Creative Writing Programs and genre/game writing

[Radiating Gnome]

Rune asked me to elaborate on this idea in a discussion on the Iron DM list, and I moved it here just to stop hijacking that board with my mumbling

We had been discussing the idea of Creative Writing programs, and a “formal” education in creative writing, and how it prepares a writer to work in Genre and game writing.

I should preface this by saying that my experience shouldn’t be taken as universal, even if I do think I can get pretty close to the heart of the situation for most students in writing programs.

My boring story of “becoming” a writer: I drifted into the creative writing program as an undergrad. I started out, like a lot of geeks like me who end up in those sorts of classes, writing genre stuff – detective stories, fantasy, etc. My writing professor at that point shut me down quick – called it “pulp” and advised me to write that stuff with my left hand – and not to show it to him. He wanted to see something that was literary.

So I settled in to the literary writing thing, learning to write the way they wanted me to write. And I’m okay at it. Mine isn’t going to be a name you’ll see on the NYT bestseller list any time soon. I always promised myself, as an undergrad and later as a grad student, that I would go back some day and apply the things that I learned as a student of writing in the existing system to the genre stuff I grew up with – science fiction and fantasy.

So I finished my MFA a little while ago, and when I finished I started to go back to science fiction and fantasy – stuff I hadn’t read much for years – this time to read as a writer, and relearn the genre conventions so I could give it a try myself.

And it’s a tough transition – tougher than I expected. Most of the things I learned to strive for as a literary fiction writer don’t do very well in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. The rules are different.

Am I boring you yet?

So, to get to the meat: The easiest way to try to illustrate the difference between literary writing and genre writing is to think about the difference between an action/adventure movie like Lord of the Rings and an art film like Jim Jarmusch’s Ghost Dog, which has strong action movie tendencies.

LOTR is a movie that was driven by plot. There are characters, and they’re interesting to a point, but for the most party they’re fairly simple characters. Sam is the embodiment of loyalty. He doesn’t have a lot of depth of character beyond that. None of the characters really surprise us in the movie – not just because we’ve been reading those books for the past 60 years, but because the characters are fairly static and predictable. The conflict takes place outside the characters, between good and evil, and we don’t think about things like camera angle, framing, or many of the other artistic parts of the process as we enjoy the film. For the most part.

Ghost Dog is a very different sort of action movie. There’s a lot of ambiguity, for one thing. Although the movie follows the Forest Whitaker character, we understand that he’s isn’t a good guy or a bad guy, he’s just trying to make his way in the world the same as the rest of us. His struggle is a very human, real-world struggle, despite the trappings of an action movie and his taste for samurai philosophy. And, at the same time, our attention is drawn to the artistic elements of the film. A boat built on the top of a building in the middle of New York City. Creative casting, even, and the presence of images and elements in the film that are there to draw attention to the film itself, as a piece of art, and not just serving to further the story.

Mind you, I loved both movies, and think LOTR is a great film as well as a great movie, but Jackson’s movie is more invested in storytelling than in art, and Jarmush’s film is more interested in the art than in the story.

In a writing program there is very little discussion of plot in a piece. The conventional wisdom says that plot is just an expression of character, and that the originality and complexity of the character is what really matters. The plot is secondary at best – it’s just a chance for the character to behave. Genre writing tends to be the opposite—the characters are pretty standard, simple characters – with perhaps a flaw here or there, something to make them a little different, but not the kind of ambiguity and complexity of a character in a more Literary piece.

So I learned about story structure, the problems and traps of exposition, the various tools of the trade, but when I turned my attention to genre writing, there were things that were left out.

And when you turn that a step further to writing for a game, a game in which the central characters need to be not just static and predictable, but a hole left for the players to fill, that’s something else entirely.

My own approach to writing original adventures for my campaign centers around character – the characters of the major NPCs in the adventure. I try not to plan the plot out too much ahead of time – the major bad guys are as developed as they can be, and then I ad lib their actions and reactions as the story unfolds. That takes me very far away from my roots as a writing student, but the exercise of trying to figure out what a given character would do in a situation is fun. I have gone so far, when I was underprepared for a session, to arrive with a handful of characters that I created using a combination of Jamis Buck’s NPC generator and

Of course, when I sit down to try to write something that I might submit elsewhere, for other DMs to run, I need to write out a lot more, lay out a lot more plot than I usually do for my own games.

So, are there other creative writers out there? Anyone have a similar or different experience? What sort of advice would be give to a young writer who wants to write genre stuff and is thinking about entering a program?

I’ll shut the hll up now.

-rg

 

[Wicht]

Now, I have no formal training as a writer but I am an avid reader and a fairly intelligent person (most of the day anyway) and, besides which I have an opinion or two... one of which is...

Simplicity is preferable to complexity. (An intelligent person can understand the complex but it takes a genius to make it simple. That's one of my mottos anyway.)

This is a philosophy I hold to be true in almost every aspect of life. Take any engineering field, the simpler you can make a process the less room there is for error.

I think it holds true in literature as well. The school of thought that teaches a person to make the characters complex, etc., IMHO do not necessarily prepare people to write well nor to necessarily communicate well through their writing. And that is what writing is, a form of communication. A writer who hides double, triple and quadruple meanings into his work that only he in the end can recognize is doing nothing more than stroking his ego. He has not necessarily communicated well.

I look at the parables of Jesus (and no, I am not swerving off into religion, just making a point about communication). These parables are simplicity themselves, but they communicate the symbolic meaning so very clearly. Why do symbolic references in literature demand complexity? Take Aesops fables. Very simple. Very profound. Tolkien wrote a profound work about the nature of duty and he did so in a simple straightforward style. Lovecraft wrote groundbreaking horror, in a simple (though wordy) style. Robert Howard excites people in a simple fashion. Simplicity does not, despite the naysaying of many academics equal stupidity nor does it mean that the writing is poor. Sometimes it is the sign of a great writer.

(I'm not sure if this is directly related to what the gnome posted but its my .02 and I thought I would throw it in)

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Simplicity

Wicht-

There are plenty of writers who would agree with you. Poe wrote every story to try to simply evoke a single emotion, and thought that was the way to write a story. And he's still widely read today. But most of Shakespeare's central characters are very complex, human characters with a variety of motivations and characteristics.

I don't think most writers really sit down and map out layer upon layer of meaning in their work, to be later excavated by self-satisfied scholars -- any more than I think ancient aztecs threw their potshards into carefully layered holes for archaeologists to find. And writers that do that tend to not be widely read.

The clearest difference is between an accent on telling a STORY or TELLING a story. A storyteller like Tolkien writes to and puts the accent on STORY. A literary writer would take the same story and focus on the TELLING.

Not that everyone isn't doing a little of everything.

And don't think I'm saying one is better than the other. There are literary books that I love for the music of the language that is used to write them, and there are storytelling books that I love for where they take me and the story they tell.

Here's another bad metaphor for the comparison. Many serious classical composers for the past couple of decades at least have become bored with the harmonic and melodic nature of music, and have taken to composing cacophonous pieces that most people don't really enjoy listening to. But to other musicians, those who have the same sense of "been there done that" with the mozarts and beethovens of the world, find that work worth listening to.

To push that a little further, because we have writing programs taking in young writers right out of college with only a little literary and life exerpience to build on, it can be like teaching young composers to only compose the cacophonous stuff, not the more tradiational, classical melodic and harmonic music.

-rg

 

[arwink]

As another person who went through a writing program, and now teaches in one, I thought I'd throw my 2c in on the subject.

I know that in my undergrad, and even now that I'm working at a post-graduate and staff level, the program I went through had no real problem with genre fiction being submitted. I also know that most of the writing courses in the uni's around where I live have similar approaches, and at least one has employed one of Australia's most popular horror writers as a teacher.

I did, however, write a lot of genre fiction in my first few years that didn't do anywhere near as well as I would have hoped, and blamed a lot of it on the uni's complete lack of understanding and disreguard of the genre. I grumbled a lot, expanded my writing style and tried for something more literary.

A year or two ago, when I started marking assignments and creative folios, I noticed that I too was giving low grades to most of the genre stuff. Not because I didn't like the genre, but because a lot of people were using the genre as an excuse for being lazy. People were taking no chances, making no effort to be original, and the writing was often derivative and poor. The plots were sometimes interesting, but one of the sad rules of life is that plot is rarely interesting, it's how the story is being told that makes us want to pay attention.

I now get students who want to discuss their marks, and tell me that I don't understand the genre. I've been reading fantasy, sci-fi and horror for nearly twenty years, and have done enough work on it in my studies, that this isn't entirely true. I'm not perfect, but I can spot when something is done well and something is done poorly. I know the genre, which is why I know a bad fantasy story is a story, not a bad genre.

If you want to write genre fiction, and your joining a creative writing program, this is something to keep in mind. Sure, it is possible that your teachers are down on genre fiction. It does happen. But it's also possible that your work has problems, that you've not yet developed your writing enough to tackle the genre successfully, or that you're just reformatting cool ideas you've been reading lately (I know I did this a fair bit in my youth).

Realistically, just as most proffessional writers recommend you read outside the field you work in, I'd probably recommend trying to write outside of the genre you work in as well. On the whole, it'll teach you more than three years of study in the genre will ever do.

 

[Darklance]

"He wanted to see something that was literary.

So I settled in to the literary writing thing, learning to write the way they wanted me to write. And I’m okay at it. Mine isn’t going to be a name you’ll see on the NYT bestseller list any time soon"
-rg

What exactly did you start writing. What was the subject/ new approach? Dropping plot and focusing on charecters?

 

[wbmcdermott]

I am a published author who has taken exactly two creative writing classes (one in high school and one in college). I also took a slew of other writing classes (including advertising copywriting, journalism, and various editing seminars), but only two of what I would call "writing" courses for the sake of the topic of this thread.

I agree with most of what Radiating Gnome said, except for his inference that the NYT Best-Seller list is populated by literary works. Let's face it, the top selling novels are all genre books of one sort or another (mystery, thriller, horror, even the odd fantasy or science fiction book).

But as far as my 2 cents are worth on this subject, the best teacher of writing is the act of writing itself. Now, you do need critique or you'll never get better. But the best critique you can get is a constant paycheck for your writing. That and reading -- a lot!

My path to publication went through the editing field, so I learned how to write by rewriting the work of others on a daily basis. Everything I have learned about plot, character development, structure, and dialogue, I have picked up by reading the work of authors I admire. And if you want to write in the genre, I say read in the genre to learn the craft. Lord of the Rings (the movie) would not have worked as an art film. Just as Memento (sorry, I haven't seen Ghost Dog) would not have worked if the writer and director had followed the rules of a conventional thriller.

I guess, what I am saying is that you have to write to and for your audience. Now, that's not to say that your genre story can be formulaic and stale. You have to engage the reader, but you have to do it in a way the reader can relate to.

Yes, genre novels (even NYT Best-selling genre novels), are plot- and character-driven. So you need to make your plot compelling and yet believable. You have to make your characters real, yet interesting. And, for your main character, there has to be more than just conflict, he or she must face the conflict and be changed in the end by that conflict. One without the other will not work. If the character faces the conflict and does not grow, your readers will view him or her as egotistical, or whiny, or dull. If the character does not face the conflict (or has it resolve around him or her through some action other than his or her own), your character will look weak and ineffectual, even if the conflict changes the character completely.

These are things I have learned from writing (a lot), from reading (often), and from talking to other writers (whenever I can), not from writing classes. The two positive points I will give to writing classes, though, is that they force you to write and you get worthwhile feedback about your writing. Never shrug it off as "the professor doesn't understand the genre" (although I'm sure I did the same thing in my college writing class). But, if I wanted to become a genre writer, I would not stay in a class where the professor said "you may not write that genre in this class." That's just lazy teaching. Find a class where you can learn how to write in the genre you are interested in, so you can learn how to write better in that genre.

Sabre

 

[takyris]

Ditto

I've got some professional short story publications and went through school as an English major with a creative writing emphasis -- and my school was really seriously VERY not into the whole genre deal.

Possibly because I am at heart a hack, I had a term for the kind of stories they wanted to see: Bad Sex and Dead Relatives.

That's what most of the stories were by the intermediate and advanced classes, because anything you wrote that was different got torn to shreds. The teachers really only responded to Bad Sex and Dead Relatives.

Looking back on it, my guess is that they were trying to get people to really write from the heart, and when you're an undergrad, most of the time there are only two major life-changing events that have happened to you that are really worth talking about. You guessed it: Bad Sex or Dead Relatives.

You have your first sexual experience, and it's not happy. You realize that you haven't been in love with your spouse for a long time and that you aren't attracted to them. Your father dies, and you are sad. Your father dies, and you feel guilty because you don't think you feel sad enough. Your father dies because he caught you having bad sex with someone, and you feel all conflicted and stuff.

The one bright spot was a writing class called Science Fiction Writing. Unlike the other classes, which were taught by faculty, this class was taught by actual paid writers who lived in the real world and wrote books that real people wanted to read. They had discussions like, "How to prepare a manuscript to send out," "How to deal with contracts if you get an acceptance letter," "How to construct a plot," and other useful stuff, as opposed to, "Write not from your heart, but from the ESSENCE of your heart," which is prettty much what the Bad-Sex-Dead-Relative people were telling me.

My two cents -- and hey, first post on ENWorld!

-Tacky

 

[Rune]

And a good first post it is. Welcome aboard, Tacky!

 

[Old One]

Tacky in the House!

Tacky -

Great to see you hear. Recommended by Tacky on another board we two frequent is Stephen King's recent book, On Writing.

As an aspiring writer with a few (very few) odd publications over the last decade, it has been profoundly influential on my approach to writing. Like many here, I hold a dream of being "discovered" and King's treatment of the craft is very inspirational.

On Writing Link

~ Old One

 

[wbmcdermott]

Re: Tacky in the House!

Tacky -

Great to see you hear. Recommended by Tacky on another board we two frequent is Stephen King's recent book, On Writing.

Jean Rabe also recommended this book at one of her writing seminars at GenCon last year (I still need to get it).

I think going to these kinds of seminars is a great idea. Much like the writing class Tacky took from actual published authors. You may not get earth-shattering revelations about writing every time, but you can be sure to come away learning one or two things you can use in your writing.

Sabre