Wait... that's not what I meant...

One of the things I've always loved about writing is how much control characters have over a story. I love how they reach out, grab your intentions, and twist them to their own designs. I think the whole process of it is interesting and I think it goes even further, too. 

I've mentioned in the past how there are three elements involved before any line can be written, and that is terribly relevant to the conversation. Every writer's intention actually as a very wide range of possibilities for fulfillment. Sometimes the characters agree, sometimes they don't and often they surprise you. Whenever I find myself facing one of those “writer's block” moments (I don't believe in writer's block, by the way) there begins this period of introspection. I cannot tell you how many times I have literally written within my notes “What are we thinking here?” or “What are we doing here?” There are a finite number of ways to ask oneself that question, and I'm pretty sure I've touched on most, but what's interesting is that this is the period where the writer begins exploring parallel dimensions. 

First we try forcing the story through the pinhole that is our concept. We fray the premise and the line that leads us to the quandary, and we try to ignore the angels dancing upon the head of the pin that marks our place in the story. Then, when we've had enough of that, we grab a needle with a bigger eye. It is always interesting to me, discovering that I'm at that point. That's when the real magic happens. And I ask myself why it took so long to reach this point. (Hint: writers are stubborn.) 

This is why I don't actually believe in writer's block. I've mentioned this to a few people in the past, and now I'm telling the world definitively that it doesn't exist. What it really is, and has always been, is the subconsciousness reaching up and stopping the conscious mind from making a mistake. It's the characters reaching out saying, “Na uh. I'm not doing that. I would never say that.” That's when we, the writer look up from our books with a confused expression upon our face saying something along the lines of “What the hell are you talking about?” And we go back to character building, which, depending on how far along we are, is actually character exploring. We start asking, “Why don't you want to do that?” And as we continue conversing, an epiphany happens. Suddenly, we know what happens next. And suddenly, somehow, we've reached the end of the scene and are getting lost in the next. 

I face this issue often. I'm actually hiding from such an exploration right now, couched in the veil of blogging, and pretending that I can't see the characters waiting expectantly for me to catch up. Eventually I will. But I do face this issue often. How does the scene begin? How do we make this transition within the scene to the next point? How does this moment feed into the next scene? What am I missing? What don't I know? These are all questions I ask myself, to quote a friend, “on the regular.” But eventually, I catch up. 

There are a thousand ways the same story can unfold; a thousand reasons the characters can make the same choice. But in our work, there is only one true way. While we might refine the phrasing and flesh out the presentation, hide the wires and paint the scene differently, in the end, the characters know their own ways home. The struggle for us as writers is remembering how to follow their lead.

Editing: What is this thing?

I really want to talk about editing. Editing is a fine beast, and a totally different state of mind than writing. It is not terribly infrequent to sit down with every intention of writing, and suddenly find oneself editing instead. I don't usually see this as a problem, if only because the process of the edit actually resolves itself into discovering the solution to whatever the current conundrum happens to be. There are other times where writing simple never happens, and I'll disappear into a different project and edit that instead. This isn't entirely the way I thought this post was going to start. I could edit, (and of course, I have) but I think I'll just jump around instead. (My webcam's off... you can't watch.)

On The Path Of Form And Style

I've talked in previous posts of how my work has changed, but I think the scope is missing from it. Part of the idea for this post came up as a desire to talk about that age-old question, “Where do you get your ideas,” and part of it is just rumination from some the comments I've made in other posts. I got to thinking that maybe it would be interesting to go over my work in a timeline sort of fashion and talk a little bit about how my style has developed over the course of my career thus far. I'm not gonna offer much of a preamble here... I'm just sorta gonna jump right in.

It's All An Act

2-Act vs 5-Act

The way in which my writing has changed with the passing of time is evident in every facet of the process and the final product. I write in verse because that is simply the way I write. I wish I could say there was something purposeful about it, but the truth would remain unchanged. I like it. It's structure has become more sophisticated over time, and large part of that was intentional, but I think it would be more interesting to note one of the unintentional transitions.

My early play-in-verse structure, in both form and layout, drew from the heavy hitters of yore. My original emulation of Heroic Couplets strove after the flavor of Milton and Paradise Lost, while the structure itself pulled upon the Bard; William Shakespeare. I had read more Shakespeare than any other playwright, all those years ago, and I recall being somewhere in Hell, then, too, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that they influenced my beginning. Of course, I was certainly nowhere near capable of accomplishing so daunting of a task with any degree of success... which is not to say I didn't finish that first play, but that I slowly started to change my methodology in the second... and in every play since, too, for that matter.

On Writing, Playwrighting, and Theatre

In the last couple of days, the conversation on Twitter with @DramatistSteve and @DGFund and on Facebook have been on writing: what keeps you writing and what started you writing. Now, the context has revolved around the theatre, but my writing history and my theatrical history are not linked. I've been writing, in general, at least six years longer than I have been a playwright (which is clocking in at fifteen years.)

I feel like most people who have found their lives in theatre, had a lot of early theatrical experiences. It seems like a lot of people either had very active theatre families, or they got involved in the theatre at a very early age. There are of course other stories from people who stumbled into it, and I feel I probably fall into the later category.