Write Literature, Not Parables

Many writers think that they're the bees knees. This, of course, leads to pieces or articles depicting the writer's struggle and how we just want our art to be shown to the world and why editors are evil. Well, editors are not evil and, more than likely, these writers are just pieces of crap posing as intelligentsia. 

Art is both objective and subjective. There is a definitive right way to go about the technical creation of a piece. Grammer, conventions, and industry practices all have a right and wrong way to go about them. Sometimes you can get away with breaking a rule but, generally, you just look like a right jerk. The subject-matter and theming are where it gets subjective. Once a piece leaves the writer's desk, they lose ownership of the theme and the message of the piece will be decided by the reader. (Hence, why themes and critical analysis are complete bullcrap according to Salinger.) If a writer crams nothing but their gospel or writes from a specific theme rather than emotional response, their piece stops being subjective art and is now just a tool of conversion. These will also get a writer declined since editors want literature, not a call to apostasy. 

Write pieces for both the audience and yourself as catharsis, not exclusively for one or the other, and not to be preachy. In essence, don't be bad. - Cheers. 

Don't Tell: The Need for Justification for Adjectives.

An issue that I have come across recently in works that I have edited for other writers as well as in my own work is a problem referred to as "telling." Personally, I think of it as an unjustified trait or modifier but I went to school for philosophy so I view most everything in human existence as unjustified, especially short words.

The problem that comes from "telling" is that the writer gives us one word to describe an entity in their story, but they don't tell us what that means or how it's present in the fictional actual. We don't actually see the character, we only hear about them. To tell us that a dwarf is grumpy when all of his dialogue is mild and he doesn't have a constant frown is counter-intuitive. One might still include the adjective but they must also include salty language and paint a picture of just how sour this dwarf's mood is through his expression and demeanor. The action should stand, on its own,  to plant the descriptor in the reader's mind without the writer every having to put it in words.

Remember to always justify your modifiers and eradicate short words. - Cheers

Flashbacks: Why? And Don't.

Something I've noticed grow increasingly annoying, and problematic from a critical standpoint are flashbacks. The flashback is a technique used by writers who don't feel like judiciously revealing information through dialogue or scenery. That being said a brief flashback to a vivid detail to capitalize on a poignant moment can make a piece all the more beautiful.

The issue arises when writers feel like telling their story through flashback. A graphic novel I recently read features a five-page flashback with two possible three panels worth of important information. The rest of the information was revealed through dialogue shortly before or after the flashback and made the waste of valuable page space rather saddening.

Ask yourself before incorporating a flashback, "Can this information be revealed naturally through any other method?" And for the love of all that is good and holy keep it contained to a flash of a detail in a single scene. It's a FLASHback, not a backstory. - Cheers