Writer's Block -- Is There Such A Thing?

There are many who claim that writer's block is a certain thing, that every writer at some point experiences it. I'm not convinced. If defined as a writer's inability to write, temporarily or not, or as the words won't come, I suspect there is no such thing. What I do believe is that a writer can become dissatisfied what he has written, but to think of this as a "block" is the wrong way to think. He may be at an impasse, but one he chooses, that he is comfortable with. For  example, in deciding to take a break from writing, he may pause at what he considers to be a high point. Doing this can make getting back to the story easier. He may find fault with the words he has chosen, because they interrupt the flow of the story. He may find better ways to express himself, to keep his story on track. I do believe a writer may experience trouble with his story. But the term Writer's Block, I feel, is a misplaced term. 

If you're finding it difficult to get started with the story you wish to write, you may want to write the ending first, or at least have the ending in mind. I have come to believe the beginning of the story should support how it ends, that doing so makes writing easier. And writing should be a pleasure, not a burden. Another thing you can try is to write a good lead-in to your story, weather it be one or two paragraphs. By this I mean a paragraph putting yourself in the mind of the reader, enabling you to say "Yes, this is worth continuing." If you get stuck, or you need a re-start to your story, you might read over what you've written. It could give you a fresh perspective. Whatever you you do, when you strike a blank -- a wall -- in your story, don't jump right away into thinking you're a victim of writer's block, when all you may be experiencing is a creative pause. This may indeed serve you well.

A Few Words (Maybe) On Dialogue

When I write dialogue, I like it to be reflective, as near as I can make it, of my  character's emotions. This way, I can present a true picture of the way he feels. How he responds in various situations. I feel this is the most effective way dialogue for to be used. Probably because of my preference for narrative, I find internal dialogue quite stimulating. In addition to this, it's best suited for some of my recent stories. Internal dialogue expresses the thoughts of the characters, yours and mine. When these thoughts are of primary importance, are used to give life to the character, your story might shine. Internal dialogue, or inner dialogue, may not be your preferred way to go. This is fine. Every writer should develop his, or her, own tastes in dialogue, just as in every element of the story. No quotation marks are needed in internal dialogue. Any punctuation can be avoided for understanding to take place. But use it as the situation calls for it. If you don't, confusion may set in, and confusion isn't good for writer, or reader.

Interior monologue, a literary device used effectively by James Joyce, Samuel Becket, Virginia Wolfe, among others, is a form of dialogue where the speaker expresses his thoughts, speaking to himself. It is free flowing, stream of consciousness, that can, perhaps, be difficult to understand. It is without punctuation, and sometimes without the limitations of standard paragraphs. It  is a kind of "dream speech," and meant to be understood in this way. I say limitations because in interior dialogue any stoppage of the speaker's (or character's) thought process detracts from what is being said. I particularly like this device, and suggest that if you might as well, that you seek it  out. I feel it is well worth the effort.

A Matter Of Characher

Characters give your story life. Simple, isn't it? Can too many characters get in the way of the story? Main characters are important, but what of the secondary ones? What of the strong and the weak? Questions such as these are among my thoughts when I think of characters.

 

When writers are asked which story elements they rank highest, they may put other things at the top of their lists. A story may be written well, tell a story that that excites the writer and the reader. Without characters to give life to what's written on the page the good writing and the good story could suffer. Characters are what your story needs. Right? Not so fast. Give your character a problem to solve, something that he (or she) can accomplish, spend some effort on. Make your character appealing, even if he is suspect. Allow your reader to get to know your character. It your have trouble with this, you may try sketching him out, emotional as well as physical. You don't have to write a profile of your character, but even if it's a part of your thought process, it might be considered. Bland characters will be noticed. You're the writer, and this is something you don't need. 

 

I think a well conceived character can't do a story wrong. Your story calls for a character that is not entirely likeable. I don't mean flawed, but out and out unlikeable. Even this type of character can be appealing. By the way he holds himself. By the way he stands up for himself. By the way he confronts his obstacles. The thoughts of such a character, too, can speak to the way he is perceived. Your aim is to please yourself as well as your reader. You may choose to have your character speak in first person. Doing so personalizes your story. Guy De Maupassant's The Horla is an effective, exquisite, example of this. So is Nikolai Gogol's Diary Of A Madman. Among  many others. Anton Ckeckov's Ward No. 6 is, in my opinion, a story to be studied. If this is your aim, you have done well. If your aim is something else, these are excellent stories to read.

 

I've have grown increasingly fond of the first person narrative. I have written a small series of short stories using this method to tell the fictional stories of those afflicted with mental problems. In such cases, the narrator might become the main character. First person narrative is certainly absorbing. If I can be absorbed by my stories, and any reader I might have as well, I am pleased. If a writer is pleased by what he does, he will continue to do it. There is nothing wrong with choosing a first person point of view. It can sometimes be preferred, especially if it furthers the story along. If you're using it to prove you can and nothing more, that's the wrong reason. 

The importance of giving your story character cannot be denied. But, like point of view, adding character  because you  can doesn't do justice to your story. Characters, as essential as they are, don't have to be everything. I didn't say characters here for a reason. Because characters, as essential as they are, don't  have to be  everything. With practice, and practice can take patience, the situations of your story can supply the character needed. I use as examples of this Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and Algernon Blackwood's The Willows. The  Turn Of The Screw (Henry James), and other house stories, add to  this as well. The way the story is  written, the language used, the dialogue your characters use, all contribute to the character of the story. 

 

I may revisit  this subject again, because I do think character, with or without the development of characters, is the life of your story.  I would like to know what you think. By doing so, you can add to my knowledge, and this cannot be bad.

No Adverbs? Showing Is Always Better Than Telling? Really? 

 Too often I've heard the adverb made light of, and that's being charitable. Is the adverb disdained among literary circles? I want to answer, "Please, don't take my adverbs away." I have no problem with using well chosen adverbs. I think well chosen is the key here. 
 Use adverbs in moderation, to help your story along. They do have a purpose. I try to not overuse them. Adverbs are used  to modify, or describe. As such, I feel, they can be effective. They can also be overused. I try not to do this. 

I will talk about adverbs ending in -ly Some don't. He ran quickly. Quickly describes how he ran. The girl spoke softly. Softly describes how she spoke. A bit of description like this adds character. Too much, and your writing can sound choppy, or worse. If you know how, and when, to use them, they can make your writing clearer . How do you know when you can, or shouldn't, use them? You might try this. Read what you've written, and do so critically. If you decide it's written well, and it makes sense to you, this should provide you the answer. In any case, keep writing. And, don't disdain those adverbs. 


Now, for a bit about showing vs. telling. Using either, I think, can be appropriate, depending on the situation. Maybe your story is heavy on dialogue. Perhaps you favor a narrative style. Each has its own value. I have a taste for first-person narrative. It  suits me. Sometimes, your writing can benefit more by telling than by showing. Your writing can be overly showy. It can brand you as an  incompetent writer, and this you want to stay away from. 

Writer's Groups

Why join a writer's group? From my perspective, the experience can be very beneficial. Advice can be heard from other writers in the group, but there is more than this. You have the opportunity to share the stories of others in the group, what they're saying and how they're saying it. The members of the groups are writers, too.  You hope they're as serious about it as you are, and you can learn from each other. I've been a member of a few writer's groups, and this is my hope. Some may not be. The more quickly this becomes apparent, your decision to stay with the group may be made clear. 
Don't be too hasty to leave, you may be missing an even greater opportunity. Perhaps you're who they're looking for, and this is reason enough to stick it out.    

If you want something from any group you might join, you could do a little research. You may wish to attend a meeting, or two, to find out if it meets your needs. This is a good time to ask questions. What does everyone write? What can you expect from the group? What might they expect from you? Is there ample time for discussion? What about publishing? These are some of the things you may wish to know. Let them know you're interested. By asking questions of this type, you're letting the group know you're serious about joining then, and about the writing you do. A serious writer's group makes for a good writer's group. For everyone involved. 

Listening To Advice 

Should we, as writers, listen to the advice of others? Depending on who those others are, the benefits of doing so could be great. The advice found in writing groups can be helpful, even very helpful. I feel it is intended to be. The writer bringing his, or her, story before such a group should listen attentively. They are writers, seeking the same from you. Listen, but with a critical ear. It's okay to disagree. Your story is your own, and this is the perfect time to discuss it. But listen. Some in these groups may be more practiced and knowledgeable about writing than you are. They may be published, and what they say could prove invaluable. Some may just be "joiners," and are happy to direct their comments to you rather than your story. In the end, listen, but listen with care. When it's your chance to give advice, do so to help, not to hurt. We're all writers, who are all all seeking the same things. 

If you're seeking editing advice, especially form a professional editor, that's when you should step up your listening. Editing can help you see things you may have missed, and can help you tighten your story and can open yourself to suggestions that will make it more readable. An editor will look at your story objectively, and this may just what you need. In addition to the above, listening to advice you may give yourself is, I think, greatly worthwhile. I subscribe strongly to the practice of self-editing. This should not be taken lightly, though. Editing yourself is not easy. You may not want to edit your own work, and think your story doesn't need any editing, especially from yourself. An outside editor may appreciate the work you do to turn your story into something good. What might be helpful to you may be making your story one you'd be interested in reading. The care you give your story might go a long way in showing your professionalism, and that cannot be a bad thing. Write, yes, but do take and listen to advice. It could be what you need.

You've listened well. Now what? Acting on what you've heard would be something you can do. Remember that deciding not to act is itself an action. If you are well aware of your capabilities, and are full of self-confidence, perhaps you might try this non-action is action route. You can take, or discard, the advice you've heard. Can you decide if the advice you hear is helpful or not? If asked, can you  give good advice to others? Whatever you do, it's your decision. This is, I think, is as it should be. 

A Little About This Blog

In stating my preference for the short story, I am not trying to make any judgement call, other than to say this is where my interest lies. I've experimented with writing other forms, but these experiments didn't last long. I found short stories were where where I should be, and where I should stay. Short stories and longer forms do share things things in common. Good writing, believable characters, telling an interesting story, are just some of these things.

I offer, in this blog, some things I've learned in my years of writing. I wish to share and to discuss. Because this is my intention, any comments or suggestions will be appreciated. So, I invite you to read what's here.

FJM