On Fiction and Writing

"If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it."

Elmore Leonard

Being able to describe a thing is a wonderful gift that needs to be curated and perfected, fretted over and dreaded about. What is it that I like good writers to do with characters, scenes, dialog and tension? The short answer...it depends. Non-fiction and historical books draw me in a way that fiction never did. Fiction of the action hero kind is great too and burly enforcers like Jack Reacher are a joy to read. Non-fiction though is the learner type book. Life-long learners seek knowledge and love the presentation a writer delivers through their work.

In recent years I’ve developed a respect for fiction writers who do research on a topic and then write a gripping story bringing the reader along to discover something new. The something new that is discovered is a trick however. The author puts wonderfully human emotions and histories into a fictional world that explains a larger paradigm. Classic novels always do this. They are classic because the characters and worlds they inhibit are almost tangible things. Readers get lost in the plot-lines and threads connecting seemingly separate narratives. Then worlds collide. Stories are suddenly representative of larger events and shifts in culture.

 Boo Radley’s (To Kill A Mockingbird) anti-social behavior becomes a strength when he is revealed as a gentle figure to Scout and Jem. Harper Lee didn’t just understand the South and attitudes about race and society; she knew human nature better than most. During the Jim Crow era, cultural lines were drawn sharply between blacks and whites but human nature remained the same across all barriers. Lee hooks readers by distracting them with mysterious neighbors and myths about unknown people in town. Her trick was to sell the reader on a nasty version of Boo Radley, all the while pointing out how the same fear and wrong assumptions led to the imprisonment of an innocent black man.  

Writers develop by creating a recognizable style or philosophy and exploring it different ways to make for a complete picture. Ayn Rand started doing this by writing plays and essays with a common but basic core theme, self-interest drives decisions. Her book We the Living was her first organized attempt at putting her developing believe in self interest into story form. A clearly fumbling attempt at shining light on a philosophy, it wasn’t Aristotle but it was still good. Her characters were simple one dimensional archetypes, set pieces really, existing to demonstrate an extreme view, positive or negative.

She moved on to richer characters with better histories, and dialogue chocked full of philosophies on everything from sex to existence. By the nineteen fifties she was calling her philosophy 'Objectivism' and her ‘self-interested’ characters exemplified the ‘rational man’ and also the evils of collectivist thought. From We the Living to Atlas Shrugged she wrote essays and gave lectures on her Objective principles while building her own special style, she crafted her ‘voice’. She started with a simple framework and layered it for an easily recognized style.

Mark Twain does dialogue like no one else and his Huckleberry Finn is rich with language and regional accents. Kids in early grade school have trouble with Twain (I certainly did) because the spelling of the words and phrases are incorrect as they are taught. Words like “knowed” “haint” and phrasing like “…I’s wuth eight hund’d dollars” keep kids from ‘sounding’ them out. The mannerisms from the characters feel as genuine as the prejudices defining the small towns along the Mississippi. His short stories have the same language and ‘yarn spinning’ from the mostly Midwest and rural characters.

Not sure why writing development was on my mind, but it helps to be reminded of what I admire in other work, great work.