Writers writer how they can, right? Maybe part of this comes down to how people process story. Some writers see the whole thing at once, like a big emotional or symbolic shape, but then struggle to break it into pieces. Others need to stack moments until the shape is revealed to them. It kind of reminds me of left brain vs right brain. The left-brain types need a map. The right-brain types just start walking because they feel something pulling them.
Absolutely true. However the novel you're writing is always the first novel you're writing, and it may have demands that don't fit either binary so tidy, and if you've programmatically aligned yourself with one camp or the other in a tribalist sense, and it's an identity marker for you, you're going to end up psychologically up shit creek (I've seen this happen up close.) So just like, vibe with what you vibe with but don't get a telephone pole lodged up your ass about the Platonic ideal of how you must ALWAYS work, is the thing I guess.
It's hard enough as it is. I could never write on the clock or do a rap battle. Two hours can pass staring at a wall for every twenty minutes of typing. The picture comes too wide, and one has to zoom in to find a way inside. When a thing is that big and undefined, nothing lands. It helps to have constraints. A frame of sorts. A time, a place. Whatever pins it down. I need those constraints as plotting tools.
This is one of the most interesting conversations on Substack right now. Both of you should do a video on this. Tonight would be great.
I really appreciate this article, mostly because these terms and their binaries are things I've been trying to unlearn (maybe this year specifically, what is time?), but also because "Reddit’s r/writing (a place you should never ever go)" is just very sound advice. BURN THAT PLACE AWAY FOREVER
Pushing up my glasses: McCarthy actually wrote No Country as a screenplays (in the early eighties, I believe) but it never sold. He rewrote it as novel, and the Cohen brothers received an early copy (as they did with all his novels at the time, I think), and said--we could make this. They wrote their screenplay based on the book. The movie was my introduction to McCarthy, and the book is the one I've read the most. Over time, I've become one who likes the movie better. Mostly, it all boils down to the meeting with Uncle... rats!... I've chosen to do this without Google and I can't remember the uncle's name. Anyway, I can understand that conversation better in the movie, and it still baffles me a bit in the novel. Maybe I'm making too much of the scene. It feels like one of the pins holding the whole thing together, but the point of the conversation in the movie is simply that you can't stop what's coming. That's pride.
Oh, and regarding the terms--that's just a factor of me having to grow as a writer without anyone to guide me. In my experience, no one wanted to tell you anything. As a teenager in the eighties, I had a subscription to Writer's Digest and I read brilliant books like the Art of Fiction by John Gardner--and I still felt utterly on my own and in the dark. It's part of the reason I enjoy sharing what I've learned. I don't want anyone to feel like they've been kept from the keys to kingdom.
Adjusting my pocket protector: Apparently the novelization of No Country was originally 300+ pages longer than its finished state. His editor trimmed it down significantly which is insane to me, but it explains why it's so sparse and leaves so many places where the reader is left to make connections. I believe McCarthy also consulted on the film so that's probably certain scenes "read" better in the film.
For a long time, it was my favorite McCarthy, and fans would always remind me it was his most pulpy novel. It was the example of my ideal, that cross between pulp and literary. I think I read it too often though. It's third or fourth on the list now. Suttree is my favorite.
Somehow (I have no idea how) I have 3 copies of Gardner. Which still makes me laugh. You did a great job honestly, I'm just playing the foil. (It's for the plot. A little bit of good natured dramatics keeps things interesting around here. Also my mouth literally hates how those words feel, and I cannot explain it. When I say they have bad mouthfeel, I mean in the literal sense, but that's just me.) We don't want anyone denied the keys to the kingdom, but we don't want them to find one key and decide it's the only one either, without opening any other doors.
This is such a lucid and tremendous essay!
Writers writer how they can, right? Maybe part of this comes down to how people process story. Some writers see the whole thing at once, like a big emotional or symbolic shape, but then struggle to break it into pieces. Others need to stack moments until the shape is revealed to them. It kind of reminds me of left brain vs right brain. The left-brain types need a map. The right-brain types just start walking because they feel something pulling them.
Absolutely true. However the novel you're writing is always the first novel you're writing, and it may have demands that don't fit either binary so tidy, and if you've programmatically aligned yourself with one camp or the other in a tribalist sense, and it's an identity marker for you, you're going to end up psychologically up shit creek (I've seen this happen up close.) So just like, vibe with what you vibe with but don't get a telephone pole lodged up your ass about the Platonic ideal of how you must ALWAYS work, is the thing I guess.
It's hard enough as it is. I could never write on the clock or do a rap battle. Two hours can pass staring at a wall for every twenty minutes of typing. The picture comes too wide, and one has to zoom in to find a way inside. When a thing is that big and undefined, nothing lands. It helps to have constraints. A frame of sorts. A time, a place. Whatever pins it down. I need those constraints as plotting tools.
This is one of the most interesting conversations on Substack right now. Both of you should do a video on this. Tonight would be great.
There is no way but your process. Find your process, refine it, and trust it. In timm we yake what works for us, and we burn the rest.
im sure i commented on this already...maybe it was on a restack...i lose track
anyways...was a good moment to self reflect and some cogent mind words. thank you Emil.
Tarboosh tipped.
I really appreciate this article, mostly because these terms and their binaries are things I've been trying to unlearn (maybe this year specifically, what is time?), but also because "Reddit’s r/writing (a place you should never ever go)" is just very sound advice. BURN THAT PLACE AWAY FOREVER
r/writing is like walking into a class 5 hurricane of shit, I will not back down from this position.
A 1000% THIS. I look at it once a year JUST TO SEE and are immediately like, NOPE.
Pushing up my glasses: McCarthy actually wrote No Country as a screenplays (in the early eighties, I believe) but it never sold. He rewrote it as novel, and the Cohen brothers received an early copy (as they did with all his novels at the time, I think), and said--we could make this. They wrote their screenplay based on the book. The movie was my introduction to McCarthy, and the book is the one I've read the most. Over time, I've become one who likes the movie better. Mostly, it all boils down to the meeting with Uncle... rats!... I've chosen to do this without Google and I can't remember the uncle's name. Anyway, I can understand that conversation better in the movie, and it still baffles me a bit in the novel. Maybe I'm making too much of the scene. It feels like one of the pins holding the whole thing together, but the point of the conversation in the movie is simply that you can't stop what's coming. That's pride.
Oh, and regarding the terms--that's just a factor of me having to grow as a writer without anyone to guide me. In my experience, no one wanted to tell you anything. As a teenager in the eighties, I had a subscription to Writer's Digest and I read brilliant books like the Art of Fiction by John Gardner--and I still felt utterly on my own and in the dark. It's part of the reason I enjoy sharing what I've learned. I don't want anyone to feel like they've been kept from the keys to kingdom.
Adjusting my pocket protector: Apparently the novelization of No Country was originally 300+ pages longer than its finished state. His editor trimmed it down significantly which is insane to me, but it explains why it's so sparse and leaves so many places where the reader is left to make connections. I believe McCarthy also consulted on the film so that's probably certain scenes "read" better in the film.
Highly recommend Aaron Gwyn's 2-part podcast on No Country: https://bloodmeridian.substack.com/podcast
This is the content I don't ever expect that I come here for.
Wow! Love it
For a long time, it was my favorite McCarthy, and fans would always remind me it was his most pulpy novel. It was the example of my ideal, that cross between pulp and literary. I think I read it too often though. It's third or fourth on the list now. Suttree is my favorite.
You’ll love that podcast then; makes a great case for why it’s one of his better works.
Somehow (I have no idea how) I have 3 copies of Gardner. Which still makes me laugh. You did a great job honestly, I'm just playing the foil. (It's for the plot. A little bit of good natured dramatics keeps things interesting around here. Also my mouth literally hates how those words feel, and I cannot explain it. When I say they have bad mouthfeel, I mean in the literal sense, but that's just me.) We don't want anyone denied the keys to the kingdom, but we don't want them to find one key and decide it's the only one either, without opening any other doors.
Discourse continues tomorrow
You're one of my favorite disk horsers.