The Secret to Writing a Story

There is a scene from the movie Desperado that has stuck in my mind for years. Near the beginning of the film, Antonio Banderas character instructs a small boy on how to play a guitar. He tells the boy how (obviously) there are two hands involved in playing a guitar: the hand that strums the strings and makes the sound, and the hand that holds the strings and makes the chord. Antonio motions to the chord hand and tells the boy, "Forget about this hand," and instructs him to concentrate only on strumming. This scene reminded me of how my dad (who plays the guitar) told me to actually do the opposite: forget about the strumming hand and concentrate on the chord hand. In either case, the lesson is the same: there are two parts involved in making this art, and in order to do this art correctly, you must concentrate on one part at a time.

The same is true with the art of writing a story (and even writing in general). There are two parts to writing a story. One part is writing the story, i.e., getting the whole amalgamated menagerie of images, people, places, and events out of your head and onto paper. The other part is shaping the story, i.e., honing what you've written into a fine piece of literature. The first part is to write; the second part is to write well. The problem most people have in trying to write a story is that they try to do both of these parts at the same time. While trying to pour forth their soul through ink and paper, they keep distracting themselves with thoughts of using images, shaping themes, developing characters, and so forth. This can lead to a story being grounded before it ever truly takes off.

I speak from experience here. Many of my latest stories never seemed to go anywhere because the whole time I was writing them I was constantly saying, "What does that mean?" "How is the theme developed?" "What is the purpose of that character(s)? that place(s)? that event(s)? that image(s)?" My story writing was stagnant because of this, until I realized that those questions were to be asked when you are shaping the story, not writing it, and that shaping and writing were two totally different parts of a story's creation. Once I grasped that, I sat down and pounded out a new story, and the results were immediate and amazing. There was a freedom and flow to the whole process that had been absent before, and I found myself actually desiring to write on it more and more as the days went by. Compared to my old story writing style, the difference was like night and day.

The secret to avoiding the unfortunate calamity of grounded (and therefore lost) stories is the secret of guitar playing: forget about this hand, i.e., forget about the "shaping" part and concentrate solely on the "writing" part. However, unlike guitar playing (where you can forget and focus on either hand), in story writing, you write the story first and shape second. Without the written story, then there is nothing to shape. Try and shape while you write, and you will ground out and lose your story. Write it and then shape it, however, and it will come as natural as breathing.

Such concentration is truly a discipline. You may find (as I did) that you are constantly battling your own mind as it furiously tries to analyze and categorize your story in the midst of writing it. Such inclinations must be pushed under if your story is to survive, and that will take some effort. At all cost, while you write, you must put all "shaping" thoughts out of your mind. Just write the stupid thing; get it out of your head and on paper. Do not worry about characters, settings, events, and images while you write; just write. The "analyzing" and "worrying" part will come later; right now, what matters is that the story is merely written. Later on, you will concentrate on writing it well.

On Good and Bad Literature: An Introduction

It should be the goal of every writer (especially a Christian writer) to be able to distinguish good literature from bad literature; it can help tremendously in your quest to become a good writer. Of course, exactly what constitutes good literature and how its constitution contrasts with bad literature often requires much studies; it has taken me four years of undergrad literature work just to scratch the surface of the issue, and I'm sure my graduate work will take me deeper still. Therefore, any findings I have are, at best, ultimately lacking in the end. However, regardless of how little I know, I think it still beneficial (for me as well as you) to write them down and give some concretion to my thoughts. I hereby propose to argue for at least one finding of mine: bad literature is more often than not an imitation of good literature. For this argument, I offer four proofs (a nowhere near exhaustive list, I assure you).
First of all, good literature is tradition bound, while bad literature is merely genre bound. By "tradition bound," I mean literature that has its roots firmly entrenched in a tradition of writing that gives it focus and structure beyond mere formality. By "genre bound," I mean literature that has the form of a tradition, and no more. For example: in a book bound to the tradition of science fiction and a book bound to the genre of science fiction, your will find them both utilizing similar forms: future settings (post-apocalyptic, alien, utopic, dystopic, etc.) and future elements (robots, spaceships, lasers, aliens, etc.). The similarities, however, end there; for you see, in the genre bound book, these elements are mere plot devices, i.e., things that move along the succession of events. To the tradition bound book, however, these elements are more than plot devices; they are carriers of the theme(s) of that tradition.
An example is needed: in the tradition of science fiction, the questions have often been asked and explored of whether or not man has the means to save himself and what are those means; to the genre of science fiction, however, such questions are irrelevant. Therefore, a genre bound science fiction book will have a war between humans and a race of aliens that use robots as weapons, and no more; but a tradition bound book will go further. For example, it may have the aliens telling humanity that its robot army was invented to destroy all weaponry, and thus the aliens found peace; they now demand that we surrender ourselves to this same peace. Now we are stuck with larger issues than merely winning a war: what is peace? is it the absence of conflict? the absence of weapons? is the absence of anything? have the aliens really done away with weaponry (for are not the robots their weapons now)? which aliens control the robots? do not they have the power now? have the aliens created universal peace or a new form of tyranny? To the tradition bound science fiction book, these questions are paramount; to the genre bound book, however, they are superfluous, and merely distract from the plot. Thus is the case with all traditions and genres; the former treats its tradition as fundamental, and the latter as superficial, which leads me to my second proof.
Good literature is thematic, while bad literature is merely formal. By "thematic," I mean driven by a theme; by "formal," I mean driven by the plot. As stated above, good literature typically concerns itself with deeper issues and ideas that permeate its entire composition, while bad literature deems such issues and ideas as irrelevant. To bad literature, only the plot is supreme (what is happening); to good literature, only the underlying ideal is supreme (why is this all happening). When a book is thematic, all the elements of that book serve to stress the theme; when it is merely formal, all the elements only serve to form and advance the plot, which leads me to my third proof.
Good literature has unified elements, while bad literature has wasted elements. By "unified elements," I mean all the elements of a book are bound up in the theme and are therefore necessary. By "wasted elements," I mean all the elements of a book are bound up in the plot and may as well have not been there as been there. For example: to the good science fiction book, all the elements are crucial; even the very color, shape, and movement of the alien robot army says something to the theme of the book. To the bad science fiction book, however, all the elements are expendable; the robots may as well have one color, shape, and movement as well as another. The elements in a good book are not there just to be there, for they serve a higher purpose (i.e., reflect the theme); the elements of a bad book, however, are just there, for they merely serve a mechanical purpose (i.e., advance the plot). That, at last, leads me to my fourth and final proof.
Good literature is presenced, while bad literature is hollow. By "presenced," I mean possessed by the theme. By "hollow," I mean empty of a theme. When the elements of a book are bound up in a theme, there is a certain life to them all; they are not mere cardboard cutouts dancing on an imagined stage. They become real people, with real issues, facing real evil, and real monsters. When the elements are bound to a plot, however, there is deadness; they are merely cardboard cutouts dancing on an imagined stage. They are no more real to you than before you even read about them. Good literature, because it is presenced, cannot leave you untouched in some way (even if you can't quite describe how); bad literature, however, can.
I conclude that bad literature is constituted as that which imitates good literature because it has merely the form of a tradition without the tradition, which results in hollow formalism with wasted elements. Thus concludes my argument (so far).

An addendum is necessary: these proofs, though I believe true, are nevertheless blanket statements that must be taken with a slight grain of salt. It is possible for a book that fits my scheme for "bad" to momentarily touches upon a theme of its tradition that moves you slightly in mysterious ways; it is possible for a book that fits my scheme for "good" to momentarily be hollow and plot driven. Not every book perfectly fits the "bad" scheme; no book (though arguments could be made) perfectly fits the "good"scheme (except for the Bible). Regardless, I still offer my argument and its proofs as at least guidelines, if not actually rules.

The Second Fall (Or, Chesterton on the Fundamental Flaw in Modern Realism)

I know many good men and women who love Realist literature, and I can in no way blame them. To the Realist, what is real (whether it is good, bad, or ugly), is beautiful because it is true; there is no gloss or artificial layers to it. I understand the logic quite clearly, and agree with it whole-heartedly.
Still, I cannot bring myself to love the Realist tradition quite like I love the Fantasy tradition (note: I differentiate between tradition and genre). I often wondered why. There is a part of me (a spiteful, doubting, nagging part) that claims I am merely a child at heart and that I need to grow up and see the world as it really is. It says I need to put away childish things. However, there is another part of me (an enlarged, more wholesome part that is not really me) that still defiantly claims that my hesitation (and sometimes downright dislike) of Realist literature is not unfounded; on the contrary, its roots run right into the ancient core of another tradition I love, i.e., Christendom. The problem is, I could never quite articulate what it was that caused me to hesitate at the threshold of Realism; I never could say why I held it at a distance, admiring it for what it was but never embracing it as gospel. This inability to explain myself has left myself in a quandary more than once.
It was Oswald Chambers who said that the ones who affected us the most in life are not those who told us something new, but those who gave utterance to that which has been "dumbly struggling" in you for utterance. Well, Chesterton has given me utterance. From his book Heretics, in the chapter titled "On the Negative Spirit," I give my reason for why I, as a Christian writer, cannot fully embrace modern Realism (I emphasize the main point):

"Much has been said, and said truly, of the monkish morbidity, of the hysteria which has often gone with the visions of hermits or nuns. But let us never forget that this visionary religion is, in one sense, necessarily more wholesome than our modern and reasonable morality. It is more wholesome for this reason, that it can contemplate the idea of success or triumph in the hopeless fight towards the ethical ideal, in what Stevenson called...the 'lost fight of virtue.' A modern morality, on the other hand, can only point with absolute conviction to the horrors that follow breaches of the law; its only certainty is ill. It can only point to imperfection. It has no perfection to point to...
"[It] is this great gap in modern ethics, the absence of vivid pictures of purity and spiritual triumph, which lies at the back of the real objection felt by so many sane men to the realistic literature of the nineteenth century...The tradition of calling a spade a spade starts very early in our literature and comes down very late. But the truth is that the ordinary honest man, whatever vague account he may have given of his feelings, was not either disgusted or even annoyed at the candor of the moderns. What disgusted him, and very justly, was not the presence of a clear realism, but the absence of a clear idealism. Strong and genuine religious sentiment has never had any objection to realism; on the contrary, religion was the realistic thing, the brutal thing, the thing that called names...But if it was a chief claim of religion that it spoke plainly about evil, it was the chief claim of all that it spoke plainly about good. The thing which it resented, and, as I think, rightly resented, in [modern realism], is that while the eye that can perceive what are the wrong things increases in an uncanny and devouring clarity, the eye which sees what things are right is growing mistier and mistier every moment, till it goes almost blind with doubt.
"If we compare, let us say, the morality of The Divine Comedy with the morality of Ibsen's Ghosts, we shall see all that modern ethics have really done. No one, I imagine, will accuse the author of the Inferno of an Early Victorian prudishness or a Podsnapian optimism. But Dante describes three moral instruments--Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell, the vision of perfection, the vision of improvement, and the vision of failure. Ibsen has only one--Hell...
"All I venture to point out, with an increased firmness, is that this omission [of an enduring and positive ideal], good or bad, does leave us face to face with the problem of a human consciousness filled with very definite images of evil, and with no definite images of good. To us light must be henceforward the dark thing--the thing of which we cannot speak. To us, as to Milton's devils in Pandemonium, it is darkness that is visible. The human race, according to religion, fell once, and in falling gained knowledge of good and evil. Now we have fallen a second time, and only the knowledge of evil remains to us."

The problem with the modern mind (and a character in Pan's Labyrinth demonstrates this well) is that it thinks fantasy is merely "childish" or "blind" or "immature" because it only sees the good and ignores evil. That is an utter lie. If there is no evil in a story, no antagonist or antagonism beset against the hero(es), then there is no story. To borrow words from Dr. W, modern Realism has a whole lot of tension, but no resolution other than the realization that all is not well. Christians firmly hold that, in the real world, evil is a fact, and the good guys do not always win. However, Christians also hold that, in the real world, the Good does win in the end. In the realist fantasy (like the LOTR), it is indeed a long, dark road to get there, but we will get there.
Further comments about Christianity's stance on good and evil in regards to reality can be found in this other blog entry of mine.

The Marriage of the Living and the Dead (Or, A Reply to a Rant, and a Realization)

The Inklings (esp Tolkien and Lewis) did not see fantasy as an escape from reality, but as a way to get at Reality so that we can see reality better. Lucy and her siblings didn't stay in the wardrobe forever. They came back to war-torn England, and that is the point: not to stay in wonderland, but to come back from it and use what you learned there in the "real" world. Tolkien knew this incredibly well; that is what the whole "Scouring of the Shire" was about. What was the point of going through the salvation of Middle-earth if you can't even go back and save the Shire in the end? My final claim will always be that fantasy (insofar that it takes us to Reality) is more real than reality as it is given to us.

However (da da dum), I have come to a realization. I discovered (just yesterday) that, in regards to literary pursuits (and not necessarily spiritual or intellectual pursuits), I am not a student of Lewis (gasp!). I am, in fact, a student of Tolkien. Here is why:
Though the closest of friends, Tolkien and Lewis fundamentally disagreed on a philosophical level that influenced their fiction. Lewis was a firm Platonist. In his mind, there is the "real" world, and then there is the Real world, a transcend realm of abstract ideals by which the "real" world has its being (insofar as it "partakes" of the Real world, i.e., a tree's "treeness" is determined by how much it "partakes" in the ideal Tree of the Real). The Real world is the "magic," and the only way to get to that world is by a transportation (or, as Lewis put it, a "transposition") into it: so the kids had to go through a wardrobe (or a train station, or a picture, etc.) to get to Narnia; so Elwin Ransom has to go to another planet in the Space Trilogy. In order to get to the Real, one had to escape to the Real. As a Platonic Christian, Lewis saw the Real as God, and one must escape to Him in order to get to Him (and, conversely, bring Him back into this world, such as in That Hideous Strength). Though the "magic" (the Real) can be brought back to this world, it is fundamentally separate from the world.
That is where the two part. Tolkien was (in contrast to Lewis) a staunch Aristotelian. To him, all things are made up of two elements: the accident and the substance, i.e., the outward manifestation and the inner disposition. It is similar to Platonism in that there is a "real" and a Real, and the "real" has its being insofar as it partakes of the Real. The difference, however, is that, in Aristotelian thought, the Real is not separate from the "real." On the contrary, it is intimately a part of its being. Everything is substanced with the Real, although its outward manifestations may differ (all trees look different, but they are still all trees). Thus, in Middle-earth, everything is substanced with the music of the Valar. The "magic" is not a fantasy world you escape to; it is in the "real" world, in the now, in varying degrees (with evil being that which completely rejects it). It is not merely abstract; it is concrete as well. That is why in the LOTR (both the books and the movies) it all seems so real. You feel like you are reading/watching ancient history (or something you wished was history), not merely a fantasy. The "magic" is (and this is the amazing thing) not seen as magical. It is just there, simply a part of reality, all reality, including the good and the bad (for the music of the Valar knows both joy and sorrow, from the majestic trumps of Manwe, to the mournful horns of Ulmo; and all are beautiful because they are of the music). Tolkien did not like that Lewis made the Real, made the "magic," something separate that you had to escape to and bring back. In his mind, the Real/"magic" is (and forever has been) in the world and a part of the world right now, as real as any river or tree, bird or beast, man or woman.

I (as I discovered yesterday) hold to the latter. Reality is not something that is completely separate from us that we have to "get at" and bring back. It is with us right now, as we speak, in this very room; Immanuel, i.e., God is with us. The Fall marred the world's ability to present it, and muddled our vision to see it; but it is not totally silent, and we are not completely blind. We catch a glimpse of glory every once and a while, a stab of joy here and there. Christianity has always believed in the sacramental, that God is enmeshed with as well as independent from creation, that the finite can (and does) contain the infinite. As a Christian (esp. as a Christian writer), I believe this wholeheartedly.
And I find this exciting, because as a writer in love with the fantastic, I find myself struggling to tell my story so that it can find relevance and be taken seriously in a world dominated by Realism (which I do not despise like I used to, but that is another story). In a unexpected move, God pointed me to someone I had set on the back burner in my mind, i.e., Tolkien. Of course, the unexpected is typically God's modus operandi.
Perhaps an argument can be made that the Inklings "copped out," that they chose to attack modernity from the outside instead of engaging it from the inside (like Elliot or O'Connor). Perhaps you can say that about them all, except for Tolkien. I here proclaim that he (as best as I understand it) was a true paradox: he was a Fantastic Realist, i.e., his Aristotelian philosophy allowed him to create a realist fantasy! He found (or was found by) the secret to bridging fantasy and realism, to the marriage of the living and the dead: sacramental theology makes the "magic" real--not idealistic, not fluffy, not abstract, not disconnected, not contrived, not naive; but actual, dense, concrete, relevant, mysterious, and ancient. The key to making a realist fantasy is, not to escape to a magical world, but to live in one.