On Writing, Part 4: Making Stories

A good story is more than the sum of its parts, but the parts that make it up are pretty darn important too. So how can you and I—Average Author Joes—combine the parts in hopes of making magic? Let’s see what Stephen King has to say about it. 

 “In my view,” says King in his book On Writing, “stories and novels consist of three parts: narration, which moves the story from point A to point B and finally to point Z; description, which creates a sensory reality for the reader; and dialogue, which brings characters to life through their speech” (163.) While there are many other aspects to awesome stories, they pretty much fall under these three categories. 

NARRATION

Those Who Plan

The first part, narration, is the telling and progressing of the storyline, and different writers approach this plotting process differently. Controlling, plan-every-last-detail writers lay out a fairly detailed plot sketch before beginning the real writing. This is most definitely my approach. But King scorns this tactic, saying that “plot is, I think, the good writer’s last resort and the dullard’s first choice. The story which results from it is apt to feel artificial and labored” (164). Ouch. It disheartens me to hear this, but he could be right. 

For example, I once wrote a play whose plot went careening off in a different direction than I’d intended. But the ending I permitted was much better than the ending I’d planned, and maybe that’s what King is talking about. Giving yourself permission to change the plan is essential to writing a healthy story. 

Those Who Don’t

On the other end of the planning spectrum are the confident, seat-of-the-pants writers. King is squarely in the center of this camp. He believes “plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren’t compatible….[Stories] pretty much make themselves” (163). Well, maybe they do if you’re Stephen King, but it sure doesn’t work like that for everyone. However, for the kind of stories he writes, his approach seems to work just fine. 

Here’s his method: he begins by imagining a situation, usually by asking “What if…?” Then he fills in the scenario with some basic characters that will develop eventually. Then he sits down for several hours every morning and churns out 2,000 words to see what happens next. Easy peasy. If it worked like that for me, I would approach writing the same way King does. But for now, I’ll have to keep plugging along with a loosely-held plot idea and hope I don’t prove to be too much of a dullard. 

DESCRIPTION

In King’s opinion, the cardinal sin of description seems to be over-description. Boy, he must hate some of the classics. But he has a fair point: who among us hasn’t zoned out while reading a six-page description of a pub or the heroine’s meticulously-transcribed appearance? The main job of the writer, King says, is not to set the scene but to to tell the story, so get on with it.

That being said, writing does require a certain amount of description, so how do you do this well? First, King says that description begins with an author’s visualization and ends with his translating it into words the reader can visualize too. See it, and then say it. And stick with the first few details that come into your mind. Remember also that description should offer something to each of the five senses as often as possible. And, for heaven’s sake, avoid cliched similes, metaphors, and images like the plague. 

DIALOGUE

“Dialogue is a skill best learned by people who enjoy talking and listening to others—particularly listening” (183). Stilted, unnatural dialogue can make even a good story turn rotten. Stock phrases, poorly-executed accents, and awkward wording depict characters in two-dimensional graphite rather than technicolor 3-D. The more we listen and practice, the more our dialogue should reflect real speech. 

In King’s opinion, this includes profanity and vulgarity because worrying about the “Legion of Decency” prevents believable dialogue. I don’t necessarily endorse King’s advice, but I wanted to present it for your consideration. Personally, I wrote a WWII play, and none of my soldiers cursed. Was that realistic? Probably not, but writers do need to consider their audience. Asking seventh- through twelfth-grade students to say R-rated words on stage during a fund raiser may not be worth the realism. I focused on other ways soldiers would have express themselves, and I think it worked out all right. Then again, maybe I’m just an old prude. 

CONCLUSION

Now that you’ve been reacquainted with the three pillars of story, you’ve got plenty to mull over. Maybe it’s time to scamper off to the writing desk and put them into practice. Or maybe you’ll notice these working well in the next book you read. Either way, it’s a win. Next time we’ll look at a few ways to turn a basic story into something more. Stay tuned!

Source:
King, Stephen. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. Scribner, 2000.