Goodness

Robin Crew was convicted for the negligent homicide of his free time today. Although leading Psychronologist Arthur Bull made a strong argument for the defense, claiming that neglect of free time is a widespread mental disorder that should be treated, Judge Ivanna Bookim dismissed the argument saying that "if every we let every idiot off the hook, idiots would no longer fear the consequences of their jackassery, tomfoolery, skullduggery, and other self destructive behaviors."

For his egregious crime, Mr. Crew has been given the maximum sentence- 30 days vacation without possibility of an early return from Cancun.

When asked if he would appeal his case, Mr. Crew told reporters that he was too busy contacting travel agents, having his mail redirected, pre-paying bills, setting out the scarecrows, digging a bomb shelter, writing a novel, learning to play guitar, organizing a community theater and interveiwing a replacement for his free time to futz around anymore with his slow moving, mouth breathing lawyer and his bill-by-the-hour bullshit.

So, the question has come up as to what is good writing and where does it stand in relationship to my own. Because of who I am, I tend to focus on what can be fixed rather than what works (perhaps I'll outline my Tao of Publishing sometime soon). Even so, I will attempt to outline some principles of good writing with my writing as an example of what isn't. I apologize if it ever feels as if it descends into the realm of self pity or anything.

First- Humor is a good thing. Never doubt that. But in long form writing humor can make it hard to keep a focus. Have you ever seen a movie built out of a stand up act? Does it work? Generally the answer is no. There's also the fact that a work that relies too heavily on humor is at the mercy of people's reaction. Have you ever watched SNL or Monty Python or Tim and Eric and been having a good time and then on comes some skit that just isn't funny? It's five minutes of torture and makes you wonder where it all went wrong. As for me, I'm more Rodney Dangerfield than Douglas Adams. Note also that you could replace "humor" with fatalism, literary references, terms in foreign languages and really, almost anything. Most things in moderation can help flow while adding some variety. Using anything extensively is a calculated risk and hard to pull off. Many new writers will overuse parentheses and I always direct them to The Princess Bride by William Goldman as an example of how it can be done effectively, but with the cautionary note that they need to watch how much work the consistency he obtained was.

Second- Description. My god is there a gulf in this. I know people who can write page after page of beautifully written prose about the siding of a house, or an ankle bracelet or a window or a couch's upholstry. Often times, it goes nowhere. A judicious editor, should they take you on will hopefully prune this down and all will be well, but it can overload (and usually front loads) a story to the detriment of the tale. Perhaps even more common are those like myself with either no talent or no patience for writing detail, who write almost excusively in dialogue or action. The problem with this is that the book may end up lacking grounding, the tone might fall through. It also creates a difficulty in pacing since it leads to everything being written in-scene.

Third- Voice. This more than anything is one of the skills which cannot be taught when it comes to writing. It's something every writer must develop for themselves. By and large, I've got a few things I consider the hallmarks of a good voice. Namely, believability, consistency, and originality. A voice which is too understated or too over the top may be difficult for readers to connect with. A voice which sometimes sounds older or younger, or wiser or dumber than it usually does can also throw readers and wreck the tone, or the character themselves in a 1st person. Originality is self explanatory. However, there's one final caveat to voice that makes this very tricky even for people with unique, consistent voices. That is adaptability. Would it surprise you if I said 9/10 of my stories are 1st person told by a cynical, dissillusioned young man with a sharp tongue and an absurdist sense of humor? It's easy to be fun and unique and believable doing that. That's me. So much so that friends will routinely assume that the characters look and act exactly as I do in all situations. Sure, not every reader would know me, but consider the consequences. I'm terribly at writing women for instance, particularly in a lead role. Having even one good voice is a victory that shouldn't be ignored, but a good writer can warp that into several distinct voices which all still sound like the one author which is a feat of such stupendous rarity that it really lends creedence to that rumor. You know the one. That authors are not mere mortals, but the result of generations of selective breeding and genetic experiments performed by the US government to create a superhuman race trained for the purpose of anti-communist propaganda. Naturally, by the time the plan came to fruition the cold war was over and writers were loosed on an unsuspecting public.

Well anyway, hope that crazy rambling is at least somewhat useful to some of you in examining your own writing and whether or not you've over or underutilized anything.