The Unified Theory of Writing?

Okay, I must admit that a not-so-small reason for writing this post is a fun dig at Steerpike and Christopher Wright. On the other hand, I think I put forth some hopefully good points for discussion in an (again hopefully) entertaining manner. Now, on with the post:

In physics, scientists since Einstein have tried to create a unified field theory that ties the interworkings of gravity and electricity and magnetics together. Think of it: if we knew how they related, antigravity might be possible.

As an engineer who is passionate about becoming an author, I seek the unified theory of writing, an equation that will unlock the secrets of creating great works of art that are also engaging and readable. Here’s what I’ve got so far:

Writing = Storytelling + Technique

I define storytelling as the “what and when” and technique as the “how.”

Storytelling informs you of when you need a fast or slow pace; technique shows you how to speed or slow the pace.

Storytelling informs you of when you need to show and when you need to tell; technique shows you how to show and tell.

Storytelling informs you of what elements need to be included in your story for plot and character development; technique shows you how to incorporate these elements.

So, which is more important?

The easiest answer is neither. Let’s assume that the best theoretically possible piece of writing ranks at 100 on our scale. Both elements contribute equally to the total. If you’re at 50 on the storytelling and 0 on the technique, the best you’re going to get is a 50. Same with the reverse. I think that a publishable piece needs to achieve a minimum in the range of 70 to 80.

However, I consider technique to be the more important field of endeavor for the beginning writer. Here’s my reasoning:

1. Technique is easier to learn. It’s simply a set of rules that anyone can pick up. There are hundreds of books and 10,468,115,924,245,209 blog articles (I know; I counted them all) explaining this element of writing.
2. Learning technique quickly improves your writing. Take a beginning writer and teach him to use proper grammar, to show instead of tell, to use tension in every scene, to add emotion, and not to info dump. That beginner is going to go from producing unreadable dreck to creating something that can at least get his ideas across. This allows him to be able to focus on what he wants to say and boosts his morale.
3. A good portion of storytelling is intuitive. Humans are natural storytellers. To an extent, the talent is ingrained into us, especially if we’ve spent our entire lives watching stories unfold on television and in movies and reading them in books. I’ve seen a lot of beginning writers who start out at 1 on the technique scale. I’d say it is unusual for one to start below 10 to 15 on the storytelling scale.
4. To transition from an intuitive storyteller to a good storyteller, you need to study the types of stories you want to tell. The best way to do this is to read and analyze those types of stories. However, if you don’t understand fully the techniques being used to perform the storytelling, you’re missing the first fundamental step in determining why the author chose to tell the story that way. Understanding technique is crucial to understanding storytelling.

 

Interesting ideas. Thanks!

 

Just out of curiosity, did you read the post or just the title?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well. I define the following: Techniques are a set of rules that tell you how to write. Storytelling is using your judgment to figure out how to apply techniques.

Your post didn't seem to address anything that I said.

 

Steerpike,

Thanks for the response.

Note my definitions of the words.

If storytelling is the knowledge of how,what, and when to apply technique, then knowledge of technique must maintain equal importance. How can you apply that which you do not understand?

As to your specific examples, is bad technique applied well truly bad technique?

Perhaps I have not explained my new concepts well enough. You seem to be again arguing the same discussion we've had in the past rather than delving into the ramifications of my new ideas.

My concept is now to define "rules" as: to show, you do the following. The storytelling aspect then becomes: when do I show and when do I tell.

If a writer comes up with an unaccounted way to show or tell or what-have-you, the new method is added onto the known ones.

I think, perhaps, we are finally on the same page here.

The rules are now instructions on how to achieve a desired effect whether than a perscription for what to do. A beginning writer could then be told that, to get your ideas across clearly, you should employ these rules: followed by a list.

I'm not sure if this is in response to my post.

I clearly advise that, if you want to learn how to tell a certain kind of story, the best way to do so is to find that type of story and study the techniques used. I couldn't tell if this is in dispute or if you're continuing an old argument.

 

I can't be sure, but I think you misread it.

My whole point is that I'm defining technique as the physical mechanism by which you tell your story, a set of "how's" that explain building tension and defining character.

I define storytelling, as much as I can tell, like you: the guiding force that tells you how, when, and why to use technique.

 

A lot of "discovery" writers (the term is new to me though it's the technique I use) come up with a concept and a character and go from there. Just start writing.

Your story, to me, doesn't indicate a lack of storytelling ability.

 

Good! Any part in particular?