Pull It Out of the Air - On Writing pt. 4

I recently posted chapter 11 of Melancholy Days and a great comment was left which stirred my thoughts. As I was picking at the different things it brought up in my head, I realized I could probably turn a lot of these thoughts into a nice blog post; the next in my musings on writing. So here we go!

The original comment, courtesy of one RagingCacti:

Im quite happy that its past the philosophical ranting. It was getting a little preachy, where every little thing is talked about in depth. Even things that wouldnt even mark a difference in the species. "Why dont you want to come back to the spa if you like it?" "I just dont want to spend my time like that." Not exactly what I would talk in depth about with a ruler from the planet of Omacron Percei 8. It was starting to get very, very peachy, and overly complex for what is trying to be gotten across. This new "murder mystery-esque" plot is a welcome change. Though I'm suspecting that there is now more than one human living in the picturesque pastures of pastel ponies.

It still has the feeling that he writes the chapter, then goes back through with a thesaurus. But it has always been that way, and isnt all that bad.

Thank you for the thoughts!

So, the whole comment is mostly about the style of the content of Melancholy Days which eventually wound up emerging. If you recall the previous blog entries, my serialized writing is done fairly spontaneously; a more fun-driven, and almost sort of experimental, style of hobby writing; I don't quite know what I'll get until I'm practically there. There's one thing about the comment that I found particularly fascinating, but I'll save that for last since I may really pound out some words on that one. Let me begin somewhere else.

A major point of the comment is regarding the very "talky" nature of the story, particularly in how the emerging 3rd act has less of "the talky" than acts 1 and 2. (Act 1 would have been Applejack, Gadget, and the farm [chapters 1-3] and act 2 would have been the break with Twilight and meeting Rarity, Fluttershy, and Pinkie Pie [chapters 4-6].) There's some real levels on which I'm in agreement of the relatively weaker nature of the straight dialogue portions, with respect to construction and storytelling. It's actually the same thing with What Separates in fact. More from a reader perspective, those sections are often going to be less engaging than the straighter storytelling that occurs in other parts of the stories. There are reasons, I believe, it is far more noticeable in Melancholy Days and I'm going to go into that in just a minute.

Harking back to earlier blogs, the stories themselves are very much just masks over my idle philosophical ramblings. So you get what looks like a dialogue, lines tagged with "he said" and "she said", but it's really no more than me talking to myself. They're the areas where the barrier between what the stories are at their core and the candy-shell disguise gets the thinnest. If you're here for stories, or if you've wouldn't have bothered reading a straight essay I'd written, these are the areas that are going to be the least engaging, right? There'd be no question, not even from me, that with both these exercises, What Separates and Melancholy Days, I've reached beyond the grasp my hobby writing skills can provide, and done so quite intentionally. And I've never had a problem with that; for me it comes more from my "writing-for-pure-fun" perspective and believing in how joyful it is to just do it, regardless of how the results will come out, but I also think that few people would seriously contest that the expectation of not achieving perfection is reason enough to not try. The fair criticism, of course, is just as seen here: that in a truly good story the philosophical ramblings and ideas would be better integrated into the story itself; woven into the content in a more seamless way, sort of like hiding the medicine better inside of the meat so the dog will take it without much fuse.

The large 3rd act of Melancholy Days will most probably be better received by many because it is more of a straight story section. The major core of the story, as given by its name and the primary topic that keeps coming up, is James' depression. That's the central line that runs through the story. With respect to this, the first two acts are all about demonstrating James' flaky state of mind, the attitudes of those around him, and how he engages with them. The 3rd act pulls these things back somewhat, then, because the act has a very important role in the (almost assuredly) 4 act story: it is the act which now has to provide James and the central characters around him something to experience that gets them to feel new things or change their thinking about things. It has to give them the tools they need to address that major element of the story in the conclusive 4th act. And so our more traditional story structure, with conflict and so on, is emerging for this act.

It was the same in a lot of ways with What Separates, though maybe to a lesser degree. The first two acts (James appearing and meeting Twilight, then meeting the rest of the ponies) were all set up around the major element of the story: James and the ponies coming to grips with figuring out what their differences were and what they meant. The large 3rd act (helping Fluttershy rescue the animals) then had some more "traditional" story to give the characters reasons to change their feelings and thoughts so that in the final act (the party) they have the ability to reach a conclusion.

We'll see James' depression take a slightly more background position in this 3rd act, but different elements from the first two acts are going to come up again in it, if I can swing it. Remember, I know where I want to end up, but I'm not really completely certain how I'm going to get there until I get there!

---

MINOR ASIDE before I get to what I found most fascinating about RagingCacti's comment. A remark about the thesaurus comment :P

It's actually just an affection which springs from my love of vocabulary! I'll admit it: I'm totally the guy that memorized every vocab word way back when school was a thing. Totally the guy who would force the words into the sentences of my conversations over the course of the week. Totally the guy who aced every vocab test, always, forever. That was me :D

I have a love of words, for just what they are. How do you say a word like "evil" without getting a dark or sour tone about your voice? How can you say "happy" without bouncing a little and springing up? Words have feelings, they convey more than what they mean, and they're just so enthralling to hear, use, and learn.

I came across the word "edentulous" at the dentist's office today (and the word means, "doesn't have any teeth") and now I just want to use it! I just want to find a place for it, like taking a stray animal into my home. I want James and the ponies to walk through the town and pass by an old mare who "gives them a gummy, edentulous smile." I think it'll be out of my system by the time I'm solidly writing chapter 12 though, especially with my using of it here in the blog. But come on! I don't think "toothless" is going to mind missing a single reference!

Full disclosure, I actually kind of talk like this! Growing up loving it, the more diverse set of words have actually come to naturally pepper my speech without thinking about it! That said, of course there are degrees. It comes on the strongest in organized writing, like these stories, where there is so much time to think and to edit. It is much more subdued in speech, which is very spontaneous. Things like this blog, or forum posts and so on, fall at different ranges in between.

I'd say that my vocabulary use is an issue of similar nature to my verbosity. They're affections that I allow myself to indulge in because I enjoy them so much, even though there are many places you can directly point to and say it hurts my writing. "Simpler is better" is an adage that isn't always true, but is true often enough that it would be fair to say I'm stumbling on the wrong side of frequently. But it's like tumbling down a hill for me; I'm laughing all the way.

As for a thesaurus itself, yes, I use one. Not at the end of the writing process, but during writing. The point of the thesaurus is not to "find better words" (ugh!), but to pull up some synonyms and occasionally antonyms. So the main place it sees real use is if I feel like the same word is cropping up frequently in the same two or three paragraph space, enough to feel a drain on the flow of the reading. Bringing up the list of synonyms also isn't always for use. There are other ways around the overuse of words, such as restructuring sentences and revising pronouns. But I'll always bring up the word list first (even sometimes if I can think of several synonyms off the bat) because just seeing the list of words before me helps the thought process. I'd say I use the dictionary to verify meanings and look up word forms far more than I use the thesaurus.

---

Now, what I found most fascinating about RagingCacti's comment... it was most pronounced right in this line: "Even things that wouldnt even mark a difference in the species." For a few moments there, I couldn't understand why that was important to him at all. Why it was even given any consideration. Then I realized that of course people are going to be looking at these stories as about highlighting the differences and exploring them, even though that's not what they're about. That's something that can happen, sure, no problem, but that's not the point of the stories. In the descriptions for both stories (What Separates and Melancholy Days), at least here on FIMFiction where I'm allowed the comfortable space for descriptions, I describe the story as "looking at ourselves" using Equestria "as a lens and mirror," which was quite particular and intentional word choices, and not ones that I ever felt were emphasizing contrast.

Most specifically, this tied to the big point of What Separates; to the conclusion that Twilight draws in the end. That, even if they're not the same, they're not really different. People are ponies, and ponies are people.

Hmm... I kind of like it expressed in that paradoxical, nearly-koan way: We're not the same, but we aren't different.

Now, one piece of this conclusion was just me being meta: the show, the whole experience of MLP: FiM, is made by humans, for humans, about humans. Yeah, it's all wrapped in these fantastical story elements of unicorns, and magic, and more, that we enjoy for what they are worth, but the reason the show resonates and has so much reach is because it is deeply about us! People! Human beings! It gets inside us! Real stories and real characters that reflect us, who we are, who we want to be, how we feel, and more. The ponies aren't some metaphor, or a cheap marketing gimmick; they're just us, told in a different way.

The other piece of the conclusion is the philosophical side and the bigger point of the story. My conclusion. And again, it's about us. About people. Which is to say, there's all sorts of different cultures in the world, and different politics, and different expressions, and different values. We people, we're not all the same. But we're not different. Me, American and suburban and well-educated and white and Christian and more... I'm not the same as that guy somewhere else in the world caught up in fervor and violence and poverty and tragedy and more. I'm not the same as him, but I'm not different either. We're both still human. And the things he can feel, and the things he is, and the things he could be... that could be me... if I were him.

What Separates is about James and the ponies looking at their differences, trying to decide what they are, and why (and if) they matter. Because the story was about us doing the same thing.

So, coming back around to the comment, hopefully it's more obvious why I was initially thrown for a loop with some of it, because to me it already was established that, even if they have differences, those difference don't quite matter like that. As in, they're not the point of the stories. I can and do certainly use what feels to be the characters' natural differences to dig into the things I want to say, but it isn't about drawing a contrast. It's about trying to speak about us.

With respect to Melancholy Days, the same idea is at play. What Separates was attempting to take somebody who had a view and air of violence which wouldn't have a natural spot in any pony's heart (as depicted by the show) so that there would be this big divide to spur the thought on differences. Melancholy Days is attempting to take real, negative, human emotions and depression (quite different from standard cartoon depression) and insert it into the show (again, as depicted) and then see how it shakes out. James' attitude and depression is based around the real experience of someone I know, particularly his idle hypocrisy that fuels so much of the early chapters. That hurting because of the circumstances, but refusing to change them. That complaining about the way things are, but then not bothering to do anything to about it. That always having excuses to blind oneself. That having an active front, but being inactive. That hidden needing to do something, but being so afraid to do anything. I want to see what the ponies do with that...

(And one of the absolutely more fair criticisms that has come up is... a real depression doesn't make a very engaging story, and James hasn't been an engaging protagonist. So... whoops? Hehe. That's the way it fell, for what I wanted to do! I apologize if you're not enjoying this as much as What Separates.)

All that being said, as the author it is sort of on me to express these ideas in ways that transmit. So, if people are quite naturally assuming that the stories are about contrasting the differences... well, it's supposed to be my job to show that it isn't. So, we're seeing now about how well I've hit or missed that. But it's been phenomenal observing, hasn't it?

For those that are sticking through and reading these stories: my thanks. I write it for myself, but it's nice to have you along. I suppose it's sort of like an unusual road trip. I'm at the wheel and I've made vague, indirect, and imprecise promises about where we're going, and my routes seem to be more based on "oh, that looks interesting, let's go that way!" or "I'mma turn left here, cause" than any map. But if you're casual and taking it in stride, I think you'll have fun. At least, maybe you'll see something on the way that interests you. Maybe you're sort of like me: you'll pick out the things that pass by that you like and mull over those, and anything that comes by that's less than interesting... well, who cares? The road goes ever on, after all.

Thanks so much for reading! And thank you, RagingCacti, for the thought-provoking comment!
- Zurock