How the Other Half Writes: Jim Butcher, Pt II
Part two of this post, in which I dislike Butcher and his prescriptive writing advice even more.
Next, he talks about the middle. The _Great Swampy Middle_ which Butcher sees as some sort of hostile antagonist to the poor hapless writer; a mysterious entity that tries to lead the writer astray from the safety of his outline.
Characters and situations start popping out of your fingers as if of their own volition. They're often fun, even intriguing, but they're really a form of denial, you poor deluded, benighted sap. You're lost. You just don't want to admit it to anyone, least of all yourself.
This passage makes me angry. For me, this is where a story comes to life: when the characters act of their own account, when I write something and go 'where did that come from?' and later find, inevitably, that it was all set up much earlier in the book. Characters that will be pushed to do anything the writer decides they must think, feel, do, tend to be made of cardboard. Real people will look you in the eye and say 'I would never do that. I would do *this* instead.' and damn, they are right.
To tell beginning writers that his way is the only way to write and that the very thing that brings books alive to me (and many others) is a bad thing, is delusion, needs to be stamped out... that, to me, is criminal. Because writing the story the writer envisioned when they outlined is only ONE way to write. Some writers do that. Some writers have an idea where they are going, and see a better story, and ditch their outline/write a new one. Some writers never know where they are going but trust their intuition that they'll arrive _somewhere_. And all of them are valid methods of writing; and everybody who starts to write needs to be aware that they have choices and make their own decisions.
Butcher's solution to the sagging middle is to have what he calls a Big Middle - a major event to write towards that will change the book subtly and from which he can then start building up to the real climax at the end.
Which is one way of writing (as he admits) - but it is a way of writing that is only suited to the kind of book he talks about, books with a linear plot: character has problem, character starts to solve problem, gets into trouble, gets deeper into trouble, faces Big Problem, wins.
Butcher also lists alternatives - having a different plot, or subplot, or introduce a new character, all to get over the sagging middle.
Some of us don't have sagging middles. At least not in fiction. Yes, the middle can be a bit of a muddle, but beginnings and endings have their own challenges and can be just as hard to get right.
Butcher's take on Scenes is pure Bickham, so I won't go into it at all. His take on Sequels differs slightly.
1) Allow a character to react emotionally to a scene's outcome.
2) Allow a character to review facts and work through the logical options of his situation.
3) They allow a character to ponder probable outcomes to various choices.
4) They allow a character to make a CHOICE--IE, to set themselves a new GOAL for the next SCENE.
And now I'm wondering how much of this 'scene and sequel' stuff is cultural conditioning. After all, Bickham, and his teacher and fellow students and pupils have had considerable influence, both in terms of getting books on shelves and in training new writers. And in some ways it seems to be a logical thing - you have action playing out in-the-now, followed by introspection and narrative summary and planning and reorienting - but to what degree is an entirely different question.
Instead of 'Emotion, Thought, Decision, Action' Butcher refers to
1) EMOTIONAL REACTION:
2) REVIEW, LOGIC, & REASON:
3) ANTICIPATION:
4) CHOICE:
which comes down to the same thing. Butcher sees Sequel as the poing where you add colour and better manipulate the reader If a character is coming off too flighty, all you have to do is add in a bit more Reason to their sequels. Character too dry and boring? Add in more Emotion to /his/ sequels. Someone comments that your character's motivations aren't clear? Go give their sequels a tune-up
(What jimbutcher has to say about the story climax is also all-too-familiar and formulaic. He builds it from
ISOLATION
CONFRONTATION
DARK MOMENT
CHOICE
DRAMATIC REVERSAL
RESOLUTION
and while many climatic scenes will probably have some or all of these things in more or less the order described here, I feel very uneasy about stating with structure instead of concentrating on what the _story_ needs.
All in all, I think I'm revising my opinion on 'it doesn't matter how a book is written, what matters is the result' a little - because it seems to me as if Butcher's writing process is intricately linked to the results. And while I admire his courage in putting up some examples of negative reviews I cannot help but notice that a lot of them seem to pick up on what I see as the negatives of Bickham's method - predictability, flat characters, forced conflict. There's no need to be nasty about it - and some of those reviews _are_ nasty; and there are many people who love the books and find them well-written - but maybe I am biased (Ok, I am biased by my dislike for the method) - but it seems to me as if the two, criticism and writing process are related somehow.
This does not mean that a different process would serve him better; or that it would avoid criticism; but yeah. Take it as a window onto an author's mind; but I do not reccommend it as a path to bookdom.
Next, he talks about the middle. The _Great Swampy Middle_ which Butcher sees as some sort of hostile antagonist to the poor hapless writer; a mysterious entity that tries to lead the writer astray from the safety of his outline.
Characters and situations start popping out of your fingers as if of their own volition. They're often fun, even intriguing, but they're really a form of denial, you poor deluded, benighted sap. You're lost. You just don't want to admit it to anyone, least of all yourself.
This passage makes me angry. For me, this is where a story comes to life: when the characters act of their own account, when I write something and go 'where did that come from?' and later find, inevitably, that it was all set up much earlier in the book. Characters that will be pushed to do anything the writer decides they must think, feel, do, tend to be made of cardboard. Real people will look you in the eye and say 'I would never do that. I would do *this* instead.' and damn, they are right.
To tell beginning writers that his way is the only way to write and that the very thing that brings books alive to me (and many others) is a bad thing, is delusion, needs to be stamped out... that, to me, is criminal. Because writing the story the writer envisioned when they outlined is only ONE way to write. Some writers do that. Some writers have an idea where they are going, and see a better story, and ditch their outline/write a new one. Some writers never know where they are going but trust their intuition that they'll arrive _somewhere_. And all of them are valid methods of writing; and everybody who starts to write needs to be aware that they have choices and make their own decisions.
Butcher's solution to the sagging middle is to have what he calls a Big Middle - a major event to write towards that will change the book subtly and from which he can then start building up to the real climax at the end.
Which is one way of writing (as he admits) - but it is a way of writing that is only suited to the kind of book he talks about, books with a linear plot: character has problem, character starts to solve problem, gets into trouble, gets deeper into trouble, faces Big Problem, wins.
Butcher also lists alternatives - having a different plot, or subplot, or introduce a new character, all to get over the sagging middle.
Some of us don't have sagging middles. At least not in fiction. Yes, the middle can be a bit of a muddle, but beginnings and endings have their own challenges and can be just as hard to get right.
Butcher's take on Scenes is pure Bickham, so I won't go into it at all. His take on Sequels differs slightly.
1) Allow a character to react emotionally to a scene's outcome.
2) Allow a character to review facts and work through the logical options of his situation.
3) They allow a character to ponder probable outcomes to various choices.
4) They allow a character to make a CHOICE--IE, to set themselves a new GOAL for the next SCENE.
And now I'm wondering how much of this 'scene and sequel' stuff is cultural conditioning. After all, Bickham, and his teacher and fellow students and pupils have had considerable influence, both in terms of getting books on shelves and in training new writers. And in some ways it seems to be a logical thing - you have action playing out in-the-now, followed by introspection and narrative summary and planning and reorienting - but to what degree is an entirely different question.
Instead of 'Emotion, Thought, Decision, Action' Butcher refers to
1) EMOTIONAL REACTION:
2) REVIEW, LOGIC, & REASON:
3) ANTICIPATION:
4) CHOICE:
which comes down to the same thing. Butcher sees Sequel as the poing where you add colour and better manipulate the reader If a character is coming off too flighty, all you have to do is add in a bit more Reason to their sequels. Character too dry and boring? Add in more Emotion to /his/ sequels. Someone comments that your character's motivations aren't clear? Go give their sequels a tune-up
(What jimbutcher has to say about the story climax is also all-too-familiar and formulaic. He builds it from
ISOLATION
CONFRONTATION
DARK MOMENT
CHOICE
DRAMATIC REVERSAL
RESOLUTION
and while many climatic scenes will probably have some or all of these things in more or less the order described here, I feel very uneasy about stating with structure instead of concentrating on what the _story_ needs.
All in all, I think I'm revising my opinion on 'it doesn't matter how a book is written, what matters is the result' a little - because it seems to me as if Butcher's writing process is intricately linked to the results. And while I admire his courage in putting up some examples of negative reviews I cannot help but notice that a lot of them seem to pick up on what I see as the negatives of Bickham's method - predictability, flat characters, forced conflict. There's no need to be nasty about it - and some of those reviews _are_ nasty; and there are many people who love the books and find them well-written - but maybe I am biased (Ok, I am biased by my dislike for the method) - but it seems to me as if the two, criticism and writing process are related somehow.
This does not mean that a different process would serve him better; or that it would avoid criticism; but yeah. Take it as a window onto an author's mind; but I do not reccommend it as a path to bookdom.