![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
odd_buttonsWell. I am so not writing, and boy, does that suck. But I'll spare you my whining; instead, I will post bits from this neat book I have, "Making Shapely Fiction", by Jerome Stern. I read it for school last year, and the format is unusual: after a few chapters that describe types of stories, there is a list, from ACCURACY to ZIGZAG, listed alphabetically. They are mostly pretty short (easy to type up); they deal with various aspects of writing; and I figure since I'm not writing, I ought to try to do something useful. Maybe this might be useful, hm?
*
The following is an excerpt from Part III of the book Making Shapely Fiction, by Jerome Stern. The first two parts are very much worth reading as well. The book is available in paperback.
Accuracy
Accuracy refers to how well writers have observed the world. It means showing respect for the most minute details and the deepest truths of your subjects. If readers feel that the observations are genuine, then the fictional world comes alive.
For example, a little girl watches every step as her grandmother simmers prunes in ginger wine for a Stockholm pudding. Readers believe in the scene because they believe in the pudding. How could you make up Stockholm pudding? Accurately rendered actions, objects, and talk actualize the world and create characters.
Accuracy doesn't mean that the fiction has to be realistic to the conventional sense. If you're creating an imaginary world, your accuracy depends on the story's building logically and faithfully according to its own premises. Joseph Heller's Catch-22 is weirdly accurate. The war was real, the number of bombing missions was continually increased, pilots did get their morphine stolen from their first-aid kits, a black market existed, men did go crazy. Heller based his surreal world on that actuality.
A lack of accuracy makes readers think that writers don't know what they are talking about. A passementerie importer complains about the decline of European workmanship: "I can get better from Singapore." That does sound like something you'd hear in a New York luncheonette, and you believe in the story. But if the writer has his character get out of the subway "and stroll down Main Street," readers think, This writer doesn't know New York, and they don't believe in the fictional world.
There is a moral as well as aesthetic imperative to be accurate. If you depict a Maori, for example, I think you're obligated to have some real understanding of the world of the Maori. If you make up ceremonies and customs, you're exploiting the naïveté or preconceptions of your audience. Serious writers do serious research when they need to. Don't think, This is fiction -- I don't have to check my facts. Even minor errors can make your readers doubt you. You want your readers to feel: I don't think this is made up; this sounds as though it really happened.
See Local Color, Realism, "Write What You Know."
*
*
The following is an excerpt from Part III of the book Making Shapely Fiction, by Jerome Stern. The first two parts are very much worth reading as well. The book is available in paperback.
Accuracy
Accuracy refers to how well writers have observed the world. It means showing respect for the most minute details and the deepest truths of your subjects. If readers feel that the observations are genuine, then the fictional world comes alive.
For example, a little girl watches every step as her grandmother simmers prunes in ginger wine for a Stockholm pudding. Readers believe in the scene because they believe in the pudding. How could you make up Stockholm pudding? Accurately rendered actions, objects, and talk actualize the world and create characters.
Accuracy doesn't mean that the fiction has to be realistic to the conventional sense. If you're creating an imaginary world, your accuracy depends on the story's building logically and faithfully according to its own premises. Joseph Heller's Catch-22 is weirdly accurate. The war was real, the number of bombing missions was continually increased, pilots did get their morphine stolen from their first-aid kits, a black market existed, men did go crazy. Heller based his surreal world on that actuality.
A lack of accuracy makes readers think that writers don't know what they are talking about. A passementerie importer complains about the decline of European workmanship: "I can get better from Singapore." That does sound like something you'd hear in a New York luncheonette, and you believe in the story. But if the writer has his character get out of the subway "and stroll down Main Street," readers think, This writer doesn't know New York, and they don't believe in the fictional world.
There is a moral as well as aesthetic imperative to be accurate. If you depict a Maori, for example, I think you're obligated to have some real understanding of the world of the Maori. If you make up ceremonies and customs, you're exploiting the naïveté or preconceptions of your audience. Serious writers do serious research when they need to. Don't think, This is fiction -- I don't have to check my facts. Even minor errors can make your readers doubt you. You want your readers to feel: I don't think this is made up; this sounds as though it really happened.
See Local Color, Realism, "Write What You Know."
*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-23 02:34 am (UTC)Thanks for posting this - he does such a great job of explaining why accuracy is so important to me as a reader. Sometimes I squint and try to pretend I didn't notice a minor error, but as I continue to read I will usually be less emotionally involved in the story.
This is one reason why I will never completely trust J.K. Rowling. She has a terrific imagination, but she is not concerned about certain kinds of details, so I end up feeling that her magical world is a little bit flimsy and inconsistent.
On a completely different topic - months ago you encouraged me to read Patrick O'Brian, and now I'm close to the end of Blue at the Mizzen. I don't want this series to be over! It has been even better than I expected. (And I am not a historian, but O'Brian's world certainly seems to be historically accurate.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-23 02:57 am (UTC)Ohhh, yes! And I don't think I have to be a historian to know that it IS accurate (I'm not, btw). His world feels accurate -- I believe him, totally, even when he throws things like bears in the mix.
It is sad to come to the end of the series. But then, you can go back and start over. Hee!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-23 01:58 pm (UTC)The bear suit! That did make me wonder if they were travelling through the vision-impaired section of France. Or if none of the people they met had ever seen a real, live, bear. But you're right, even their extraordinary adventures seem real.