# Is the Scene Clock Running



## EmmaSohan

I should let Jay speak for himself, but my understanding is him claiming that stopping the scene clock is not good.

I'm not sure what that means, or where to draw the line. But the idea of stopping the action kept coming up. (I was even wondering if that was a sign of an unsatisfactory epilogue.)

So, are there problems stopping the clock? What does that mean?


----------



## Bayview

Can you give us context or something?

I feel like you're maybe talking about pacing, but... maybe not...


----------



## bdcharles

A story is a sequence of events happening in somebody’s real time. Any time that sequence pauses is, I believe, what he means. Now that doesn’t have to be anything particularly dramatic or exciting - it just has to fit in. A thought, some internal dialogue, is ok. But I do see many writers stop the story to dump in info. Imagine this:

“Bob thrust his shovel into the soil when the sun exploded.

He had been digging for the lost treasure rumoured to have been put there by Dutch traders. They had come over when yadda yards blah blah.”

So there I open with a main event but then I stop that and proceed to say what had happened years ago. The treasure may be pertinent but this simply isn’t the best place for it. We have a significant event that we need to deal with. Let’s discuss the Dutch traders when things settle down. I suppose pacing does come into it. The pacing in the above goes: Exciting! Sedate-sedate-sedate-sedate-sedate. Readers’ reactions don’t tend to want to do that.


----------



## Thaumiel

I'm going to use an analogy of plays and films that I think might be similar to the point.

Stop for a soliloquy in a Shakespeare-esque play, sure okay.

Stop for a soliloquy in the middle of a blockbuster action film fight sequence, not a good idea (unless your character is Deadpool.)


Like bd said above it seems to be about pacing. If you're in a slow part of the story, maybe some set up of a story line, it can be helpful to pause and have a character think about something relative that happened before. However, if you've got the ball rolling on a particularly interesting part of your story that's going to keep the reader gripped (cops catching the bad guy, medieval forces clashing, _aliens blowing up the sun just as some guy starts digging the x that marks the spot..._) then you should really see that part of the story through to it's conclusion before taking any time to have your characters reflect on things.


----------



## Bayview

I think there are problems doing anything without a sense of purpose and without taking the time to evaluate whether what you did achieved the goal you wanted it to.

There's certainly a time-honoured tradition of leaving characters in a tense situation and taking the reader off to look at something else. I guess that wouldn't be within a single scene, but it's certainly a "stop" to the action of the scene, only to pick the action up later on...


----------



## bdcharles

I see it alot in opening paragraphs here, where the writer opens the scene, and then straightaway we break into backstory, history, scene-setting and so on, with prolific use of the word "had" and other moment-killers. I understand that the events need setting up but this is a suboptimal way of doing it, in my view, not least because it is so common as well as being disruptive of the flow.

But that said, I do completely understand the excitement of: wow, I wrote this! Let's share and amaze the world! Then we get told the flow is all out of whack. It's just a matter of disciplining oneself, and knowing what readers like. You have to put yourself in their shoes and often, after an intensive writing session where the ideas flow, that's quite hard to switch gears, so a cooling off period can really help, during which you can read about various do's and dont's and so forth.

*Here's a good and funny writeup* from Jeff Van De Meer at Electric Literature. A bit wordy, being in essence a transcript, but worth taking time to review. The TLDR of it is: "Know what to focus on" and "Complications must occur to create reader interest."


----------



## Jack of all trades

Time should flow in a forward direction. Flashbacks, memories, and the like should be used sparingly, if at all. What bdcharles is talking about is a problem with flow. I agree that many newbies backstitch frequently. They haven't mastered flow yet. But that, in my opinion, is not the original point of this thread.

Stopping the clock, I think, is a different matter. To really discuss what Emma is talking about, we need her to clarify. Maybe provide a link to where Jay mentioned it. Some context. 

Based on my recollections of other discussions and critiques, it's possible what being discussed is those soliloquies James mentioned, personal thoughts or lengthy descriptions. But that's just a guess.


----------



## Pete_C

The first thing is that there are no rules to say things must be written in a certain nor that they must not be written in a certain way. All of that is nonsense often used by those who lack original thought or the balls to challenge convention. There are plenty of books that 'stop the scene clock' and it isn't an issue because they do it well. Stopping the scene clock badly really leaps off the page, even in an ocean of old toss, which is why those without an interesting way of doing it should avoid the method.

Consider Vonnegut; always stopping the scene clock to make some aside or other. I think even those who adore the 'how-to' pamphlet pushers will admit he didn't need a lecture on scene clock management (but some no doubt will argue thus).

Be original, be fresh, be challenging and you can pretty much stick the scene clock anywhere you wish and get away with it.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Some context:

Jay had the concept of stopping the scene clock. I like the concept.

He weaponizes it. Take this innocent looking sentence: “Yeah, I mean, sure—” she licked her lips, at once noting how dry her throat felt “—I talk to them and all.”

_She licked her lips_ is apparently fine, but Jay says that _at once noting how dry her throat felt_ stops the scene clock. He claims it "kills all momentum the scene might have."

That has to be going too far, right? And yet . . . Jay has a point. I can kind of see that the author has started talking to us, and I do prefer _she licked her lips, her throat felt dry _


----------



## EmmaSohan

The consensus is not to stop an action scene. Or a sex scene? Or an intense conversation?

Or anything? Is there any time we want the scene clock to stop?

I am looking at a chapter of a book where the first page is dialogue with conflict. Then there's four pages of "description" Is that okay? The book starts to get interesting a few chapters later.

So, context, I kept running into problems where the scene-clock was stopped.


----------



## Kyle R

A lot depends on author discretion. Some authors prefer a slower, more introspection-heavy pace, where the scene clock is frequently stopped to make room for characterization, or backstory.

Cherie Priest is one of them—and her _Clockwork Century_ series is one of my favorite reads.

Nora Roberts will sometimes slow down the scene clock during her intimate scenes, breaking the lusty action here and there to explore the character's internal conflict.

Too many interruptions can kill the scene's momentum, true. But, in my opinion, _not enough_ interruptions can also make everything feel too rushed, or too shallow.

There's always another side to the coin. :encouragement:


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Pete is right: Anything is possible if you can make it work.
I use segways regularly, and many of the writers I read do as well. It's basic character development; although sometimes it is done to help tell the story.  

Totally linear stories kind of died off after 21 Grams (Sean Penn's story was told in reverse order.)


----------



## bdcharles

EmmaSohan said:


> Take this innocent looking sentence: “Yeah, I mean, sure—” she licked her lips, at once noting how dry her throat felt “—I talk to them and all.”
> 
> _She licked her lips_ is apparently fine, but Jay says that _at once noting how dry her throat felt_ stops the scene clock. He claims it "kills all momentum the scene might have."
> 
> That has to be going too far, right? And yet . . . Jay has a point. I can kind of see that the author has started talking to us, and I do prefer _she licked her lips, her throat felt dry _



I think of this as "filtering". Used to excess or in the wrong place, it is a sort of pause in the flow of events because the character is talking, she expresses some body language, and we readers are with her so far - and then she _notes_ something. That wouldn't be so bad in some situations, like if something curious piqued her interest, but she notes something so incredibly mundane. She notices that her throat felt dry. Wow. Seriously. I am bored just writing it. So it's not so much that the flow fails to go forward in an orderly fashion. It can go backwards, forwards, sideways, upwards or track the _n_-dimensional curvature of a hyperdoughnut for all I care. In this case it fails to go anywhere at all. To me, such writing is dead, dead, dead. My apologies to whoever wrote it; I am sure they have many examples of fine writing elsewhere and if this is an example to take apart, it's a good'un. So my point is: why have her "note" that her throat feels dry when you can just have her throat feel dry. We _are _her, if we're privy to what she perceives. Aren't we? Not to put it that way is an admission of failure to even try to create an engaging character. By presenting something like a dry throat as-is, presents it as something for _readers _to notice. That, as far as I can ascertain, is where, and by what mechanism, the clock stops.

God, I just noticed that I feel like I might have looked like I had a right rant there. I'm out of breath.  The only time this should work is if she has just been poisoned and that is a side-effect of the toxin. Or something.


----------



## Jack of all trades

EmmaSohan said:


> Some context:
> 
> Jay had the concept of stopping the scene clock. I like the concept.
> 
> He weaponizes it. Take this innocent looking sentence: “Yeah, I mean, sure—” she licked her lips, at once noting how dry her throat felt “—I talk to them and all.”
> 
> _She licked her lips_ is apparently fine, but Jay says that _at once noting how dry her throat felt_ stops the scene clock. He claims it "kills all momentum the scene might have."
> 
> That has to be going too far, right? And yet . . . Jay has a point. I can kind of see that the author has started talking to us, and I do prefer _she licked her lips, her throat felt dry _



Thanks for providing the context.

I wouldn't say the clock was stopped in that example. I do think the dry throat could have been conveyed better. But that doesn't mean the reference to the throat needs to be removed. Just fixed.

As a reader, that sentence wouldn't cause me to put the book down. It would depend on the story itself, and the characters, for deciding if I continue reading. Plot and characters. Those are the driving forces.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Ralph Rotten said:


> Pete is right: Anything is possible if you can make it work.
> I use segways regularly, and many of the writers I read do as well. It's basic character development; although sometimes it is done to help tell the story.
> 
> Totally linear stories kind of died off after 21 Grams (Sean Penn's story was told in reverse order.)



If something is done well, sure, it can break the rules. Or should I say go against the guidelines. But haphazard jumping around in time is not going to cut it, in my opinion. There's a difference between not knowing what you're doing and deliberately choosing a different path.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> The consensus is not to stop an action scene. Or a sex scene? Or an intense conversation?



Where are you seeing that consensus? Certainly not in this thread...



> Or anything? Is there any time we want the scene clock to stop?



Again, I feel like your terminology is getting in the way of my understanding. When you say "scene clock", would someone else say "momentum" or "pacing" or something? I've never heard the term "scene clock" before this thread, and when I googled it to get more understanding, the first vaguely relevant link was to this thread. So... what do you mean by "scene clock"?





> I am looking at a chapter of a book where the first page is dialogue with conflict. Then there's four pages of "description" Is that okay? The book starts to get interesting a few chapters later.
> 
> So, context, I kept running into problems where the scene-clock was stopped.



If you're reading successfully published books, I think you should always consider the possibility that the techniques involved aren't working _for you _as a reader, rather than they don't work, period.

Can pacing be an issue in writing? Absolutely. Pacing can be too slow or, as @Kyle R points out, too fast. I'm not sure we need a whole new term to describe this, not unless there's more to the "scene clock" idea than I'm getting.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Trying to explain scene clock:



> "That's never going to happen, but I'll show you the files."



If this was a movie, that would take a few seconds to say. If there was a clock in the room, it would move forward a few seconds. If there was no clock, we would not know when that started, but we would know it ended a few seconds later.

There's no clock in a book, but we can imagine one. We don't know the time, but we can in a way perceive the time as passing. Sometimes.

So the scene clock was running. For dialogue, it always is. The next sentence:



> He unlocked the case, drew them out.



We don't know exactly how long that took But it feels like a movie, and the scene clock is still running.

A few pages later:



> She glanced at her empty mug of coffee, wished more would magically appear.



I think the clock is still running. It goes on and on. Then I think this stops it:



> Until she had given him everything.
> She didn't object when he carried her upstairs.



Her not objecting isn't something that happens in time. Carrying her upstairs is treated like an event to be discussed. Trying to rewrite that so it's on the clock:



> He picked her up, and she felt his strong arms on her back and legs. He carried her to the stairway. As she heard his boots on the steps, she relized that this was the time to object. She lay her head on his chest and just sighed.



In a way, it's an interesting concept. For example, it's interesting to see where an author first starts the scene clock. Clock-starting even starts to feel like a momentous event. Of Mice and Men starts five paragraphs in -- The first man stopped short in the clearing. I like to turn on the clock right away.


----------



## Terry D

Look, people who try to sell books telling other writers how to write are always going to concoct unnecessary verbiage to make their 'techniques' sound creative and innovative. "Scene Clock" is that sort of word, something gleaned out of a how-to book. All it is is 'pacing and flow' wrapped up in gaudy paper and presented as a unique concept.

Novels are like driving from Chicago to LA, you always want to be moving in that general direction, usually at an efficient pace, but, to make the trip enjoyable, you sometimes slow down to view the scenery, and sometime you just have to stop and pee even if you're currently driving through Rocky Mountain National Park. Done with a plan, no one cares about the slows and stops, but, if Grandpa Teenybladder has to stop every hour for a restroom break, it might get a bit irritating.


----------



## writerJoe

EmmaSohan said:


> Trying to explain scene clock:
> 
> I think the clock is still running. It goes on and on. Then I think this stops it:
> 
> "Until she had given him everything.
> She didn't object when he carried her upstairs."
> 
> Her not objecting isn't something that happens in time. Carrying her upstairs is treated like an event to be discussed. Trying to rewrite that so it's on the clock:
> 
> "He picked her up, and she felt his strong arms on her back and legs. He carried her to the stairway. As she heard his boots on the steps, she relized that this was the time to object. She lay her head on his chest and just sighed."



After reading this thread, I'm realizing that this is an area that I could definitely work on. For example, I use the word "had" to backtrack on things I want the reader to know about, and I think I do this more than I should because I have not yet mastered flow or pacing. 

I'm trying to figure out what to focus on to create those scenes and ideas in a more optimal way. It almost sounds as though Emma/Jay is suggesting that "stopping the clock" is a bad thing to do and that everything should be written "on the clock". My initial instinct says that this should not neccessarily be an absolute. Other seem to suggest that as the case as well.

To make sure that I'm on the right track here, it sounds like I should try to be more cautious about causing a pause in the flow, but not to necessarily cut it out altogether?


----------



## bdcharles

writerJoe said:


> To make sure that I'm on the right track here, it sounds like I should try to be more cautious about causing a pause in the flow, but not to necessarily cut it out altogether?



I’d say that’s about right. Know when is the best time to use it or leave it out, kind of thing.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> In a way, it's an interesting concept. For example, it's interesting to see where an author first starts the scene clock. Clock-starting even starts to feel like a momentous event. Of Mice and Men starts five paragraphs in -- The first man stopped short in the clearing. I like to turn on the clock right away.


_
Of Mice and Men_ is widely considered to be a masterpiece, and its opening is often cited as a really effective example of scene-setting. 

So... for sure, write in whatever style you like and want to use. But in terms of trying to come up with overall rules for writing? If the opening of _Of Mice and Men_ breaks the rule, then it's a rule that deserves to be broken.

Having a quick look at _To Kill A Mockinbird_ I'd say the "scene clock" doesn't start until several pages into the book, and then stops again almost immediately to give us Dill's backstory, then it starts again for a few paragraphs, then it stops to tell us about Boo Radley.

In _Lord of the Flies _(I'm trying to pick books I figure most of us would have read in high school and that I can read via Amazon Look Inside)... does description count as stopping the clock? I guess so, since the clock wasn't running for the opening of _Mice and Men_. So the LotF clock is stopped after the first half page in order to describe Piggy, then starts again, runs for about a page, then stops to describe the cove, then starts for a couple paragraphs, then stops to describe Ralph, etc.

In conclusion... either I'm totally misunderstanding what's meant by stopping the clock, or good/great authors stop the clock all the damn time.

Worry about _pacing_. At a macro level, worry about whether your story drags or feels rushed. But at a micro level? If you want to "stop the clock", stop the clock. If it works, you win!


----------



## Terry D

Bayview said:


> In conclusion... either I'm totally misunderstanding what's meant by stopping the clock, or good/great authors stop the clock all the damn time.



This!


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> _
> Of Mice and Men_ is widely considered to be a masterpiece, and its opening is often cited as a really effective example of scene-setting.
> 
> So... for sure, write in whatever style you like and want to use. But in terms of trying to come up with overall rules for writing? If the opening of _Of Mice and Men_ breaks the rule, then it's a rule that deserves to be broken.
> 
> Having a quick look at _To Kill A Mockinbird_ I'd say the "scene clock" doesn't start until several pages into the book, and then stops again almost immediately to give us Dill's backstory, then it starts again for a few paragraphs, then it stops to tell us about Boo Radley.
> 
> In _Lord of the Flies _(I'm trying to pick books I figure most of us would have read in high school and that I can read via Amazon Look Inside)... does description count as stopping the clock? I guess so, since the clock wasn't running for the opening of _Mice and Men_. So the LotF clock is stopped after the first half page in order to describe Piggy, then starts again, runs for about a page, then stops to describe the cove, then starts for a couple paragraphs, then stops to describe Ralph, etc.
> 
> In conclusion... either I'm totally misunderstanding what's meant by stopping the clock, or good/great authors stop the clock all the damn time.
> 
> Worry about _pacing_. At a macro level, worry about whether your story drags or feels rushed. But at a micro level? If you want to "stop the clock", stop the clock. If it works, you win!



One thing that can stop the clock, i.m.o., is voice. If the reader is sufficiently close in with the character, speaking their language, they can do what they like. It's their headspace. But stopping the clock when there's a generic voice? That I don't care too much for.


----------



## bdcharles

Terry D said:


> This!



OK but what about people who are just starting out down the authorial path? And in any case, are these instances exactly what is meant? I'm just wary of advice that says "do what you want, whenever you want". I mean, it sounds great, but I'm not sure it wil; lead to great writing in every case. I think it's important to first understand something of the mechanics of storytelling so people have a clear grasp of what they are doing.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

I don't think of it as stopping the clock; it's a segway.  It is branching off into a memory, history, or some other part of the story that better illustrates your character(s).
A couple of books ago I made a segway that lasted half the book.
In writing if you can make it work then it's okay to do.


----------



## Bayview

bdcharles said:


> OK but what about people who are just starting out down the authorial path? And in any case, are these instances exactly what is meant? I'm just wary of advice that says "do what you want, whenever you want". I mean, it sounds great, but I'm not sure it wil; lead to great writing in every case. I think it's important to first understand something of the mechanics of storytelling so people have a clear grasp of what they are doing.



I have no idea exactly what's meant - this is my best guess.

And I don't think my advice is "do whatever you want" so much as it's "try everything and see what works".

In terms of beginning authors - wasn't _TKAM_​ Harper Lee's first book?


ETA: And in terms of finding something that "will lead to great writing in every case"? If you find anything that will even lead to _good_ writing in _most_ cases, I'm hungry to hear it!


----------



## EmmaSohan

Ralph Rotten said:


> I don't think of it as stopping the clock; it's a segway.  It is branching off into a memory, history, or some other part of the story that better illustrates your character(s).
> A couple of books ago I made a segway that lasted half the book.
> In writing if you can make it work then it's okay to do.



What stops the clock (or pauses it)?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a single thought stop the scene -- those are no different than dialogue. But if it's too many thoughts, or if the main character is talking to the reader, it can be perceived as stopping the clock.


> "Who's the new prospect?"
> My mom sighed again, deeper this time. "Benjamin Feldberger, Esquire."
> So that explained her outfit. I eyed it with a mix of horror (65 percent) and awe (35 percent). She had chosen a red dress, sleeveless with a draped neckline and a thigh slit that effectively negated the knee-length hem. Don't get me wrong; she looked fabulous. My mom had this sexy _pinay _charm about her that had been completely lost in the genetic translation when it came to me. Probably because, as my mom loved to remind me, I was only half-Filipino.
> "Is that work appropriate?" I asked.



I suspect that events that take too long also count as stopping the clock. "I drove to Los Vegas."


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> “Yeah, I mean, sure—” she licked her lips, at once noting how dry her throat felt “


My view boils down to this: to best enjoy the story we should be living it with the protagonist as our avatar, not reading _about_ it. So such things as the line quoted, by inserting an an editorial comment, can knock the reader out of the story. After all, after the author speaks within the scene, shouldn't the characters in the story turn to him/her and ask who they are and why they're talking about them to invisible people? I sure would. A Will Farrel film, Stranger Than Fiction, that made that literal, as part of the plot. His character hears the author giving editorial insertions (though no one else can) It didn't get a lot of play, but for a writer, it has special significance. And it was fun.

The trick is, we can make author invisible while telling the reader the same thing by rearranging a bit and using implication. In the line quoted, doesn't licking her lips imply that they were dry? If it needs to be reinforced, wouldn't, "“Yeah, I mean, sure—” she licked suddenly dry lips before finishing with... “ A hesitation might be wanted there, as a kind of meta-punctuation to show her state of mind. The trick is to keep the story moving by avoiding a POV break.

I forget where I got the term scene-clock, but I think it's apt, because if you're keeping the reader within the moment the protagonist calls now, each thing the protagonist focuses on and reacts to moves time forward in the scene, and each motivation/response pair is a tick of the clock that makes rthe reader feel as if they're in real-time. So there you are, event following event, within the protagonist's viewpoint. Then, abruptly, the author chimes in and we're no longer living the scene because the scene-clock missed a beat, or stopped dead while the author is feeding in information the reader has not been made to want.

Hope this clarifies.


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> My view boils down to this: to best enjoy the story we should be living it with the protagonist as our avatar, not reading _about_ it. So such things as the line quoted, by inserting an an editorial comment, can knock the reader out of the story. After all, after the author speaks within the scene, shouldn't the characters in the story turn to him/her and ask who they are and why they're talking about them to invisible people? I sure would. A Will Farrel film, Stranger Than Fiction, that made that literal, as part of the plot. His character hears the author giving editorial insertions (though no one else can) It didn't get a lot of play, but for a writer, it has special significance. And it was fun.
> 
> The trick is, we can make author invisible while telling the reader the same thing by rearranging a bit and using implication. In the line quoted, doesn't licking her lips imply that they were dry? If it needs to be reinforced, wouldn't, "“Yeah, I mean, sure—” she licked suddenly dry lips before finishing with... “ A hesitation might be wanted there, as a kind of meta-punctuation to show her state of mind. The trick is to keep the story moving by avoiding a POV break.
> 
> I forget where I got the term scene-clock, but I think it's apt, because if you're keeping the reader within the moment the protagonist calls now, each thing the protagonist focuses on and reacts to moves time forward in the scene, and each motivation/response pair is a tick of the clock that makes rthe reader feel as if they're in real-time. So there you are, event following event, within the protagonist's viewpoint. Then, abruptly, the author chimes in and we're no longer living the scene because the scene-clock missed a beat, or stopped dead while the author is feeding in information the reader has not been made to want.
> 
> Hope this clarifies.



You're talking about Deep POV, right? And deep POV is popular and useful, but it's hardly the only acceptable POV in which fiction is written. I think you're talking about a style preference and making it sound like an absolute.


----------



## qwertyman

The writer knows how he/she wants dialogue spoken to carry the ‘total’ package of the speech, both underlining and overt.

The reader needs guidance to receive the ‘total’ dialogue package as the writer intends.

A tool the writer has… is the _beat_.  A pause in the delivery, with a tag to show it's significance.

Where the _beat _is placed in the dialogue is intuitive to the writer who knows how the dialogue should be spoken by an actor.

The length of the beat is part of the process and the writer succeeds or fails on the choice. It could be three words, or it could be a paragraph.

In most cases momentum (scene-clock?), is demanded by the reader. This doesn’t mean the writer can’t deny it, like an abrupt end of chapter.

If the narrator is omniscient-third-person, the reader is ‘told’ the tag attached to the dialogue.

If the narrator is first-person the tag is observed or ‘shown’ and is less likely to interrupt the momentum because the reader has more interest in the narrator's opinon than a third-person's viewpoint. As in Emma's example...



> "Who's the new prospect?"
> My mom sighed again, deeper this time. "Benjamin Feldberger, Esquire."
> So that explained her outfit. I eyed it with a mix of horror (65 percent) and awe (35 percent). She had chosen a red dress, sleeveless with a draped neckline and a thigh slit that effectively negated the knee-length hem. Don't get me wrong; she looked fabulous. My mom had this sexy pinay charm about her that had been completely lost in the genetic translation when it came to me. Probably because, as my mom loved to remind me, I was only half-Filipino.
> 
> "Is that work appropriate?" I asked.​



Thus spoke qwerty.


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> I have no idea exactly what's meant - this is my best guess.
> 
> And I don't think my advice is "do whatever you want" so much as it's "try everything and see what works".
> 
> In terms of beginning authors - wasn't _TKAM_​ Harper Lee's first book?
> 
> 
> ETA: And in terms of finding something that "will lead to great writing in every case"? If you find anything that will even lead to _good_ writing in _most_ cases, I'm hungry to hear it!



Ok, and trying everything and seeing what works is probably a good enough approach, but at some point it suggests to me that some things won't work, so what to do with that info? It also overlooks the notion of having a feel already for what will work - that ready sense of beat and flow - and being able to communicate it well. I imagine that is where people like Harper Lee have a success with their first book. I'm just not sure how typical she is. Sadly I don't think there is any one thing that will lead to good writing in most cases, other than, well, having a handle on the million-and-one things that go into making a book. I wish there was! That's how it seems to me anyway.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Terry D said:


> Look, people who try to sell books telling other writers how to write are always going to concoct unnecessary verbiage to make their 'techniques' sound creative and innovative. "Scene Clock" is that sort of word, something gleaned out of a how-to book. All it is is 'pacing and flow' wrapped up in gaudy paper and presented as a unique concept.
> 
> Novels are like driving from Chicago to LA, you always want to be moving in that general direction, usually at an efficient pace, but, to make the trip enjoyable, you sometimes slow down to view the scenery, and sometime you just have to stop and pee even if you're currently driving through Rocky Mountain National Park. Done with a plan, no one cares about the slows and stops, but, if Grandpa Teenybladder has to stop every hour for a restroom break, it might get a bit irritating.



I would say it will *probably* be irritating, but otherwise agree!


----------



## Jack of all trades

bdcharles said:


> OK but what about people who are just starting out down the authorial path? And in any case, are these instances exactly what is meant? I'm just wary of advice that says "do what you want, whenever you want". I mean, it sounds great, but I'm not sure it wil; lead to great writing in every case. I think it's important to first understand something of the mechanics of storytelling so people have a clear grasp of what they are doing.



Authors should listen to the feedback of readers. Not blindly follow any advice, but if a few readers tell you the same thing, it's probably a problem. I tend not to listen to those who like to rewrite my work, or those who throw out generic advice. But I take it seriously when a reader says, "This spot is slow/confusing." I take very seriously if more than one says the same thing.


----------



## bdcharles

Jack of all trades said:


> Authors should listen to the feedback of readers. Not blindly follow any advice, but if a few readers tell you the same thing, it's probably a problem. I tend not to listen to those who like to rewrite my work, or those who throw out generic advice. But I take it seriously when a reader says, "This spot is slow/confusing." I take very seriously if more than one says the same thing.



We've had this conversation before, and I do agree to a point - possibly in the same way as you. We should listen, of course, and we should respond in the ways you say, but we should also discern: if a reader is clearly not in our target audience, the things they point out may be a matter of preference, rather than evidence of something not working. If however, more than one reader who you, the author, can rely on to "get" the book and to be somewhere near it's natural target, makes some comment about it, that's a red flag, for sure. I'm facing that now on another site actually - ironically where I do some temporal jumping about. I think it's the style that doesn't work for them. I have a number of scenes that are almost SoC, and stylistically a little off-message, to assist with the strangeness.

As for someone rewriting my work, I dunno. If they do a better job on it than me, I might just take their advice. I'm pretty sure I have done that in the past, but again, that's where it's clear they understand where I am going with it. Generic advice? No.


----------



## Bayview

bdcharles said:


> Ok, and trying everything and seeing what works is probably a good enough approach, but at some point it suggests to me that some things won't work, so what to do with that info? It also overlooks the notion of having a feel already for what will work - that ready sense of beat and flow - and being able to communicate it well. I imagine that is where people like Harper Lee have a success with their first book. I'm just not sure how typical she is. Sadly I don't think there is any one thing that will lead to good writing in most cases, other than, well, having a handle on the million-and-one things that go into making a book. I wish there was! That's how it seems to me anyway.



I feel like the only things that absolutely won't work, ever, ever, ever, are probably so obvious there's no need to have rules against them. Like, we shouldn't change characters' names for no reason and with no warning - I can't imagine that would ever be effective. But we probably don't need a rule against it because it's so clearly a terrible idea.

In terms of other techniques people might try, and that some people want to make rules against? If they don't work in a given piece, that means they didn't work _in that piece_. It doesn't mean they aren't potentially useful techniques to use somewhere else.

To me, it's a false simplicity to make up absolute rules about writing. If we find a specific scene that doesn't work and we decide it's because the author "stopped the scene clock" it would be comforting if we could take that lesson and say authors should never stop the scene clock. But just because it didn't work once doesn't mean it wouldn't work some other time.

I work about twenty kilometers away from my house, so if I'm going to work, I should NOT walk. Walking doesn't work for that trip. But if I'm going down the street to my neighbours' house, walking is the best way to get there. Different goals require different tools. Similarly, if I were carrying something really heavy, it might make sense for me to drive even just to my neighbours' house. Different circumstances require different tools. Or if I were a marathon walker looking for a challenge, maybe walking to work WOULD be a good idea. Different styles and interests require different tools. etc. It would be simplistic for me to try to walk to work one day, fail, and then decide that driving is the only acceptable way for me to leave my house.

I agree that there's a sort of innate "feel" some people have for pacing and for writing in general. And I agree that some people don't have that feel, and I can see why they'd look for rules to follow in order to achieve the same goals as the more instinctive writers. I just... I don't see how it can work.

Does anyone have any examples of a successful writer who has said s/he started with no instinctive feel for writing but was able to overcome this by rigorously applying a set of rules?


----------



## Jack of all trades

bdcharles said:


> We've had this conversation before, and I do agree to a point - possibly in the same way as you. We should listen, of course, and we should respond in the ways you say, but we should also discern: if a reader is clearly not in our target audience, the things they point out may be a matter of preference, rather than evidence of something not working. If however, more than one reader who you, the author, can rely on to "get" the book and to be somewhere near it's natural target, makes some comment about it, that's a red flag, for sure. I'm facing that now on another site actually - ironically where I do some temporal jumping about. I think it's the style that doesn't work for them. I have a number of scenes that are almost SoC, and stylistically a little off-message, to assist with the strangeness.
> 
> As for someone rewriting my work, I dunno. If they do a better job on it than me, I might just take their advice. I'm pretty sure I have done that in the past, but again, that's where it's clear they understand where I am going with it. Generic advice? No.



Maybe we disagree about what constitutes generic advice.

Generic : All scenes should transition with a "but" or "therefore".

Specific : This part where you talk about the girl getting out of the car is confusing.

Really specific : It seems like the girl was a passenger, but then somehow, magically, was standing on the driver's side of the car. Was she actually the driver?


As for those who like to rewrite rather than simply point out the problems, I find it is usually the personal touches they object to, not actual issues. Things like using flowery prose instead of clear, concise description. I find that sort of thing not helpful. 

As for deciding which readers to rely on, I choose who I give my manuscripts to carefully, so I'm not talking about random strangers. That's why I don't post my work much here. It's like buckshot. Some will give reliable feedback, others will dislike it because they don't like the style. Still others will attack it because they don't like me, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the work. That's human nature, so spare me the "we're adults and can be relied on for our impartial opinions" speech. Writing is subjective. That can never be changed.


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> I feel like the only things that absolutely won't work, ever, ever, ever, are probably so obvious there's no need to have rules against them. Like, we shouldn't change characters' names for no reason and with no warning - I can't imagine that would ever be effective. But we probably don't need a rule against it because it's so clearly a terrible idea.
> 
> In terms of other techniques people might try, and that some people want to make rules against? If they don't work in a given piece, that means they didn't work _in that piece_. It doesn't mean they aren't potentially useful techniques to use somewhere else.
> 
> To me, it's a false simplicity to make up absolute rules about writing. If we find a specific scene that doesn't work and we decide it's because the author "stopped the scene clock" it would be comforting if we could take that lesson and say authors should never stop the scene clock. But just because it didn't work once doesn't mean it wouldn't work some other time.
> 
> I work about twenty kilometers away from my house, so if I'm going to work, I should NOT walk. Walking doesn't work for that trip. But if I'm going down the street to my neighbours' house, walking is the best way to get there. Different goals require different tools. Similarly, if I were carrying something really heavy, it might make sense for me to drive even just to my neighbours' house. Different circumstances require different tools. Or if I were a marathon walker looking for a challenge, maybe walking to work WOULD be a good idea. Different styles and interests require different tools. etc. It would be simplistic for me to try to walk to work one day, fail, and then decide that driving is the only acceptable way for me to leave my house.
> 
> I agree that there's a sort of innate "feel" some people have for pacing and for writing in general. And I agree that some people don't have that feel, and I can see why they'd look for rules to follow in order to achieve the same goals as the more instinctive writers. I just... I don't see how it can work.
> 
> Does anyone have any examples of a successful writer who has said s/he started with no instinctive feel for writing but was able to overcome this by rigorously applying a set of rules?



Maybe don't think of them as rules, but rather as things to be aware of.





Jack of all trades said:


> Maybe we disagree about what constitutes generic advice.
> 
> Generic : All scenes should transition with a "but" or "therefore".
> 
> Specific : This part where you talk about the girl getting out of the car is confusing.
> 
> Really specific : It seems like the girl was a passenger, but then  somehow, magically, was standing on the driver's side of the car. Was  she actually the driver?
> 
> 
> As for those who like to rewrite rather than simply point out the  problems, I find it is usually the personal touches they object to, not  actual issues. Things like using flowery prose instead of clear, concise  description. I find that sort of thing not helpful.
> 
> As for deciding which readers to rely on, I choose who I give my  manuscripts to carefully, so I'm not talking about random strangers.  That's why I don't post my work much here. It's like buckshot. Some will  give reliable feedback, others will dislike it because they don't like  the style. Still others will attack it because they don't like me, and  it has nothing to do with the quality of the work. That's human nature,  so spare me the "we're adults and can be relied on for our impartial  opinions" speech. Writing is subjective. That can never be  changed.



Yep ok.


----------



## Terry D

bdcharles said:


> OK but what about people who are just starting out down the authorial path? And in any case, are these instances exactly what is meant? I'm just wary of advice that says "do what you want, whenever you want". I mean, it sounds great, but I'm not sure it wil; lead to great writing in every case. I think it's important to first understand something of the mechanics of storytelling so people have a clear grasp of what they are doing.



Yeah, I have a problem with "do what you want, whenever you want" also. That's why I've never suggested that, or anything like it. Nothing leads to great writing in every case, nothing. Most people who try to write fiction do so because they enjoy reading fiction. Agreed? If so, they already have an understanding of the mechanics of writing. They understand pace, flow, tension, voice, tense and all the rest. They just haven't practiced it yet. They haven't learned how to apply what is already in their heads.

I don't know what goes on inside other writer's heads when they write. I only know what goes on inside mine. I have never once thought about any of the how-to shit regarding 'scene clocks' or any other techniques. I would hate writing with all that crap buzzing around in my head. I just tell the story in a way I would find interesting to read, trusting my 'writer's ear' to tell me if the choices I make work. Sometimes I'll try doing something different -- usually in a short story -- something like trying to write in a different voice, or in a tense I don't usually use. If that's what you mean by "do what you want, whenever you want", then I guess I am guilty of that, but those stories are still governed by that same 'writer's ear'; the inner critic who knows what works and what doesn't. That critic's resource material isn't generic advice pumped out by how-to books, it is based on decades of reading fiction both good and bad. In the end my criteria for my work is simple; Does it sound right? Would I be happy picking up a book in a bookstore and opening it to the scene I just wrote? Answering that honestly is not easy. You can see that by reading through the Look-Inside pages of thousands of self-published books. The vast majority of those authors either never asked themselves a similar critical question, or their answer was a lie.

So, yes, doing whatever you want, whenever you want, is terrible advice unless it's accompanied by the caveat, "if it works."


----------



## EmmaSohan

I am thinking that some of the things make a book enjoyable can only happen with the scene clock on. Suspense is the obvious candidate. Dramatic irony?

Or, I don't enjoy character descriptions -- I want to learn about the characters from what they say and do (and think). In other words, while the scene clock is on.

Description/commentary can be profound, or insightful, or contain a good metaphor. So good things can happen with the clock off. I am thinking they are the same things that can happen in a nonfiction book (with no scene clock).

This is different from the deep-POV issue. The book I am reading now was dreadful for the first 22 pages with the clock off. When the clock finally started, it was electrifying. But the scene was third person and not from anyone's perspective.

Or, to paraphrase Jay, I want my reader to feel my character's joy and pain. Doesn't that require the clock to be on?


----------



## Ralph Rotten

I would suspect that if you never stop the clock then you will likely have underdeveloped characters. I read a series (that got better in later books) called The Survivalist.  The author kept the clock running through the whole thing, but his hero was a bit 2-dimensional.  Good series of books, lotta action, but I always found the characters to be a little flat and predictable.

One of the things I really make a concerted effort to do is *not get in a hurry to tell the story*.  I see a lot of aspiring writers who _rush to tell the story_ at the expense of the characters.  The story is just the set & props to backdrop your actors.  Characters are the meat & potatoes, the story is just the fancy plate they're served on.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Ralph Rotten said:


> I would suspect that if you never stop the clock then you will likely have underdeveloped characters. I read a series (that got better in later books) called The Survivalist.  The author kept the clock running through the whole thing, but his hero was a bit 2-dimensional.  Good series of books, lotta action, but I always found the characters to be a little flat and predictable.
> 
> One of the things I really make a concerted effort to do is *not get in a hurry to tell the story*.  I see a lot of aspiring writers who _rush to tell the story_ at the expense of the characters.  The story is just the set & props to backdrop your actors.  Characters are the meat & potatoes, the story is just the fancy plate they're served on.



What do you mean by developing the characters? We could be different, but I would rather not read descriptions of characters. A little is okay, and I do it a little -- like Terry said, description might be as interesting as stopping to go to the bathroom on a trip, but it's needed.

I want to learn from what the characters says and does. And thinks -- short thoughts have to count as keeping the clock running. There is no difference between



> 1. "He's cute," I said.
> 2. _He's cute_ I thought.
> 3. He's cute.



When writing in perspective a character, #3 will be understood as a thought. For me as reader, I still "see" the clock running.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> What do you mean by developing the characters? We could be different, but I would rather not read descriptions of characters. A little is okay, and I do it a little -- like Terry said, description might be as interesting as stopping to go to the bathroom on a trip, but it's needed.
> 
> I want to learn from what the characters says and does. And thinks -- short thoughts have to count as keeping the clock running. There is no difference between
> 
> 
> 
> When writing in perspective a character, #3 will be understood as a thought. For me as reader, I still "see" the clock running.



How would you do character backstory? Or even physical description, absent the dreaded "look in the mirror" business? And I guess there wouldn't be any room for introspection or any deeper thoughts on the part of the character?

Same would go for setting, I imagine.

I've heard you reference _Twilight_ favourably before (I think?), so in an attempt to break away from my "things we all read in high school" theme, I checked out the first pages of _Twilight_ on Amazon. Past the preface, it looks like the first paragraph of the story has the clock running as the girl is dropped off at the airport, and then the clock stops for a paragraph of describing Forks, and then maybe starts again for a couple lines to say the character is going to Forks, and then stops again to describe how the character loved Pheonix, then started again for the mom to say a line, then maybe stopped while the mom is described and to give backstory on why the character is going to Forks, etc. etc.

Are we maybe drifting into show/tell territory? The clock is running while we "show", but stops when we "tell"?


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> What do you mean by developing the characters? We could be different, but I would rather not read descriptions of characters. A little is okay, and I do it a little -- like Terry said, description might be as interesting as stopping to go to the bathroom on a trip, but it's needed.



Uhmmm... Terry didn't say that. In fact, he (I) didn't mention the word interesting at all, because everything we write should be interesting. If not we are in the wrong business. What I said was it's inevitable that we will stop the forward flow of the narrative from time to time and perfectly all right to do so. Also, if you think character development and character description are the same thing, you have bigger problems than managing some contrived 'scene clock'.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Uhmmm... Terry didn't say that. In fact, he (I) didn't mention the word interesting at all, because everything we write should be interesting. If not we are in the wrong business. What I said was it's inevitable that we will stop the forward flow of the narrative from time to time and perfectly all right to do so. Also, if you think character development and character description are the same thing, you have bigger problems than managing some contrived 'scene clock'.



Unfortunate. I did love your metaphor of a book being like driving through Rocky Mountain National Park and stopping the action being like stopping to pee. ("sometime you just have to stop and pee even if you're currently driving through Rocky Mountain National Park.") That was your metaphor. That really doesn't fit well with everything being interesting. Sorry I took it the wrong way

But it's a great question -- which way should the metaphor go? Is going to the bathroom as good as looking at the mountains? Or something you need to do? When you read a part of the book you like, is the clock stopped or running?

BTW, Terry, you wrote, "if you think character development and character description are the same thing, you have bigger problems than managing some contrived 'scene clock'. Since I had essentially questioned whether description helped development, I actually had implied the opposite. Can you tell us how you think description of a character is different from character development? Or if you just agree with me, I guess there's nothing more to say.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Unfortunate. I did love your metaphor of a book being like driving through Rocky Mountain National Park and stopping the action being like stopping to pee. ("sometime you just have to stop and pee even if you're currently driving through Rocky Mountain National Park.") That was your metaphor. That really doesn't fit well with everything being interesting. Sorry I took it the wrong way
> 
> But it's a great question -- which way should the metaphor go? Is going to the bathroom as good as looking at the mountains? Or something you need to do? When you read a part of the book you like, is the clock stopped or running?



There are lots of things we "need to do" to tell a good story and some of them are more fun to write than others, but it's our job as writers to make even the most mundane parts of our books as interesting as possible. 



> BTW, Terry, you wrote, "if you think character development and character description are the same thing, you have bigger problems than managing some contrived 'scene clock'. Since I had essentially questioned whether description helped development, I actually had implied the opposite. Can you tell us how you think description of a character is different from character development? Or if you just agree with me, I guess there's nothing more to say.



To describe a character I can hand you a photograph of her. To develop that character you need to live her life with her.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> Can you tell us how you think description of a character is different from character development?


For me, character description falls into the realm of _description_. It's pure visual details.

Character _development_ happens from a combination of things. If I had to break it down, I'd say it's: thoughts, dialogue, and actions. All three, combined, work to reveal and develop character.

Dialogue and action usually occurs while the scene clock is running. Thoughts, however, often stop the scene clock—and yet they're probably my favorite part of fiction.

Thoughts are what separate prose from television or film—they help the reader really get _into_ the character in a way that purely visual and external elements simply can't duplicate.

Take this excerpt from Victoria Schwab's popular YA Fantasy, _This Savage Song_, in which Schwab stops the clock to deepen the protagonist:
She took a drag and closed her eyes.

_Where are you, Kate?_ she asked herself.

It was a game she sometimes played, ever since she learned about the theory of infinite parallels, the idea that a person’s path through life wasn’t really a line, but a tree, every decision a divergent branch, resulting in a divergent you. She liked the idea that there were a hundred different Kates, living a hundred different lives.

Maybe in one of them, there were no monsters.

Maybe her family was still whole.

Maybe she and her mother had never left home.

Maybe they’d never come back. Maybe, maybe, maybe—and if there were a hundred lives, a hundred Kates, then _she_ was only one of them, and that one was exactly who she was supposed to be. And in the end, it was easier to do what she had to if she could believe that somewhere else, another version of her got to make another choice. Got to live a better—or at least simpler—life. Maybe she was even sparing them. Allowing another Kate to stay sane and safe.

_Where are you?_ she wondered.

Lying in a field. Staring up at stars.

The night is warm. The air is clean.

The grass is cool beneath my back.

There are no monsters in the dark.

_How nice_, thought Kate as, in front of her, the chapel caved in, sending up a wave of embers.

Sirens wailed in the distance, and she straightened up on the bench.

_Here we go_.

Within minutes girls came pouring out of the dormitories . . .​
So what happened there? Schwab stopped the scene clock for a full page. To do what? To dip into Kate and explore her character. Also to slow down the pacing. To add a dramatic pause. To lull the reader into a rhythm... Really, the list of things that stopping the clock accomplished here can stretch on.

Had she not stopped the clock, this is how it would've read:
She took a drag and closed her eyes.

_How nice_, thought Kate as, in front of her, the chapel caved in, sending up a wave of embers.

Sirens wailed in the distance, and she straightened up on the bench.

_Here we go_.

Within minutes girls came pouring out of the dormitories . . .​
No scene clock stoppage there. But it's also nowhere near as good as the published version. Without that pause to deepen the character, the scene feels too shallow, too rushed.

I'd even go as far as saying that stopping the scene clock is _necessary_ at some point, if you want to impart any sort of purpose or meaning into the events of the story that goes beyond mere surface events.

When the clock is stopped, that's when the character finally has a chance to reflect on how the moments of the story are affecting them. :encouragement:


----------



## Jack of all trades

Ralph Rotten said:


> I would suspect that if you never stop the clock then you will likely have underdeveloped characters. I read a series (that got better in later books) called The Survivalist.  The author kept the clock running through the whole thing, but his hero was a bit 2-dimensional.  Good series of books, lotta action, but I always found the characters to be a little flat and predictable.
> 
> One of the things I really make a concerted effort to do is *not get in a hurry to tell the story*.  I see a lot of aspiring writers who _rush to tell the story_ at the expense of the characters.  The story is just the set & props to backdrop your actors.  Characters are the meat & potatoes, the story is just the fancy plate they're served on.



I agree that the characters are vital to a good book, and three dimensional characters are best.

But why does the "clock" have to stop for there to be good, realistic and 3D characters?

Action is more than blowing things up, running, etc. Action includes conversation, too. Much can be learned without "stopping the clock".

Honestly, I dislike this "scene clock" notion. It seems very contrived.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Bayview said:


> How would you do character backstory? Or even physical description, absent the dreaded "look in the mirror" business? And I guess there wouldn't be any room for introspection or any deeper thoughts on the part of the character?
> 
> Same would go for setting, I imagine.
> 
> I've heard you reference _Twilight_ favourably before (I think?), so in an attempt to break away from my "things we all read in high school" theme, I checked out the first pages of _Twilight_ on Amazon. Past the preface, it looks like the first paragraph of the story has the clock running as the girl is dropped off at the airport, and then the clock stops for a paragraph of describing Forks, and then maybe starts again for a couple lines to say the character is going to Forks, and then stops again to describe how the character loved Pheonix, then started again for the mom to say a line, then maybe stopped while the mom is described and to give backstory on why the character is going to Forks, etc. etc.
> 
> Are we maybe drifting into show/tell territory? The clock is running while we "show", but stops when we "tell"?




Yep.  This is classic character development; paint a bit of the world, paint a bit of the character.  It's like I said; it's not really stopping the clock, it's a segway, it's a quick branch off the main story to develop your characters, letting the reader get to know your actor.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Jack wrote:
"But why does the "clock" have to stop for there to be good, realistic and 3D characters?

Action is more than blowing things up, running, etc. *Action includes conversation*, too. Much can be learned without "stopping the clock".


Yep! And dialog is total paydirt for for character development.  A lot of new writers think that dialog is for talking, but that's where you really bring out your characters.  Not only do they talk, but you can indirectly illustrate a character through the eyes of another (how one views the other tells you about both characters.)  But in addition to the dialog there are the _*brush strokes*_.  Lemme give an example.

Wrong
"We need to get out of here." John said

Brush stroke
"We need to get out of here." John dragged a *filthy hand* across his forehead. 

"I'll certainly look into that for you."  John gave his *usual wan smile*.

"I don't wanna go!" Clutching at *her threadbare jacket*, Jenna was hesitant.


----------



## Bayview

Ralph Rotten said:


> Jack wrote:
> "But why does the "clock" have to stop for there to be good, realistic and 3D characters?
> 
> Action is more than blowing things up, running, etc. *Action includes conversation*, too. Much can be learned without "stopping the clock".
> 
> 
> Yep! And dialog is total paydirt for for character development.  A lot of new writers think that dialog is for talking, but that's where you really bring out your characters.  Not only do they talk, but you can indirectly illustrate a character through the eyes of another (how one views the other tells you about both characters.)  But in addition to the dialog there are the _*brush strokes*_.  Lemme give an example.
> 
> Wrong
> "We need to get out of here." John said
> 
> Brush stroke
> "We need to get out of here." John dragged a *filthy hand* across his forehead.
> 
> "I'll certainly look into that for you."  John gave his *usual wan smile*.
> 
> "I don't wanna go!" Clutching at *her threadbare jacket*, Jenna was hesitant.



That's all good stuff, but the character had a life prior to the start of the novel, right? I feel like it's almost always going to be "As you know, Bob" territory if you try to illuminate the backstory via current dialogue. Not saying it can't EVER be done, but I certainly don't see a reason for a writer to remove a tool from her  toolbox just in order to follow some imaginary rule about imaginary scene clocks...


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> You're talking about Deep POV, right?


Nope. I'm talking about viewpoint. People don't want to hear about the story, they want to live it. Thaer's where the fun lies. Think about it. History books have intrigue, love, betrayal, violence, and much more. They have everything a novel has but uncertainty. History is immutable, and as such no one ever sayd, "That history book was so exciting I couldn't put it down." But a story told from within the character's view of his/her world, told in real time has the power to make you say, "Well...maybe one more chapter," over and over again, because the future is uncertain. We know what the protagonist thinks they must do. We know what they're trying to do to accomplish that. But we don't know how the future will effect that, so we keep turning pages. But stop that progression of time, and what we have is a history book, where fact follows fact.

If you want a good example of "telling" that works, read Peter Beagle's, _The Last Unicorn_. He replaces the M/R unit approach with narration in which he deliberately raises a question in the reader's mind, and then addresses it, giving the feel of an interactive conversation with the author.

You're right, there is no absolute. But the measure of it working is if it sells, not if we like, or dislike a given technique.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> I would suspect that if you never stop the clock then you will likely have underdeveloped characters.


Does the scene clock stop in the film, while the narrator explains things, in the middle of action? Perhaps in Plan Nine from Outer Space, but not in Coco. There, the boy does insert narration, but never in the middle of a scene.

Think about it. Your characters are interacting, and the reader is living the scene in parallel with the protagonist. But then, abruptly, the characters freeze in position and politely wait as the narrator—someone neither on the scene nor in the story—steps on stage to talk to the reader. _And the characters don't react!_ How can something like that not kill the momentum the scene may have. How can something like that feel real?

We don't read fiction to learn the details of what happened. We don't read fiction to learn about our new friend the protagonist. We read it for an emotional experience, not an informational one. We want a story told from within the scene, not as perceived by someone external to the story.

That tag line on my posts says it all.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> That's all good stuff, but the character had a life prior to the start  of the novel, right? I feel like it's almost always going to be "As you  know, Bob" territory if you try to illuminate the backstory via current  dialogue.


Why do we care about the character's past, if it's not _necessary_ to what's happening? It may be that the character is searching for sunken treasure, when he meets and interacts with a mermaid. Does the reader really want to know what he was like as a kid, and how he came to be on the boat, at that point? It's irrelevant. Yes, his history might be something the two of them might discuss, as people do. But have the narrator ladle in backstory as if the reader is seeking it _in place of action within the scene_ is a mistake. If the story is moving and the scene clock ticking, don't stop it unless you want to kill all illusion of reality.


----------



## Kyle R

I threw open another book from my library, and found another example of a scene-clock stoppage that I believe works quite well. This one's from Ekaterina Sedia's _The Alchemy of Stone_.

The protagonist, Mattie, is entertaining a visitor, when her mind begins to wander. This is when the scene clock is stopped.

Mattie’s memories had shapes—some were oblong and soft, like the end of a thick blanket tucked under a sleeping man’s cheek; others had sharp edges, and one had to think about them carefully in order not to get hurt. Still others took on the shapes of cones and cubes, of metal joints and peacock feathers, and her mind felt cluttered and grew more so by the day, as she accumulated more awkward shapes, just like Loharri collecting more and more garbage in his workshop.

To remember things, she had to let them come to her, as the sounds and the sights around prompted and jostled some of the shapes loose; otherwise, she had to pick among the clutter, despairing of ever finding the pertinent piece of her past in the chaos.

Seeing Iolanda sitting in her kitchen, absentmindedly rolling the empty glass—back and forth, back and forth—between her soft palms reminded Mattie of another night in this kitchen, a year or two ago.

Loharri had showed up unexpectedly then; it was raining, and his black wool suit was soaked through, and the overcoat hung in heavy folds impregnated with water, like the broken wings of a gargoyle. ...​
Here, Sedia stops the scene clock to introduce the reader to the way Mattie's memories work (she's a clockwork being), and this leads into a memory that's delivered as a flashback.

The flashback continues for several pages (all the while, that "scene clock" is no longer ticking).

Then, to start the scene clock back up again, Sedia writes:
This memory was so vivid that she could not help but clasp her hands together.

Iolanda looked up from her glass, and smiled sheepishly. “I’m sorry,” she said. “I was lost in thought there.”

“Me too,” Mattie said.​
And we're back into the present scene.

I found it a very interesting part of the novel, even though the story's forward momentum was halted. That flashback, actually, is one of the more memorable parts of the book. :encouragement:


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> Nope. I'm talking about viewpoint. People don't want to hear about the story, they want to live it. Thaer's where the fun lies. Think about it. History books have intrigue, love, betrayal, violence, and much more. They have everything a novel has but uncertainty. History is immutable, and as such no one ever sayd, "That history book was so exciting I couldn't put it down." But a story told from within the character's view of his/her world, told in real time has the power to make you say, "Well...maybe one more chapter," over and over again, because the future is uncertain. We know what the protagonist thinks they must do. We know what they're trying to do to accomplish that. But we don't know how the future will effect that, so we keep turning pages. But stop that progression of time, and what we have is a history book, where fact follows fact.



But lots of successful fiction does not encourage readers to "live" the story. I'm not sure what distinction you're making between POV and viewpoint, but a lot of your comments suggest that you think the only acceptable "viewpoint" is deep POV, in which as many filters as possible are removed. And of course, there's lots of great fiction that contradicts this approach. Almost all of the classics are written in omniscient, and they certainly keep my interest. I'm intellectually immersed _and_ emotionally involved.



> If you want a good example of "telling" that works, read Peter Beagle's, _The Last Unicorn_. He replaces the M/R unit approach with narration in which he deliberately raises a question in the reader's mind, and then addresses it, giving the feel of an interactive conversation with the author.



And how does an interactive conversation with an author make readers feel as if they're _living_ the character's experience?



> You're right, there is no absolute. But the measure of it working is if it sells, not if we like, or dislike a given technique.



I agree, and I point to the many, many books that have sold despite violating your rules as evidence that the rules are nonsense. It's not about what you personally like or dislike, it's about what works. 



Jay Greenstein said:


> Does the scene clock stop in the film, while the narrator explains things, in the middle of action? Perhaps in Plan Nine from Outer Space, but not in Coco. There, the boy does insert narration, but never in the middle of a scene.



You know better than to draw direct parallels between the techniques used in film and the techniques used in literature, don't you? They're totally different mediums.



> Think about it. Your characters are interacting, and the reader is living the scene in parallel with the protagonist. But then, abruptly, the characters freeze in position and politely wait as the narrator—someone neither on the scene nor in the story—steps on stage to talk to the reader. _And the characters don't react!_ How can something like that not kill the momentum the scene may have. How can something like that feel real?



Did you read the examples cited earlier in the thread? Do you think _Of Mice and Men_ or _To Kill a Mockingbird_ lacked realism? Even if you did, as pointed out above, that's not a reason to criticize their technique, since they've both sold incredibly well over a long period of time. If you're going to use "does it sell" as your criterion for whether a technique is effective (and I absolutely support the use of this criterion) then you're going to have to actually LOOK at what sells, rather than taking the word of a bunch of writing gurus.



> We don't read fiction to learn the details of what happened. We don't read fiction to learn about our new friend the protagonist. We read it for an emotional experience, not an informational one. We want a story told from within the scene, not as perceived by someone external to the story.



So there are no successful books written with omniscient narrators? Really? Again, using the "what sells" criterion would be really useful, here. Look at actual fiction, not nonsensical theories _about _fiction.



> That tag line on my posts says it all.



I agree that the tag is telling, insofar as it seems to translate your personal goal into some sort of universal imperative. But many authors, and many readers, have different goals. There are genres besides "thrillers".



Jay Greenstein said:


> Why do we care about the character's past, if it's not _necessary_ to what's happening? It may be that the character is searching for sunken treasure, when he meets and interacts with a mermaid. Does the reader really want to know what he was like as a kid, and how he came to be on the boat, at that point? It's irrelevant. Yes, his history might be something the two of them might discuss, as people do. But have the narrator ladle in backstory as if the reader is seeking it _in place of action within the scene_ is a mistake. If the story is moving and the scene clock ticking, don't stop it unless you want to kill all illusion of reality.



I think you write action/adventure type stuff, so maybe the characters don't matter as much to you. But I write character-based fiction. The characters are at the heart of what's happening.

I'm not saying momentum/pacing isn't a legitimate concern for writers. We don't want to bore our readers. But there are countless ways to keep readers interested, and learning more about characters and their motivations can absolutely be one of those ways.


This thread has lots of examples of successful books that have "stopped the scene clock". Is there a reason you're not giving weight to that evidence?


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> Why do we care about the character's past, if it's not _necessary_ to what's happening?



If an author is including information that is not relevant to this particular story, and is not foreshadowing a future event, then that author has a problem unrelated to the "scene clock".



Jay Greenstein said:


> If the story is moving and the scene clock ticking, don't stop it unless you want to kill all illusion of reality.



I don't think an illusion of reality is a requirement for a book to be enjoyable. James Herriot "stopped the clock" for commentary, yet his books were very popular and are still on the shelves of bookstores beyond his death.

The "don't stop the scene clock" rule is like all the rules, possibly a good guideline, but there is probably an author or two who can successfully break it.


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> This thread has lots of examples of successful books that have "stopped the scene clock". Is there a reason you're not giving weight to that evidence?



It seems to me that people are understanding 2 different things by stopping the scene clock. To my mind, it's not so much an absence of phsyical movement and action, but an absence of any sort of useful development, that is the issue. Have your character ruminate on past events for days by all means, but if they are literally enumerating every bowel movement and contemplating their beige sofa (yes, I have seen that), then there better be some comic relief coming. If they are banging on about things they wouldn't necessarily be thinking about, or potentially even know about, at that moment, then the joins are quite possibly going to show. The transition form actual events in real time to some sort of side trip must be realistic, and in keeping with the general direction of the book and the characters. 

It's a really subtle distinction - if that rumination seems just like they're literally paused, like a TV, and someone _completely differen_t is explaining what's what, then I don't think it will work particularly. It's like having someone natter in your ear in the cinema about what's coming next. And I'm sorry, but I do see that alot. I've done it myself. There's a reason that publishers and editors kick up a stink about exposition and so on.


----------



## Jack of all trades

bdcharles said:


> It seems to me that people are understanding 2 different things by stopping the scene clock. To my mind, it's not so much an absence of phsyical movement and action, but an absence of any sort of useful development, that is the issue. Have your character ruminate on past events for days by all means, but if they are literally enumerating every bowel movement and contemplating their beige sofa (yes, I have seen that), then there better be some comic relief coming. If they are banging on about things they wouldn't necessarily be thinking about, or potentially even know about, at that moment, then the joins are quite possibly going to show. The transition form actual events in real time to some sort of side trip must be realistic, and in keeping with the general direction of the book and the characters.
> 
> It's a really subtle distinction - if that rumination seems just like they're literally paused, like a TV, and someone _completely differen_t is explaining what's what, then I don't think it will work particularly. It's like having someone natter in your ear in the cinema about what's coming next. And I'm sorry, but I do see that alot. I've done it myself. There's a reason that publishers and editors kick up a stink about exposition and so on.



Then the problem is bad, boring writing, or irrelevant crap being included, or whatever specific problem, and has nothing to do with a mythical "scene clock".


----------



## bdcharles

Jack of all trades said:


> The "don't stop the scene clock" rule is like all the rules, possibly a good guideline, but there is probably an author or two who can successfully break it.



There probably are some. Terry Pratchett dumps great wodges of info, but he does it with humour, self-referentially. I haven't read any James Herriot for yonks but is this carte blanche for us all on this forum to do the same? I don't know. Just be mindful of it as a thing that can grate on readers, I suppose, and if we're going to do it, we should at least _know _that we're doing it.


----------



## bdcharles

Jack of all trades said:


> Then the problem is bad, boring writing, or irrelevant crap being included, or whatever specific problem, and has nothing to do with a mythical "scene clock".



It's just a name. Pace, flow, development, rhythm, whatever. I don't think anyone's suggesting the existence of an actual timepiece.


----------



## bdcharles

Kyle R said:


> I threw open another book from my library, and found another example of a scene-clock stoppage that I believe works quite well. This one's from Ekaterina Sedia's _The Alchemy of Stone_.
> 
> The protagonist, Mattie, is entertaining a visitor, when her mind begins to wander. This is when the scene clock is stopped.Mattie’s memories had shapes—some were oblong and soft, like the end of a thick blanket tucked under a sleeping man’s cheek; others had sharp edges, and one had to think about them carefully in order not to get hurt. Still others took on the shapes of cones and cubes, of metal joints and peacock feathers, and her mind felt cluttered and grew more so by the day, as she accumulated more awkward shapes, just like Loharri collecting more and more garbage in his workshop.
> 
> To remember things, she had to let them come to her, as the sounds and the sights around prompted and jostled some of the shapes loose; otherwise, she had to pick among the clutter, despairing of ever finding the pertinent piece of her past in the chaos.
> 
> Seeing Iolanda sitting in her kitchen, absentmindedly rolling the empty glass—back and forth, back and forth—between her soft palms reminded Mattie of another night in this kitchen, a year or two ago.
> 
> Loharri had showed up unexpectedly then; it was raining, and his black wool suit was soaked through, and the overcoat hung in heavy folds impregnated with water, like the broken wings of a gargoyle. ...​
> Here, Sedia stops the scene clock to introduce the reader to the way Mattie's memories work (she's a clockwork being), and this leads into a memory that's delivered as a flashback.
> 
> The flashback continues for several pages (all the while, that "scene clock" is no longer ticking).
> 
> Then, to start the scene clock back up again, Sedia writes:
> This memory was so vivid that she could not help but clasp her hands together.
> 
> Iolanda looked up from her glass, and smiled sheepishly. “I’m sorry,” she said. “I was lost in thought there.”
> 
> “Me too,” Mattie said.​
> And we're back into the present scene.
> 
> I found it a very interesting part of the novel, even though the story's forward momentum was halted. That flashback, actually, is one of the more memorable parts of the book. :encouragement:



See, I don't think of that as a point of clock stoppage. It slows down, sure. It even starts to take time in a different direction as we slip into another scene. And it's voicey too - all that stuff about oblongs and whatnot is great writing and can smooth these transitions. But it doesn't gum things up. Interestingly it also stops itself getting too out of synch with the main scene just by the simple referencing of Iolanda fiddling with her glass. It's a slow tick, yes - but it's very well controlled.


----------



## Jack of all trades

bdcharles said:


> I haven't read any James Herriot for yonks but is this carte blanche for us all on this forum to do the same? I don't know.



If one member can't do it well, should all the members here avoid it? I say the answer is "no". 

If a posted piece has a problem, then point out the problem, by all means! That's why it's posted. But don't there's a difference between saying "this particular example doesn't work" versus "never stop the scene clock".



> Just be mindful of it as a thing that can grate on readers, I suppose, and if we're going to do it, we should at least _know _that we're doing it.



I don't think we have agreed on what stops that clock, so we don't really know when we're stopping it. Pointing out that a section is slow, confusing, or whatever is more effective, in my opinion.


----------



## Kyle R

bdcharles said:


> See, I don't think of that as a point of clock stoppage. It slows down, sure. It even starts to take time in a different direction as we slip into another scene. And it's voicey too - all that stuff about oblongs and whatnot is great writing and can smooth these transitions. But it doesn't gum things up. Interestingly it also stops itself getting too out of synch with the main scene just by the simple referencing of Iolanda fiddling with her glass. It's a slow tick, yes - but it's very well controlled.



I agree that it's well controlled. And we can probably classify that as a scene clock "slow down", for sure. It's quite purposeful, tonal, and the flashback itself deepens the character by showing a pivotal moment in her relationship with one of the story's antagonists.

But slowing down the scene clock, also, would be something that some writers would warn against. Indeed, even Dwight Swain tells us _not_ to break from the real-time progression of the scene—advice that I simply disagree with.
The big thing to bear in mind is that a scene is unified by time. There aren’t any breaks or lapses in it, any more than there are in living.

— _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, p. 104​
Here Swain lays down his suggested law: _never_ break, or lapse, from the real-time progression of the scene.

To me, that's too basic and inflexible. One of the great things about fiction is the author's ability to manipulate time—to slow it down in pivotal moments, or speed it up all the same. The feeling of time, even in real life, is subjective to our emotional state: ever been bored, sitting through a lecture, and it felt like time had slowed down to a crawl? Or been having fun with friends and suddenly you realize that the hours have passed so quickly?

IMO, that shifting perspective of time is something that authors can (and should) manipulate as the story calls for it—including stopping time completely, if warranted.

Swain continues:
(2) Don’t go into flashback.

Flashback is somebody remembering in the present what happened in the past. It brings your story, your present action, to a dead halt for the duration. Now there’s a place for this kind of thing, upon occasion. But that place is not within a scene. Why not?

(a) It’s essentially unrealistic. Most of us, when we’re in conflict, are far too involved with keeping our heads above water to indulge in any great amount of reverie.

(b) It strains reader patience badly. When you write a story, you try to sweep your reader along with you on a rising wave of tension. Particularly is this true in those units of struggle we call scenes.

Go into flashback, and tension tends to drop to zero.

Why?

Because you’ve halted forward movement and present action, and your reader knows that what’s already past just can’t be changed. 

Then, when you return to the present, you have to start building excitement again from scratch.

— _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, p. 108
​
There's some good advice in there—but it's too dogmatic, and presented as a sweeping "rule", rather than a guideline to consider. It also puts too much emphases on "tension"—which I believe is only a single facet of our scenes as they unfold on the page.

There are so many other reader emotions that play out as the words unfold, and _intrigue_ is certainly one of them that warrants the power of a flashback.

Victoria Schwab's _Vicious _alternates between the current (real-time) storyline, and flashbacks. Part of the appeal of the book is the joy of seeing time progress in the current storyline, while looking forward to the next jump "back" in time to see what occurred in the past.

I haven't checked through each one, but I'm willing to bet that most (if not all) of the books on my shelves involve some sort of flashback, flash-forward, or manipulation of time within a scene. Some authors do it more than others. Chuck Palahniuk immediately comes to mind, as he's written a few books that alternate between past and present storylines. His breakout _Fight Club_ opens with a flash-forward, even.

Overall, I agree that we shouldn't be _constantly_ stopping the flow of the current scene. But we also shouldn't be advising against doing it at all. As long as there's a purpose to it, and it keeps the reader engaged, I say mess with the flow of time all you want. :encouragement:


----------



## Bayview

bdcharles said:


> See, I don't think of that as a point of clock stoppage. It slows down, sure. It even starts to take time in a different direction as we slip into another scene. And it's voicey too - all that stuff about oblongs and whatnot is great writing and can smooth these transitions. But it doesn't gum things up. Interestingly it also stops itself getting too out of synch with the main scene just by the simple referencing of Iolanda fiddling with her glass. It's a slow tick, yes - but it's very well controlled.



So it seems like you're defining clock stoppage as synonymous with "bad writing", and if we define it that way, then, sure, I agree, we shouldn't do it. We should write well.

But others seem to be giving it a more specific definition; they seem to be saying that it's a bad idea to ever stop the action in a scene.


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> So it seems like you're defining clock stoppage as synonymous with "bad writing", and if we define it that way, then, sure, I agree, we shouldn't do it. We should write well.
> 
> But others seem to be giving it a more specific definition; they seem to be saying that it's a bad idea to ever stop the action in a scene.



Well, let me just claw back those words if I may; that definition is more of a you-thing than a me-thing  There is bad writing that doesn't stop clocks and there is good writing that does. I am talking about keeping things moving narratively. Imagine if, right in the middle of the Lion King, you had _Hakuna Matada_ plopped in. Yes, the Lion King III does have a storyline all it's own (ish), but it's not the same set of events as part 1, no matter how close in time and geography. Imagine if _The Hobbit _was the first part of_ Lord Of The Rings_.

In a scene, what constitutes "action"? We can't discuss if we don't define our terms. To me, a thought can be action. It doesn't need to be Bruce Willis jumping over a fireball action, it can be the caress over the hand of a dying loved one, or an old memory. It just has to _fit the narrative_. Whether that's advancing the plot or building out character or setting mood or backstory doesn't matter.

I can't speak for others' definitions, and I've not read Dwight Swain's book on the subject. I guess having a book march in lockstep with actual time would be ... interesting. I wonder if it's been done, 24-style.


----------



## Bayview

bdcharles said:


> Well, let me just claw back those words if I may; that definition is more of a you-thing than a me-thing  There is bad writing that doesn't stop clocks and there is good writing that does. I am talking about keeping things moving narratively. Imagine if, right in the middle of the Lion King, you had _Hakuna Matada_ plopped in. Yes, the Lion King III does have a storyline all it's own (ish), but it's not the same set of events as part 1, no matter how close in time and geography. Imagine if _The Hobbit _was the first part of_ Lord Of The Rings_.
> 
> In a scene, what constitutes "action"? We can't discuss if we don't define our terms. To me, a thought can be action. It doesn't need to be Bruce Willis jumping over a fireball action, it can be the caress over the hand of a dying loved one, or an old memory. It just has to _fit the narrative_. Whether that's advancing the plot or building out character or setting mood or backstory doesn't matter.
> 
> I can't speak for others' definitions, and I've not read Dwight Swain's book on the subject. I guess having a book march in lockstep with actual time would be ... interesting. I wonder if it's been done, 24-style.



As long as you're acknowledging that there's good writing that stops the clock, I don't think we disagree with each other. I'd say that if there's good writing that stops the clock, it's silly to have a rule against stopping the clock, right? Rather, the rule should go back to "do what works" and will have to be judged on an individual basis.


----------



## bdcharles

Kyle R said:


> Overall, I agree that we shouldn't be _constantly_ stopping the flow of the current scene. But we also shouldn't be advising against doing it at all. As long as there's a purpose to it, and it keeps the reader engaged, I say mess with the flow of time all you want. :encouragement:



I agree. And when we do it, it should be both context-sensitive and try and keep the voice going.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

bdcharles said:


> There probably are some. Terry Pratchett dumps great wodges of info, but he does it with humour, self-referentially. I haven't read any James Herriot for yonks but is this carte blanche for us all on this forum to do the same? I don't know. Just be mindful of it as a thing that can grate on readers, I suppose, and if we're going to do it, we should at least _know _that we're doing it.



Those wodges of info are character development. That's one of the ways to get the reader to identify with the character.

And Jack was right about how some aspiring writers add way too much superfluous info.  Sometimes it seems like the author is just wandering, but a good writer is just illustrating the character.


----------



## bdcharles

Ralph Rotten said:


> Those wodges of info are character development. That's one of the ways to get the reader to identify with the character.
> 
> And Jack was right about how some aspiring writers add way too much superfluous info.  Sometimes it seems like the author is just wandering, but a good writer is just illustrating the character.



Exactly. There's a reason why, despite seeing stuff like C-3PO playing space chess, in the _Empire Strikes Back_ we aren't privy to that whole scene where Han and Chewy and Leia have dinner with Darth Vader and Boba Fett. It "happened", but the volume of crushingly awkward would have done weird things to the storyline and characters. Just to use a simple example.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

bdcharles said:


> Exactly. There's a reason why, in the _Empire Strikes Back_, we aren't privy to that whole scene where Han and Chewy and Leia have dinner with Darth Vader and Boba Fett. It "happened", but the volume of crushingly awkward would have done weird things to the storyline.




10-9?


----------



## bdcharles

Ralph Rotten said:


> 10-9?



Completely 10-9.


----------



## JustRob

Hello, did someone mention clocks and stopping them? I gave some thought to my reaction to this subject but, to cut a long story short, I do stop the scene clock in my writing but my characters are usually aware that it has happened, so they carry on acting out another scene in the meantime ... no, evidently I can't comment on this subject here; It is too tied up with the whole philosophy of reading fiction and what goes on in the reader's mind.

Rules for fiction readers 

1. Suspend disbelief.

2. Accept that nothing is real.

3. Er ...


----------



## Jack of all trades

JustRob said:


> Hello, did someone mention clocks and stopping them? I gave some thought to my reaction to this subject but, to cut a long story short, I do stop the scene clock in my writing but my characters are usually aware that it has happened, so they carry on acting out another scene in the meantime ... no, evidently I can't comment on this subject here; It is too tied up with the whole philosophy of reading fiction and what goes on in the reader's mind.
> 
> Rules for fiction readers
> 
> 1. Suspend disbelief.
> 
> 2. Accept that nothing is real.
> 
> 3. Er ...



As long as the readers are doing the buying, and the authors are doing the selling, it's the readers who get to place rules on the authors. Not the other way around.

And they place those rules by not buying.

I guess if you don't care if anyone buys, or even reads, your stuff, you can go ahead and have a list of rules for your readers. And they are free to ignore your list along with your other writing.

If, on the other hand, you want to build a fandom, you need to listen to the readers. It's obvious that they buy what they like, so you can "listen" by paying attention to sales and reviews.


----------



## Jack of all trades

bdcharles said:


> Well, let me just claw back those words if I may; that definition is more of a you-thing than a me-thing  There is bad writing that doesn't stop clocks and there is good writing that does. I am talking about keeping things moving narratively. Imagine if, right in the middle of the Lion King, you had _Hakuna Matada_ plopped in.



It did. Well, not "plopped", but that song is from that movie.



> Yes, the Lion King III does have a storyline all it's own (ish), but it's not the same set of events as part 1, no matter how close in time and geography. Imagine if _The Hobbit _was the first part of_ Lord Of The Rings_.
> 
> In a scene, what constitutes "action"? We can't discuss if we don't define our terms. To me, a thought can be action. It doesn't need to be Bruce Willis jumping over a fireball action, it can be the caress over the hand of a dying loved one, or an old memory. It just has to _fit the narrative_. Whether that's advancing the plot or building out character or setting mood or backstory doesn't matter.
> 
> I can't speak for others' definitions, and I've not read Dwight Swain's book on the subject. I guess having a book march in lockstep with actual time would be ... interesting. I wonder if it's been done, 24-style.



Which takes us back to what I said before. It's better to point out when a specific piece has a specific problem (extraneous, boring, whatever), rather than saying, "You stopped the clock and you should never do that."


----------



## Terry D

Jack of all trades said:


> I don't think an illusion of reality is a requirement for a book to be enjoyable. James Herriot "stopped the clock" for commentary, yet his books were very popular and are still on the shelves of bookstores beyond his death.



The problem with using Herriot as an example is, he did not write fiction. The techniques for non-fiction, in Herriot's case memoir, are different from writing a novel.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Terry D said:


> The problem with using Herriot as an example is, he did not write fiction. The techniques for non-fiction, in Herriot's case memoir, are different from writing a novel.



I don't know. He certainly fictionalized it a bit, at least changing names. I can see that style working in a purely fiction novel. Kind of like a journal of a P.I., or something similar.


----------



## Terry D

Jack of all trades said:


> I don't know. He certainly fictionalized it a bit, at least changing names. I can see that style working in a purely fiction novel. Kind of like a journal of a P.I., or something similar.



It's sometimes called creative non-fiction. Sebastian Junger (_The Perfect Storm_), Jon Krakauer (_Into Thin Air_), and Erik Larson (_The Devil in the White City_) are good examples.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Kyle R said:


> I threw open another book from my library, and found another example of a scene-clock stoppage that I believe works quite well. This one's from Ekaterina Sedia's _The Alchemy of Stone_.
> 
> The protagonist, Mattie, is entertaining a visitor, when her mind begins to wander. This is when the scene clock is stopped.


But it didn't stop in the middle of action. Added to that, the reader had been made to want what the flashback gives them. Had that not been true, they would have been in the position of saying, "But wait...what about what was going on a minute ago?"

Nothing says you _can't_ stop the scene clock. There is no etched in stone rule. There are damn few etched in stone rules (beginning a sentence with a comma comes to mind). There is only the fact that stopping the action in progress _will_ kill any momentum the scene had built to that time. So if that matters...

As an aside, when placing a flashback you also need to remember that the reader must be eased back into the scene on returning, because the reader may only be with you at lunch. So if they hit the flashback on a Friday, it may be Tuesday before they finish it and get back to the original scene. So, any momentum will have to be rebuilt with care.

I do have to add that I took a look at the opening. It's written in a literary style, and literary genre has a very different approach.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> But it didn't stop in the middle of action. Added to that, the reader had been made to want what the flashback gives them. Had that not been true, they would have been in the position of saying, "But wait...what about what was going on a minute ago?"
> 
> Nothing says you _can't_ stop the scene clock. There is no etched in stone rule. There are damn few etched in stone rules (beginning a sentence with a comma comes to mind). There is only the fact that stopping the action in progress _will_ kill any momentum the scene had built to that time. So if that matters...
> 
> As an aside, when placing a flashback you also need to remember that the reader must be eased back into the scene on returning, because the reader may only be with you at lunch. So if they hit the flashback on a Friday, it may be Tuesday before they finish it and get back to the original scene. So, any momentum will have to be rebuilt with care.
> 
> I do have to add that I took a look at the opening. It's written in a literary style, and literary genre has a very different approach.



This sounds like you're agreeing with those of saying the problem, if there is one, is with the execution, not the stopping of the clock.


----------



## Blackstone

Jay Greenstein said:


> But it didn't stop in the middle of action. Added to that, the reader had been made to want what the flashback gives them. Had that not been true, they would have been in the position of saying, "But wait...what about what was going on a minute ago?"
> 
> Nothing says you _can't_ stop the scene clock. There is no etched in stone rule. There are damn few etched in stone rules (beginning a sentence with a comma comes to mind). There is only the fact that stopping the action in progress _will_ kill any momentum the scene had built to that time. So if that matters...
> 
> As an aside, when placing a flashback you also need to remember that the reader must be eased back into the scene on returning, because the reader may only be with you at lunch. So if they hit the flashback on a Friday, it may be Tuesday before they finish it and get back to the original scene. So, any momentum will have to be rebuilt with care.
> 
> I do have to add that I took a look at the opening. It's written in a literary style, and literary genre has a very different approach.




I sort of agree and disagree with you, Jay.

I agree that stopping the scene clock can be distracting. I also believe sometimes it is necessary and that when done intelligently it doesn't negatively impact the flow, or even become noticeable. Some writers I know are able to quite miraculously juggle two or even three separate timelines (the main timeline with the action in progress, their flashback and even a separate character or story arc) without momentum disappearing. Rather the momentum switches like a car weaving between lanes. 

As far as stopping the scene clock I think of it a little like a rock 'n' roll band at the last song, the part where they sometimes introduce the members of the band. It would obviously kill the enjoyment completely to have the musicians stop playing-mid song. It only works when the main chord progression keeps going - the clock, I guess - and there is a steady build up which eventually ascends to the climax or chorus. 

For me the main rules to getting this right, if there are any, are that (1) There must be a sense that the main storyline, the chord progression, is continuing (perhaps by occasional, albeit brief, returns to the main story and the character) (2) The flashback must be written at a similar pace and mood to the main scene - so if its happening during a tense dinner conversation there should be a similarly tense mood during the flashback and (3) It needs to not stretch on longer than necessary.


----------



## Terry D

Eight pages. 80 posts. And we are still trying to define what a 'scene clock' is and in which types of writing we should be concerned with it. Everyone sees it as something slightly different than anyone else -- and that's perfectly fine -- and each has their own opinion on the potential effects of stopping it. This is why I despise these contrived 'rules' spit out by people like Swain. They distract from what is really important; finding one's own way to make their stories work. Do you think Gillian Flynn sits around analyzing her scene clock? Or Nora Roberts? Or King, or Gaiman? Did Poe worry about it? Or Hemingway? Hell no. And all the publishers who buy their work don't worry about it either. All they want are stories that work. 

The flow and pacing of our stories is very important. It is part of what defines our voice as a writer, and this artificial idea of a 'scene clock' is someone's poor attempt at creating a template for pace and flow. But what ends up happening when someone tries to dissect a story and apply concrete terminology to its structure, is they ignore the author's unique voice, because that voice cannot be quantified and calibrated. One author may not be able to insert a flashback without causing serious damage to narrative flow, but others can, and do. A stoppage in the flow of a scene, if handled with skill, will not impede the flow of the _story_. You know what you want your story to be. Trust your vision and the well honed ear you've developed through years of reading. Don't try to make your work fit someone else's idea of what it should be.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Hi Terry. You have reasonable concerns and good advice.

Stopping the scene clock is, to me, a metaphor for the flow of time in the story being stopped. What matters is the reader's experience, which is good but makes it a little harder to know when it has happened. There is no reason for a single thought to stop the scene clock, but too many thoughts might, I don't know. And if the thoughts seem like the author talking to the reader, explaining or describing something, then yes it probably stops for the reader. A long flashback probably restarts the scene clock to the time of the flashback.

It seems fair to explore this distinction, even if only to find out if it's useful or not. If it helps describe something about writing, that seems useful to me even if it does not change how I write.

And there is a problem if someone reads my fumbling attempts to deal with a new idea and confuses it with advice. That's mostly a problem if they are inclined to blindly follow advice, which no one seems to want them to do.

When the flow of the story stops dead, is that the same as the scene clock stopping? Is that what we are talking about? If the pacing halts to zero, if that the same as the scene-clock stopping? Do we have a common ground here?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Hi Kyle. Thanks for your defense of what can be done when the scene clock is stopped. A number of concessions have been made.

A character description could be *interesting*. A metaphor could be *amazing*. It could be *insightful *or profound.

Greenstein seems to be conceding that it is okay to stop the scene clock* if nothing is happening*. Actually at the start of a setting, we typically do setting, which just means the scene clock doesn't start right away. It turns out that my main characters often engage in prolonged bouts of thinking and reflection, but they usually do it at night in their bedroom.

And sometimes it's *needed*. In one of my stories, I interrupt a conversation constantly to explain what's happening, because the reader is unlikely to see what's happening and the reader deserves to know. I never once thought is was a perfectly okay thing to do -- I see it an annoying intrusion that disrupts the flow of the conversation. And, like Terry said, there are ways of minimizing that disruption, but it does not change the fact that a disruption exists.​
You seem to want more. In the book I just read, the times I wanted to jump out of my seat because the book was good were all dialogue.  But the descriptions were lush, much like the description of Maddie's thoughts. But I don't want to concede more quite yet -- maybe it is just interesting or insightful that anyone could have thoughts like Maddies.


----------



## Blackstone

Terry D said:


> This is why I despise these contrived 'rules' spit out by people like Swain. They distract from what is really important; finding one's own way to make their stories work. Do you think Gillian Flynn sits around analyzing her scene clock? Or Nora Roberts? Or King, or Gaiman? Did Poe worry about it? Or Hemingway? Hell no. And all the publishers who buy their work don't worry about it either. All they want are stories that work.



Pretty much this.

One thing I notice about the type of people that come up with or otherwise dedicate themselves to following these sorts of rules is that they are frequently not very prolific writers themselves. 

I have respect for Dwight Swain and enjoyed a couple of his old-timey science fiction pieces well enough but I suspect even he probably would have said he was more of an educator than a passionate storyteller. Certainly his non-fiction is what he is best known for today.

I do NOT suggest that people like Swain should not be listened to or that studying the craft from what Terry calls a 'contrived' standpoint is necessarily detrimental to ones ability. I am quite sure there are folks out there who have Techniques Of A Selling Writer memorized like the Qur'an and live and die by scene clock theories and are absolutely better writers than somebody like me who has started but never finished a single book on writing (besides Elements of Style) in twenty years of being an author. 

I do suggest, however, that these sorts of things can be very distracting and harmful to the creative process when taken too religiously. You can analyze the construction of a scene all you want, can break it down into components, can debate commonalities in functional vs. non-functional plot structures until the cows come home and Trump releases his taxes and you will learn nothing about how to make a reader smile or laugh or cry or sweat. 

As far as the scene clock, it's real simple to figure out: What you do is write the thing however you want, then read it. If it reads okay, ya did good. If it doesn't, ya did bad. Do it again. 

Most of the time conducting trial-and-error type experiments is easier than trying to train yourself to write according to other people's rules. It's also kind of fun sometimes.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Steinbeck, in _Of Mice and Men_ (view) showed almost perfect control of the scene clock. He had to be totally aware of what he was doing.

There are four paragraphs of description, then the scene clock starts. ("The first man stopped short in the clearing") There is no stopping to describe the characters. There is flashback, but it's with the scene clock on ("A light of understanding broke on Lennie's face. "They run us outa Weed," he exploded triumphantly.")

And Steinbeck does something I never would have thought to do: He stops the scene clock dead. There's a lull in the conversation, and Steinbeck inserts a paragraph description of setting: "The day was going fast now. Only the tops of the Gabilan Mountains flamed with the light of the sun that had gone from the valley."

In the two chapters I read, Steinbeck does that so consistently he had to have been doing that on purpose. People who write intuitively can't be that consistent.

Bayview advised, "Try everything and see what works". But I wasn't even aware of that way of using the scene clock. Now I know to try it.

Small print: "it is intended to be both a novella and a script for a play."  (Wikipedia) I chose that book randomly, but that would explain the scene clock staying on so much.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> In the two chapters I read, Steinbeck does that so consistently he had to have been doing that on purpose. People who write intuitively can't be that consistent.



Do you have anything besides personal belief to support the idea that "people who write intuitively can't be that consistent"? I mean, intuitive writing doesn't mean you don't _think_ about what you're doing, or don't read things over and figure out what works and what doesn't. It just means you follow your own intuition about what works rather than trying to follow someone else's set of rules.


----------



## JustRob

Why is the reader reading the story? It's probably because the text is both relevant and engaging. Is time relevant to the story? I can hardly comment on that, given that my sole novel was entitled "Never Upon A Time" and that title was of course entirely relevant. It didn't just imply that the story was a fantasy but that it was also about the absence of time, but I digress. In general the scene clock will be relevant if the dynamics of the story are central to it, but it is also possible that static features, such as descriptions, are equally central, in which case the scene clock is not exclusively the governing factor. In other words, as I queried at the outset, it all depends why the reader is reading the story and for that matter what the writer intended by writing it.

In all modesty it may be relevant (and of course the text should always be relevant) to quote the hook text from the frontispiece to my novel, which refers to the clocks in my avatar picture (because I like to get the maximum benefits out of my efforts and it took me a long time to create that picture).

*Three clocks hang on the office wall.
 The white one has stopped. The black one keeps ticking on.
 Above them the red one is going backwards.
 The fairy tale has started.

*​In fiction writing terms the question is how long the white scene clock can be stopped while the writer rambles through some other information dumping in the text represented by the black clock. The truth is that the only clock that really matters is the big red one which is counting down the time before the reader's tolerance expires and they return to their real life. The office referred to is of course the writer's mind. As writers we have to keep those three clocks, metaphorically hanging on the wall of the mind, there in mind all the time. 

This is why I hesitated to respond to this thread in detail earlier, because my novel was in itself my response to it conceived outside of time. If there isn't a fictional dimension to our very way of thinking then how can we possibly write convincing fiction?

*
*​


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Bayview said:


> Do you have anything besides personal belief to support the idea that "people who write intuitively can't be that consistent"? I mean, intuitive writing doesn't mean you don't _think_ about what you're doing, or don't read things over and figure out what works and what doesn't. It just means you follow your own intuition about what works rather than trying to follow someone else's set of rules.




Agree with BV. Writers like Steinbeck worked their craft for years before they wrote these works of art.  I've said it before; until you write at least 200k words, it's all just practice.  But after you have penned a few hundred thousand words, you have developed your rhythm, your way of writing, your cadence and voice.  Not only that, but that much writing builds a sort of muscle-memory in the way you write.  

As for writing rules, I don't buy into many of them.  Writing is ever changing, and whatever works...works.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Jack of all trades said:


> This sounds like you're agreeing with those of saying the problem, if there is one, is with the execution, not the stopping of the clock.


No. Finding a novel where it seems to have been done properly ignores the fact that for most of the book it's not done, or the many more in which they don't interrupt a live scene for an authorial interruption, which is what this is all about. Treating it as if anb absolute, "Never do this," has been stated is a straw man, presented for the purpose of seeming to have made a point.

The simple fact is that if you are presenting a scene in real-time, in the protagonist's viewpoint, and you stop that scene, break the fourth wall and insert an authorial comment you will, of necessity, kill any momentum the scene has built. Will a single instance kill your chance of selling a novel? Probably not.

If you choose to stop your scenes for authorial interjections, then do it. No one is saying you can't...unless you submit your work to a publisher who sees it as a problem. And then it's between your work and that publisher. Given that the people who make their living teaching people how to write to please those editors suggest not interrupting the action, I'd err on the side of caution.

Sol Stein said, “The novelist is like the conductor of an orchestra, his back to  the audience, his face invisible, summoning the experience of music for  the people he cannot see. The writer as conductor also gets to compose  the music and play all of the instruments, a task less formidable than  it seems.”

Change that...turn and face the audience, and the illusion of living the story vanishes.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> Do you have anything besides personal belief to support the idea that "people who write intuitively can't be that consistent"?



"that consistent" = as consistent as Steinbeck in that book.

You could maybe/probably read _The Old Man and the Sea_ and not notice anything odd about the grammar. But if I ask you how Hemingway connects two independent clauses, that's like a secret-decoder ring. You can now look at how he does that, and the pattern is so consistent he had to have done it deliberately.

That's what I was saying about _Of Mice and Men_. When I analyzed it from the perspective of scene clock, there was an interesting technique that he kept repeating. Never a sentence, always a paragraph. Always during a lull. Always setting. It's too consistent to be produced by some fuzzy notion like "add setting occasionally."

And right, intuition could produce some consistent patterns. Evanovich avoids embedded phrases. That could be deliberate, or it could be just her trying to write in a way that is easy to understand and not even realizing she was avoiding embedded phrases.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> ...or the many more in which they don't interrupt a live scene for an authorial interruption, which is what this is all about.



(In first person present, an authorial interruption would be the main character talking to the reader, right?)

You seem to be saying that published books usually don't stop the scene clock in the middle of a scene. My experience is that they all do, even which I don't like that, and if you could suggest a modern book that does not, I would like to read it.

Or maybe we have different views of authorial interruptions. It does not seem fair to use your writing, and you do a good job of keeping the clock running, but . . . won't most readers experience the following as the scene clock stopping for a description of the woman?



> This woman strode into the embrace of winter with a smile of anticipation—meeting a lover, not a combatant. And she was beautiful, her face blessed with a purity of line found so rarely it could be used to define the term beauty. Dressed perfectly for the weather, she could easily grace the cover of any winter sport magazine. From her daintily booted feet to the tip of her expensive ski-cap she exuded a style and sophistication that said she never felt the slightest trace of self-doubt.


 I'm not trying to criticize, I am trying to see if you are seeing this the same way as me.



> But discomfort was forgotten within a few paces,



That has to be the author talking, right? People can't report that they've forgotten something (at the time that they forget it).

Am I being too strict about this?


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> ... the pattern is so consistent he had to have done it deliberately.
> 
> That's what I was saying about _Of Mice and Men_. When I analyzed it from the perspective of scene clock, there was an interesting technique that he kept repeating. Never a sentence, always a paragraph. Always during a lull. Always setting. It's too consistent to be produced by some fuzzy notion like "add setting occasionally."
> 
> And right, intuition could produce some consistent patterns. ...


In Steinbeck's case, you might simply be identifying a rhythm to his writing style—something that would've most likely been just instinct and intuition for him.

He was quite outspoken about his belief that good writing didn't follow any "formula" or rules.

"Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is down. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not going on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material." — John Steinbeck

"If there is a magic in story writing, and I am convinced there is, no one has ever been able to reduce it to a recipe that can be passed from one person to another. The formula seems to lie solely in the aching urge of the writer to convey something he feels important to the reader. If the writer has that urge, he may sometimes, but by no means always, find the way to do it." — John Steinbeck


----------



## Blackstone

Jay Greenstein said:


> No. Finding a novel where it seems to have been done properly ignores the fact that for most of the book it's not done, or the many more in which they don't interrupt a live scene for an authorial interruption, which is what this is all about. Treating it as if anb absolute, "Never do this," has been stated is a straw man, presented for the purpose of seeming to have made a point.
> 
> The simple fact is that if you are presenting a scene in real-time, in the protagonist's viewpoint, and you stop that scene, break the fourth wall and insert an authorial comment you will, of necessity, kill any momentum the scene has built. Will a single instance kill your chance of selling a novel? Probably not.
> 
> If you choose to stop your scenes for authorial interjections, then do it. No one is saying you can't...unless you submit your work to a publisher who sees it as a problem. And then it's between your work and that publisher. Given that the people who make their living teaching people how to write to please those editors suggest not interrupting the action, I'd err on the side of caution.
> 
> Sol Stein said, “The novelist is like the conductor of an orchestra, his back to  the audience, his face invisible, summoning the experience of music for  the people he cannot see. The writer as conductor also gets to compose  the music and play all of the instruments, a task less formidable than  it seems.”
> 
> Change that...turn and face the audience, and the illusion of living the story vanishes.



Hi Jay,

I understand where you are coming from, I think. I believe the sticking point is identifying what place this has in the actual craft of modern writing - as distinct from the realm of analysis and critique.

The phrase that comes to mind is 'overthink'. Perhaps even 'over-engineering'. Because what you are saying in this post is that this is an issue that is important enough to deserve at least some modicum of attention by writers and yet you are also saying it is not true all of the time. In other words, it is down to the situation and skill of the writer as to whether it is executed correctly. Kind of like how we are taught 'I before E except after C' and then find out that actually that 'rule' only holds true bout fifty percent of the time and is therefore basically worthless as far as deciding whether it is spelled _heir _or _hier._

Which brings me back to what I said in the last post: What is the point? 

Rules in most theaters of life do not work if they are not true at least most of the time (ideally the best rules are true _all of the time_) and this is where I wonder why this sort of thing has a place beyond distraction and perhaps some rather masturbatory beard-stroking. Why not leave it up to the writer's intuition and only intuition to decide how best to construct a scene? Why not spend the time learning things for which there' _are _absolute (or as near as dammit) rules, such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. 

I appreciate the sentiment is to try to delve into what makes scene x work better than scene y and ultimately try to optimize the engagement between reader and story. It's an honorable and noble quest, but I just don't see how this is supposed to help anybody.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Hi Blackstone. I suspect Jay is over-claiming. Would it help if this was restated as a factor? We can say, "It's undesirable to turn off the scene clock." Authors should be aware of this (if true), but they would still stop the clock if other factors were more important.  To use a metaphor, things usually fall, sometimes they rise, but the force of gravity is always with us.

And they quantify the force of gravity. According to Jay, stopping the scene clock stops the momentum (whatever that is), and I see Steinbeck stopping the clock when there is a lull in the conversation and momentum is low. As if he is perfectly aware of the problem of stopping the scene clock and is trying to minimize that problem.

No advice? You and I both like a character to be created with the scene clock on, while others in that thread (Character development; the nuts & bolts) are focused on how to create characters with the clock off. I don't know if we are "right", whatever that means, but I know _I _resent off-the-clock characters descriptions. Whatever the quality of our advice, the scene-clock idea makes that advice easy to express.

Should we start a thread on epilogues? I would advise to turn the scene clock on, which is the opposite of "They lived happily after ever."


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> "that consistent" = as consistent as Steinbeck in that book.
> 
> You could maybe/probably read _The Old Man and the Sea_ and not notice anything odd about the grammar. But if I ask you how Hemingway connects two independent clauses, that's like a secret-decoder ring. You can now look at how he does that, and the pattern is so consistent he had to have done it deliberately.
> 
> That's what I was saying about _Of Mice and Men_. When I analyzed it from the perspective of scene clock, there was an interesting technique that he kept repeating. Never a sentence, always a paragraph. Always during a lull. Always setting. It's too consistent to be produced by some fuzzy notion like "add setting occasionally."
> 
> And right, intuition could produce some consistent patterns. Evanovich avoids embedded phrases. That could be deliberate, or it could be just her trying to write in a way that is easy to understand and not even realizing she was avoiding embedded phrases.



I use sentence fragments in my books. But I try not to use too many, because if I use too many my writing starts to feel jerky and disjointed and awkward.

I guess someone _could_ make a rule about that - "use sentence fragments to make your writing feel natural, but don't use too many" but it's a rule that requires a hell of a lot of intuition to apply effectively (because the writer has to decide what "too many" means in the given context).

But wouldn't it just make more sense for the writer to read her own work, recognize the parts that are disjointed, and smooth some of the fragments into sentences? She would still be consciously, deliberately improving her writing, as I'm sure Hemingway and Steinbeck did, but she'd be doing it intuitively, not based on external rules.

So I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between "intuitive" and "deliberate"/"consciously". To me, intuitive writing is writing that is based on the feel of the words to the author, not based on external rules. What do you mean when you talk about intuitive writing?

(And to be clear, I have no idea how Hemingway and/or Steinbeck made their writing decisions. I just disagree with the idea that because something is well-crafted and uses consistent technique that means the writers c_ouldn't _have been writing intuitively.)


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> I use sentence fragments in my books. But I try not to use too many, because if I use too many my writing starts to feel jerky and disjointed and awkward.
> 
> I guess someone _could_ make a rule about that - "use sentence fragments to make your writing feel natural, but don't use too many" but it's a rule that requires a hell of a lot of intuition to apply effectively (because the writer has to decide what "too many" means in the given context).
> 
> But wouldn't it just make more sense for the writer to read her own work, recognize the parts that are disjointed, and smooth some of the fragments into sentences? She would still be consciously, deliberately improving her writing, as I'm sure Hemingway and Steinbeck did, but she'd be doing it intuitively, not based on external rules.
> 
> So I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between "intuitive" and "deliberate"/"consciously". To me, intuitive writing is writing that is based on the feel of the words to the author, not based on external rules. What do you mean when you talk about intuitive writing?
> 
> (And to be clear, I have no idea how Hemingway and/or Steinbeck made their writing decisions. I just disagree with the idea that because something is well-crafted and uses consistent technique that means the writers c_ouldn't _have been writing intuitively.)



Much of the time I intuit stuff like how many sentence fragments to use at a given point (more when things are tense, generally). But I arrive at that decision one of two ways: one, I simply feel it as I am pantsing along, or two: I consciously tell myself to write a certain way to achieve a result I want at that moment, even though I may not feel it right then. And sometimes, in the edit, I can see that my intuition was wrong because it failed to account for the bigger picture. I might find repetitions, or I might be going on too long, or something like that. Other times I see that it was just right, that no other words would have done it justice.

At first the two styles feel different. The characters are all smooth and then suddenly they're acting like they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, all stiff and awkward and cliched and wrong. That's where a second, and third, fourth, etc. intuitive pass helps, to help ease in those by-the-numbers moments so that they don't seem by the numbers. When I see a by-the-numbers moment covered over with genuine-seeming characterisation, I am impressed because it can really jar in my writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> IWhat do you mean when you talk about intuitive writing?



Someone could just write, without reading anyone's advice or trying to be aware of what they were doing. That is what I thought you and Terry meant by just writing intuitively. So we had a big communication gap.

Right, if I read "never turn the scene clock off" and I just follow this rule, I would be the opposite of intuitive -- I have taken my feeling and judgments out of the process.

When I write, my final judgment is based on my feelings. But I think a lot about the principles. I studied what Steinbeck did and I can reproduce it. I am getting a list of techniques author's use to keep the scene clock on. One of those I do with full awareness. The first time I used it, it was hard; now it's automatic. Some I did intuitively.

Then it all gets mixed together in a way I don't understand. My free grammar book has a 4K chapter on fragments, which means I nonintuitively know a lot more about fragments than anyone. As you have already pointed out, I can't be summoning that 4K of knowledge every time I write a fragment. (Worse, that information is relevant to when I choose not to write a fragment.) So I mostly just write, and sometimes I become aware of that info, and sometimes I think it just appears in my writing, and I think sometimes it doesn't even though it should.


----------



## bdcharles

EmmaSohan said:


> Right, if I read "never turn the scene clock off" and I just follow this rule, I would be the opposite of intuitive -- I have taken my feeling and judgments out of the process.



What about being intuitively aware of the scene clock? It's like life, where you "just know" if someone's rambled on too long, or when the energy in the room suddenly goes up. We are temporal beings. I find I write, and live, with that sense of time always in the background, and while it doesn't always flow linearly, or at the same rate, or even in the same direction, it is always there. Sometimes each moment spans many decades, other times it is the intimate ticking of some poor bugger's last seconds.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> Someone could just write, without reading anyone's advice or trying to be aware of what they were doing. That is what I thought you and Terry meant by just writing intuitively. So we had a big communication gap.



Well, I think "intuitive" writing would likely not involve much reading of other people's advice. But, no, I don't think it means not trying to be aware of what you're doing, at least at some point in the process. (Like, some people don't want to consciously analyze their writing while they're producing the first draft, but then later on they go back and read things over.)

I judge my writing based on whether it seems to effectively convey what I want it to convey, not based on whether it follows someone's rules. I don't actively consider rules at any point in my writing process (including editing). I've probably internalized quite a few of the more basic standards of writing, of course, but I don't consciously think about them at any point.

To me, that's intuitive writing.

It's not the only way to write, obviously, but it's the only way that works for me. And I'm pretty sure it works for quite a few other writers, including people who've created some pretty great stories.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Someone could just write, without reading anyone's advice or trying to be aware of what they were doing. That is what I thought you and Terry meant by just writing intuitively. So we had a big communication gap.



The communication gap is all yours, and it pretty much sums up your problem, confirming for me why 'advice' given by most people on forums like this should be quickly flushed down the nearest toilet. You twist what you read to suit your own preconceptions. I have NEVER (yes, that's a shout) suggested that anyone write without trying to be aware of what they are doing. In fact, I encourage all writers to concentrate fully on what they are doing -- trying to tell stories in the most effective way possible -- without the distraction of measuring them and analyzing them to see if they fit bullshit concepts like 'scene clocks.' 

I know some writers are desperate to find magic crystals and secret chants that will suddenly make them good writers, and others are just as desperate to be the ones who offer those chants and talismans (advice), but that sort of magic doesn't exist. The magic Steinbeck mentions in the quote Kyle posted, is the internal magic which can occur when the words we write fit exactly into the
the template of what we want to say. That doesn't happen without awareness, and it can't happen if we are using someone else's template.

Intuitive writing is not mindless writing. It is not unaware writing. It is writing based on an awareness of, and trust in, the the vast reservoir of experience all readers have with what does and does not work in the thousands of books and stories we have read and subconsciously analyzed. Not everyone has that awareness, or perhaps they just don't have the trust in themselves to use it. I can't say. All I know is, I would rather write a story with an effective scene than waste my time worrying about a phantom clock.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> Well, I think "intuitive" writing would likely not involve much reading of other people's advice. But, no, I don't think it means not trying to be aware of what you're doing, at least at some point in the process. (Like, some people don't want to consciously analyze their writing while they're producing the first draft, but then later on they go back and read things over.)
> 
> I judge my writing based on whether it seems to effectively convey what I want it to convey, not based on whether it follows someone's rules. I don't actively consider rules at any point in my writing process (including editing). I've probably internalized quite a few of the more basic standards of writing, of course, but I don't consciously think about them at any point.
> 
> To me, that's intuitive writing.
> 
> It's not the only way to write, obviously, but it's the only way that works for me. And I'm pretty sure it works for quite a few other writers, including people who've created some pretty great stories.



So let's take what comes after the thrilling climax, which I will call the ending. We can imagine someone writing _just intuitively; _they've never read anything and are trying to fashion a good endings.

But advice is hard to avoid. There is the advice to 'wrap things up' or 'tie up loose ends'. That provides a lot of guidance and speeds up the process. We can imagine people perhaps thinking that when they get to the ending, so they are using more than intuition. We can imagine someone who somehow has internalized this so well that they don't even think about it, they just do it. I don't know if that's just intuition, but it's not important to me what we call it.

I like endings that leave the stop clock on. Or, in other words, have scenes with action and dialogue and thoughts, like the rest of the book. _Jurassic Park_, for example. This too could be internalized and done without thought. Or, since I write in first person present and essentially never stop the scene clock, it's what all of my endings are like.

But I worry that "wrap it up" becomes license to not have scenes, or to do them quickly with the stop clock off. So we end up with a question: Is it okay to abandon the scene structure used in the middle of the book when we write the ending? Asking that question seems to leave the land of intuition, right?

I have no problem with people who have tried both ways and decided that the stop-clock-off ending is best. What worries me is that a writer might do this "intuitively" without considering the other option.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> So let's take what comes after the thrilling climax, which I will call the ending. We can imagine someone writing _just intuitively; _they've never read anything and are trying to fashion a good endings.



Never read _anything_?

I'd say most writers will have read thousands of books - they've just read books _of _fiction, not books _about_ fiction.

And the for the rest of your post... ?

I've written and published over thirty novels and I've never heard of or considered the idea of a "stop-clock-off ending". I don't know what you mean about abandoning the scene structure used in the middle of the book, because I don't consciously consider scene structure at _any_ point of the book. I mean, I have scenes. I get that much. But they're just chunks of words in which something happens. I expect someone who thinks in terms of scene structure could find some sort of structure in my scenes, but I don't.

So it's kind of impossible for me to try both ways (stop-clock-off or not) because that's totally not the way I think about writing. On the rare occasions when I HAVE tried to think about these things I end up getting muddled and frustrated and impatient about all this stuff that isn't part of my process.

Now, I agree that we should always be trying new things, and maybe my process would be vastly improved if I detached my intuitive brain and tried to apply my conscious brain in a more rules-following way, but... I don't think it would be good. I think my creativity comes from my intuitive brain, and my writing style comes from my intuitive brain, and while my writing isn't blasting its way up the NYT bestseller list it generally gets reviewed fairly well, and I don't think I've EVER had a review that mentioned an issues with scene structure or scene clocks or any of the rest of it.

Again, if the rule-based approach to writing works for you, fantastic. But I really don't think it works for everyone.


----------



## Jack of all trades

EmmaSohan said:


> So let's take what comes after the thrilling climax, which I will call the ending. We can imagine someone writing _just intuitively; _they've never read anything and are trying to fashion a good endings.
> 
> But advice is hard to avoid. There is the advice to 'wrap things up' or 'tie up loose ends'. That provides a lot of guidance and speeds up the process. We can imagine people perhaps thinking that when they get to the ending, so they are using more than intuition. We can imagine someone who somehow has internalized this so well that they don't even think about it, they just do it. I don't know if that's just intuition, but it's not important to me what we call it.
> 
> I like endings that leave the stop clock on. Or, in other words, have scenes with action and dialogue and thoughts, like the rest of the book. _Jurassic Park_, for example. This too could be internalized and done without thought. Or, since I write in first person present and essentially never stop the scene clock, it's what all of my endings are like.
> 
> But I worry that "wrap it up" becomes license to not have scenes, or to do them quickly with the stop clock off. So we end up with a question: Is it okay to abandon the scene structure used in the middle of the book when we write the ending? Asking that question seems to leave the land of intuition, right?
> 
> I have no problem with people who have tried both ways and decided that the stop-clock-off ending is best. What worries me is that a writer might do this "intuitively" without considering the other option.



Why should how another writer writes bother you? At all? 

Let those who want to write intuitively do so. And if no publisher or agent shows interest, they'll begin to realize they don't have all the answers. Maybe.


----------



## Bayview

Jack of all trades said:


> Why should how another writer writes bother you? At all?
> 
> Let those who want to write intuitively do so. And if no publisher or agent shows interest, they'll begin to realize they don't have all the answers. Maybe.



I know yours is a wise approach, but I worry about this stuff, too! I want everyone to have a happy, productive, non-frustrating writing experience. I'm like a mother hen, clucking at all the writers, worrying about what they're doing...


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jack of all trades said:


> Why should how another writer writes bother you? At all?
> 
> Let those who want to write intuitively do so. And if no publisher or agent shows interest, they'll begin to realize they don't have all the answers. Maybe.



I cannot imagine a publisher rejecting a book because the scene-clock was stopped for the ending. We expect it to be off, right?

I respect the desire not to consider unfamiliar ideas (which after all might prove to be useless). But that makes it difficult for me to start a conversation on a topic about an unfamiliar idea (which after all might prove to be useful).

I just read two great books in the past month, and both had disappointing endings. So I started wondering if our ancient notion of what makes a good ending/epilogue is really right. That advice pretty much leads to never turning on the scene-clock, while the endings I liked kept it running.

But -- scene-clock is a slippery concept. So I wanted to talk about it, for that reason and others. I very much want to hear your opinion about it. And endings.


----------



## Blackstone

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi Blackstone. I suspect Jay is over-claiming. Would it help if this was restated as a factor? We can say, "It's undesirable to turn off the scene clock." Authors should be aware of this (if true), but they would still stop the clock if other factors were more important.  To use a metaphor, things usually fall, sometimes they rise, but the force of gravity is always with us.
> 
> And they quantify the force of gravity. According to Jay, stopping the scene clock stops the momentum (whatever that is), and I see Steinbeck stopping the clock when there is a lull in the conversation and momentum is low. As if he is perfectly aware of the problem of stopping the scene clock and is trying to minimize that problem.
> 
> No advice? You and I both like a character to be created with the scene clock on, while others in that thread (Character development; the nuts & bolts) are focused on how to create characters with the clock off. I don't know if we are "right", whatever that means, but I know _I _resent off-the-clock characters descriptions. Whatever the quality of our advice, the scene-clock idea makes that advice easy to express.
> 
> Should we start a thread on epilogues? I would advise to turn the scene clock on, which is the opposite of "They lived happily after ever."



Emma,

In my opinion it doesn't help a writer to reclassify a bad rule as a good _factor_ in the same way Pluto doesn't get any bigger or better whether we classify it as a small planet or a big rock. It doesn't help because there's no practical application for advice that has roughly equal instances of being true versus being false. Certainly I have no use for it myself and I'm not sure I would have 'back then'.

I respect highly those, shall we call them the _academic types _and their tireless attempting to decode the DNA of what works versus what doesn't in writing. I also understand that, shall we say, the more ​_luddite types _get frustrated by this kind of thing. I sense this is because it seems doomed to complicate what, actually, should be down to a writer's god-given ability and common sense. However just like I'm sure Terry doesn't advocate an across-the-board disregard for conceptualizing or theorizing of all stripes and flavors, I am equally sure that not all advice/factors/rules/whatever are worth the pixel-space just because they can be easily explained and pointed to and rationalized. 

In other words, the acid test is in the output and the burden of proof is always on those who make the claim that their view is relevant or useful. I have been writing for several years and had never heard of this concept of a 'scene clock' until a week ago when I joined this forum. That does not necessarily mean it does not exist. It does, however, mean that people like me are unfortunately always going to be skeptical when we hear claims that it is has any importance to our work.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Blackstone said:


> Emma,
> 
> In my opinion it doesn't help a writer to reclassify a bad rule as a good _factor_ in the same way Pluto doesn't get any bigger or better whether we classify it as a small planet or a big rock. It doesn't help because there's no practical application for advice that has roughly equal instances of being true versus being false. Certainly I have no use for it myself and I'm not sure I would have 'back then'.
> 
> I respect highly those, shall we call them the _academic types _and their tireless attempting to decode the DNA of what works versus what doesn't in writing. I also understand that, shall we say, the more ​_luddite types _get frustrated by this kind of thing. I sense this is because it seems doomed to complicate what, actually, should be down to a writer's god-given ability and common sense. However just like I'm sure Terry doesn't advocate an across-the-board disregard for conceptualizing or theorizing of all stripes and flavors, I am equally sure that not all advice/factors/rules/whatever are worth the pixel-space just because they can be easily explained and pointed to and rationalized.
> 
> In other words, the acid test is in the output and the burden of proof is always on those who make the claim that their view is relevant or useful. I have been writing for several years and had never heard of this concept of a 'scene clock' until a week ago when I joined this forum. That does not necessarily mean it does not exist. It does, however, mean that people like me are unfortunately always going to be skeptical when we hear claims that it is has any importance to our work.



You wrote: "...the simple truth [is] I am reading a story, not a character profile, and I want action."

You want action. What did you mean by action? Instead of reading that someone is 6 foot tall, you want to read that they grew up to be 6 foot tall? Does "He moved to Los Angeles when he was 24" count as action? (Is dialogue action? Is thinking?)

This is, of course, the type of discussion that most people do not want to have. And you are welcome to tease out an answer for yourself. Or you can stick to the original plan and expect me to figure it out for myself -- but my understanding is that you want the scene clock on, and actions too slow for a scene clock don't count.

Do you prefer epilogues with the type of action that you like?


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> So let's take what comes after the thrilling climax, which I will call the ending. We can imagine someone writing _just intuitively; _they've never read anything and are trying to fashion a good endings.



Here we go again. Emma's reconstruction of the writer's vocabulary. The climax of a story doesn't need an adjective. 'Thrilling' adds nothing to the concept and may only serve to confuse new writers who wonder what the difference between the climax of a story and the 'thrilling climax' might be. The portion of the book after the climax, that part where everything is winding down and loose ends are tied up, is called the denouement, but most people call it the end. We don't need you to pronounce it as such.



> But advice is hard to avoid. There is the advice to 'wrap things up' or 'tie up loose ends'. That provides a lot of guidance and speeds up the process. We can imagine people perhaps thinking that when they get to the ending, so they are using more than intuition. We can imagine someone who somehow has internalized this so well that they don't even think about it, they just do it. I don't know if that's just intuition, but it's not important to me what we call it.



"Imagine" what you wish, but that doesn't make it so for anyone except you, so using 'we' is inaccurate. I've never heard, or read advice to 'wrap things up' or 'tie up loose ends'. I never needed someone to tell me to do that, and I don't think most writers need such basic advice. We know how stories end by reading stories. That's what intuitive is all about, utilizing knowledge we already have.



> I like endings that leave the stop clock on. Or, in other words, have scenes with action and dialogue and thoughts, like the rest of the book. _Jurassic Park_, for example. This too could be internalized and done without thought. Or, since I write in first person present and essentially never stop the scene clock, it's what all of my endings are like.



For someone who considers herself a writer, you are terrible with words. For about the tenth time, writing intuitively (or whatever you may call it) doesn't mean writing without thought. To keep saying that it does is actually rather insulting to intuitive writers.



> But I worry that "wrap it up" becomes license to not have scenes, or to do them quickly with the stop clock off. So we end up with a question: Is it okay to abandon the scene structure used in the middle of the book when we write the ending? Asking that question seems to leave the land of intuition, right?
> 
> I have no problem with people who have tried both ways and decided that the stop-clock-off ending is best. What worries me is that a writer might do this "intuitively" without considering the other option.



Now we've gone from a 'scene clock' to something else no one has ever heard of, a 'stop clock'? This is getting so muddled as to be comical. No one is suggesting abandoning scene structure at the end of the book. In fact, no one but you has even mentioned the end of the book, because the end is no different than any other part of the book. It's just the last part. You've taken a dumb idea -- the scene clock -- and twisted it into something completely absurd. I can't imagine how these questions about abandoning scene structure, stop-clocks, and what comes after the 'thrilling climax' could be of benefit to anyone who is serious about writing. I'm sure they make sense to you in your quest to write, 'Emma's Guide to Writing Unreadable Fiction' but, for everyone else, it just creates needless confusion.


----------



## Jack of all trades

EmmaSohan said:


> I cannot imagine a publisher rejecting a book because the scene-clock was stopped for the ending. We expect it to be off, right?
> 
> I respect the desire not to consider unfamiliar ideas (which after all might prove to be useless). But that makes it difficult for me to start a conversation on a topic about an unfamiliar idea (which after all might prove to be useful).
> 
> I just read two great books in the past month, and both had disappointing endings. So I started wondering if our ancient notion of what makes a good ending/epilogue is really right. That advice pretty much leads to never turning on the scene-clock, while the endings I liked kept it running.
> 
> But -- scene-clock is a slippery concept. So I wanted to talk about it, for that reason and others. I very much want to hear your opinion about it. And endings.



Do I understand correctly that you think publishers don't care about the mythical scene clock? And yet you think A) it deserves its own thread, and B) you want every writer to think about it when writing?

I also think this contradicts what you, yourself, stated earlier : 


> I have no problem with people who have tried both ways and decided that the stop-clock-off ending is best. What worries me is that a writer might do this "intuitively" without considering the other option.




My opinions are : 

A) Writers, including you, should read the fiction they like. And put down all books they don't like. Who cares if it's a classic or whatever "everyone" is reading! 

B) When giving a critique, focus on the specific writing and avoid generalized advice.

C) ... Can't say this one without risking banning.

Time to walk away for a while and cool off!


----------



## Jack of all trades

Bayview said:


> I know yours is a wise approach, but I worry about this stuff, too! I want everyone to have a happy, productive, non-frustrating writing experience. I'm like a mother hen, clucking at all the writers, worrying about what they're doing...



There's wanting to be helpful and there's attempting to micro-manange. 

This : 





> I have no problem with people who have tried both ways and decided that the stop-clock-off ending is best. What worries me is that a writer might do this "intuitively" without considering the other option.



strikes me as micro-managing. It's nobody's business if I do something without "thinking through all options"! 

And if I can intuitively, imitating the fiction writing I've enjoyed for years, write a good book, nobody has the right to tell me I did it wrong.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Blackstone said:


> In other words, the acid test is in the output and the burden of proof is always on those who make the claim that their view is relevant or useful. I have been writing for several years and had never heard of this concept of a 'scene clock' until a week ago when I joined this forum. That does not necessarily mean it does not exist. It does, however, mean that people like me are unfortunately always going to be skeptical when we hear claims that it is has any importance to our work.



I thought of a better explanation. I think some people see a book as presenting information. That's hard for me to imagine, but that's my impression. The modern perspective is that we in a sense want people living the story.

We could hope that presenting information was enough, or that readers will do the proper thing with the information, but the modern perspective seems to be that writers can help the readers live in the story. The whole idea of deep-POV is exactly that, right?

And one of the aspects of actual life is that time is flowing. So, one of the basic ways to help the reader live in the story, or see the story as being real, is to keep time flowing.

With me so far?

This post has been certified by the World Writing Association to be free of explicit advice about how to write.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> And one of the aspects of actual life is that time is flowing. So, one of the basic ways to help the reader live in the story, or see the story as being real, is to keep time flowing.



Would you apply this in reverse as well? In real life, we live every minute; we don't skip from one meaningful scene to the next. So in order to help the reader live in the story, we should write every single minute of the character's life, even if nothing significant is happening during most of that time?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jack of all trades said:


> Do I understand correctly that you think publishers don't care about the mythical scene clock? And yet you think A) it deserves its own thread, and B) you want every writer to think about it when writing?



My current goals are more modest -- I would like at least a few writers to understand the concept and try to use it while they read something. And then we could talk about it.

The world is not a wish-granting factory, and blackstone aptly pointed out that people might not see it as worth their time and effort to do that. So, yes, I have been doing what I could to try to get people to think this is a worthwhile concept to think about, even though I am still exploring its value and have no firm conclusions. That's useful, because that forces me to think about that. But I've probably gone as far as I can with that.

Last Christmas I started a thread with the intent of giving useful advice, but that's rare and my goal for this thread was just to try to learn about and explore this concept, as in my interaction with Kyle.


----------



## bdcharles

Bayview said:


> Would you apply this in reverse as well? In real life, we live every minute; we don't skip from one meaningful scene to the next. So in order to help the reader live in the story, we should write every single minute of the character's life, even if nothing significant is happening during most of that time?



The way I see it is, narrative time doesn't have to flow at a constant rate. We don't remember things at a constant rate. We don't imagine things that way, I would say. We don't even experience time as a constant, which is why we say time drags or flies by or occasionally comes to a standstill. Authors manipulate time convincingly, dramatizing as we go, so no, this degree of accuracy wouldn't help readers live the story. When you see something new, do you slurp in every aspect of it into your head as if you were crunching a factsheet or do you perceive that thing via your senses, with some features standing out memorably with others are more mundane? If the latter, then those experiences come to you sequentially, as you yourself interact with it, also sequentially as the world turns. The factsheet may be more correct, but we're not concerned with correctness. We don't, as people, really get much out of correctness. We're concerned with experience. And experience comes as a result of action and interaction, which occurs over time. That's my take on it, anyway.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Bayview said:


> Would you apply this in reverse as well? In real life, we live every minute; we don't skip from one meaningful scene to the next. So in order to help the reader live in the story, we should write every single minute of the character's life, even if nothing significant is happening during most of that time?


Absolutely,except for the nothing significant part. And we can define them as not if those moments advancing the plot, developing character, or meaningfully setting the scene. Story happens. Talking _about_ those non significant moments is best used as a means of passing over time that's not relevant to the story but necessary to mention. Our readers aren't seeking to learn about the story, they want an emotional, not an informational experience. That tag line at the bottom of my posts says it all.


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> Absolutely,except for the nothing significant part. And we can define them as not if those moments advancing the plot, developing character, or meaningfully setting the scene. Story happens. Talking _about_ those non significant moments is best used as a means of passing over time that's not relevant to the story but necessary to mention. Our readers aren't seeking to learn about the story, they want an emotional, not an informational experience. That tag line at the bottom of my posts says it all.



I don't follow. What do you mean by "except for the nothing significant part"?

I would say that almost every author in almost every book skips over huge chunks of the characters' lives. I can't imagine that anyone would actually disagree with this (my question in post 112 was meant to be rhetorical, pointing out the strangeness of the idea that "stopping the clock" will ruin a scene), but... are you disagreeing with it?

ETA: And as I've said before - the tagline at the bottom of your post may be your goal in your writing, but it isn't mine in my writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> Would you apply this in reverse as well? In real life, we live every minute; we don't skip from one meaningful scene to the next. So in order to help the reader live in the story, we should write every single minute of the character's life, even if nothing significant is happening during most of that time?



Nice point. Let me think about it.

Suppose two events are to happen to a family at dinner. There could be a 10-minute break between them, which would require stopping the scene clock. But isn't the conventional choice to have the second event immediately follow the first? That might seem coincidental, but it doesn't stop the scene clock.

This suggests there is some cost for turning off and restarting the scene clock. But I am not sure that's an answer to your point.


----------



## Blackstone

EmmaSohan said:


> You wrote: "...the simple truth [is] I am reading a story, not a character profile, and I want action."
> 
> You want action. What did you mean by action? Instead of reading that someone is 6 foot tall, you want to read that they grew up to be 6 foot tall? Does "He moved to Los Angeles when he was 24" count as action? (Is dialogue action? Is thinking?)
> 
> This is, of course, the type of discussion that most people do not want to have. And you are welcome to tease out an answer for yourself. Or you can stick to the original plan and expect me to figure it out for myself -- but my understanding is that you want the scene clock on, and actions too slow for a scene clock don't count.
> 
> Do you prefer epilogues with the type of action that you like?



I think you are taking my point extremely literally. Of course the entire story isn't made up of non-stop action, that would be deeply unpleasant for all concerned. A book is an orchestral symphony of many component parts. Just because I am drawn to enjoy the brass section doesn't mean I don't on occasion expect the trumpets to shut up, the music to go quiet, and for the violins to shine. I don't see it as stopping the scene, I see it as different elements of the scene harmonizing. Even when people are talking, I don't ignore the continuity of action.

When I say 'I want action' I am simply saying I want a sense of dynamism and progression to what I am reading, which would include thinking, talking and just about anything _so long as it moves. _As I have noted, the hand-wringing over scene clocks may be (it's hard to say for sure, I feel increasingly uncertain as to what is being proposed) your way of determining the answer to 'does it move?'. I don't think anybody here is exactly disagreeing with your initial point (again, not sure) but the issue is that it is extremely unclear what application it has. 

I am late to this discussion so perhaps I missed something important earlier on, not sure, but based on what I have read I just don't think it warrants the time. I will give the benefit of the doubt on that and suggest it may be that it is simply beyond the attention and capacity of we simple writers and would receive a more enthusiastic reception at a conference for literary critics or something. Don't want to speak for anybody, but I suspect most here only have interest for such concepts as far as they help us and you have yet to demonstrate how the Scene Clock helps me to write a better scene in ways that I am capable of understanding.

As far as epilogues? Don't write 'em much. If/when I do I tend to write them in more or less the exact same way as I would anything else since all an epilogue does is provide closure or some additional context to the main story. Not sure how an epilogue would constitute stopping of a scene clock. I tend to think of it as its own new scene, almost its own little miniature work that just happens to resolve the theme of the main one.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Blackstone said:


> When I say 'I want action' I am simply saying I want a sense of dynamism and progression to what I am reading, which would include thinking, talking and just about anything _so long as it moves. _As I have noted, the hand-wringing over scene clocks may be (it's hard to say for sure, I feel increasingly uncertain as to what is being proposed) your way of determining the answer to 'does it move?'. I don't think anybody here is exactly disagreeing with your initial point (again, not sure) but the issue is that it is extremely unclear what application it has.



Things are moving = scene clock is not stopped.

There are techniques for keeping things moving. You've written books, so you probably know them. Of course, using them implies that you (or the reader) wants things to keep moving. And that they work.

The obvious is putting setting or backstory into dialogue. In _The Winter of our Discontent_, Steinbeck puts them into a one-sided conversation the main character has with a passing dog!

Crichton likes to keep things moving. _Jurassic Park_ begins with setting portrayed as action:



> The tropical rain fell in drenching sheets, hammering the corrugated roof of the clinic building, roaring down the metal gutters, splashing on the ground in a torrent.



It continues:



> Roberta Carter sighed, and stared out the window. From the clinic, she could hardly see the beach or the ocean beyond, cloaked in low fog.



If I rewrite that to stop the movement, it makes more obvious how much Crichton worked to give the illusion of movement.



> Roberta Carter was staring out the window. The beach and ocean beyond were cloaked in a low fog.



A third familiar technique is interweaving action with description (_Roberta Carter sighed_)

Does anyone have more?


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> Crichton likes to keep things moving. Jurassic Park begins with setting portrayed as action:
> The tropical rain fell in drenching sheets, hammering the corrugated roof of the clinic building, roaring down the metal gutters, splashing on the ground in a torrent.​


​I'd call that simply "description". Yes, Crichton does make it feel active by using a lot of verbs (something Chuck Palahniuk would applaud), though I wouldn't put that into the realm of "action". Likewise, I wouldn't say "Smoke billowed from the chimney" is action. Nor "Her dress fluttered in the wind."

That said, I _do_ like the practice of including verbs in description, when possible. :encouragement:



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> It continues:
> 
> Roberta Carter sighed, and stared out the window. From the clinic, she could hardly see the beach or the ocean beyond, cloaked in low fog.​​If I rewrite that to stop the movement, it makes more obvious how much Crichton worked to give the illusion of movement.
> 
> Roberta Carter was staring out the window. The beach and ocean beyond were cloaked in a low fog.​


​To me, this is just an example of the difference between the *simple past* tense, and the *past progressive* tense.

Simple past verbs do convey a sense of immediacy, though past progressive verbs work better at times, especially when you're dealing with simultaneous events.
Example: Clara *was standing* at her kitchen window when the phone *rang*.​
If we clung to only simple past verbs, the above sentence would sound a bit awkward.
Example: Clara *stood* at her kitchen window when the phone rang.​
To fix it, we could try the word "as" instead of "when":
Clara stood at her kitchen window *as* the phone rang.​
Though, I still prefer the very first example, which made good use of both past progressive and simple past. It has a nice sort of "one-two" rhythm to it, establishing the protagonist's current action, then introducing a new event. The "as" sentence, however, feels more like two events happening at the same time.

Overall, I'd say the real key is to see both the past progressive and the simple past as tools in your toolbox (as Mr. King would say), and not be afraid to use either (or both) when it serves the writing best. :encouragement:


----------



## Blackstone

Kyle R said:


> [/INDENT]
> Overall, I'd say the real key is to see both the past progressive and the simple past as tools in your toolbox (as Mr. King would say), and not be afraid to use either (or both) when it serves the writing best. :encouragement:



My thoughts exactly Kyle.

I think honestly this is my issue with theorizing the process in general. However many pages of discussion and effort (and whether I disagree with Emma or not she has clearly put effort into attempting to prove her point) basically comes down to what some might have once described as "The Vibe".

An awful lot, perhaps most, of writing technique is already known through common sense and trial-and-error learning. I agree "Clara *was standing* at her kitchen window when the phone *rang" *but years of writing and editing experience and I couldn't say why I think it is better, only it is. Likewise I cannot say when it is better to stop the action for a flashback or not. It's simply as instinctual as sneezing. More to the point, I don't think anybody else can really provide a definitive answer to that sort of thing either.

When all is said and done that is probably where the notion of technical know-how reaches its limit and it starts being a judgement call.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> [/INDENT]I'd call that simply "description". Yes, Crichton does make it feel active by using a lot of verbs ...



There are good reasons to locate the flow of time (and whether or not it stopped) in the *words on the page*. But what really matters is the *reader's experience*. My point was that, yes, this is description, just like you said. But it could be perceived as more active, just like you said. And maybe that perception matters.

And -- to stay on topic -- I am not sure how you get a perception of "more active" if the flow of time is stopped.




Kyle R said:


> [/INDENT]That said, I _do_ like the practice of including verbs in description, when possible. :encouragement:



You can't mean all verbs? "He was tall" is 1/3 verbs. Or did you mean active verbs? (In "John graduated from high school in 2013", graduated would be classified as active rather than passive, so I'm guessing that's not the meaning you want.)

And, to stay on topic, are active verbs more likely to keep the flow of time moving?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Blackstone said:


> As far as epilogues? Don't write 'em much. If/when I do I tend to write them in more or less the exact same way as I would anything else since all an epilogue does is provide closure or some additional context to the main story. Not sure how an epilogue would constitute stopping of a scene clock. I tend to think of it as its own new scene, almost its own little miniature work that just happens to resolve the theme of the main one.



_The Almost Sisters_ is, from page 23 to 332 one of the best books I have read. The ending is meh, and this is what I meant by an epilogue with no flow of time.



> Birchie lived long enough to see him: James Birch Briggs-Martin. He was born the day after Thanksgiving, in Alabama. He landed yelling, slick, and bloody, seven pounds, one ounce, and crazy beautiful. Sel caught him and put him on my chest.
> Birchie's best last hours were spent rocking my son with me beside her ...



Hawthone is old-fashionedly open about this type of epilogue.



> Leaving this discussion aside, we have a matter of business to communicate to the reader. At old Roger Chillingworth's decease (which took place within the year), and by his last will and testament, of which Governor Bellingham and the Reverend Mr. Wilson were executors, he bequeathed a very considerable amount of property, both here and in England, to little Pearl, the daughter of Hester Prynne.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Bayview said:


> I don't follow. What do you mean by "except for the nothing significant part"?


What I meant is that we do write every moment of the character's life, except for the parts that aren't significant, and don't move the plot, develop character, or meaningfully set the scene. Story _happens._ The only thing that rates the narrator explaining it is the parts that aren't significant that must be included. Thus we don't show the protagonist having lunch with a friend, or even mention it because it slows the narrative,


----------



## Jay Greenstein

EmmaSohan said:


> Suppose two events are to happen to a family at dinner. There could be a 10-minute break between them, which would require stopping the scene clock. But isn't the conventional choice to have the second event immediately follow the first? That might seem coincidental, but it doesn't stop the scene clock.


In a case like that you usually show a time break with no authorial insertions. If it's short you drop in a white space via an extra return. If longer, you might show it as white space, a centered asterisk or something like it, and another white space. I favor: ° ° ° as a time break, with four of them between chapters. But that's personal taste.


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> What I meant is that we do write every moment of the character's life, except for the parts that aren't significant, and don't move the plot, develop character, or meaningfully set the scene. Story _happens._ The only thing that rates the narrator explaining it is the parts that aren't significant that must be included. Thus we don't show the protagonist having lunch with a friend, or even mention it because it slows the narrative,



Okay, good. So you accept that authors can manipulate "real time" in the name of effectiveness - we can leave out the boring stuff in order to focus on the important stuff. Readers are able to follow the narrative and get emotionally involved in the story even if we manipulate reality in that way. (In fact, it makes it much EASIER for readers to follow the narrative and get emotionally involved.)

So my question is - why do you not accept that this could work in both directions? Sometimes the author will skip time, sometimes the author will stretch time/stop time. Neither technique will automatically cause problems for the reader.


----------

