I mentioned in a recent blog post that repetition is bad. I'd like to clarify here that there are different types of repetition: Repeating Redundancy and Repeating Beauty.
Redundancy refers to the types of repetition I speak of in the Trust blog post - pounding unnecessary information into your reader's head. For example, repeating dialogue tags when the dialogue said it clear enough, repeating a symbol or metaphor over and over just in case your reader "missed it", repeating specific key plot points in case your reader "missed it", etc.
Beauty refers to something I keep coming back to ever since I read a post by David King on Fractals. It clicked. I thought, repetition isn't always bad. In fact, I've been using the "fractal" idea in my work for a long time. Fractals are naturally beautiful and pleasing. What is a fractal? You can find information on fractals in this Wikipedia post. But to sum it up in David King's words:
A fractal is an irregular or fragmented shape, like a cloud or a coastline, into which you can zoom, almost without limit, dividing and subdividing it into smaller and smaller parts, each of which is a clone of the original whole.
I don't know about you, but this idea is completely fascinating to me. I mean, look at these pictures:
Repetition is everywhere. And I think it can take place in our writing, as well. In fact, I almost gave up on the first book I wrote. It was a complete mess. Irreparable in my opinion. Then a friend told me about the Snowflake Method. This popular outline method, although shunned by a lot of people who simply hate outlines, saved me. It's based on the idea of a fractal. A snowflake is fractal. You start out with a triangle and build and build and build until you get this beautiful, complicated looking snowflake.
It may look complicated, but in reality it's quite simple. Think of it as layers, as building over and over until all the smaller pieces resemble the whole. The idea behind the Snowflake Method shouldn't be shunned by anybody. Because I think it's the basis of any great work, whether or not you like outlining.
In essence, every sentence, chapter, and section of your book should contribute to the entire work in a similar way. For instance, I just picked a random quote from The Great Gatsby. I believe it clearly sums up the novel. Amazing.
When we pulled out into the winter night and the real snow, our snow, began to stretch out beside us and twinkle against the windows, and the dim lights of small Wisconsin stations moved by, a sharp wild brace came suddenly into the air. We drew in deep breaths of it as we walked back from dinner through the cold vestibules, unutterably aware of our identity with this country for one strange hour, before we melted indistinguishably into it again.
I hope this isn't intimidating. It's not meant to be. My point is that repetition doesn't have to be bad. One of the greatest things I believe a writer can do is sum up their book in one short sentence. Reveal the "whole" of your book - the whole tree so to speak. Then break it down and show the branches, the leaves, the veins on the leaves that astoundingly enough resemble the whole tree.
If you can't do this, do you really know what your book is about?
To me, it comes down to focus. Without it your story is weak, weak, weak! This idea is absolutely essential to me. And although I know many readers might skip over this post because it looks freakishly complicated and in-depth, the idea is simple. My first book is still a mess, but it makes sense in my head now. I know what I want it to be, and the basic "whole" is there. My second novel has been easier to write once I grasped this concept, and I know that the more books I write, the more this idea will make sense. Like creating any beautiful piece of art, it takes a lot of time and practice.
Do keep in mind, though, that this process often happens naturally if you have your focus in place. It's not something that you have to consciously think of every time you write a sentence. Thank goodness! Finding that focus is often the tricky part. Perhaps I can save that for a 15-part blog post...
~MDA (aka Glam)
Does that mean there's a mathematical formula for good writing? Like a divine proportion of plot? That kind of math applies to all visual art, so it wouldn't surprise me. It's the reason roses are universally considered beautiful and that classical shapes (think Roman pottery vases) are classical.
ReplyDeleteI could see that, a "divine proportion of plot." I think about my favorite novels and how they almost unfold from themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to check out that Snowflake Method again. I stumbled upon it once but wasn't really in the state of mind to learn from it.
There is so much to learn about writing!
It makes perfect sense to me. One of those "duh" things that you don't think about until someone points it out. :) Great post!!
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I hate reading repetitively redundant things. Beauty, though, is something I don't mind hearing about more than once, as long as it is introduced in a fresh way.
ReplyDeleteFocus. Lady, you always seem to offer me one particularly important word to chew on while I let your post sink in. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAs long as it's obvious the author's repeating something for a reason and not a lack of comprehension on how to write, I'm fine with it.
ReplyDeleteLynnette Labelle
http://lynnettelabelle.blogspot.com
Michelle: You know, I doubt there's a mathematical formula for writing, but it seems like there could be! I would never be able to figure it out. I'm horrible with math. But math does apply to most everything doesn't it? Guess it won't be me who discovers this!
ReplyDeleteAnnie: I like how you use the word "unfold" - that fits how I view it. The Snowflake Method looks daunting, and it takes awhile, but it really helps you figure things out - even if you don't stick to the outline you create.
Bonnie: Yeah, I never saw it either until I read David's post. Like I said, it just clicked.
Mariah: I see what you're saying, but maybe I chose the wrong word here. I mean beauty as in letting the story's themes and ideas repeat themselves in a beautiful, natural way. Maybe that's what you're talking about too. Either way, it works!
TereLiz: Glad that word offers something to chew on. "Focus" is probably the most important thing in writing effectively, in my opinion.
Lynette: Same here. It's difficult to swallow repetition that makes you feel dumb!
I love this idea of beauty and repetition working together. That's a concept that I have been interested in for a long time, and I tend to use it in my writing, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. Being a molecular biologist, this idea of fractals and small patterns working together to form larger patterns has always fascinated me. I love learning how cells can perform such complicated things by just relying on simple laws of physics and chemistry. I do think there's beauty in that. Nature is beautiful, and this idea touches on the idea of "copying" nature.
ReplyDeleteMichelle: "To me, it comes down to focus." Yes! And to focus, we have to know what we're looking at, which (to me) means we have to know what our story is.
ReplyDeleteFirst drafts are notoriously filled with repetitive gunk that has to be cleaned out. But after that, when we've figured out what our story is, we need to go back through and make everything refer to the story, reflect and refract and repeat the story and foreshadow the ending. To me this is less about repetition than it is about balance, but that's just likely a matter of terminology.
F.P. That's pretty interesting about your story and how someone said it reminded them of fractals! Awesome!
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I said anywhere that novels have to be written by the Snowflake Method... Did I say that anywhere because I don't think I did? I simply meant that it's a great way to look at writing a novel. It helped me out of a HUGE hole, and I still use aspects of it. I think the ideas behind can be beneficial to a lot of writers.
I also will keep assuming that the more books I write, the more this idea of repetition will make sense to me, because it already has as I've written more and more. It's how I work best, anyway.
I don't think fractals are an be all end all technique for writing. I do think, however, that most classical literature contains this element. This is, of course, my opinion. I also don't believe that all books will sound the same if a writer happens to apply some of this type of repetition to their work. How could it sound the same??? It's simply reinforcement and focus. Or as Scott puts it - BALANCE. That's not a technique I ever want to shun or avoid. I would never intentionally condone a method of writing that would make every book sound the same. The Snowflake Method doesn't do that. It's just a way to "get there" as you say. And as you say, it is often irrelevant how we get there.
I also want to stress that I've never stuck to one method for writing a novel. In fact, for both books I've swung back and forth between different methods. I use what works for me at the time.
As always, thanks for your comment! You always make me think things through better. :D
Davin: I didn't even stop to think about how you would like fractals! But it makes sense. I love "copying" nature, as you say. It gives me a sense of completion and balance.
ReplyDeleteScott: I like your term of balance. That's what might have worked better, perhaps. But in the end, the idea is the same. It is so important to know what our story is. I used to think I knew, but then as I worked through it I realized I didn't. It's sometimes difficult to see if you're the type of writer that doesn't plan a lot. I know that you're like me and like to plan things out. But I usually can't plan things to the point of knowing everything. Much of it happens while I'm writing and I discover things. Do you do that as well?
This is interesting, because I'm one to shy away from outlines. I find it too confining. But there has to be some order or the story won't go anywhere. So I'm curious, when you begin a work, do you sum up your project before you begin, or do you start with an idea and write to see where it goes. Because I find myself doing both.
ReplyDeleteAmy: I usually just start writing after thinking my story through for a few months. Then as I get further into the book, and totally lost, I stop and do an outline. Sometimes it's some of the Snowflake outlines, sometimes it's my own. I always take a moment to stop and figure out all the role functions of the characters once the book is almost complete. That way as I edit and work things through the second time around I've got a definite map and vision of who the characters, where the story is going, and what the story IS.
ReplyDeleteAs F.P. says above, creativity really is about just discovering sometimes - without a road map. But I also believe that as we establish ourselves more into our writing, we do figure out what works the best, and whether we see it or not, we do follow certain ways of writing.
I like the IDEAS behind the Snowflake Method more than I like the method itself.
F.P. - Two things. Have you ever read House of Leaves by Mark Danielewski? That is a novel with a very different layout from most.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's interesting what you said about music speaking to people. I often wish I could just write music because I think I could better get my feelings across better with music than in a story.
F. P. Something that has always intrigued me is the idea that structure defines story. I'm not saying it has to, but in my experience I have found that it does. Having a structure, for me, forced me to write certain scenes to keep to that structure. (I'm using alternating time lines, so I wrote scenes to balance that out, for example.) The whole concept was new to me. When someone first mentioned it, I thought it didn't make any sense at all.
ReplyDeleteSo, in what you described, using story first, would you say that there is no structure or that the structure comes in later? And, if there is a structure, do you find it pulling on the story? In other words, I'm wondering if the two, structure and story can really be separated. And, maybe the more important question is: Does every story have a structure?
Annie: I can see that - especially with ow you were so inspired to write your book with that song you shared with me!
ReplyDeleteF.P. Lucky for me, I have no crutches for a way to write. Yay! I've only written two novels. I'm exploring things as I go. This is just one thing I'm exploring. So no crutches. Just dabbling here and there. I also always start with the story first. If I didn't, I'd never have finished two books. I'd still be staring at the methods and all those rules flying around.
Annie and F.P., I also really like what you are saying about music. I had mentioned this several weeks ago, maybe months ago, but I've always tried to somehow adapt musical elements to my writing. I'd say I've failed, but I want to badly. The most important thing I'd like to steal from music is that feel of two melodies happening at the same time. When I posted on this, most everyone said that it was impossible. That is was two separate things. It may be. Only this last week did I feel like I started to understand how having two separate threads at the same time could work in writing. The words are linear, so it can't really be through the actual words, but it might work if the words resonate on two separate planes at once. The thought of that is exciting to me, but maybe I'm just dreaming.
ReplyDeleteDavin- Oh my gosh, what an incredible thought to have a story written as two melodies happening at once. If/when you figure it out, please let me read it!
ReplyDeleteThe thing I wish I could capture from music is the feelings it gives. A song can really take me back to a place, often to where I first heard it. Or it can remind me of something, like a season, or a time period, like how it felt as a kid during summer vacation, for example.
I'm the same way with smells, they really transport me. Like, it's still July but I'm getting a hint in the air of autumn, and it's like all at once I can sort of feel all the autumns I've ever experienced. And there's a lot of nostalgia. Does that make sense?
I so wish I could write a story that conveys those feelings to a reader.
Annie: I think all writers feel this deep down... those RAW emotions we feel. I LOVE smells, too! And music, like Davin and F.P. say. It's a wonderful idea to try and convey these things through writing. I think it's something we should all strive for. I think this is what "being honest" kind of means, don't you?
ReplyDeleteWow, there are a whole lot of ideas to chew on here.
ReplyDeleteI haven't tried the snowflake method, but when I was outlining my last WIP I did look into it and thought it was interesting, for my next novel I'll definitely give it another look.
Annie, I absolutely know what you mean. I'd love to be able to create something like that as well. For me, some books do that already, just like some songs do. I love that feeling. John Updike's writing does that to me, as do two Japanese writers, Yasunari Kawabata and Banana Yoshimoto. When I read even a paragraph of their work, I'm pulled back to when I first discovered them and it's more than a memory. It's very sensory. I think the music does that to me more strongly, which is interesting. Then again, maybe it makes sense. Listening to music is more passive to me. It pervades on its own whether you want it to or not. Reading has to be more active. You have to engage your own imagination to do it.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, yes, it is probably super, real, true honesty I'm trying to convey in my writing. Of course, that is the hardest thing!
ReplyDeleteDavin, I haven't read any of those authors, even Updike. They're going on my list right now.
Kate: I think the Snowflake Method is a great help for new writers. But it does offer some pretty good direction for any writer, I think, if you're feeling a bit lost. It provides some stability to start from. And like the author of it says, it might not work for everybody. But worth a try if you want to try something new.
ReplyDeleteDavin: I like what you say about music being more passive. I agree. What I love is listening to music WHILE I write. Somehow that always enhances the experience! I also have no doubt you'll be able to accomplish all you dream of and more in your writing. You have the talent, trust me!
I love this post. And it all does boil down to that one sentence explanation, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhen we first talked about this, it terrified me. But now I can do it. And my one sentence is very good.
As far as repetition goes, it has its place. And like your pictures a beautiful place. A fractal is section, a part. I'll read that post. It sounds very interesting.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite novels. I'm glad to see it used in this way. Thanks for a thought provoking post Glam! :)
*Applauding politely* Well said, well said. I think I could use a snowflake or two down here in Fl right now.
ReplyDeleteGood Writing + Good Story = Published Book, Bestseller
ReplyDeleteBad Writing + Good Story = Publishable Book, chance at mainstream success because most people can't spot bad writing
Good Writing + Bad Story = Publishable Book, modest success because most people can't spot good writing, but everyone knows when the story blows
Bad Writing + Bad Story = Waste of paper and/or time.
But wait, there's more!
This isn't a formula for writing, per se, but it is a formula for calculating your luck at getting published:
How do you know if you are lucky (or unlucky, as it may be)?
Here are several equations to calculate the luck factor in getting published. They use the following variables:
N= Good Luck
X= Bad Luck
D= Dumb Luck
Q= Query
A= Agent Preferences
P= Publishing Industry Demands
C= Contract
So therefore, if Q=(A*P) then N should result, yielding C.
However, if Q+P is not equal to A, then X. Also, if Q+A=C but is not equal to P, then X.
Of course there may be variations on this logic, such as if Q<(A*P) but the result is C, then D, pure and simple.
So you see, it's all very straightforward. N to all of you!
F. P. Yes, I try things all the time. I have a lot of "burnt waffles" in my story file. :)
ReplyDeleteI love, love, love the Snowflake Method. It repeatedly (no pun intended) helps me with my writing. I'm so glad to meet another fan of it! (Although I already know you!)
ReplyDeleteF.P., Finally, another Banana fan! That's very exciting for me. I pass her work along to others all the time. Kitchen and NP are probably my two favorites. But, I've been able to read Kitchen over and over again, whereas I haven't been able to get back into NP. I've read a little bit of her discussing her own work. But, you're right, there's not much. In what I read, though, she talked about constantly trying to make her work easier to read. She's complex, but it feels so simple. She's amazing. She's one of those writers that I have a very hard time dissecting, which I think is a high compliment.
ReplyDeleteRobyn: I'm so happy to hear you love The Great Gatsby! It's wayyyy up there on my list of favorite books. I read it at least once a year.
ReplyDeleteKaren: Yeah, I could some here too. It's supposed to be up to 110 this weekend where I'm going. Not looking forward to that heat!
Rick: Very nice. N with your Q's!
Laura: You are one of the first writers I know that likes it so much! It just makes sense, you know? It follows a logical order that clicks in my head and lays it all out for me to see. So great! Even if I don't do the whole thing, I use parts of it all the time.
What a really good post! (I'm going to send the link to myself so I can read it several more times.)
ReplyDeleteRepetition is especially powerful in good poetry too.
I like the transformation of the triangle(s).
ReplyDeleteAngie: I agree about the poetry. That's what I studied most in college, and it has certainly influenced my writing.
ReplyDeleteJustus: So do I. I like visual stuff like that.