A while back Carbonelle argued that writing the kinds of books Meg Cabot writes is easier than writing Scott Westerfeld books. That is, that books set in the “real” world that are more-or-less formulaic are easier to write than ones that require scads of world building. (Carbonelle, please jump in if I’m mangling your argument!)
I disagreed and facetiously said that world building is a piece of piss. And then an annonymous commenter wanted to know if I was serious. And I never got around to answering on account of having to finish my latest book. (So annoying when my job gets in the way of blogging. Grr.)
So now that you’ve all forgotten about it I respond:
Yes and no. On the one hand, I think many people wrongly assume writing formulaic fiction is dead easy. Personally I find it heaps easier to write a world buildery sf or fantasy novel than a Meg Cabot kind of book.
And I know this for a fact. When I was fifteen I heard that someone’s mum’s best friend’s sister had written a Mills & Boon romance in about fifteen minutes and been paid zillions for it. I could do that, I thought. I’d read a couple and not been that impressed. How hard coud it be?
So I wrote off to Mills & Boon for their guidelines and started typing. After a week in which I manage to type a few pages (which mercifully have been destroyed) I gave up. It was too hard. I didn’t understand the genre. Afterall I’d only read a few. I couldn’t do what I’d been so dissmissive of. Writing a romance that works for the very knowledgable romance audience is really hard.
Agents and editors get reams of romances, chick lit, crime, sf, fantasy and other genre mss. across their desks all the time. They pass on the vast majority because it’s really hard to nail (tee hee) even the seemingly simplest formula (girl meets boy–what could be easier?). Some of the most seamlessly entertaining books are the hardest to write. I can’t think of anything I’d find harder than writing a book that is meant to be a comedy. Unintentional humour? Easy. On purpose? Oh oh.
The problem with writing realist books (and I mean that in the broadest sense from most of Meg Cabot through to Alice Munro et al) is that at least some of your audience knows the instant you get it wrong. They’ve been to New York/high school/McDonalds; if you describe it wrong they’ll be closing your book.
When you invent your own world you can’t be faulted that way. You can just make it all up. Do no research at all, not even sticking your head out the window to see if the light really does shine off the street like you just described. You can totally wing it! Easy as pie. (Of course I know heaps of fantasy and sf writers who do all sorts of research. The fools!)
There isn’t a genre or type of writing that’s inherently easy. I can’t write short stories despite endless attempts at the form. I find writing novels much, much, much easier. When I say that to short story writer friends they don’t believe me. And who knows? Maybe it’s not true for them. (Though secretly I think they’re lying.)
As various people have said all over the place and particularly in that comment thread, some books come fast, some books come slow. Some are easy to write, some a nightmare. I doubt that Meg Cabot finds every single one of her books a breeze; I know that Scott doesn’t.
Difficulty is relative. It depends on the writer more than the genre.
One person might finally write the book that has been brewing in her mind for years while another writes a story for kids that is fairly autobiographical. Who will finish first? There’s no way to know.
Which will be the more meaningful story? It depends on the reader.
A friend of mine in visual effects says that the hardest figures to create are humans, because the (also human) audience is very acute at decoding human motion. We’ve all watched literally thousands of humans walk, talk, emote, etc.
LIkewise, I think it’s really hard to write romance and other convention-heavy genres, because your audience is equally acute. They’ve seen so many first kisses, break-ups, reconciliations (or in science fiction: first contacts, time traveling paradoxes, or eureka moments) that they’re pretty good at spotting the puppet strings.
Boy, have I been thinking about this! It’s a really good question. I’m not even sure where to begin. I’m much more interested in what other people have to say about it, as it puzzles the hell out of me.
I write “real word” stuff, and have now done one fantasy/horror book. Distinct pluses/problems working with both. I really wrestle with the real world things, though. I feel like I beat my head against the desk to do things that “seem” to come easily to other people. Kissing scenes? Fuggetaboutit. So f***king hard. It takes me forever to figure out if I’m going for the shock of recognition (that’s a kiss!), or if I’m just using the kiss to stage something else (it’s a kiss! and then a dead body falls on the scene). I like to ask readers what they liked and what they responded to. The answers are often surprising (and smart).
I know that’s why i write fantasy… my logic has to check against my own logic–for the most part.
I have been known to take a roll of wrapping paper and whirl about the room to see if something i said happened could actually happen in a sword fight. And i’ve had to adjust things accordingly. I’ve also made my husband catch me when i fall, and researched crossbows and lighthouses. But that’s about it. 🙂
Well, in both fantasy and realistic stories, there are broad basic conventions. Anything can be cliched. So, what makes this particular spaceship important or unique? Why should I care about this particular cheerleader?
either one is, to my mind, difficult to pull off.
I had the EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE trying to write a romance novel! I can’t believe I was ever so foolish as to think it would be easy. I was an idiot.
This is intriguing. Over the course of even a short lifetime, readers build up a set of unspoken “rules” about anticipated human behavior… what we casually call “realistic psychology” when applied to fiction.
And writers are expected to shackle their stories to these “rulebooks”, to these clichés about “realistic human behavior”…
… but the rules are not that realistic. In fact, they ARE clichéd, because they don’t bother with all the exceptions that occur almost daily.
Read the news headlines any given day, and you come across examples of human behavior so bizarre or unusual, an editor would dismiss them IF they were fiction.
As for purely factual detail in a story (chemistry, physics, geography etc.), writers should be more rigorous.
Have you tried this sometime?
Some “Comic Book Guy” type tells you in an arch tone: “Sir/Madam – in Chapter 4 of your book, you describe the Eiffel Tower as X feet tall, while in reality it is Y feet tall — 2 meters taller than your claim. How do you justify this factual error?”
You: “Have you measured it yourself?”
Comic Book Guy type: “Well, uh, no, I looked it up in Wikipedia…”
You: “Have you been to Paris and walked up the tower yourself?”
Comic Book Guy type: “I… No…”
You: “Do you personally know someone who has measured the current height of the Eiffel Tower?”
Comic Book Guy type: “Errr…”
You: “We all suffer from a lack of direct experience. And this is just getting worse. With all this secondary experience of the world should come a little bit of humility… don’t you think?”
“When you invent your own world you can’t be faulted that way. You can just make it all up. Do no research at all, not even sticking your head out the window to see if the light really does shine off the street like you just described. You can totally wing it! Easy as pie. (Of course I know heaps of fantasy and sf writers who do all sorts of research. The fools!)”
I can’t believe you said that out loud (er, wrote that in public). I usually keep that info secret. Hee. Hee.
P.S. I have just finished my second attempt at a short story and, well, no, it’s really the first three chapters of a novel again.
Maggie: Don’t worry, clearly this post is entirely ironic without a trace of truth to it. See? We’re home free.
Short stories blow. Just walk away.
I always find it odd when genre fiction is dismissed as ‘formulaic’. I mean, *life* is formulaic. There is only one possible pattern: you’re born, stuff happens, you die.
That ‘stuff happens’ bit, though. Pretty roomy.
i have never been into short stories, reading or writing them. i need stories to feel full and complete. it doesn’t matter how many pages it has as long as it has a full story – beginning, middle, end; PLOT, PLOT, PLOT; rise, fall; climax, etc. Sometimes short stories just feel like a slice without a beginning or end. it’s all in the writer.
love the blog!
just popping in to say i discovered your blog today and that i am in perfect agreement with your assessment that “world buildery” stories are much easier to tell than ones where you have to get every tiny detail correct or risk someone jumping down your throat about it.
(that’s a long sentence, but i don’t think it’s a run-on.)
not to mention, the imagination flows freer than when you second-guess yourself by thinking, “well, i don’t REALLY know what it looks like, so i shouldn’t talk about it.”
anyway, i also ADORE the fact that you don’t use capital letters. i don’t use them either unless it’s to emphasize Important Words ala the A.A. Milnean-style of Fine Literature.
Chris S.: Agreed! I am endlessly amazed by the worshippers of “literary” fiction who fail to notice that it’s its own genre with very specific rules.
Little Willow: I love reading short stories—I just can’t write ’em.
Dawntreader90: Welcome!
I don’t think that they’re necessarily easier, just easier for me. I know lots of writers who find the opposite true.
Hah! I think you’re the first person to like the all-lower case thing. I have good friends who hate it so much they won’t read my blog. Tee hee.