the appropriate mood. And, in writing, I feel having activity in describing a setting makes it more interesting. Having a dog routing through trash in a dirty alley helps connect the descriptive aspects together; gives the reader a reason why the selected aspects are described. Keep those dogs in backstreets and those nuns walking through an abbey; they are often an improvement on the standard character free zoom in approach.

 

[Extollager]

Perhaps an example of the kind of thing you have in mind comes in one of Arthur Machen's stories, as I recall. It's not essential to the plot or meaning. One of the characters quotes, "'In every grain of what there lies hidden the soul of a star.'"

It seems to me to add much to the atmosphere of the story.

I decided years ago that sometimes an author will do well just to trust certain bits that come unbidden to mind during the writing of a story.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, early on, when hobbits are walking towards Crickhollow from bag End, a fox notices them. Tolkien tells us that the fox is puzzled but never found out more about the incident. I could rattle on a bit about how the few sentences add something valuable, but I recognize that they could have been cut.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Often when this sort of thing comes up for discussion, it is presented as though there can only be pared down prose OR pages and pages of lavish description, as though no middle ground exists between sticking to the absolute necessities for a scene versus writing long passages of the most purple prose. And this is nonsense. Because what there is a continuum between exceedingly lean and exceedingly florid, and where an author falls on that continuum may not even be consistent from one book or even one scene to another.

I remember reading a scene in a book by an author I admire very much, which played a large part in forming my own ideas because I thought (and still think) that what the author did was so excellent. There were two characters meeting in a castle room. Ok, so it's a castle room so most of us would already imagine stone walls, and some might ask, "what more do we need?," but to me that is not nearly enough since it is very close to being the sort of grey void I don't care for. But what she did was mention two details, a white fur rug by the fire, and a jeweled goblet that one of the characters held. Neither the rug nor the goblet was at all important in itself. Indeed, they had no significance to the action or to the characters. But those two concrete details (three if you count the fire) in just a few words made the room into something more than just a backdrop, created it in my mind as a real place, and therefore made the interaction between the two characters seem more real as well.

I have since observed this sort of thing with other authors as well. Because they can pinpoint just the right sort of details to make a place seem vividly real, they don't need more than a handful of words to describe a scene and bring it to life. (At the same time, the author in question—and others like her—knows when a scene might benefit from a great deal of description, and are able to provide that, too, whether it a paragraph or many pages. Which leads me to believe that the very best writers are flexible and talented enough to do both, and wise enough to understand when each approach is called for.)

But we can't encourage new writers to become this sort of writer by telling them to ruthlessly cut things down to the bare bone, and to eliminate all such horrors as adverbs and adjectives. Instead, when doing critiques or giving advice, we need to approach things on a case by case basis—and make it clear that this is what we are doing, not laying down immutable law, but reacting to what is on the specific page before us—and encourage fledgling writers, when editing their own work, to do so as well, instead of following a rigid set of rules or imposing a particular kind of style.

At the same time, I understand that when critiquing a new writer it is much more easy to offer them rules and guidelines, then to teach them creativity. How do you teach someone to be creative, anyway, to write with style and originality?

 

[Swank]

I don't like the idea of fear-mongering writing outside the lines, so to speak, and I often see some very earthbound and pre/proscriptive comments on writing here. I suppose it comes down to are you writing for mass-market, or yourself? I agree too, that the execution of lyrcisim or whatever needs practice, but that is never mentioned on Chrons. It's always the nuts and bolts.

It's my position that a writer can learn how to write lyrical licks here and there, but we seem to be trained -- conditioned -- to think in terms of micro-attention spans etc. As quick entertainment, even (there's also a lot of "I don't like this, so its wrong" goes on).

Honestly, I haven't seen this happen in critiques. I usually witness or suggest the pruning of poor descriptors from bloated, hard to follow sentences. It would be lovely to read something so nicely written that the flourish were up for debate.

But I love a good extra bit of stuff in writing. Gibson's reflection of the "mirror worlds" of the US/UK. Banks' moments of humor and horror. An observation in metaphor form. An unnecessary character sketch of an exceptionally minor character. The texture of wood described by its history. In many ways, these are the things that make a book get under the skin.

 

[cyprus7]

{Disclaimer: films are not books, but...}

Over the weekend, I watched William Friedkin's video essay on Shudder (a Prime channel), about The Exorcist.

Leap of Faith is a great watch, not just to marinate in that nostalgia of The Exorcist and the 70s, and not really just because of the actual film itself, but because of Friedkin's meandering asides.

I found myself agreeing and even shouting at the TV when he was discussing some things, a lot of which involved affirming my position on putting more than just character and story in your writing. I also learnt the particularly disturbing fact that Friedkin sounds so much like he who must not be named, I thought I might've been playing a round of golf in Mar a Lago (really, it's uncanny!).

Anyway... It's always nice to have your practice or style validated in some way, and hearing it from an auteur gives a lot of permission and encouragement.

Somethign that really stood out In particular is his thoughts on the use of grace notes (reductively put: grace notes aka Blue notes are the notes in --typically-- blues/jazz/soul/rnb that really bring an emotional sense to the song. For example, the pentatonic scale is commonly used and where F is not used in that scale, it's rare use lends a melancholy or uplifiting change. Motown, Amy Winehouse, Gospel -- Black music, tbh have the most examples). I know many of us on Chrons experience an almost symbiotic (haha - nearly typed "probiotic") relationship between music and our writing, often listening to particular songs or scores before or during writing, so when he mentioned the inclusion of grace notes in The Exorcist, my ears perked up.

He goes on to mention scenes which are not germane to the plot, the character or the growth of either, but are responsible for tone and atmosphere (although, he did not say that's why he uses such scenes). The scene of the dog running in DC adds nothing to the plot, but hearkens back to the fighting dogs in Iraq at the prologue. The nun's walking past Chris McNeill in Georgetown as autumn kicks in has no narrative place in the film, but the image of the two ladies' habits billowing out like angel wings (or dark cloaks?) is a joy. There were so many -- and he referenced others in movies like Citizen Kane -- I forget them, but it was such a lovely section to watch in the documentary.

I'm so inspired by certain art, artists, music, to the point that I've often produced a competent enough story but I bin or trunk it because it doesn't have the tone -- the feeeeeeeling -- I want.

Part of this is because I had never written till I came to Chrons, and did poorly in school, and so I used to ask for help (from writers/chrons/betas etc) that was seeking more permission than advice. A lot of advice here on Chrons is pertinent or specific to genre, and often the responses some newer or less-confident members receive in the crits threads are polar opposite to what I "feel" regarding literature.

We're urged to write pared-down, 'hooky', efficient, character-led prose, without exploring the lyrical. Sometimes (often) I've read books or what have you where it seems like the author's main goal is to get the story down, rather than include the odd narratively-irrelevant passage, word, or turn of phrase.

Is this just preference in our own reading habits or is it because we're trying to fit to a submission?

I've read countless grace notes in Stephen King's literature -- not necessarily poetic or lyrical, but also not utilitarian. Ray Bradbury and Thomas Ligotti are my favourites for this kind of beautiful writing, and their writing also has floods of grace notes. That's for horror. In other non-genre lit, I've found the king of grace notes to be Pat Conroy (@TheDustyZebra bought me Beach Music which is one of the most beautiful books I've ever read).

The things that curl my toes in delight when I'm reading are these lyrical asides. I just wanted to be a bit of a bannerman for lyrical (nb, not forced or contrived) fluorishes in our writing, and remember character and story are not the be-all and end-all of a nice read.

Sorcerer is another of his movies worth watching several times... came out same time as some other minor flick... Star Wars, I think they called it.
Oh, and the Tangerine Dream soundtrack I can't get enough of.

Sorcerer (1977) - IMDb

Sorcerer: Directed by William Friedkin. With Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal, Amidou. Four unfortunate men from different parts of the globe agree to risk their lives transporting gallons of nitroglycerin across dangerous Latin American jungle.

www.imdb.com

 

[AllanR]

Sorcerer is another of his movies worth watching several times

I've seen it twice. Well done for sure.

 

[therapist]

I like this idea of blues notes in writing. I think people need to remember that a blues note is not just a note that doesn't fit with the normal pentatonic scale. It is one specific note.
It sounds bad on its own, and sounds bad when overused. But when used sparingly, gives that classic 'blues' feel (which is what you should strive for when playing blues).
As to how to find these 'blue notes' when we are writing? I don't know. But hopefully with experience they will come more naturally.

sometimes an author will do well just to trust certain bits that come unbidden to mind during the writing of a story.

 

[Toby Frost]

I find it difficult to say much here except "do whatever works". However, a lot of starting writers do have a tendency towards hurling masses of words at the page, especially if they are trying something "literary", which needs to be reined in somewhat.

I suspect a lot of writing advice helps the writer to avoid doing anything downright bad, rather than doing one particular thing. And I'm not sure at what point an aside becomes "pointless" (as opposed to "overlong"). In SFF, where worlds have to be depicted and, just as importantly, reader expectations of what they might encounter later on need to be set up, a description of something that might otherwise be skimmed over could help establish the setting. In Danse Macabre, for instance, Stephen King says that Ramsay Campbell's style of description sets a hallucinatory, unsettling tone for the rest of his writing.

 

[The Big Peat]

Fully agree with pB. Except being greedy, I call this "fat is flavour".

I think this topic can be split into two.

One is scenes that don't add much to our understanding of the plot or characters.

The other is lyrical - or ornate - writing.

I am in favour of both. On the former, I am firmly of the belief that the world is a character in its own right in many works, including the vast majority of fantistika, and therefore scenes that advance our understanding of the world should be seen as advancing our understanding of the character. Toby is right when he says the world needs to be depicted to help the reader form expectations.

Besides, such scenes can also offer a huge amount of emotion. To appeal to authority, Terry Rossio wrote all lines should advance the plot, character understanding, or get a laugh. Broaden laughter to all emotional responses, and we are well within the rules anyway. A scene that advances our understanding of the character of the world and gives us chills? Yes. Absolutely.

I would also argue that such scenes also have good things to offer in terms of pacing. A novel that is constantly advancing the plot can feel rushed with no time to breathe. Novels that constantly talk about the character can feel repetitive. Scenes that offer us greater understanding of the world both are in without touching much on them can give us a much needed breather as well as richening our understanding of plot and character when we return to them. Too many is bad, but I would argue so is too few.

As for the latter... it doesn't need defending. The joy of words and well constructed sentences is too obvious to too many to bother.

And yes it might marmitise your book but...

I totally agree re the subjectivity of writing, yup. It is hard and might marmitise one's work, but ... well, I think of other artistic pursuits -- Pollack, Seurat, Dali, Magritte, PiL, Timbaland, Tori Amos, and on and on are also marmitising, but they stuck or stick to what makes them happy; what they want their craft to say.

This is right. Nothing is universally beloved and there's not a lot of point to it unless it says what you want it to say (unless you somehow have a contract to get swimming pools full of money in return for commercial art).

Moreover, what gets so popular that it can seem universally beloved often leans very hard into its strengths and vision without apology or trying to make everyone happy. Five million people who like you well enough if it's there but wouldn't bother seeking you out if you're not is great if you have said contract with the swimming pool full of money and your work is pushed everywhere... but for everyone else, they're not worth as much as five people who absolutely love what you do and will seek it out and will support you. The harder you lean into something, the more likely it is you'll get that five who are "yes! this!"