Hello Junot, just stumbled upon your StoryWorlds here, thank your for these thoughts, good way to start the week with - although I sympathize with your struggles. I was invited a month ago to participate in a panel orchestrated by the Writers Union of Iceland to discuss AI and the future of fiction and I recounted there a story from another author, who had taught art at the Art Academy for twenty years. She said that the nature of teaching had changed now to a level that the worst exercises she received from students were now the best ones - the good ones were simply to good and too right. Original thought now rested in the labyrinths, if I may borrow your word, or we might say in the errors, dead-ends, etc.
Similarly, I said, I think AI ultimately forces us to recognize the fossilized standards of a "good story", the standard behavior of stories, of pace, character development, etc. etc. and might even help us defy them. My "worst" decisions as a writer, where I refused to obey my editors, turned out to be the most discussed aspects of my novels, is what polarized my readership, and what people continue to address me about to this day. We can always intuitively streamline a story into a shape we know is good but I would like to argue that bad decisions are absolutely vital, not for the journey of writing the thing, but because creating bad decisions is what ultimately separates us from machines making endless good decisions.
I completely get the idea that writing has the potential for teaching humility, having had a multitude of opportunties for recognizing that my story-telling choices weren't working--weren't in the best service of the story. But I'm not sure I believe there are "bad" choices. Getting to the heart of a story is an iterative process--at least for us mere writing mortals.
i agree. for bad choices, read non-generative ones, dead-end ones, choices that produce fail states which as you emphasize are exactly how we learn and improve.
"narrative fossils who helped ignite the tale, but who ultimately don’t have a place in the finished work" -- or blood sacrifices the loss of whom give the story life, which is not an excuse.
So Enkadu’s foot is in the door and that character ain’t going nowhere. Now, for me, it’s just a matter of how much and in what capacity this character will be part of the protagonist’s imagined life after the last page.
Based on the way you present the issue it seems to me that you write the best version of THIS book and wrestle with a potential sequel when the time comes. I know I’d rather have a draft where I’m debating what I need to cut than what I need to add, so if the story works both ways, I’d make the fuller one knowing I have the ability to trim if it’s too stuffed. Last thing: as a reader I prefer a story where the character has more dynamic relationships anyway.
Hello Junot, just stumbled upon your StoryWorlds here, thank your for these thoughts, good way to start the week with - although I sympathize with your struggles. I was invited a month ago to participate in a panel orchestrated by the Writers Union of Iceland to discuss AI and the future of fiction and I recounted there a story from another author, who had taught art at the Art Academy for twenty years. She said that the nature of teaching had changed now to a level that the worst exercises she received from students were now the best ones - the good ones were simply to good and too right. Original thought now rested in the labyrinths, if I may borrow your word, or we might say in the errors, dead-ends, etc.
Similarly, I said, I think AI ultimately forces us to recognize the fossilized standards of a "good story", the standard behavior of stories, of pace, character development, etc. etc. and might even help us defy them. My "worst" decisions as a writer, where I refused to obey my editors, turned out to be the most discussed aspects of my novels, is what polarized my readership, and what people continue to address me about to this day. We can always intuitively streamline a story into a shape we know is good but I would like to argue that bad decisions are absolutely vital, not for the journey of writing the thing, but because creating bad decisions is what ultimately separates us from machines making endless good decisions.
Fríða wonderfully said and much that id like to offer but for now-- wonderfully said.
I completely get the idea that writing has the potential for teaching humility, having had a multitude of opportunties for recognizing that my story-telling choices weren't working--weren't in the best service of the story. But I'm not sure I believe there are "bad" choices. Getting to the heart of a story is an iterative process--at least for us mere writing mortals.
i agree. for bad choices, read non-generative ones, dead-end ones, choices that produce fail states which as you emphasize are exactly how we learn and improve.
"narrative fossils who helped ignite the tale, but who ultimately don’t have a place in the finished work" -- or blood sacrifices the loss of whom give the story life, which is not an excuse.
Beautiful and useful. Rare combo.
Great
If both versions are viable then could you consider a Schrödinger’s segment, where Enkadu is both in AND out? 😉
So Enkadu’s foot is in the door and that character ain’t going nowhere. Now, for me, it’s just a matter of how much and in what capacity this character will be part of the protagonist’s imagined life after the last page.
Based on the way you present the issue it seems to me that you write the best version of THIS book and wrestle with a potential sequel when the time comes. I know I’d rather have a draft where I’m debating what I need to cut than what I need to add, so if the story works both ways, I’d make the fuller one knowing I have the ability to trim if it’s too stuffed. Last thing: as a reader I prefer a story where the character has more dynamic relationships anyway.