"the most impactful idea you will ever convey will be caused by your writing, not stated by your writing". I had to pause and ruminate for a moment after hearing this. This is a wonderful way to restate "show, don't tell".
Just adding a little something else that might be helpful to you :) "Telling" can also generate and convey unspoken ideas, and is most effective when you're stating something that is unexpected, not obvious and leaves readers with deeper implications. For example, if you have a character at a funeral and you write "they were extremely happy today", that immediately raises questions in the reader's mind, leaving them wanting to know more or recontextualizing what they just read. There is simply no space to show everything, so it's also important to master the "effective tell". *Edit to add: I also think sometimes a well-placed "tell" could be even more impactful than a show. Telling shouldn't always be overlooked in favour of showing for creating an amazing reading experience. I learned this from "The Emotional Craft of Writing" by Donald Maass.
Excuse me. Historical fiction here. For instance do I need to tell you what the battle of Gettysburg was, or when to make sence of the sentence "Mary pulled the black shawl about her, in the five and a half years since Gettysburg she had missed her husband every day."
I just have to say that like, you genuinely offer good advice in bite sized videos -- what's coolest thing that can happen in this scene versus what's the coolest thing that serves the coherency of my story (because we love patterns) -- is the most concise presentation of the abstracted "about motif, symbols etc being important in and of themselves."
It seems a few of the commenters have an issue with “standing on its own”, and to an extent I agree. Every text is intertextual, and is enmeshed with other works. At the very least, you have to know how language works, and then you’re generally expected to have some idea of how the world works (though YMMV with extremely speculative fiction). I think what you’re getting at is that every piece of knowledge *specific to the novel* should be included in the novel, not that you need to explain everything about the setting if that setting is to some extent general knowledge. That can be a sliding scale, though, and depends very much on how niche that knowledge is. One probably shouldn’t need to explain that moose live in Canada, but one can’t expect that everyone knows that tuatara live in New Zealand. It’s something I’ve been worrying about in my current project, having immersed myself in research for six months. Surely everyone knows that WB Yeats was in the Golden Dawn, right? Right?
I actually think it's a shame that authors have adopted the strong open technique that's used in movies (and works in movies). When I watch Jaws I want a shark attack ASAP. When I read I very much enjoy a story that foments from a beguiling character who I don't know eating eggs.
@@BooksForever Never read any. But I do gravitate to that era even though I'm very much a genre fan. Start with a leisurely breakfast, end with a half mental hillbilly made of eyes! Bang!
I think I see your point there. The thing is, it's not uncommon to read the first pages to get a grasp of the thing you're about to read, meaning just like a movie, it can be of help if the opening sets the tone. Which is something that has maybe changed from what it used to be. It can be really hard to hook your reader if you take the Tolkien approach nowadays, as people would just think this is gonna be a chill story, maybe family drama or something about some short lively folks, whereas now you'd want to start it like P. Jackson to show this is gonna be a story with war, magic and a world-ending threat.
@@visnoga5054 Hello, yes obviously all approaches are valid, I worry when approaches become prescriptive and unchallenged though. Your story should open in the way you truly believe is the most natural when you visualise it in its final form. If you want to be adored, then start a cult. If you want to hook people and make money, cook m*th. If you want to leave a legacy, do some work for charity. If you want to write, write for yourself because you may well be the only one who ever reads it. People are drawn to genre fiction by their love of familiar tropes, but all of them are hoping for the rules to be broken in a way they’ve never seen, or maybe for someone to just revive an outdated technique. Also - I actually open books in the middle when I’m unfamiliar with them, seems like a safer bet. Well that was all very pompous of me, I get like this on Wednesdays!
You in America should know one of the principles of Tin Pan Alley: you have four bars to catch the listener. When the first bars do not work the agent will never hear the refrain, even if it is written by a genius. The agent will say after ten seconds "Next please." And that's it. And listeners as well as readers tend to invest less time nowadays.
I agree about show don't tell, of course. A problem I see with new writers, though, is an over-dependence on exaggerated emotionality: "She was shivering so hard her fingers were shaking ..." "His eyes grew wide and bile filled his mouth ..." "My heart was thumping so hard I thought it was going to leap from my chest ..." In an attempt to engage the emotions of readers, these writers are over-doing the physical responses to the extent you worry for their health.
I'm intrigued at how you picked romance as an example in the section about adhering to rule sets. I'd quite like to know if there are some resources out there explaining the unwritten "rules" behind romance, as well as relevant subgenres like LGBTQ+ romance.
I have a question about "doesn't stand on its own". I want to write a saga, I know where I want to end the first part. That part happens on a rather small scale as of yet, but I want to show glimpses of other forces at play, in order to convey the idea to the reader conflict is meant to escalate at some point. I want to end this part with a climax of sort, where the heroes defeat the strongest group of enemies they yet have faced and suffer some losses, only to realize the threat they were trying to warn others about was much bigger than they had anticipated, meaning they now have to make new decisions, a new "quest" of sort, preparing the entry into the second part. Explained like that, give or take, does that sound like an okay ending, or does it feel too little as a standalone story?
@@SleepParty30 Okay thank you :) I was thinking, once I'm FINALLY done with my first draft, to edit it to add a named antagonist tied to different events they meet, until they get an encounter in the finale, in which that antagonist escapes. I am also thinking about ways I could make the threat less obvious until the big discovery of the epilogue, and the decisions they will make tying the story to the second part, this way although it's cliffhanger-ish there is a more defined purpose, and a kind of closure, hopefully :)
Granted my English is something I work on but I was trying to work out how you build a mystery novel front to back. After all if Lord Peter Wimsey fingers the perpetrator in the first scene then there's nothing for him to do for the rest of the book. Would I be right in thinking there is a less literal way of applying this idea to stories revolving around a great reveal at the end?
You don't need the first scene to be important to the plot. You just need to impress a reader who doesn't yet know anything about the plot and give him a taste of the tone/setting/characters. This means that, instead of fingering the perpetrator on the first page, you show some clues, or have someone give a (flawed) account of the murder, and make it clear the retelling might be false.
@@mozesmarcus461 Thanks, I think I see what was meant. Start with an interesting set up that lays the first clues as to what's happening. So perhaps starting with the murder or lead up to the murder and make sure there are some parts omitted from this telling or bits don't quite add up (if a character is relaying them to the detective) so you can then lead people down the path to eventually finding who did it.
Why do so many people with writing channels not include links to their books in their profiles? Easily 7 out of 10 writers on youtube just add no info at all on how / where people can give them money for their hard work. I just don’t get it.
We all need more brutal criticism. The writers that make it are the most open to criticism and harsh evaluation. There's nothing wrong with positivity, but even professional writers still write garbage and need to know when to throw something out or move on to something else and come back later.
"the most impactful idea you will ever convey will be caused by your writing, not stated by your writing". I had to pause and ruminate for a moment after hearing this. This is a wonderful way to restate "show, don't tell".
Just adding a little something else that might be helpful to you :)
"Telling" can also generate and convey unspoken ideas, and is most effective when you're stating something that is unexpected, not obvious and leaves readers with deeper implications. For example, if you have a character at a funeral and you write "they were extremely happy today", that immediately raises questions in the reader's mind, leaving them wanting to know more or recontextualizing what they just read. There is simply no space to show everything, so it's also important to master the "effective tell".
*Edit to add: I also think sometimes a well-placed "tell" could be even more impactful than a show. Telling shouldn't always be overlooked in favour of showing for creating an amazing reading experience.
I learned this from "The Emotional Craft of Writing" by Donald Maass.
Doesn't Stand On its Own
Fanfiction: "Hold my beer!"
Marvel: "Amateurs"
It's somewaht wonkey but the shelf is (still) standing by itself.
Excuse me. Historical fiction here. For instance do I need to tell you what the battle of Gettysburg was, or when to make sence of the sentence "Mary pulled the black shawl about her, in the five and a half years since Gettysburg she had missed her husband every day."
I hate being waterboarded by authors. It's literarily torture.
I thought this was meant to be high concentration lore drop critique before watching the video. Ig its just supposed to be show not tell
To be fair human beings can only connect with 150 characters at a time
I just have to say that like, you genuinely offer good advice in bite sized videos -- what's coolest thing that can happen in this scene versus what's the coolest thing that serves the coherency of my story (because we love patterns) -- is the most concise presentation of the abstracted "about motif, symbols etc being important in and of themselves."
Thanks, I'm glad you found it helpful!
“The most impactful idea you will ever convey [to your reader] will be caused by your writing but not stated by your writing.”
Bam! Well said
Don't tell us the video is over, show us the video is over.
It seems a few of the commenters have an issue with “standing on its own”, and to an extent I agree. Every text is intertextual, and is enmeshed with other works. At the very least, you have to know how language works, and then you’re generally expected to have some idea of how the world works (though YMMV with extremely speculative fiction). I think what you’re getting at is that every piece of knowledge *specific to the novel* should be included in the novel, not that you need to explain everything about the setting if that setting is to some extent general knowledge. That can be a sliding scale, though, and depends very much on how niche that knowledge is. One probably shouldn’t need to explain that moose live in Canada, but one can’t expect that everyone knows that tuatara live in New Zealand. It’s something I’ve been worrying about in my current project, having immersed myself in research for six months. Surely everyone knows that WB Yeats was in the Golden Dawn, right? Right?
Love the cat, Mr. Duncan.
Thanks!
I actually think it's a shame that authors have adopted the strong open technique that's used in movies (and works in movies). When I watch Jaws I want a shark attack ASAP. When I read I very much enjoy a story that foments from a beguiling character who I don't know eating eggs.
Proust had you in mind…
@@BooksForever Never read any. But I do gravitate to that era even though I'm very much a genre fan. Start with a leisurely breakfast, end with a half mental hillbilly made of eyes! Bang!
I think I see your point there. The thing is, it's not uncommon to read the first pages to get a grasp of the thing you're about to read, meaning just like a movie, it can be of help if the opening sets the tone. Which is something that has maybe changed from what it used to be. It can be really hard to hook your reader if you take the Tolkien approach nowadays, as people would just think this is gonna be a chill story, maybe family drama or something about some short lively folks, whereas now you'd want to start it like P. Jackson to show this is gonna be a story with war, magic and a world-ending threat.
@@visnoga5054 Hello, yes obviously all approaches are valid, I worry when approaches become prescriptive and unchallenged though. Your story should open in the way you truly believe is the most natural when you visualise it in its final form. If you want to be adored, then start a cult. If you want to hook people and make money, cook m*th. If you want to leave a legacy, do some work for charity. If you want to write, write for yourself because you may well be the only one who ever reads it. People are drawn to genre fiction by their love of familiar tropes, but all of them are hoping for the rules to be broken in a way they’ve never seen, or maybe for someone to just revive an outdated technique. Also - I actually open books in the middle when I’m unfamiliar with them, seems like a safer bet. Well that was all very pompous of me, I get like this on Wednesdays!
Completely depends on the story. Both can work
You in America should know one of the principles of Tin Pan Alley: you have four bars to catch the listener. When the first bars do not work the agent will never hear the refrain, even if it is written by a genius. The agent will say after ten seconds "Next please." And that's it. And listeners as well as readers tend to invest less time nowadays.
I agree about show don't tell, of course. A problem I see with new writers, though, is an over-dependence on exaggerated emotionality: "She was shivering so hard her fingers were shaking ..."
"His eyes grew wide and bile filled his mouth ..."
"My heart was thumping so hard I thought it was going to leap from my chest ..."
In an attempt to engage the emotions of readers, these writers are over-doing the physical responses to the extent you worry for their health.
Great video! Pretty good that you always get to the points and make good examples of each one while explaining!
Glad you liked it!
Honestly, I don't mind if people gonna hate my novel, but if they do, at least hate it for the right reasons... Well, that's the hard part.
thanks - appreciate the chapter bookmarks and clear, concise, no-frills explanations/overviews
Everyone should know these matters. Thank you.
Love the videos thank u so much hope to see more from you. You really help me want to and keep writing, thank you!
Second this
I took your analogy about music, combined it with your book reference, and came up with Molly Hatchet. Not so bad an outcome.
What happened to the cat???!?!!!!
omg did you banish cat???!?
Somehow my brain read the title as "5 signs your cat will HATE your novel"
4:51 Ummm, sadly modern fantasy novels are based on legal thrillers. Not the other way around.
Your beard reminds me of a warm safe place where as a child I'd hide.
Brandon Sanderson would fall over laughing
I'm intrigued at how you picked romance as an example in the section about adhering to rule sets. I'd quite like to know if there are some resources out there explaining the unwritten "rules" behind romance, as well as relevant subgenres like LGBTQ+ romance.
I have a question about "doesn't stand on its own". I want to write a saga, I know where I want to end the first part. That part happens on a rather small scale as of yet, but I want to show glimpses of other forces at play, in order to convey the idea to the reader conflict is meant to escalate at some point. I want to end this part with a climax of sort, where the heroes defeat the strongest group of enemies they yet have faced and suffer some losses, only to realize the threat they were trying to warn others about was much bigger than they had anticipated, meaning they now have to make new decisions, a new "quest" of sort, preparing the entry into the second part.
Explained like that, give or take, does that sound like an okay ending, or does it feel too little as a standalone story?
Realizing this is not the point you were making :P but if someone feels like answering, I'm interested.
To me it sounds good. Many series are built like that. But I'd just make sure each book from your saga is strong enough as a standalone.
@@SleepParty30 Okay thank you :) I was thinking, once I'm FINALLY done with my first draft, to edit it to add a named antagonist tied to different events they meet, until they get an encounter in the finale, in which that antagonist escapes. I am also thinking about ways I could make the threat less obvious until the big discovery of the epilogue, and the decisions they will make tying the story to the second part, this way although it's cliffhanger-ish there is a more defined purpose, and a kind of closure, hopefully :)
Granted my English is something I work on but I was trying to work out how you build a mystery novel front to back.
After all if Lord Peter Wimsey fingers the perpetrator in the first scene then there's nothing for him to do for the rest of the book.
Would I be right in thinking there is a less literal way of applying this idea to stories revolving around a great reveal at the end?
You don't need the first scene to be important to the plot. You just need to impress a reader who doesn't yet know anything about the plot and give him a taste of the tone/setting/characters.
This means that, instead of fingering the perpetrator on the first page, you show some clues, or have someone give a (flawed) account of the murder, and make it clear the retelling might be false.
@@mozesmarcus461 Thanks, I think I see what was meant. Start with an interesting set up that lays the first clues as to what's happening. So perhaps starting with the murder or lead up to the murder and make sure there are some parts omitted from this telling or bits don't quite add up (if a character is relaying them to the detective) so you can then lead people down the path to eventually finding who did it.
Why do so many people with writing channels not include links to their books in their profiles? Easily 7 out of 10 writers on youtube just add no info at all on how / where people can give them money for their hard work. I just don’t get it.
He is not yet a publisher author. He made that clear in a dedicated video
He is not yet a published author. He made that clear in a dedicated video.
If the beginning chapter is too long, it can turn me off. Just get straight to the point and establish the main character.
Hah! Joke's on you! I want half the planet to hate my novel (then hopefully the other half will love it, and the factions can go to war over it)
Same
Thanks
Your advice is trustworthy, but your bookshelf is not on the level.
Please don't use these type of titles 😥
We all need more brutal criticism. The writers that make it are the most open to criticism and harsh evaluation. There's nothing wrong with positivity, but even professional writers still write garbage and need to know when to throw something out or move on to something else and come back later.
🐎 😂
Hatchets aren’t allowed on planes. This breaks the rules of what we would assume someone would be allowed to have on a flight. Trash book!
A novel absolutely does not have to stand on its own. There are franchises.
He didn't mean every novel needs to be a standalone novel. Just stand alone "all the information a reader needs to enjoy the novel is in the novel"