Description and the Power of Emphasis

In her excellent blog, Rebecca Hamilton provides a lesson on emphasis. Words coming at the end of a sentence, in particular, have subliminal power. The leave lasting impressions in the reader, and often ought to be fine tuned, according to the genre in which you're writing. If you're writing horror and attempting to paint a horrific setting and the sentences used to describe your setting end in words such as beauty, patience, pleasant, sublime, then you've probably done something wrong.

I am especially fascinated by Tom Piccirilli's A CHOIR OF ILL CHILDREN, one of the finest horror novels I've read in years. The novel is set deep in the Louisiana swamps, and, as is most unusual for the genre, is written in first person, present tense. Now doubt that combination helps to paint CHOIR as a highly unusual book, but immediately, Piccirilli paints a bleak, decadent setting--and he manages to do so without writing explicit descriptions. Editors are said to loathe long passages of description, and for good reason. They often feel forced, as if the writing is lecturing the reader, nudging her in the direction his wants her to go, feeling the emotions he wants her to feel. And is often the case, the result feels contrived. We're no longer absorbed. We're pulled out of the story so that the writer can demonstrate his penmanship.

Very few writers are talented enough to do long, descriptive passages without yanking the reader out of the story. One such writer is the UK's Ramsey Campbell, who is so good at describing settings, doing so has become a staple of his, part of his style. To Campbell's credit, though, his settings aren't just static things, paintings; no, there is movement in his writing. Boats move across the water, people struggle across the street. Cars beep their way through congestion. There is activity, chaos even, in the most rudimentary setting. Relatively few writers, though, have Campbell's natural talent for seeing things in a highly unusual way.

With CHOIR OF ILL CHILDREN, I was impressed with the manner in which I was drawn into the setting, the story, able to paint vivid details with my own mind, even though Piccirilli hadn't stopped to describe each detail. It also doesn't hurt matters that Piccirilli is a highly talented writer, several leagues ahead of the writing you normally encounter in the genre. His sentence are lucid, flowing, at times complex and still highly economical. He also uses a powerful level of emphasis.

Here are some of the words/phrases ending the sentences on the first several pages.

spasms

moving

one voice

her mouth

whispers

swamp

fractured mind

flapping

neurochemicals

 grimacing faces

midnight 

A CHOIR OF ILL CHILDREN is a brilliant book, one of my favorites in the genre, and highly, highly recommended. It's obvious just from the words above that Piccirilli knows a thing or two about emphasis. You can feel the setting, the story, in those ending words alone, which paints a setting of night, darkness, decay and insanity (and probably a dozen other ideas as well).

Kurt Vonnegut is only of my all-time favorite writers. He taught me three valuable lessons about writing:

1) A 250 page story should be 250 pages, not 700 (Vonnegut, a great minimalist, provided this lesson  by example, and today's writers would do well to follow)
2) Make your characters want something, even if it's only a glass of water
3) Humor is a highly effective tool in a writer's repertory

Vonnegut also knew the power of emphasis. Some ending words/phrases from CAT'S CRADLE:

Jonah
John
fail
World Ended
factual
Hiroshima, Japan

Those of you who have read CAT'S CRADLE will see these ending phrases to well the characterize the nature of the book, a book written as an account of Dr. Felix Hoenikker, one of the fathers of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. What's interesting is that Vonnegut blends those phrases in subtle fashion. There's no screaming, no condemnation of Hoenikker who was, after all, just a scientist (and one so eccentric, so focused on the wonders of the world he could barely function on a daily basis).

Dr. Hoenikker has long since died before the book starts. The narrator character first talks to the Felix Hoenikker's son. And these are some of the words which end the sentences of his rumination:

New York
father
bathrobe
cigar
string
Cape Cod
Christmas Eve

All brilliantly evocative words and phrases. Vonnegut, who was a minimalist, never wasted words. These words alone convey a lot of imagery for the reader. String, by the way, forms the basis of the book's title.

So there you have it. Sentence endings can be a powerful place to emphasize ideas, themes, patterns. Take a look at your own work. Or take a look at the sentence endings in a book on your shelf. Do these words and phrases properly convey the thematics and flavor of the book or do you see insipid words and ideas which contradict the atmosphere of the story?

The cop and serial killer cliché

The Cop
We've all seen something like this: Harry Wang, once a decorated detective on the NYPD, returns from his battle with morphine and Stolichnaya addiction just in time to work one of the most provocative cases in the department's history. Women are being brutally murdered in Manhattan East Side. They're being ground up like sausages. Anita Wang, harry's deceased wife, was once turned into a sausage by this savage killer. And now, after all these years, the East Manhattan Sausage Maker Killer is targeting Harry Wang, who is not a woman and does not endeavor to be anyone's sausage.

The Killer
Niles Trufont is not your obligatory killer. He holds seven Ph.D.'s in various topics, is the son and only child of a yachting magnate from Southern France, speaks seven languages, is fond of children, harpsichord and poetry, and likes the dress in women's knit fabrics when the camera isn't on him. His grandfather, a pedophile, abused and sexually molested Niles when he was young. Poor Niles associates ground pig with "Let me see your pee pee." Oh, and when Niles isn't playing harpsichord, speaking seven other languages, adoring children and sailing the seven seas, he's a Wall Street broker of unblemished reputation. And president of the Manhattan  chapter of the national "Don't let them see your pee pee" Association (and you thought you had a busy life). He's reserved a special hatred for Harry Wang, whose Korean grandfather was also a meat cutter (and probably a pee-pee peaker). Despite it all, he somehow finds the time to succeed in his career and still moonlight as a serial killer.

I'm being facetious, of course, but why the fuck does every cop in a thriller have to have drug and alcohol problems (and/or a dead wife), and why does every serial killer have to taunt the police? Jesus Christ, people, be original. Write your own story, not someone else's. It could turn out that someone else's story which so influences you might not be that good in the first place (and that story copies other stories). So, you're essentially writing a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of ten other copies. I mean, come on, where's the goddamn psychological depth? Have you actually researched serial killers? How many of them taunt the police? How many are geniuses with good jobs? In most cases, a serial killer lurks in the underbelly of society, preying on easy victims. Ph.D.'s? Obsessions with fine cuisine and Wall Street Jobs? Give me a fucking break.

I mean, when you construct these stories, do you understand there are other readers out there--yours truly, for example--who are rolling their fucking eyes at the derivative nature of your work? Thomas Harris had his day in the sunshine. Jesus Christ, write something original already. Research ACTUAL serial killers, and know this: serial killers, from a dramatic standpoint, are pretty ineffectual. Come up with an original spin. Serial Killer taunting cops who drink has been done ad nauseam. I can sometimes understand the frustration of agents and editors. If a derivative serial killer story came across my desk, not only would I reject it, I'd probably roll it into a tight ball and launch it through my own window.

End rant. Thank you for listening.

Beware of Bad Advice

Writer beware of bad advice. Bad advice is plentiful in the internet.


Show don't tell. The advice is dispensed to writers like a free pen. I particularly hate the terminology itself, which is cute for the sake of cute, and tends to be misleading as well. Show don't tell, IMO, has become a generic cure for an array of ailments. Maybe you have too much distance between narrator and character. Show don't tell. Maybe you spend too much time with transitions and too little with tangible events. Show don't tell. Maybe your writing lacks sensory details. Show don't tell. You see, I rather hate that piece of advice because it's vague as hell. 


On a recent post of a popular writer's website, one writer not so stylistically attempts to explain his take on show and tell. He writes the following:

Take a simple line: “Hank, you are a bastard,” Sam said.

How do I read it? Deadly insult? High praise? A DNA report? There’s nothing in the wording that tells me, but in this inflection and tone are vital for effective delivery. Yes, you could add, “He said, angrily,” but that means I may read it improperly, and then learn how I should have done it. Yes, you could say, “Sam smiled as he said,” but that’s an external, and in any case, leading-tags tend to be an announcement that dialog is about to arrive, and can become annoying.

But suppose, instead, we’ve been in Sam’s actual viewpoint, in real-time, and noticed Hank enter the room. We know how Sam feels about Hank because we’ve felt it, and have watched the emotions develop, for reasons we now share. In that case, we’ll read the line as we believe Sam would, which is a far more satisfying thing than hearing about it second hand from the narrator. 

Pretorios responds: horseshit. You problem with the line above is that it's poorly written dialogue. "You're" is most often spoken instead of "you are" for one (there are exceptions). Why is it the show don't tell advocates can't come up with better examples than this one? Most helpful would be something which is only subtly off, but this one misses the mark completely, as does the writer when he goes on to explain that the dialogue is vague. Sure it's vague and it needs rewritten. Moreover, this writer does not understand the beauty of context. Sam's reaction to this dialogue could, in fact, indicate the manner in which it was dispensed (as could the rest of the conversation).

What amazes me, however, is the writer's logic--or lack thereof. This writer clearly has no confidence in his own ability to write dialogue, and doesn't even realize dialogue is another tool in his arsenal. I'm especially amused by the following:

But suppose, instead, we’ve been in Sam’s actual viewpoint, in real-time, and noticed Hank enter the room. 

Has this writer heard of Elmore Leonard? Earnest Hemingway? Both writers are sensational with dialogue, and NEVER had to close the distance between reader and character to be understood. You want to get in Sam's head just because your dialogue stinks? I think not. All this writers needs to say is, "Your dialogue needs work." Instead, he goes off on a tangent advocating breathe-in-breathe-out writing (I don't know about you, but I hate that sort of thing; as a reader, I can draw from my emotions; as a matter of fact, some level of ambiguity in story telling is a good thing, because it builds tension; If I know how each character feels and exactly, 100% what is happening around them? Boring. That's not creative writing, my friend, and if you think it is, you're better served writing technical documents).

The point is this: the writer throwing around this advice has no idea what the hell he's talking about. He's being dogmatic, talking for the sake of talking not realizing that the less discerning writers may take heed (maybe it's what he wants anyway; as you accumulate experience, though, be careful how you dispense advice to others).


Rebecca Hamilton, when she appeared as a guest blogger, made the following observation:

I think the best advice I can give is to trust yourself. Open your mind to new advice, but trust that the good advice will resonate with you. If someone gives you advice and you think, “ah ha! I see the light!” than you are probably wise to heed their advice. However, if it doesn’t sit right, do your research. The advice may be off, or plain wrong.

Her last comment in particular is important: "The advice may be off, or plain wrong."

And the writer whose sample I cited at the top is just plain wrong.

Guest Blogger: Rebecca Hamilton

Today's post features writer Rebecca Hamilton. Rebecca has been one of my critique partners for the past year, and is one of the hardest-working writers I know.

How long have you been writing and how did you get started?

Writing? Who said anything about writing? But I guess I’d say writing for me began in the last year. I got this crazy idea – and really, it was insane – that writing was easy. So I decided to try my hand at it. I’d always wanted to write a book – I just didn’t know what about. Strangely enough, now that I’ve written one, I find the ideas are endless.

Back to that whole starting to write thing: When I was a kid (This is what people want, right? The when I was a kid story?) Well anyway, when I was a kid, I wrote a short story that was a spin on the Midas Touch, but instead of everything my character touched turning to gold, it turned to chocolate. I think at the end of the story she accidentally turned herself to chocolate and her dog ate her.

I didn’t understand the whole fridge logic aspect at the time, so I never noticed the gaping plot hole that said, “hey, genius, why didn’t she turn to chocolate earlier in the story,” but you’ll have to cut me some slack. I was a kid.

What's the lesson you'd like to send to writers just starting out?

Ooh, goody. I feel like I can give a clever answer to this one!

I think the best advice I can give is to trust yourself. Open your mind to new advice, but trust that the good advice will resonate with you. If someone gives you advice and you think, “ah ha! I see the light!” than you are probably wise to heed their advice. However, if it doesn’t sit right, do your research. The advice may be off, or plain wrong.

The other thing is, your story isn’t precious. Neither is mine. Sometimes you have to chew it up and spit it out, otherwise, it maybe chock full of clichés like my interview replies here.

What are your strengths and weaknesses as a writer?

*crickets*

Ummm.

Well… the thing is…

This is hard.

Weaknesses: Self-confidence is a big one. People will say my writing is good about thirty drafts before I’ll agree. I could easily say my weakness is everything, because for me it’s never good enough. I’m no literary genius, that’s the heart of it, but even publication wouldn’t be enough for me. I want my book to be “great”. I’m always worried if my story is interesting enough, original enough, real enough, “fresh” enough. Is it *enough*? And I guess at some point I will think it will be, I’ll query, and like every other writer out there, I’ll get a rejection letting me know “no, it’s not enough.”

But the flip side of that is one of my strengths. I think I must be published, and therefore I will be. How could I not when the idea is so real? I’m devoted to the craft of writing and storytelling. I have ideas I know haven’t been done before.

Yes, I know…. “It’s all been done before.” But I think I’ll stay in my pretty little state of denial over that. If it’s been told, it hasn’t been told *my way* yet, that’s for sure. And I’ll tell you what, I am unlike most people.

When I was a kid (people love this stuff, right?) all I ever heard was people telling me I was strange. And I was. And I still am. No one thinks like me. It’s my curse and it’s my gift.

Which published writer has been your biggest influence?

I have never really devoted myself to any single writer, but recently I stumbled upon the works of Nancy Pickard. Phenomenal. I love everything about her style and she’s someone I immediately looked up to. I wrote her by email too, and she responded. Boy is she a sweet lady. One of the sweetest. Her writing is *flawless* and her craft is *breathtaking*. Moreover, I read an interview with her and she thinks a lot like me. It’s refreshing because I felt very alone as a writer before reading what she said. To see she works that way, when she was someone who I so quickly admired, was encouraging.

What qualities most attract you to a book? What turns you away from
a book?

I recently made a blog post on this (here: http://rebecca-hamilton.com/?p=187)

But, okay, let me see if I can sum that up, yeah?

I like a story with a good pace. Something happening from the onset and the story moving forward with each scene. Attention to detail too, and by that I don’t mean a *lot* of detail, but rather the *right* details. The small details people don’t notice unless they are paying attention, like someone shaking out an umbrella or hanging their hat on hook by the front door or plucking cat hair from their shirt. It makes the story and characters alive.

Emotion, Tension, and a Good Story---these things are key. I want a story that doesn’t let me go. They are hard to find. God, I hope I can write one some day. I have a ways to go, but the more I read the more I learn what works.

I guess that ties into your second question---advice to new writers: READ.

R-E-A-D : READ.

Do not underestimate this step. Hand copy prose you like. Take notes on what works in a scene and what doesn’t. If you like the pace, write a list of the main events in the story to get an idea how they created that pace. If you like the tension, look at how it was accomplished. Study what the characters do and how they talk. And ENJOY. Read and enjoy. It’s not a math equation.

Among unpublished writers, what's the most common mistake you see?

Too much distance. Saying things in twenty words that can be said in 15 (when those extra five don’t “add” anything) And the damned dream scene opening. PLEASE—NO! And dialogue punctuation – I had the same weakness when I started writing, and I have to say it’s quickly become an easy way to spot and amateur writer. Often when the dialogue punctuation is in disarray, there are many other basic errors being made.

You know how people beat you over the head with the “no adverb” thing? Well, I find that to be one of the least made newbie mistakes. Made, sure, but nowhere near as much as other mistakes.

What's your ideal workspace?

If I could dream something up? I’d be surrounded by a wide array of colors and photographs of nature, a word basket my kids could never get to, a bowl of lemons and apples and oranges, some sticks of vanilla… I like things that look pretty and smell pretty. At the same time, I need the dark side too, so definitely a second pin up board to keep some edgier photographs as well. Nothing compares to getting out there in the world (I like to take notes) but while writing I like to have lots of inspiration readily available without interrupting my concentration.


Anyone interested can follow me on twitter @inkmuse, visit my blog at http://rebecca-hamilton.com (free ongoing blog story there for the readers, lots of writing tips for the writers, and all other kinds of categories for the web surfer's perusal) or check out the rough sample chapters of my current WIP (The Forever Girl) on Authonomy: http://www.authonomy.com/ViewBook.aspx?bookid=15535

Thanks for taking the time to interview me. It's been a pleasure and I'm honored to be featured on your blog.