the picture below is NOT to judge any differences between novelists and other authors. it did seemed appropriate though to demonstrate different approaches. and i don't know if there is a chance to switch between a hare and a tortoise. i don't even know if it is necessary to yearn for such a change.
here's the story.
the gazillion's read of my Copper Moon concluded in finding said novel a short story. an extremely looooong short story. there are no real conflicts, no real evolution of some of the characters (well, at least the main character should show some signs of development - and i don't think the mental and physical changes she present qualify as signs of major development...)
-
the story i wrote lacks some of the important elements of a novel. period.
but as for the reason behind?
here are my takes (and i hope to hear yours in the comments section .... )
it is either
-
1. the result of my previous experiences with writing.
you know, i am a free-lance journalist. i mostly write on agriculture-related subjects like how to deal with rodents in your house, how to build up a glass house and what are the most important gardening activities of a month and the like. i translate scientific papers. it's all neat and dry and i have no problems with that.
but a garden pond has no character development and the species composition of arthropod assemblages of potato fields show no conflicts either.
it is all description.
and as for literature? some of you might have read some of my pieces.
it's short prose at its best, but mainly flash fiction and poetry.
these are reflections of a state.
no development. nothing long-ish that starts somewhere and goes to a definite direction.
flash fiction is okay, because that reveals a status quo.
but composing a decent short story had gave me hard times and i did not excel at all.
so, reason number one: lack of experience.
potential reason number 2.
my status. my own character.
what if some people are just not 'natural born novelists'?
what if a person's certain psychological factors determine one's affection towards a certain type of writing?
say, a person who loves life, indulges in many activities, lives whole heartedly tends to write romantic stories with lots of actions?
say, someone else, who tends to analyze people around him favours to write psychological stories instead, with less of real actions but more beneath the surface?
what if a natural conflict avoider just can not bring his characters into a real conflict?
someone who is content with contemplating the events of life without interruption just finds content in describing status quos?
if the latter is the case, it is not my characters who are in trouble.
i am :)-
-
as for the time being i read, and read, and read :)
-
-
photo credits:
http://dscottangle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/tortoise-and-hare.jpg
2 comments:
Not sure what to tell you. Definitely you need the conflict. Conflict on every page, they say. I don't think I started out writing like that but I've tried to move in that direction. Experience probably helps, and knowing what you need, which it seems you do.
at least there is a name to the baby - or so the saying goes, Charles.
your words are useful. thank you.
Post a Comment