# Writing Fiction



## W.Goepner (Sep 19, 2014)

I started this thread because, I have seen many new members stating they have never written fiction and want to try their hand at it.

As I have never written nonfiction, I can only describe Fiction in one way. It is the writing of ones imagination. Meaning that if you can imagine it and can describe it in a way that makes it work, then you can write fiction. 

Looking up what the Wikipedia says about nonfiction, it is a story based upon research of actual happenings. A simple summery I would say. Fiction is similar in many aspects. Research can and often needs to be done so that the idea sounds plausible. Ann McCaffrey did research on space travel, DnA sequencing, Geo thermal heating, and many other things for her "Pern series", all of which she listed, the Doctors and specialists that assisted her, in the credits and acknowledgements. BUT, (never start a sentence with but) research, is not always necessary, if the subject is close to you and as I said before, you can make it plausible.

So then nonfiction is based on fact and fiction is essentially imagination, but can have a foothold in factual events. Like a story I have been thinking about. That I will not set out here for it is still in development stages in my brain. I can say this, it is based on an idea of testing the NSA with a challenging set of scenarios. For this I need to do research and most likely go talk to some security people for ideas of how and what they would do in these circumstances. 

So I would say yes there is similarities, between nonfiction and fiction. I would say, it depends on POV and the depth one wishes to go to make it believable.


----------



## Ephemeral_One (Sep 19, 2014)

One thing I'd like to add to that, is that having a consistent world is hard to do but I think benefits any work. That being, that since a fictional world where a story takes place typically requires more explanations, it's good practice to make it a place where people can truly live. Pretty often I see cities that would never be populated because people wouldn't be able to get food to it. Remember, societies are built around their stomachs, no matter the setting. Poverty is most frequently due to a lack of enough food, whether that is due to a lack of arable land, plague or some other reason, making it consistent is important, I find.

Like Goepner said, there's plenty of research you can do if you want to sell your readers on a story. Yet, that isn't always necessary for a realism to come across. What is important is that if you only see the main characters and everyone else is just a cardboard cut out, be aware of how much more work your characters would need to do to provide for themselves. Despite popular belief, even Royalty do work. Just my .02 on writing fiction.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 19, 2014)

Fiction = Using lies to tell truths.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 19, 2014)

What's really annoying is that people will refuse to believe fiction unless it's more realistic than real life.


----------



## dale (Sep 19, 2014)

i used to write non-fiction propaganda political articles for a couple different "journalism" sites. i have to say, that sometimes there was FAR more
"truth" in my fictional stories than there were in those "non-fiction" articles.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 19, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Fiction = Using lies to tell truths.



That is a little harsh, because a lie is non- truth that someone is using to try to make you believe it. Fiction is mostly make believe, and make believe is not a lie, make believe is imagination. Without imagination science cannot grow because an Idea must have a start and that start is imagination. A lie is a falsehood, Fiction is not a falsehood. There is more fiction out there based on fact than there is based on falsehoods. 

Though Magic might not be proven, it has a bases in science. Science was thought to be magic when it began. By mixing herb and mineral together it was discovered that one could make a colored fire. By mixing a clay with a certain amount of sand and heating it to a point when it is dry one can make china or porcelain. When these things were discovered they were thought of as magic, yet they are real. 

Yet, Fiction is telling a believable story without any facts to back it up, in that manner it can be considered a falsehood and there for a lie, BUT! I would not call it lying because in most cases Fiction can be proven. In my story of "The Searcher" the MCs can change shapes. A Lie?? only because we have not seen it, does not mean it is not possible, so no, it is not a lie. It is like all of the holiday fables we grew up with and each character that represents it, Lies? Do we truthfully want to take that joyous portion out of our lives or from the children? They are lies only if we choose to let them be. 

Remember the imagination is a strong thing and it has ways of making truths from many of non-truths. Fiction is no more and no less than, the limits if any imagination. One more thing, the imagination can kill, some lies cannot.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 19, 2014)

Bishop said:


> What's really annoying is that people will refuse to believe fiction unless it's more realistic than real life.



I think that is true more in the science fiction side than the strictly fictional. Science-fiction needs a bases that makes it believable, in that, it is easier to believe the navy is in charge of the space fleet, for the simple reason that space travel uses many of the same nautical terms as water travel. "The Space Battleship Yokomato" I believe it was called. A movie about a battleship crewed by young teens. It was a Sea going vessel equipped with a Wave Ion drive, or something close to that. I only seen it once then it was removed from viewing. I believe due to copyright issues over the animated series of same name.

No, most fiction does need to reflect a amount of real life so the reader can feel like it is right next store, but in most cased it does not need to be larger than life, to be believed. Of course believing in fiction is a little scary, because it is imagination.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 19, 2014)

dale said:


> i used to write non-fiction propaganda political articles for a couple different "journalism" sites. i have to say, that sometimes there was FAR more
> "truth" in my fictional stories than there were in those "non-fiction" articles.



Yes, Look at the many stories about the Axis side of WWII. From the SS being a "Cobra" like organisation, to the obsessive behaviors of Hitler. I know much of the propaganda is true, and there were atrocities that many still have troubles speaking of, but look at the fiction that has arisen from that era, based on it. "Hydra", "G.I.Joe and Cobra", the only two I can think of quickly. 

Non-fiction seams to use truths with a twist, where fiction uses a twist of truth. 

When fiction uses a common knowledge as a basses, the reader can pick up the story as something familiar. Non-fiction can be embellished and people cannot tell the difference, point and case, 9/11 and our nations reaction and the political trash that led the UN on a wild chase.


----------



## hvysmker (Sep 19, 2014)

Confused at this thread? He-he, gigglesnort.

Try this arrangement:  Using recent political history as an example, non-fiction can in reality BE fiction. Such as that use against poor Saddam.  In retrospect, he wasn't ever a threat to the US, did not train terrorists, build atomic weapons, have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, or even mistreat his people to the extent some of our friends like the Saudis do.  His country was in much better shape before we started pressuring him. That would make a good book ... fiction or non-fiction?

We simply didn't like the guy. Same with Assad in Syria or Castro in Cuba.

Charlie


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 19, 2014)

hvysmker said:


> Confused at this thread? He-he, gigglesnort.
> 
> Try this arrangement:  Using recent political history as an example, non-fiction can in reality BE fiction. Such as that use against poor Saddam.  In retrospect, he wasn't ever a threat to the US, did not train terrorists, build atomic weapons, have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, or even mistreat his people to the extent some of our friends like the Saudis do.  His country was in much better shape before we started pressuring him. That would make a good book ... fiction or non-fiction?
> 
> ...



Well the reason I started this thread was for people to give their idea of what or how fiction is written. what is or is not agreeable to those of us who read their views can be commented upon. As you gave your views on the political Non-fiction of today's life, etc.


----------



## Plasticweld (Sep 19, 2014)

I love satire which is fiction, based 70 percent on truth and the rest on outrageous lies and distortion.  For satire to be done correctly it has to have a element of truth or it will not ring home.

I have tried to take real life events and change them enough so that I can write about them in fiction.  If you have a level of integrity non-fiction takes a lot of work.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 20, 2014)

Plasticweld said:


> I love satire which is fiction, based 70 percent on truth and the rest on outrageous lies and distortion.  For satire to be done correctly it has to have a element of truth or it will not ring home.
> 
> I have tried to take real life events and change them enough so that I can write about them in fiction.  If you have a level of integrity non-fiction takes a lot of work.



Now this is what I am talking about. I do not know about Satire, but most fiction has a reality ring to it which the reader can connect to, thus carry them through the story. I think, Non-fiction is closer to fiction than the writer realizes. A writer of Non-fiction can write a story that might be only 70% true to get readers, though the 30% might not be big lies they could be unproven fact, but unproven fact is still a lie without proof.

I just hope this thread will be of help to someone who feels they have no idea of how to write fiction.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 20, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> Now this is what I am talking about. I do not know about Satire, but most fiction has a reality ring to it which the reader can connect to, thus carry them through the story.



What you are describing is called verisimilitude, creating the feeling, or appearance of reality. All the best lies have a healthy dose of it. There's nothing wrong with a fiction writer admitting that they practice lying as an art-form. We write about people, events, and places which do not exist. They are fabrications which we attempt to pass off, for a short time and with the reader's full participation, as the truth. If our lies happen to coincide with actual future events it is an interesting bit of trivia--not truth.

This is not a bad thing. It doesn't diminish the craft of fiction in any way to admit that writing it is a form of lying. One of my favorite books on writing is entitled: _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_. I've always thought that sums up the profession of fiction writing very nicely.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 20, 2014)

Calling fiction a "lie" seems like superficial semantics to me. The intention of a person telling a lie is to deceive, to hide the truth. When you read fiction, you know it's not true. It's just not the same thing at all.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 20, 2014)

For the duration of the story, or book the author is absolutely trying to deceive the reader. If the reader doesn't believe my protagonist is at risk then my book's going to be pretty boring. I'm trying to sell my readers on the lie that the world in my pages is a real one and that the one they are sitting in doesn't exist.

It's my opinion that trying to call what we do anything other than lying is creative semantics. But, that's all I have to say on the matter.


----------



## Sc0pe (Sep 20, 2014)

We are writing a story of a time that may or may not have come to past in a world that dose not exist, characters that you have never met in person. powers that have never been proven true. demons, dragons from old lore, villains with lofty goals who sit on a throne of darkness and dwells a walls of shadows. Sprinkled with enough truth to keep from falling off the rails of unbelievability with human nature, fear, the struggle of living, Happiness, greed, hope, faith, trust and death.

They teach a lesson or morale. Help us escape.


These are some of the most greatest fabrications ever created but thats why they are so amazing.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 20, 2014)

Terry D said:


> For the duration of the story, or book the author is absolutely trying to deceive the reader. If the reader doesn't believe my protagonist is at risk then my book's going to be pretty boring. I'm trying to sell my readers on the lie that the world in my pages is a real one and that the one they are sitting in doesn't exist.
> 
> It's my opinion that trying to call what we do anything other than lying is creative semantics. But, that's all I have to say on the matter.



That's fine. I think what you're talking about is asking readers to suspend disbelief. That's the real challenge, because a reader is aware from the onset that he or she is reading something that isn't true; and that's what makes it different than a lie. Or perhaps I'm just more skeptical. 

It's my opinion that in terms of writing, fiction means something that most people understand, especially other writers. Maybe "lying" is more poetic, but in this case, I don't really see the purpose in using a word that is less precise.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 20, 2014)

> Calling fiction a "lie" seems like superficial semantics to me. The intention of a person telling a lie is to deceive, to hide the truth. When you read fiction, you know it's not true. It's just not the same thing at all.



A lie without its purpose is still a lie. As long as something isn't the truth, regardless of why it isn't, it's a lie. 

Lies and fiction are pretty much synonymous; lies and deception, however, aren't. I think the thing that makes fiction noble is that it tries to convince you of truth, or encourage you to find it yourself, with something ultimately untrue. It's a better use for lies than, say, actually lying to someone.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 20, 2014)

I doubt there is anyone here who doesn't know what fiction means in terms of writing. Why call it a "lie" for the sake of it when you can use a perfectly good word with a rather precise meaning?


----------



## Jeko (Sep 20, 2014)

> Why call it a "lie" for the sake of it when you can use a perfectly good word with a rather precise meaning?



Because precision can limit our thinking; 'lie' is correct, and enables us to assess how humanity's attitudes to lies and truth filters in to the literary world. 'Suspension of disbelief' is correct, but where have you heard that outside the arts? I certainly haven't. I prefer to talk about literature in the ways I talk about life; that way, I get more of life in, and out of, literature.

'Suspension of disbelief' was also coined in the 19th century. What would we have called stories before then? Surely, 'lie' is an eternally suitable term, covering much more ground than any alternative.


----------



## Sc0pe (Sep 20, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> I doubt there is anyone here who doesn't know what fiction means in terms of writing. Why call it a "lie" for the sake of it when you can use a perfectly good word with a rather precise meaning?



Calling it fiction all well and good. Guess it just a self observation of the definition of what makes fiction... well... fiction. The reader dose not need to know that they are being lied to before delving into it to understand it but at the same time we without thinking know this but can accept such feats that we find in them books.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 20, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Because precision can limit our thinking; 'lie'  is correct, and enables us to assess how humanity's attitudes to lies  and truth filters in to the literary world. 'Suspension of disbelief' is  correct, but where have you heard that outside the arts? I certainly  haven't. I prefer to talk about literature in the ways I talk about  life; that way, I get more of life in, and out of, literature.
> 
> 'Suspension of disbelief' was also coined in the 19th century. What  would we have called stories before then? Surely, 'lie' is an eternally  suitable term, covering much more ground than any alternative.



Presumably we're among writers, so fiction means something and so does suspension of disbelief. In a discussion with like-minded people in the 21st century, I'm going to go for precision.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 20, 2014)

> Presumably we're among writers, so fiction means something and so does suspension of disbelief. In a discussion with like-minded people, I'm going to go for precision.



As I and many writers argue, a lot of writerly terms don't necessarily do certain writers any good. It comes down to a matter of individual perspective; fiction means something to one person and something else to another. So do lies. The problem I have with 'suspension of disbelief' is that it pretty much has one definition, making it more limited to a more expansive writer like myself; casual philosophy, for me, is an essential part of the literary process. But as I said, it's a matter of individuality.

It's also worth noting that art, especially modern art, is more about imprecision than precision.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 20, 2014)

I'm imagining myself meeting a writer at a party. I ask him what he writes, and he says, "Lies." 

I'm going to look at my watch and head straight to the bar.


----------



## Plasticweld (Sep 20, 2014)

As a writer of lies, I started out my very first post to this site, explaining that this was the one place liars where welcome. 


If I present plain Jane, from the trailer park, bony knees, flat chested, poor completion, and questionable manors, I doubt anyone here would pay attention to her.  


Give her some breast augmentation, send her to the gym, send her to the tanning booth, teach her when to speak and when to be quiet.  There will be a bunch of guys around hanging on her every word. 


As a writer I have the power to do that with every character I create.  The honest truth maybe she's not much to look at. Given the right adjectives, the right settings and the right words, she becomes very desirable. 

Is she fact, fiction or a lie? 


Terry, your ten dollar words  "_verisimilitude" _is a challenge for my 5 dollar vocabulary, I had to look it up :}


I am also sure some wacko, is already hot for Plain Jane from the trailer park... You need not explain


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 20, 2014)

Plasticweld said:


> As a writer of lies, I started out my very first post to this site, explaining that this was the one place liars where welcome.
> 
> 
> If I present plain Jane, from the trailer park, bony knees, flat chested, poor completion, and questionable manors, I doubt anyone here would pay attention to her.
> ...




Ah you could still enhance Jane without lying and still make her interesting

Say Jane comes from the trashiest part of the trailer park. She is skinny as a rail, has the chest of a young boy. She has pimples the size of pepperonis. On top of that, she has the manners of a untrained ape. Something like that.

Just learning from the master:kiwi-fruit:


----------



## Plasticweld (Sep 20, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Ah you could still enhance Jane without lying and still make her interesting
> 
> Say Jane comes from the trashiest part of the trailer park. She is skinny as a rail, has the chest of a young boy. She has pimples the size of pepperonis. On top of that, she has the manners of a untrained ape. Something like that.
> 
> Just learning from the master:kiwi-fruit:




See  I really do have a crystal ball!


_*I am also sure some wacko, is already hot for Plain Jane from the trailer park... You need not explain*_


Thanks mrmustard for playing along


----------



## Sc0pe (Sep 20, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> I'm imagining myself meeting a writer at a party. I ask him what he writes, and he says, "Lies."
> 
> I'm going to look at my watch and head straight to the bar.



This had me in stitches XD

I totally understand where your coming from. Calling ourselves lairs is not something to push you chest about. I would not put part time lire on the hobby section of my CV. fiction describes it just fine. but it's when you looks at what's behind that word is when you get that. 

Mind you dose not mean we are fooling anyone. It's an understanding between you and your readers that this world you are showing them is something that was mead up and it's a thing we have been doing for meany years. To teach children hard life lessons, to come to terms of our fear of the dark, of death, our greatest unknowns and beyond. These stories where made up not to fool people like lies but to enlighten them of the working of our world.

Stories of heroes and gods are proof of that. It's just noways he have replaced heroes with super heroes for the most part.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 20, 2014)

This has gone way off the rails from what OP asked. Sorta sorry I did that, but it has been fun. I supose I could have written: Fiction = using the reader's suspension of disbelief and willingness to accept a writer's fabrications to create in them the understanding of a theme, or concept which is valid and universal.

I like the other way better.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 20, 2014)

Since this is a writing site, I just assumed that people would know what fiction is. But you're right; it's been a blast!


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 21, 2014)

Terry D said:


> What you are describing is called verisimilitude, creating the feeling, or appearance of reality. All the best lies have a healthy dose of it. There's nothing wrong with a fiction writer admitting that they practice lying as an art-form. We write about people, events, and places which do not exist. They are fabrications which we attempt to pass off, for a short time and with the reader's full participation, as the truth. If our lies happen to coincide with actual future events it is an interesting bit of trivia--not truth.
> 
> This is not a bad thing. It doesn't diminish the craft of fiction in any way to admit that writing it is a form of lying. One of my favorite books on writing is entitled: _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_. I've always thought that sums up the profession of fiction writing very nicely.



But, it sounds so crude. 

Yes if one wants to put it in the simplest of terms Fiction is stories written of lies. (Gage, pla pla spit, spit, sputter. it leaves a bad taste in my mouth)

There was player I campaigned beside in Dungeons & Dragons. He said something that has stuck with me to today. "I like to believe I am playing the life of another person on another world somewhere out there." I feel the same way about writing.

My brother said one time, when I asked "How do these writers come up with these ideas?"

"Maybe they are from the places they write about."

Both of those concepts are mind boggling to me. I cannot help but to think, what if they are right?


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 21, 2014)

Now! If you are new to writing and attempting Fiction, There is a large, wide, and deep well of possibilities. As Terry D. stated, in the simplest form Fiction is lies created to entertain the reader. It still rankles me to stat that.

For the most part writing fiction is no different than writing non-fiction, there is much more embellishment, that's all. Any given situation, any imaginable scenario one can come up with and elaborate on, is fiction.

So when one asks what is fiction? You can answer, it is a fabrication of imagination, written to entertain, enlighten, and be enjoyed by the reader. In short a Lie told with the sole purpose of occupying the time of the reader.

If any of this helped the new writer, be they new to writing or writing fiction, then my idea of this thread has worked. As anyone can see we writers are, close to our work and tend to be defensive of how it is perceived. 

Good luck with your endeavors in writing, whether they be Science-fiction, non-fiction, fiction, romance, or poetry.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 21, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> Since this is a writing site, I just assumed that people would know what fiction is. But you're right; it's been a blast!


 Try reading through the last months worth of posts in the intro thread. I would say there is no less than five that refer to having never written fiction and want some help in doing so. Though this thread might not have been needed, I started it with the purpose of getting other writers to give their ideas of fiction writing. In hopes of enlightening the new writer. 

I only hope we have not managed to scare them off.

And, Yes it has been fun discussing the concept of fiction writing and I appreciate the views of you who responded. If anyone feels that they can add to the idea of what it is to write fiction, in an attempt to enlighten the "new to writer". Please feel free to add in your concept. I am sure that it can and will be considered by the rest of us as a means of entertainment, or maybe even enlightenment. (All those comedians struggling to find work and here I am trying to be funny)


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 21, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> Try reading through the last months worth of posts in the intro thread. I would say there is no less than five that refer to having never written fiction and want some help in doing so. Though this thread might not have been needed, I started it with the purpose of getting other writers to give their ideas of fiction writing. In hopes of enlightening the new writer.
> 
> I only hope we have not managed to scare them off.
> 
> And, Yes it has been fun discussing the concept of fiction writing and I appreciate the views of you who responded. If anyone feels that they can add to the idea of what it is to write fiction, in an attempt to enlighten the "new to writer". Please feel free to add in your concept. I am sure that it can and will be considered by the rest of us as a means of entertainment, or maybe even enlightenment. (All those comedians struggling to find work and here I am trying to be funny)



I'm just giving the "new writer" the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming that he's interested in writing fiction because he's read fiction and knows what it is on a conceptual level.

More specifically, I offered an opinion on defining fiction in terms of "lies" and "truths." While poetic, I don't think it is particularly clear or useful to the new writer or anyone else. I really don't think trying to boil it down to any kind of pithy definition is that useful. It strikes me as the kind of thing that is said for effect rather than clarification.

It’s much like “art” or “poetry.” They are difficult to define, but we generally know them when we see them. That we might not be able to come up with an adequate, universally accepted definition for fiction doesn’t prevent anyone from sitting down to write it if he or she has the desire.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 21, 2014)

> Since this is a writing site, I just assumed that people would know what fiction is.



There are people who have studied literature for almost their whole lives and still don't know what exactly 'fiction' is. 

We're not talking about whether one definition is more useful to writer than the other; the fact is, fiction is unquestionably a bunch of lies. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's more or less useful, whether you think it's more or less poetic - it doesn't matter. What matter is that, in this case, x = y. We're not boiling down anything. We're reminding people that they work with lies. Though I know someone called Harry Potter, Rowling's wizarding hero does not exist. He is a lie. 

The other reason I advocate a general parallel such a 'lies' is because more specific terminology like 'suspension of disbelief' doesn't always apply. x ≠ y when the writer fails to suspend disbelief, which many learning writers do. So telling them that fiction is the suspension of disbelief can make them think that either they're always suspending disbelief, which they are not, or failing to suspend disbelief is failing fiction altogether, which is nonsense. Suspension of disbelief is just one faculty of literature; flouting it can be used for artistic purposes. So no, fiction is not the suspension of disbelief. Fiction can suspend disbelief, but the two are not equal. 

Admitting fiction is 'lies' is just common sense, and far closer to the truth than any invented and still debated phrase from the 19th century, and much more straightforward than terms that many new writers throw around erroneously to make themselves look more skilful. Not that that's happening here, but I've seen it happen enough to know that down-to-earth advice is better for a growing writer.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 21, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Though I know someone called Harry Potter, Rowling's wizarding hero does not exist. He is a lie.



So what you’re saying is that in any conversation about writing fiction, you would spontaneously refer to Harry Potter as a “lie” rather than a fictional character? And by spontaneously, I mean no one previously mentioned “lies” as a definition of fiction or tried to defend its use.

Really?


----------



## Jeko (Sep 21, 2014)

> you would spontaneously refer to Harry Potter as a “lie” rather than a fictional character? And by spontaneously, I mean no one previously mentioned “lies” as a definition of fiction or tried to defend its use.



No; I would acknowledge him as not being real while treating him as if he were. That's what we do with fiction; we accept it isn't real, but gain both entertainment and enlightenment through it by treating it as if it were.


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 21, 2014)

Cadence said:


> No; I would acknowledge him as not being real  while treating him as if he were. That's what we do with fiction; we  accept it isn't real, but gain both entertainment and enlightenment  through it by treating it as if it were.



But you wouldn't mention "lie" or "lies."

Okay. I think I'm done here.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 24, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> ...So I would say yes there is similarities, between nonfiction and fiction. I would say, it depends on POV and the depth one wishes to go to make it believable.



Writing "Fiction" is being paid to tell lies in print form. Writing "Non-Fiction" is... not. If I'm writing non-fiction, I don't have to make it "believable." It happened or it just "is" and belief is not required. But, in order to write good fiction, one has to be able to give the Reader the possibility to acquire the "illusion of belief" for themselves, else they won't get the intended enjoyment out of the act of reading the story.

Goldilocks got lost in the woods. She found a house where three bears lived. There was porridge on the table, set there to cool, and the bears had gone out for a pre-dinner stroll. Goldilocks, being a finicky sort and hungry, sat down and sampled each bowl of porridge until she found one that suited her tastes. Once her meal was finished, Goldilocks decided she needed a nap. Instead of doing the decent thing and getting a hotel room, she decided to make use of the bear's beds. Being unquestionably unreasonable about things, she mussed up each bed until she found one she could appreciate. So, full belly and bed in hand, she took a nap. The story continues on and can involve all sorts of endings. The point is, however:

How can a bear get a decent enough job to afford a country estate?

Is "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" a "believable" story? Is it "plausible?" Yes and yes. It is believable and plausible because it presupposes that bears live in nice cottages in the woods and they eat porridge, when it's not too hot, and that they sleep in beds. It makes these assumptions, assumptions that we, ourselves, are familiar with, and then reasonably goes on from there. There are no surprises and no illogical acts involving the bears coming home from their jaunt and being a bit puzzled and upset about some egotistical and thoughtless trollop wrecking their house...

Internal Consistency - That is necessary for believable fiction. When a fictional story sets up new rules, it sticks by them if it wants to be believable. When a fictional story sets up motivations, even if they're alien, it goes about showing their influence in ways that are internally consistent with the Setting and what we, as a Reader, can interpret of a character's behavior and their methods. I have no doubt that if Goldilocks had the chance, she would have ventured into the Bear's garage and would have stolen one of their cars. And, because I know what sort of person Goldilocks is and because I know that the Bears might have several cars in their garage, I know that Goldilocks would have picked out the one that she liked the best. Why am I so confident that would have happened? Because, it's logical, based on the internal consistency that the story has maintained, thus far. IF, however, something_ really interesting _had happened and Goldilocks had picked out the worst choice for her choice, then I would be intrigued to see how the story explained that deviation while still maintaining its internal consistency.  That's one of the joys of being a Reader and one of the most enjoyable tasks of writing fiction.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 25, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Writing "Fiction" is being paid to tell lies in print form. Writing "Non-Fiction" is... not. If I'm writing non-fiction, I don't have to make it "believable." It happened or it just "is" and belief is not required. But, in order to write good fiction, one has to be able to give the Reader the possibility to acquire the "illusion of belief" for themselves, else they won't get the intended enjoyment out of the act of reading the story.
> 
> Goldilocks got lost in the woods. She found a house where three bears lived. There was porridge on the table, set there to cool, and the bears had gone out for a pre-dinner stroll. Goldilocks, being a finicky sort and hungry, sat down and sampled each bowl of porridge until she found one that suited her tastes. Once her meal was finished, Goldilocks decided she needed a nap. Instead of doing the decent thing and getting a hotel room, she decided to make use of the bear's beds. Being unquestionably unreasonable about things, she mussed up each bed until she found one she could appreciate. So, full belly and bed in hand, she took a nap. The story continues on and can involve all sorts of endings. The point is, however:
> 
> ...



I like this in that you take the time to explain the concept. I for one do not like the idea of fiction be a lie. BUT! Being that it is telling a story in the manner that it takes a non truth aspect and makes it believable, I must agree it is telling lies. Though people will argue the concept of the lie being told and try to prove it is a truth, until such proof and truth is evident, I must concede fiction is a lie. Its just... the word lie is so strong.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 25, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> So what you’re saying is that in any conversation about writing fiction, you would spontaneously refer to Harry Potter as a “lie” rather than a fictional character? And by spontaneously, I mean no one previously mentioned “lies” as a definition of fiction or tried to defend its use.
> 
> Really?



A spontaneous action of blurting out without provocation that "Harry Potter" is a lie, would be viewed as rude as passing gas in church. In other words, sitting in a writers convention, one would say among fellow writers, that fiction is improbable actions/situations written in a manner to make them believable. I would hate to be the one to blurt out in said convention, that "Harry Potter" or fiction is a lie, without provocation. There might be some that would laugh it off and others that would agree, I could imagine many would be angry, or in the lest frustrated. I do not like the word LIE! Though it is the truth of fiction.


----------



## J Anfinson (Sep 25, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> That is a little harsh, because a lie is non- truth that someone is using to try to make you believe it. Fiction is mostly make believe, and make believe is not a lie, make believe is imagination.



“A lie, sometimes, can be truer than the truth, which is why fiction gets written.” ​― ​Tim O'Brien

I found Tim O'Brien's book "The Things They Carried" incredible. He tells the story as if it were non-fiction but little by little you learn he's not being honest about events, at least not entirely. Yet even when he embellishes, it doesn't make the story any less true when you consider how similar his story is to so many soldiers. And in his mind it could have just as easily happened the way he wrote it. That's why so many can identify with it, I think.​


----------



## E. Zamora (Sep 25, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> A spontaneous action of blurting out without provocation that "Harry Potter" is a lie, would be viewed as rude as passing gas in church. In other words, sitting in a writers convention, one would say among fellow writers, that fiction is improbable actions/situations written in a manner to make them believable. I would hate to be the one to blurt out in said convention, that "Harry Potter" or fiction is a lie, without provocation. There might be some that would laugh it off and others that would agree, I could imagine many would be angry, or in the lest frustrated. I do not like the word LIE! Though it is the truth of fiction.



I've been in discussions where people are trying to define art, and I think it's a fools errand. I don't think this is much different. Most of us can at least make the distinction between fiction and non-fiction, even if some novels blur the lines. 

If you ask a writer to define fiction, naturally he's going to want to come up with something pithy or thought provoking, and that's why you see these variations on the "lie" thing, and there are quite a few of them out there. There's nothing wrong with it. I just think that when you sit down to write, it doesn't matter all that much. And as I said, it's not all that useful in a discussion where you at least want to start out on the same page.

Now I'm going to write some poetry. I'm pretty sure I won't be thinking about any definition of it, and it won't make the least bit of difference.


----------



## W.Goepner (Sep 26, 2014)

All right, thank you everyone for your help in identifying fiction. Though I do not believe anyone reading this thread will gain any insight to how fiction is done. That might be more of a complex question.

How does one go about writing fiction? Well for someone that has never written a non-fiction story, I will wing it here. 

I know there will be many within this forum that will disagree with me on this and most likely just as many will, some others will add their own ideas I hope.

*Research:* 
Like non-fiction, there can be research. If you are not familiar with an aspect of of your story, like surgery, or the idea of the "Frankenstein Monster", which would require a bit of medical knowledge if you planned on writing it in detail, also bio-mechanics, and how a body moves and functions, these concepts should be checked on to ensure that what is being explained is feasible and believable. 

The same would be necessary for cars, flying in a airship, flying in space, flying without a vehicle, and any aspect of each listed. The list can be endless.

*Development:*
Putting the story together. Now if you are one that does a lot of research then an outline might be your forte. If you are one that has knowledge or can piece things together easily, then pantsing would fit you, either way the key is to make it all fit together and do it well. There is a group of writers that cannot do pantsing and others that cannot do planning, either one with much efficiency, then there are those who do both. The whole thing is to do it well.  

Any writing is an art of sorts. SiFi, non-fiction, fiction, and the others, I cannot think of. (I know there are more) I will say, we writers have a skill set in many genres, and from them we build empires and domains, creatures and peoples, worlds and dwellings, each as grand or minute as only the limits of the imagination will let us. The whole idea of fiction is to take a imaginable moment, place, or thing and turn it into a grand and wondrous design, like the prismatic design of the sun shining through a waterfall into a crystalline cave. Poetic words written in such a way that it draws the reader in and holds them captive within the pages of our stories. (Now that is how I would like to be referred to some day)

*​Execution:*
Writing the story out to its completion, be it a short story or a novel, make sure to finish it. (I know, as I have dropped the number many times in different threads, I have many WIP) Each completed story builds the strength of the writer, to a point which makes them a master. If you have a favorite author, one that has written many stories; go to their first one, and compare it to their most recent one. There should, could or might be a noticeable difference in their style, flow, characterization, definition or descriptions.

It appears to me that writing in general is what I am describing here. There is not much difference between any of the writing structures. It maybe, I began this thread to enlighten the people that think writing fiction is a mystery, but what I have discovered in attempting to define and describe fiction; is that any aspect of writing has the same factors, it is just in how one goes about getting the ideas and putting them on the page. 

I can say this though, and it might be true to all writing. A strong imagination, a vivid imagination, and a masterful mind is what one needs to write. (Hmm, I must be careful I am not discovered, I am not sure I fit into any of that)


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 29, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> I like this in that you take the time to explain the concept. I for one do not like the idea of fiction be a lie. BUT! Being that it is telling a story in the manner that it takes a non truth aspect and makes it believable, I must agree it is telling lies. Though people will argue the concept of the lie being told and try to prove it is a truth, until such proof and truth is evident, I must concede fiction is a lie. Its just... the word lie is so strong.



It is a "lie" when we apply the rules of our real world. But, if it is internally consistent and the Reader is judging the story based upon its application and adherence to its own "rules", it's not a "lie. "

In reading "The Lord of the Rings", we know that it's a "lie." There isn't any such place as "Middle Earth." (Depressing, I know.) There is no "Red Book of Westmarch" and no "Sauron" or sturdy Hobbits or pompous Elves. However, when reading the story, we come to understand that one of sufficient will can overcome the seduction of the One Ring, despite its awesome power. We also learn that Hobbits appear to be very resilient folk, given to valuing the truly good things in life. They are not easily deterred, either in body or spirit. We also know that bonds of friendship are deep in Hobbits, even if the older races have somehow forgotten their own. We also know that there is a value in the names of powerful people, values worth more than any army. Because of these things that we know, we also know that the story is "true" to itself. While we are willing to suspend disbelief, we're governed by the rules of the story and the setting. In that respect, "The Lord of the Rings" is no "lie."


----------

