Re: another question from Stephen (not on fast writing)

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:48:30 -0800, R. L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:57:07 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I suspect, though it's just a guess, that writers are
>>most likely to be auditory types.
>
>Maybe; sounds like Stephen is. However some people, like me, have odd
>mixtures, which  are harder to post about.

I've been told that most people have a predominant and secondary
style, e.g., I'm primarily auditory and secondarily visual, according
to the silly online test I took, anyway (but it fits pretty well with
my own observations & preferences).

>>>How many of you think the way I do as oppossed to the way my wife
>>>does?
>>
>>I do, though not completely -- there are some pop tests you can take
>>to find out which kind of thinker you are, and I tend to score highest
>>on auditory thought but with a significant visual component. Too,
>>since I tend to think abstractly, I've noticed that I tend to devote
>>my visual centers to logic.
>
>I use a lot of my visualizing for diagrams, shape of paragraphs, etc.
>
>I'd be sceptical of a pop test being able to show the complexity of what
>a writer does: juggling the character's feelings and the possible
>reaction of different readers, etc etc.

I agree -- even if the test is accurate, I think that the
auditory/visual/kinesthetic thinking styles are just a few among many
factors that affect writing and the way people think. The Myers Briggs
is interesting too, but again, I think there are many other factors,
some of which I've never seen in any kind of assessment (not that I'm
an expert on these things). One interesting one which was discovered
just a couple of years ago is that people vary in the degree to which
they react emotionally to art, and that this variation correlates with
hypnotizability.

>> Still, when I'm writing fiction, I've
>>found as you have that I do some of my best writing when I visualize
>>the scene as if it were before me and I was recording the events.
>
>Sometimes I get certain events that way. I always *feel* like those were
>the best, but I wouldn't trust my feeling without getting some readers'
>opinions. *I* feel good about those scenes because I enjoyed seeing the
>'movie' and when I re-read the scene, I see the movie again. But whether
>I really got the movie down on the paper for others, is another
>question.

Readers have told me that my scenes tend to be palpable in a filmlike
way, so I think that kind of composition has paid off for me (assuming
that that's desirable). (I've often been surprised at the degree to
which readers pick up on even apparently subtle intentions and
techniques.)

>Yes. The sort of 'movie' I get is often like an old Disney cartoon. I
>see the camera-zooms and everything. It shows what to emphasize, what to
>skim over.... Indicates rhythm and flow of the scene....

That's exactly what I'd like to achieve. Not all writers do that -- I
know some very effective writers who maintain most of the time a
fairly static pace -- but I'm always impressed when someone knows
exactly when and how to vary the rhythm.

'My great-grandfather used to say to his wife, my great- grandmother,
who in turn told her daughter, my grandmother, who repeated it to her
daughter, my mother, who used to remind her daughter, my own sister,
that to talk well and eloquently was a very great art, but that an
equally great one was to know the right moment to stop.' -- Mozart

 :-)

>Don't get these very often; most scenes of mine don't need that much
>detail; it would slow them down.

I find that too, but I have to watch myself, because I've been told by
some readers that they want more detail or that my stuff "almost moves
too fast."

>>>Do you know of any mental exercises where you can develop the
>>>image-thought process better?
>>
>>I'd look at what other writers have done -- each has her own style,
>>but I think you can get a feel that way for some of the possibilities.
>
>Yes. Some non-writers'  'concentration/visuallization' exercises might
>be bad for writing, as they encourage seeing one static picture for a
>long time, in excruciating detail. :-)

OTOH, as my Grandmother used to complain, writers used to be great at
making detailed descriptions interesting. Me, I'm happy with "Elsa had
the general number of legs and, above her torso, a face," but I
confess a certain sneaking admiration for writers who always seem to
know the names of obscure plants like pezulias and tollywinkles and
creeping buzzfane. I mean, I can recognize an oak tree if it has a
squirrel in it, but otherwise . . .

>>Beyond that, I don't know of any better way of practicing than by
>>doing. I suppose, though, that if you wanted to do formal exercises,
>>you could try some scriptwriting, which pretty much forces you to
>>visualize scene, placement, movement,
>
>Just the opposite, for me. :-) A form like this ...
>
>John:  "No."
>Marcia: "Yes."
>John: "Never."
>Marcia: "What, never?
>John:"Well, hardly ever."
>
>... lets me forget about scenery, placement, movement, etc, and just
>concentrate on the bones of the scene (ie the reactions/decisions). When
>those are right, then I can make another pass inserting stage business.
>Then paint a backdrop to suit. :-)

I do that sometimes when I'm bubbling over with inspiration and want
to get the essence of the story down on paper before it evaporates.
When I have more time, I try to visualize the action as I'm writing.
But, curiously, when I write or imagine part of a screenplay, it's
largely visual and aural/sensory for me -- I see the oar dipping in
the dark water and the moonlight reflected in the ripples, hear the
little plash it makes, then the alcohol-coarsened voice of the rower
as he starts to hum, etc. Which I find a bit curious, because as I
said I don't normally think that way any more than you do, & I'm not a
film dweeb.

>> geometry, and so forth, or even drawing . . .
>
>Drawing might encourage static, detailed descriptions. 

You could do a storyboard . . .

-- 

Josh

To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.