From the time I learned to read, I wanted to be a writer. I
also wanted to be an artist, but by age ten I realized I didn’t have the talent,
so I switched my goal from becoming a writer/artist to becoming a
writer/actor. Sadly not only do I have a
face for radio but I also have a voice for silent films, so I soon struck that
from my list of aspirations as well.
Yet I still do get to act, via my writing.
That’s largely why I gravitate toward writing in the first
person. For me, writing a character is often about pretending to be the
character (hence my acting out dialogue when I write). And writing in the first
person makes pretending, for me, even more participatory. Like acting.
I recently finished the first draft of a novel that’s told
in the first person by the two main characters. It’s a
sequel to a novel I wrote several years back, which used the similar structure. My favorite aspect of writing both books was ensuring that the two
voices were distinct, so that you could tell who was speaking without any sort
of heading declaring which chapter was narrated by Steve and which by Cat.
For these characters, making the distinction was relatively
easy. Steve is a schizophrenic in his 20s, born and bred in rural England, not
particularly well educated. Cat is an American in her 30s who relocated from New York to
London, a college grad, and a writer to boot. But I wanted to go beyond the
obvious differences in vocabulary. So Steve’s sentences tend to be shorter,
especially when his illness is manifesting itself, while Cat makes use of
compound-complex sentences. Also, when Steve is having a psychotic break, like
many schizophrenics he’s unable to interpret metaphors. Ask a symptomatic
schizophrenic what “A stitch in time saves nine” means, and he won’t say that
it suggests you should take your time completing a task correctly the first time to avoid
having to redo it or fix it later; he’ll likely parrot that it means you should
do one stitch now and not nine later, or go off on some tangent. So when Steve
is in hospital and says that, for instance, his guilt is a vest of explosives
strapped to his chest, he means he literally feels the weight of the explosive
guilt strapped onto him.
The novel I’m getting ready to self-publish, however, is
written in the third person.
I did this partly because I wanted to challenge myself to
write in a style that doesn’t come as naturally to me. And partly because I
wanted the freedom to fluidly move back and forth between the points of view of
the two protagonists within the same chapter, and sometimes even the same
scene.
This eliminated the need to worry about varying
sentence structures and having to work with a more limited vocabulary (which is much more
difficult than you might think; there’s a reason it took Dr. Seuss nine months to write The Cat in the Hat, which uses just 236 unique words). But I still wanted to show the differences in the characters within
the language of the third-person narrative. Sometimes it was relatively simple: When the
narrative is focused on Richard, a Londoner now living in Devon, I use
British English to describe a scene; for instance, the bus stand shelter
will be made of Perspex. When the focus is on Suzanne, a London who moved to
the States when she was ten, the vocabulary is more American; the bus stop shelter
is now made of Plexiglas. (This changes
gradually the longer Suzanne stays in England, however. Over the course of the
book, she begins thinking of her cell phone as her mobile, trucks as lorries.)
Then there are the elements that I’ll call out in my
descriptions. Richard’s former girlfriend was a hairdresser, so when he meets someone, I describe her hair and other aspects of her physical appearance first.
But because Suzanne is an actress, she tends to notice voices and accents
first, then how a person carries himself. Maybe no one else will notice these
subtleties, but they make writing more like acting to me. My favorite actors
walk differently from one role to the other, adopt a different posture, hold
their cigarette differently. I want my writing to do the same.
I try to do something similar when writing copy for clients. Say I’m
writing about a figurine shaped like a lotus flower. If the target shopper is
affluent, well educated, and well traveled, I might toss in a sentence about
how the lotus is a millennia-old symbol of purity in China before describing the
piece’s painstaking craftsmanship. If the target shopper is less affluent and
educated, I would probably focus more on the lovely colors and how they’ll
easily add a spot of color to even a neutral setting.
(Copywriting guru Herschell Gordon Lewis has written
extensively on this subject, by the way. I learned just about everything I know
about copywriting from the columns he wrote for Catalog Age/Multichannel Merchant back when I was an editor at the magazines.
So thanks, Herschell, for enabling me to make a living now that I’m no longer
working full-time as a magazine writer/editor.)
Getting into the head of a character, whether it’s a
fictional creation that’s sprung from your own imagination or the target
customer of a product you’re describing, prevents your prose from being
pedestrian and makes it easier to sell your wares, be they a story about a
young actress searching for her missing brother or a Limoges box. It also
makes the task at hand, at least for me, more fun. And given that so much of
writing is a matter of mechanics, you might as well inject fun wherever and
whenever you can. Besides, if you enjoy the writing process, the reader is more likely to enjoy the reading process.
(I’ve illustrated this post with a photo of Robert Carlyle
because he’s one of those actors who metamorphose among characters in the way I
described above. Compare the swag of Gaz in The Full Monty to the contained vulnerability of Stevie in Riff-Raff to the repressed longing of Mr. Gold in Once Upon a Time. Of course, that he’s a
pleasure to look at had a bit to do with his placement at the top of this post as well.)
By no means do I consider myself a writer. I am a storyteller and I write the way I speak (although I sometimes reach for a thesaurus when writing). I only write about subjects which interest me, therefore I enjoy what I write about. Because I don't and can't write about unfamiliar topics, I cannot be considered a writer.
ReplyDeleteI can, however, be considered an artist. But unlike most artists, I rarely challenge myself. I don't strive to better my work and I heartily admit to being lazy. I don't aspire to achieve greater heights of blah blah blah blah blah.
I think people today have a short attention span and lately, I find my work to be quick, impactful and direct-to-the-point. Perhaps that's my experience in marketing coming through. There is the rare occasion when my writing goes off on a tangent, but only when I am trying to be funny.
What was my point? I think it was I feel a bit embarrassed that I only know Herschell Gordon Lewis as the "Master of Gore" and I knew nothing of his marketing background. That's what I was getting at.
Herschell is also an absolute sweetie, one of the courtliest men I've met (granted, that ain't saying much, given the company I keep...).
Delete