The Intimacy of Books

Something I've been thinking about lately is the difference between Theatre and Movies in terms of drama. In theatre, you have to be very expressive, almost to the point of melodrama, because your audience is potentially fifty feet away and straining to hear what you're saying in the first place. With movies, you can be up close and personal, showing every solitary tear sliding down the cheeks of celebrities.

I've been comparing the differences in the way broadway interprets a song in comparison to its movie counterpart, and I must say, it's very interesting to me. Oftentimes I'll like the instrumentation better in the movie version, but I'll like the vocals better in the broadway. I realize it's a rather sweeping statement, but things just seem to be put in much more expressive ways in theatre, because if you aren't over the top, then no one will catch what you're doing. A friend of mine said it this way, you basically have to pretend you're manic-depressive, either at the height of happiness, or in the depths of despair, and be able to switch from one to the other at the drop of a hat (not her exact words, but still).

How might this apply to the medium of books? When I think of theatre, movies, and books, I see them on a scale of intimacy. I see theatre as being the farthest away, movies the next closest, and books as being the most intimate.

Theatre

First off, in theatre you're distanced literally from the audience. Especially if you're in the cheap seats, you're not going to have an easy time catching all the little nuances and exchanges happening on-stage. There's no camera to show you what to look at specifically, and unless they use monologues and/or soliloquies, you don't get any inside glimpses into any one character's head.

Movies

In movies, you're one step closer, because you can see up close and personal how characters react to certain things and the feelings are more easily conveyed. Having said that, actors are put under even more scrutiny when the audience can see everything. In this medium though, it's still hard to get into a character's head without distracting the audience from the story.

Books

In books, you can get right inside the character's head, and indeed, in many cases you never leave. The whole story-world is rooted in one or a few character's perspectives. Rarely do you see objective, unlimited third person POV's anymore (I certainly don't see them). Readers don't really notice when you use interior monologue. It's not distracting at all to hear a character's thoughts on what's going on, and in fact, sometimes it's awkward if we don't get that. What's cool is that in books, authors get to play with so much more than just simply what they thought.


In books, you can write about the feelings of dread welling up like an acid being pumped into someone's stomach. You can talk about a character's whole being going limp as he watches the love of his life walk out on him. Things movies and theatre can't touch. But what does that say about audience expectations?

If in theatre you expect people to go over the top, and for movies to be a bit more down to earth in terms of performance techniques, what does that say about authors? For me, it means that my descriptions have to be bang on. It means that there is very little room for exaggeration and hyperbole when it comes to a character's thoughts and personality. If I'm going for a realistic portrayal of life. I need to know what I'm talking about, and I have to be believable.

When other styles of storytelling go about portraying 'real life' they have a significant advantage in that they can show real life almost instantaneously, and there's often room for exaggeration. They also have visual cues that give the audience instant setting and information on character. Books can do a lot more, for sure, but the question is, are you willing to wait for it? There's such a fine balance between telling what your reader needs to know and telling them what you want to show. The nice thing about novels though, is that you can do it. You can go deep with your protagonist, you can really delve into their psyches, but it takes effort, and it take skill. Something that you have to keep working at all the time.

What style do you prefer? Up close and personal? Or a bit more distant and dramatic? Does it depend on the genre? Share your thoughts!

Raring to go? Or Reluctant to Show?

Some things you need to know how to do before you do it. Like, skydiving. You need to know a little bit about skydiving before you jump out of a plane. 'Figuring it out' probably isn't the greatest idea.

This principle also applies to juggling chainsaws, heart surgery, and wiring a house's electrical system. These things require research, foreknowledge, and practice without having to do the real thing.

Having said that, if all you ever did was research how to skydive, you'd miss out on the whole point of researching... the dive itself!

I think this can also apply to writing. When you write a book, you don't send your first draft of the first seriously written piece of work you ever write. That thing is going to be full of junk 99% of the time. If you don't invest some real time into it, it just isn't going to work.

Getting a book published isn't just something you add to your list of things to do today. It's not for the faint of heart, and it's not for impatient people. I've been noticing this a lot lately.

There's so much practice that goes into this before you do the 'real thing' and go for an agent. I've personally been working seriously on the craft of writing for years. There are thousands of people who have worked much harder and longer than I have who are still unpublished.

I feel like most writers fall into one of two categories. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like either we are:

A: Raring to go.

or

B: Reluctant to show.

Raring to Go

These are the people who can't wait to get their novel published. They whip out their pens/laptops and write furiously until their nobel prize worthy masterpiece is born. This child, like an infant in a doctor's hands, is handed over to agent after agent in search of someone willing to bring him to adulthood. But no one is willing, 'cause this is one messed up kid.

Often when we're so eager to get something out, we overlook little errors, inconsistencies, or big picture issues. It's our baby after all. Of course it's perfect! What we don't realize is that not everyone sees this child through rose-coloured glasses. We need a healthy dose of reality. We need to wake up and realize that our work may just not be perfect after one draft.

Reluctant to Show

These people have the opposite problem of never taking their writing anywhere but the drawing board. They're convinced it will never be good enough, and that they must do continual edits on it. Before anyone can ever see it, it needs to be perfect. So it stays tucked in a desk drawer, never to be brought out, or sitting in an unmarked folder in the corner of the screen.

We're so afraid of rejection that we'll do anything to put off hearing the truth about our skill level. Yes. You may be average. No, you're probably not the next Tolkein. But you know what? THAT'S OK. No one really wants another author who wrote just like Tolkein. It would get old to have little identical copy cats of famous authors running around. Who would be left to reinvent a genre? Who would be there to make that next B-Level novel to satiate the masses of consumers of normal, run-of-the-mill books?

You may not be as great as you hoped. Oh no. But wouldn't you rather at least know than spend your whole life wondering? Wouldn't that be better?


What we writers need to do is find a happy medium. Somewhere between practicing forever, and never practicing at all. Somewhere between total confidence, and no confidence whatsoever. A place where we are free to make mistakes, but wisely choose to make as few as possible. A place where it's actually possible to get published.

All in all, a place of relative normalcy... whatever that is.


So what are you? Raring to Go? Or Reluctant to Show?