Shirley Jackson would have recently turned 100, were she alive. The New Yorker has published some of her thoughts on writing:
Garlic in Fiction - The New Yorker
Garlic in Fiction - The New Yorker
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Shirley Jackson talks about writing
- Thread starter Steerpike
- Start date
FifthView
Vala
It is an altogether great article.
Yep, I thought so too. I'm surprised more people haven't commented. Her take on the reader is fantastic.
- Thread starter
- #4
Yes, it's quite good. I have yet to read the other installments. Love Shirley Jackson, though. She was an incredible writer.
- Thread starter
- #5
The opening to the first installment is promising:
"The children around our house have a saying that everything is either true, not true, or one of Mother’s delusions. Now, I don’t know about the true things or the not-true things, because there seem to be so many of them, but I do know about Mother’s delusions, and they’re solid. They range from the conviction that the waffle iron, unless watched, is going to strangle the toaster, to the delusion that electricity pours out of an empty socket onto your head, and nothing is going to change any one of them.
The very nicest thing about being a writer is that you can afford to indulge yourself endlessly with oddness, and nobody can really do anything about it, as long as you keep writing and kind of using it up, as it were. I am, this morning, endeavoring to persuade you to join me in my deluded world; it is a happy, irrational, rich world, full of fairies and ghosts and free electricity and dragons, and a world beyond all others fun to walk around in. All you have to do—and watch this carefully, please—is keep writing. As long as you write it away regularly, nothing can really hurt you."
Memory and Delusion - The New Yorker
"The children around our house have a saying that everything is either true, not true, or one of Mother’s delusions. Now, I don’t know about the true things or the not-true things, because there seem to be so many of them, but I do know about Mother’s delusions, and they’re solid. They range from the conviction that the waffle iron, unless watched, is going to strangle the toaster, to the delusion that electricity pours out of an empty socket onto your head, and nothing is going to change any one of them.
The very nicest thing about being a writer is that you can afford to indulge yourself endlessly with oddness, and nobody can really do anything about it, as long as you keep writing and kind of using it up, as it were. I am, this morning, endeavoring to persuade you to join me in my deluded world; it is a happy, irrational, rich world, full of fairies and ghosts and free electricity and dragons, and a world beyond all others fun to walk around in. All you have to do—and watch this carefully, please—is keep writing. As long as you write it away regularly, nothing can really hurt you."
Memory and Delusion - The New Yorker
Incanus
Auror
Oh, yeah. I adore Shirley. One of the greats. The short story collection with "The Lottery" was fantastic and hugely inspiring. Good article.
FifthView
Vala
I found her focus on "making it interesting" to be fantastic. Or, heh, awesome:
"Here is one of the greatest pitfalls for beginning or inexperienced writers: Their stories are, far too often, just simply not very interesting. It is easy to be trapped in a story you are writing, and to suppose that the interest you feel yourself in the story is automatically communicated to the reader; this is terribly important to me, the writer tells himself, this is a matter of the most extreme importance to me, and therefore a reader will find it important, too. And the reader, opening one sleepy eye, thinks that the fellow who wrote this thing was certainly pretty worked up about something, wasn’t he; funny how hard it is to stay awake while you are reading it."
&
"Far too often we think of a short story as a simple account of something that happens, an account in which one event follows another, and the whole, limited by requirements of time and place, exists coherently and complete."
So..."the story" is not just about characters going about doing things and events happening. It's not just about having characters reacting to events and acting. Adding embellishments, using the tricks that are available to us as writers, will also be important.
She focuses on using symbols*, which I think is really a way of adding meaning to those events and activities. Making those things peculiarly and particularly meaningful. I loved her examples.
*Edit: I'd written "symbolism" but realized I didn't want to confuse a type of symbolist style with the use of symbols to add meaningfulness to the characters, events, etc., in a story to make them really pop out.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's what I loved to, and this is something I stumbled upon accidentally recently myself with characterization.
And her explanation of the use of symbolism is perfect. Sometimes I think we are so abstract in our thoughts that we have to tell how things happen, or are too 'on the nose' with the narrative (remember that conversation lol). And I think providing concrete symbols to represent abstract ideas is the perfect way to "Show, don't tell."
But also this concept too of making not just the story interesting, but making the writing itself interesting. That is something I'd like to explore more as a discussion topic.
And her explanation of the use of symbolism is perfect. Sometimes I think we are so abstract in our thoughts that we have to tell how things happen, or are too 'on the nose' with the narrative (remember that conversation lol). And I think providing concrete symbols to represent abstract ideas is the perfect way to "Show, don't tell."
But also this concept too of making not just the story interesting, but making the writing itself interesting. That is something I'd like to explore more as a discussion topic.
FifthView
Vala
Since the issue of The Awesome came up in another thread, I've been going to sleep every night thinking about a certain project. "What is Awesome about my story?" I find those minutes of relaxation and drifting off to sleep to be a great time for asking that type of question because my mind drifts more freely and there's no pressure to actually write since, well, I'm going to sleep.
In part, this question is for myself. It's for finding out the heart of the tale. Finding the kernel that keeps me engaged and excited about the story.
But also, it's been an attempt to find what nuggets may be most interesting or awesome for a reader. What do I need to highlight? Or, exaggerate? Above and beyond other elements.
Now, reading the article linked above, the question can turn to "So, how can I write it so that it becomes awesome for the reader too?"
I don't want to imply that I've actually found those answers yet, heh. But this is the frame of mind I'm currently in.
In part, this question is for myself. It's for finding out the heart of the tale. Finding the kernel that keeps me engaged and excited about the story.
But also, it's been an attempt to find what nuggets may be most interesting or awesome for a reader. What do I need to highlight? Or, exaggerate? Above and beyond other elements.
Now, reading the article linked above, the question can turn to "So, how can I write it so that it becomes awesome for the reader too?"
I don't want to imply that I've actually found those answers yet, heh. But this is the frame of mind I'm currently in.
Yeah, and I think that for me, as an amateur, finding that balance of how much emphasis to put on the awesome is tricky. I find that I (and many of the people I read for, who are also amateurs) don't go far enough. I think the ideas are there. No question about that. It is not lack of creativity, especially with my crit group... It is more this idea that when I feel like I have gone over the top saturation with the awesomeness it is barely enough for the reader. Even the small things.
Example I recently brought up with my group:
So for this WIP I have been focusing on writing larger than life characters. I recently watched Mary Poppins with my son. The mood and tone of Mary Poppins is similar to my WIP in that I have magic working in real world settings, and like Mary Poppins there is not much explanation as to how or why the magic works. It simply does.
But what stood out to me (because it was a focus of mine for this particular WIP) was the over the top characterization. For example, the Navy General with the cannon's on the top of his town house. He even stands on the top of his town house with his telescope and interrogates everyone who walks by. Every day at 8:00 he lights the cannons and everyone on the street has to secure their belongs so they don't crash to the floor.
That is only one example. The other is the laughing man who magically floats to the ceiling whenever he is happy.
I watched this and realized just how much awesome my manuscript was missing. I thought I had gone crazy. I thought I had gone too far on some occasions... and yet it was barely enough for the reader. It was a big eye opener for me.
A friend of mine is going through the same thing. She wrote what she felt was a very intense, embarrassing (to her) intimate/explicit scene. She sent it to me (red faced) to have a read. She thought it was too weird. To me it wasn't weird enough.
I'm not sure I have a point to any of this, other than just observations I've been making lately.
I guess my point is that in order to really write true awesome we have to be brave enough to go too far. If we go too far it may be only barely enough for the man on the lawnchair with drooping eyes.
Example I recently brought up with my group:
So for this WIP I have been focusing on writing larger than life characters. I recently watched Mary Poppins with my son. The mood and tone of Mary Poppins is similar to my WIP in that I have magic working in real world settings, and like Mary Poppins there is not much explanation as to how or why the magic works. It simply does.
But what stood out to me (because it was a focus of mine for this particular WIP) was the over the top characterization. For example, the Navy General with the cannon's on the top of his town house. He even stands on the top of his town house with his telescope and interrogates everyone who walks by. Every day at 8:00 he lights the cannons and everyone on the street has to secure their belongs so they don't crash to the floor.
That is only one example. The other is the laughing man who magically floats to the ceiling whenever he is happy.
I watched this and realized just how much awesome my manuscript was missing. I thought I had gone crazy. I thought I had gone too far on some occasions... and yet it was barely enough for the reader. It was a big eye opener for me.
A friend of mine is going through the same thing. She wrote what she felt was a very intense, embarrassing (to her) intimate/explicit scene. She sent it to me (red faced) to have a read. She thought it was too weird. To me it wasn't weird enough.
I'm not sure I have a point to any of this, other than just observations I've been making lately.
I guess my point is that in order to really write true awesome we have to be brave enough to go too far. If we go too far it may be only barely enough for the man on the lawnchair with drooping eyes.