# Writing with Emotional Focus



## ShadowEyes (Dec 2, 2014)

I started reading Thomas H. Uzzell’s 1934 revised textbook Narrative Technique mainly because the Amazon review for it promised writing facets “not even mentioned anywhere else.” So today I’d like to mention what I found so far.

Mr. Uzzell describes writing as akin to any other art, except for the fact that its interest, the activities of humans and human psychology, were only first considered (unlike many other arts) in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century:

“Psychology, the science which helps us understand the writer and his materials, is less than a half century old, and it only just beginning to assume a formulated and usable shape. (xvii) … The materials of these other arts – space, forms, colors and sounds – differ among themselves far less than do the materials of narrative – instincts, impulses, dreams, passions, pathological inhibitions, and the innumerable individual traits acquired by every mature individual.” (xviii)

All this to say that, while the application of the materials, the technique of writing, is amorphous, its procedure requires just as much effort and practice as any other science or art. I’ve wondered if plotting and pantsing were a false dichotomy, such that they each require components of the other:  focus and excitement respectively. However, Mr. Uzzell suggests (far beyond my doubts) that plotting is essential, at least, to beginning writers to understand their craft.

He says, “The fiction writers who begin a story without knowing how it is going to end, who can’t tell whether a given ‘idea’ is good for a novel or a story, who, baffled by the problem of how best to open a given story, pore over the pages of classical authors seeking a model – such writers are playing by ear. Writers who have taught themselves to plan before they writer, to understand clearly the technical differences between stories and novels, the basic principles involved in all types of story beginnings – such writers play by note and immeasurable is their advantage over the ear-performers.” (xxx)

He goes on to state that some “purposes” for writing are “defective,” such as purposes which try to show off or pose, to write strictly for oneself, or to expect writing to come as easily as reading. He reminds the reader that “the audience is a most vital part of your technical literary purpose.” (24) And what shall we do for the audience? Why, make them feel emotions, of course.

One of the problems I’ve had with writing was that I did not understand _how emotional effects have to be singular in unity_. Mr. Uzzell notes that short stories should bring about a singular “dominant” (65) emotional effect, such as pity, horror, amusement, irony, etc.  (This was a great relief to me; finally I understood why my stories seemed to go all over the place, why I couldn’t keep focus.) He surmises:  “If we can’t blend … effects, the effects stand alone; and if they stand alone, all that you can say of carrying out your artistic purpose is that you have produced narrative with given materials which has an emotional results of [in this case] one-third the power it should have. In trying to grasp all the effects possible, we have really grasped none.” (52)

He continues that the single emotional effect is wise (53), pleasurable (54), high art (57), and conducive to mastery (59). But the single dominant effect does not mean that the effect is “pure.” “Complex emotions are combinations of simpler ones. Pity, for instance, is an emotion compounded of sympathy and despair. Irony is a combination of tragedy and amusement. Jealousy is a compound of love and anger or hatred.” (65)

However, since readers get bored easily and the mind wanders, elements of the single effect (or how they are presented) are varied, or the effect itself is varied (hence also why chapter breaks are employed). (73) The latter is where we delve into novels rather than short stories. “The short story is unified by its single effect; but there are other ways to secure unity, one of which is by organizing the material of the story itself. … Its unity is the subject matter.” (74) He presents that novels are like multiple short stories in that the effects are drawn along a “narrative thread” (72), but end and re-appear continuously till the climax, where most threads may converge, or “pyramid.” The short story strives for one convergence. He concludes that unity of subject matter and effect would make the story even more effective (76).

What do you think? Is this typical writing instruction; is it antiquated; is it spot-on? I’ve found that writing with this sort of focus and attention to detail improves my writing drastically, mainly because I’m thinking about it more.

Thank you.


----------



## Smith (Dec 2, 2014)

Wow! This was very mind-opening. It is true that I do a little bit of both "writing by the ear" and "by the note", as I think he called it. In any case, through constant practice and reading I'll continue to improve. What he had to say about emotion was specifically enlightening, and helped me see where I've been going wrong.

With writing, since it does have so much to do with the individual mind, I don't find his advice universal. But for me, personally, it helped, and I agree with most of it. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Dec 2, 2014)

Smith said:


> In any case, through constant practice and reading I'll continue to improve.



I think the fact that you're excited about it is exactly the point. These kind of "effect studies," he says, are meant to increase discipline, power, and skill. This can be achieved by taking any setting and describing it as it relates to a function of that place, perhaps with conflict (heat, cold, dreary rain). Then you can move up to a character who manifests his/herself in that setting (loves it, hates it) and a general _effect _on the reader (disapproval, pity, admiration). Then describe character, setting, and conflict together with a further notion of effect (example:  a man who loves the sea with an appropriate setting and a dominating effect of romance).

You can do this for any snippet of writing, too. Observe it, study its detail, its effect, and then re-write it while showing the elements as disparate as possible, with the effect as near as possible to the original. Or, if that's too difficult, keep the characters, but change the setting.

All of these exercises are at the end of the second chapter detailing the unifying effect. 

P.S.  I've also found that focusing on emotions really grounds whichever characters I come up with in this practice, which is a great help for fantasy writing (as I sometimes get caught up in trying to make exotic "cool" characters.)


----------



## ppsage (Dec 2, 2014)

I liked reading this. It created in me a considered response to a deeper and more nuanced situation than I first anticipated. I probably won't purchase Uzzell, but I'll see if he's on Wikipedia to find where his thinking fits in. I wonder if there's an emotion for the realization of psychology's awful complication? That's the problem I see immediately, at least from this brief review, building this into a complicated enough expression to be at all realistic.


----------



## Apex (Dec 2, 2014)

ShadowEyes said:


> I started reading Thomas H. Uzzell’s 1934 revised textbook Narrative Technique mainly because the Amazon review for it promised writing facets “not even mentioned anywhere else.” So today I’d like to mention what I found so far.
> 
> Mr. Uzzell describes writing as akin to any other art, except for the fact that its interest, the activities of humans and human psychology, were only first considered (unlike many other arts) in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century:
> 
> ...



DITTO


----------



## escorial (Apr 19, 2015)

enjoyed the pov and the style it was delivered in


----------



## KayHeart (Jul 31, 2015)

Interesting read and sparked growth in me as a writer. Easy to read and resulted in gainful knowledge. Thanks for posting this!

Kheart xx


----------

