Tactica Literati

[fet]

In order to resurrect REFUSE's idea of having a mighty set of tactica for Slaanesh (and partially to deflect interest from the neverending battle over the sonic weapons vs. tank hunters debate) I figured I should put some of my thoughts into this particular area. Being a writer and literature academic myself, I feel qualified to do so.

 

This of course, like my Tactica Iconoclastica, applies to any army, it's not limited in any way to Slaanesh (or even power armour).

 

Right, this is a huge topic, so I'll break it down into sections; let's call them 'Chapters' :unsure:

 

Chapter One: First Issues (Things to Avoid)

Chapter Two: A Note on Modern Literary Theory

Chapter Three: Structure

Chapter Four: Plot

Chapter Five: Characters and Characterisation

Chapter Six: Style

Chapter Seven: Presentation

 

Before we begin, however, I'd like to direct you to The Turkey City Lexicon. This is something of a guide, or bible, for Sci-fi writers (and should, in my opinion, be the same for all writers), put together so that people running teaching courses would be able to hand it out. Handy stuff. Righto then, on we go...

 

Chapter One: First Issues (Things to Avoid)

Incorrect Spelling :cuss

This is the biggy. The great grandpappy of all problems in everything. I'll bet that if everyone could spell there would be no hunger in the world, let alone war or inbreeding. The problem is not just that it grates (which it does. Oh, so very painfully-- like a chalkboard in my eyes), but that very often it removes sense: the reader has to make a concerted effort to read the passage. Now, a typo every now and again I can tolerate, I even empathise- my own keyboard skills are far slower than my brain (damn it!). But poor spelling utterly kills any joy in literature.

 

I used to teach at university, and the first thing that made me want to fail someone was poor spelling. It's especially embrassing (for the student) if they can't spell the name of an author they're writing an essay on. But really, spelling isn't that hard at all. Run it through Microsoft Word's spellchecker, then read over it again. Microsoft's spellchecker is pretty inadequate (for some reason it recognises the name 'Rodriguez' but not 'Shakespeare'), but it will catch 90% of your typos, most of your spelling errors, and will at least direct you to check your spelling on a few other words. Reading over it again is absolutely essential, just to be sure you got all the mistakes.

 

Please please please please get the gods' names right. Slaanesh is the one most people slip up on: two 'a's, one 'n', one 'e'. Got it?

 

Non-Stop Action/Excessive 'Then' Syndrome

Life is not just a list of actions: there are motivations, thoughts, feelings, and so on. This particular syndrome is usually the refuge of the young writer, and also of the inexperienced. It's a pretty basic problem, and easily identified: if you feel the constant need to put 'then' at the start of your sentences: you are infected. Pop three leeches under your tongue and call the doctor in the morning.

 

Dialogue

Not that I'm against dialogue, some writers use it wonderfully (Graham Greene, John Steinbeck, etc.), but if you read the majority of truly fabulous authors (such as Virginia Woolf, Salman Rushdie, Italo Calvino, etc.) you'll find that they frequently do not use it. Some (Rushdie esp.) use a volume of dialogue, but insert it in an unspoken manner; that is, indirect speech. Dialogue is a feeble excuse for constructing a narrative.

 

The big problem with writing dialogue in 40K is that it all sounds horribly cliched. It's always full of 'yes, Lord' and 'thy will be done', or 'engage target alpha; terminate with extreme prejudice', and so on. Bloody dull. You'd be better off writing something like this as 'Phaedron bowed before his Lord, intoning the ritual acquiescences.' That took me all of 13 seconds to compose and, IMNSHO, sounds at least 30 mintues better.

 

Mewling Spawn <_<

If there is one great evil, one cataract from which all crap GW literature is spawned: it is this. Spawn are always 'mewling.' Have a quick look through a few Chaos fluff pieces in WD; odds are that, if a spawn features, it 'mewls.' What sort of utter bollocks is this? Who, which among you, wants their spawn to 'mewl' like a cat? Anyone? Nope, didn't think so. Have them thrashing, howling, defecating, sodomising, screaming, cackling, anything but mewling.

 

Chapter Two: A Note on Modern Literary Theory

If you're interested in this sort of thing you might like to skip ahead to Chapter Three. This bit is entirely optional, and mostly for interest.

 

Back in the mid-1920s there was a Russian theorist, Vladimir Propp, who realised after decades of study that all fables and myths were, essentially, identical. Every story could be reduced to a few basic 'elements' (although he called them functions or, occasionally, 'motifemes'), such as 'hero,' 'sorcerer,' 'magic item,' etc. It was solely the arrangement and selection of these functions that determined what story was being told. All up, Propp identified 13 distinct functions and stipulated that all fables could be constructed by mixing and matching.

 

The problem with this theory, as realised by a French theorist called Claude Levi-Strauss, was that it did not take the variables into account. the variables are the aspect of the function that determines where the fable comes from. For example, the name 'Odysseus' (variable) as opposed to 'Hero' (function) or 'Trickster' (enlightened function). Levi-Strauss argued that the fable lost all meaning if it was stripped back to functions, and that there was, hence, little point in doing so.

 

This is where the writer Italo Calvino comes in. In his novel The Castle of Crossed Destinies the characters arrive at a castle only to discover that they are mute. In order to tell their stories they are given a pack of tarot cards which, when placed upon the table in the correct order, express more than the simple images on each card. The point of the novel is that Propp is right- all stories can be broken down into functions; and Levi-Strauss is also correct- the story without context is pointless. The overall concept essential here is that each function has a thousand interpretations, originality lies not in your structure, but in your telling.

 

Anyone get the moral of that (excessively academic) story? :(

 

Chapter Three: Structure

Anyone who did read Chapter Two should, by now, understand that this is possibly the least original part of the story. There is little to nothing here that has not been done before, and done better.

 

The structure of your fluff-piece should be relative to the amount you intend to write. If you just want a short piece, you don't need to think too hard about structure, as you probably don't have room for much anyway. It need not, however, be as vast as you intend your piece to be. Some truly glorious novels are based on incredibly simple structures.

 

The term structure is a loose and awkward one. It does not mean plot. The term refers to the order in which you tell your story; that is, start to finish, cubist-style, epic, whatever. I'll list a few of these now:

 

Standard

The obvious start at the start, finish at the end, the middle where you expect it. Usually consists of Introduction, Body, Climax, Conclusion. Easy structure to follow.

Example novels: pretty much all of them.

 

Cubist

Oooh, this one's tough. Cubist structures jump around a lot, displaying scenes that are not necessarily directly related to the overall narrative, but expose elements of it from many perspectives. Probably not ideal for GW fluff-pieces, but surprisingly under-utilised in sci-fi in general.

Example novels: Calvino's Invisible Cities, Michael Ondaatje's In the Skin of a Lion, Alain Robbe-Grillet's Jealousy.

 

Epic

The great grandaddy of structures and, IMHO, the best. Epic structure begins at the middle of the story, usually at a point of great significance. From there it jumps back to the beginning and tells the story through in a normal manner, exposing the middle again (albeit usually from a slightly different perspective), and then through to show the consequences of the middle. Brilliant. There's actually a bit more to the epic structure, but that's the basic gist, and certainly all you need to know for writing a modern novel in epic form.

Examples: Homer's Odyssey, Milton's Paradise Lost, Salman Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet.

 

Truncated

This form of structure is similar to the standard structure, in that the narrative is usually chronological. It doesn't usually, however, consist of the usual 'climax' and 'conclusion'. Instead, it simply tells a story, and the point of the narrative is to be gleaned from what has occured, how people react to situations, etc. It often makes for very rewarding tales, where the reader is left for hours afterwards contemplating the issues and theories that the writer is attempting to convey.

Example novels: Graham Greene's The Human Factor, John Steinbeck's Cannery Row.

 

Complex Structures

These aren't structures in themselves, per se, rather they are purposes to which structures are put. I'll just list a couple of them to give you some ideas.

 

Allegory

This is a narrative which attempts to espouse some greater idea. It's a very popular form in sci-fi, especially among the great writers. Philip K. Dick, for instance, wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (later made into Bladerunner) which asks at what point something artificial becomes human and, by logical extension, what is it to be human? To Your Scattered Bodies Go, by Philip Jose Farmer, asks how people would react if the only afterlife was manmade, how would people behave if they knew there was no heaven or hell, etc.

Example Novels: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, To Your Scattered Bodies Go, C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.

 

Palimpsest

This is a narrative that is based on another narrative, a rewriting of the original. Often it is used to bring older concerns into a modern age, asking if they are still relevant, etc. Often retellings of biblical or mythical stories. It's a fun structure, and well suited to sci-fi, although woefully under-represented.

Example texts: Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet.

 

Chapter Four: Plot

Having come this far you must realise that it's no good writing a story if you haven't got any idea what is meant to happen. Your plot needn't be original, or terribly exciting: your stylistic flourishes are what will make the story readable, not just the list of actions that your characters perform (or have performed upon them...).

 

A good plot is, in essence, very simple. Those who read Chapter Two should realise that all plots have been done before, you can't do anything new this way. What you can do it create an interesting method of presenting it. But you must have a plot. To be truthful, not all great novels actually have plots, but I doubt GW fluff-pieces will get anywhere without them.

 

In summary, your plot is nothing more than a list of events. For a reliable plot stick with the standard: scenario, crisis, resolution. That is, place your characters in a situation that leads inevitably to a problem, then detail how they resolve themselves (if at all) of this problem. Good, basic, dependable.

 

Chapter Five: Characters and Characterisation

This is possibly the toughest area for any writer (well, I always found it the hardest) as you are dealing with figures that are, for all intents and purposes, human. Though they are seven foot tall, muscle-bound, genetically engineered behemoths, they must react as humans. The simplest way of ensuring that you maintain consistent characterisations is to base each major character on someone you know. Preferably if you know them well. In this instance you will then know how that character will react to certain situations. It is in characterisation that the old writers' adage 'Write about what you know' is most apt.

 

In terms of presenting your characters to the reader there are a few pitfalls to avoid, most of which are listed in the Turkey City Lexicon so I won't repeat them here. What I shall state is to remember that a person is not solely what they do and say, but also how they think, react, move and more. Try to expose this to the reader. There are few characters more boring than the 2-dimensional Chaos Lord who is filled with hate (why?), absurdly powerful (how did he gain such power, what did it cost him?) and fixated on an arch-nemesis (who is this nemesis to the Lord? Why the hell do they care so much? Why do they react in this specific way to their nemesis?). As you can see, it takes very little thought to flesh a boring character out into a simple character. A fully developed character a far more difficult proposition, that can only be truly exposed to the reader through a careful melding of structure, style and characterisation.

 

Chapter Six: Style

Another Russian theorist, by the name of Shklovsky, wrote an article in the 1920s (IIRC, I don't have my copy handy) entitled 'Art as Technique'. In this, he asserted that any writing without style is not art. That is, if style is ignored then a shopping list is as valid as a poem. This might seem a bit wanky of me, but I'm a poet as well as a general writer. There is nothing wrong with writing a well-turned phrase; by this I do not mean using adjectives liberally, I mean constructing an interesting image/personification/alliteration/other poetic device. It is this manner of writing that differentiates two identical stories: which is the better written.

 

For instance, I could write:

'Jarek's chainsword cut into the mutant, a gout of blood pouring from the wound before Jarek's boot smashed its jaw.'

Or, I could write

'The demonic scream of the beast at the tip of Jarek’s chainsword seemed to herald the night as its blood spilled out through the savage wound in its chest. It collapsed, struggling briefly against death, before the solid mass of Jarek’s boot smashed its inhuman jaw.'

Which do you think is better?

 

Perspective

Style also incorporates perspective, of which there are a few main types:

 

Eye of God

An infallible narrator who sees all and knows all. Most common kind in sci-fi. rather dull.

 

Limited Eye of God

The narrator does not know everything, but frequently knows most things about a single (main) character. Is able to note said character's thoughts, but not most others. Treat the narrator as if they are an intangible character and you should get it right.

 

First Person

The narrator is the main character. Very rare in sci-fi, more common in postmodernism.

 

Second Person

Don't go here. The main character is YOU. Kind of like a pick-a-path method of narration. There has to my knowledge been only one good novel written in second person. That person is not you. Don't bother trying.

 

Chapter Seven: Presentation

Far more important than anyone ever seems to realise. On the net, especially forums, take into account the colour of text you are using. Some people like to mix it up, but it usually pays to stick with default colours (which are the default colours because they're easy to read). Another point to remember is to use spacing between paragraphs. If I see a fluff-piece that is a single solid block of text, I'm probably not going to read it-- it looks like way too much effort.

 

It's pretty basic really, stick to a nice reader-friendly format and you'll almost certainly get more feedback.

 

Right, well that's it from me (for now) hopefully this will be of some use to would-be writers and fluff-junkies alike. Mostly, of course, I hope I've educated a few of you on the different forms that fluff can take, and the sheer versatility of fiction writing.

 

Comments, criticisms, witticisms?

 

fet

[Zaemie]

Just two things:

 

1.) Your lysdexic keyboard struck again; versatility near the end of the piece, and there was one in the middle that I can't find now. Oh, yeah, and 'typos' is spelled typos, or at least it is in Australia.

 

2.) This is great. I'm printing out a copy for future reference. Thank you.

 

++edit++ just fixing my own keyboard's lysdexic typos ++edit++

[fet]

Just two things:

 

1.) Your lysdexic keyboard struck again; versatility near the end of the piece, and there was one in the middle that I can't find now.

[Chaplain Lazarus]

Just did a quick check, the root of 'type' is Greek, so the plural would indeed be 'typos'. Fixing this now...

Dude, you scare me :wacko:

 

The guide's very helpful. I'll print it out later for further reference, too (could be a trend coming up).

[No Fake]

Impressive, that was an interesting piece to read. Thanks for sharing :wacko:

[Razhmann Scarface]

It's good to know there are others out there that are intrested in the fluff side of things, rather than "Here's-my-army-list-here's-the-models-here's-the-rules-let's-get-battling".

Those who know me will tell me that I only view things this way because I am such a useless gamer, but what do they know?

Thanks for the guide!

[JaM_TW]

Very nice.... even for those (myself for instance :rolleyes: ) who have English as a second language. Indeed, worthy of printing and keeping as a reference !!

[Aurelius Rex]

A very interesting read, Fet, one which I think deserves wider circulation.

 

Have you considered posting this on Amicus, as the loyalists could do with this advice too. :rolleyes:

 

I hope the mods will deem this worthy of a sticky, or inclusion in the archives.

[fet]

I'm glad you people are enjoying this, makes me feel fuzzy and perverse inside <_<

 

I had contemplated posting this elsewhere, but in the end I was lazy; I only really visit the PC&A and Ruinous Powers sections so....

 

fet

[refuse]

I try not to get fet too sticky.

[fet]

I try not to get fet too sticky.

It's the safest option. I'm easily excitable. <_<

 

fet

[Aurelius Rex]

Cool! My suggestion to make this a stickypost got granted.

 

Lets see... I also think that everyone should give me large amounts of cash!

 

(Waits)

 

Eh, worth a shot.

 

 

 

Fet, I liked the Turkey City Lexicon, but it seemed to be a list of pitfalls not to fall into. Is there a site or book that you can recommend that gives hints on do's rather than don'ts? (Other than your article above of course.)

[fet]

Generally 'Do' guides are frowned upon, as it tends to homogenise literature, i.e. make it all come out the same, or similar enough to lack interest. However, the TCL does have some points that are 'Do's, although they're poorly worded and appear to be 'Don't's. the Mrs Brown character is one, as is the eyeball kick. These are both very good bits of advice.

 

The only real 'Do's I can think of are to plan it out in advance (Not too much, though, keep it open), and to read lots. The more you read, and the wider you read, the greater your udnerstanding of literature is.

 

Margaret Atwood (The Blind Assassin, The Handmaid's Tale, etc.) once said that writing was like being in a dark room you're familiar with, but someone has moved the furniture. That is, you know what's in the room (characters, plot outlines, etc.), but the act of writing is you stumbling around discovering what else is there and how it's arranged. The more realistic and lifelike your characters are, the more successful this approach is. Never try to tie your characters down, allow them to make decisions that might surprise you: it makes them better characters.

 

I'm discovering this at the moment as I'm working on my first full-length novel (not sci-fi, sorry :wub: )

 

Hope that helps...

 

fet

[axabrax]

Oy vay! Any writer who would need this much instruction to write well probably shouldn't be a writer in the first place. The way to learn how to write well is to read voraciously and to be gifted by the muses. I've yet to encounter a great historical writer who was the offspring of a Creative Writing program. You're either born a Milton or a Joyce or your a poet-taster. Systematization kills the muse and promotes writer's block. Points about ettiquette, grammar, and spelling are well taken however. Also remember that Fantasy and Sci-Fi are much maligned genres because so much tripe has been written by "professionals" like Gav Thorpe, William Shatner, and every author who ever wrote a D&D novel.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Ax

[nite_moogle]

I just want to throw in that this post is more helpful than anything I learned in high school or college about writing.

[SCC]

Very helpful, very helpful indeed, though my Doctor said next time I was to ignore your advice and not take the leeches... ;)

 

I'd echo Aurelius' comments and ask that you post this in Amicus, I don't usually wander down here ( I think it's all the Nurglings, they tickle :) ) and never would have seen it if Refuse hadn't linked to it from a thread in Amicus...

 

Oh, I couldn't agree with you more about poor spelling, instead of finding the Bible in the drawer of a bedside table when you visit a hotel it should be a Dictionary :cuss

 

++edit++

 

Forgot to ask:

 

Second Person

Don't go here. The main character is YOU. Kind of like a pick-a-path method of narration. There has to my knowledge been only one good novel written in second person. That person is not you. Don't bother trying.

 

What is it? Who wrote it?

[fet]

Thanks for your comments Axabrax, and entirely true. But this was never intended to help people to write novels (I should have been clearer on this), but more for people wanting to write some nice, interesting fluff-pieces.

 

And SCC-- the book is Italo Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveller, and it's well worth a read. Fabulous book.

 

I shall contemplate posting this in Amicus at some point. Maybe.

 

fet

[SCC]

And SCC-- the book is Italo Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveller, and it's well worth a read. Fabulous book.

 

I shall contemplate posting this in Amicus at some point. Maybe.

 

fet

I'll buy it if you post this in Amicus... :cuss

 

Actually I'll probably buy it anyway, I'm intrigued to say the least, but still, I think many folks over in Amicus could benefit from your essay, if I may title it such.

 

Now I need to say thanks for the writing advice and thanks for the reading advice.

 

SCC

[Master Jeridian]

I have to agree this is a very helpful thread/ post.

It has crushed my naive hopes of producing a decent novel when I'm guilty of so many of those errors, though letting my characters speak is one error I'll fight for.

 

Also I can't agree with the idea that all stories are the same, so don't bother trying to be original bit (how loose are these keywords/ structures- can't remember what u called them, are they as loose as 'All story's take part in a universe?').

 

Apart from that all good, not using 'then' is one of the few things I was already aware off.

 

My advice to writers (which is pretty inferior compared to Fet's) is:

 

Whenever you are about to write 'then' try to use a different word: suddenly, amazingly, some words without 'ly' at the end...

 

Also when you come to write 'said' try to use different words instead: ordered, shouted, barked, etc.

 

Never use 'then' and 'said' they're the words you used in primary school/elementary stories.

[fet]

Actually I'll probably buy it anyway, I'm intrigued to say the least, but still, I think many folks over in Amicus could benefit from your essay, if I may title it such.

The book's well worth it. I have a friend who has claimed that it's the best book in the english language (which is amusing, as it was originally in Italian).

 

Master Jeridian: the stuff I talked about ('elements' and 'functions') are extremely simple basic units. For example 'hero' and 'quest'. This was the level I was talking about when I said originality is redundant. When you consider that a list of thirteen functions can compose any story written in any language when ordered and repeated correctly...

 

The point of that statement was that you might like to rip off a basic plot from Star Wars (it was ripped off one of the simplest structures of all).

 

Also, to amend your point about 'then' and 'said'. Instead of simply going to the thesaurus (which becomes rather obvious), try rephrasing. Much more effective to my mind, and can lead to some interesting turns of phrase. 'Said' and 'then' still have their place, of course.

 

fet

[Gondlir the Wandbearer]

This is definitely good stuff. I'm going to save a copy of this as well.

 

On a related note: Fez, could I bother you to ask if you read a bit of fluff I wrote for my (fantasy) dwarf army? It's basically my first more or less serious attempt at writing some fiction, and as an exercise I think it turned out OK.

I've received mostly good responses to it, but I would be greatly interested to hear what a professional has to say about it. I think I managed to avoid most of the obvious pitfalls, at least.

It's still only a bit of fluff for an army though, so there's not much point in telling that it falls short of Homer; I know that. I would, however, like to know if it's bad fluff, good fluff, great fluff, and whether I could get any good as a writer with (a lot of) practice.

[Master Jeridian]

the stuff I talked about ('elements' and 'functions') are extremely simple basic units. For example 'hero' and 'quest'. This was the level I was talking about when I said originality is redundant. When you consider that a list of thirteen functions can compose any story written in any language when ordered and repeated correctly...

 

I guess... It's a bit like fortune telling, if the elements and functions are vague enough they'll apply to anyone who's having their fortune told (depending on how gullible they are).

 

 

Anyway, 2nd Person? Is that where you talk about the main character as though you where an eye witness?

 

My view of story types (and this is with basic English knowledge) was:

 

1st Person- I, we, etc. You write as the main character.

2nd Person- ?

3rd Person- They, he. You write as the narrator observing the events.

Others- ?

[fet]

On a related note: Fez, could I bother you to ask if you read a bit of fluff I wrote for my (fantasy) dwarf army? It's basically my first more or less serious attempt at writing some fiction, and as an exercise I think it turned out OK.

It's fet, actually :) , but I'd be happy to read over it for you. PM it to me (or PM a link or something), and I'll get onto it.

 

Master Jeridian:

 

2nd person is 'you', kinda like a pick a path story. That sort of narration. As you can imagine, this is bloody difficult.

You're basically right on the others, though. 1st person singular= 'I'; 2nd person singular/plural= 'you'; third person singular= 'he/she/it'; 1st person plural= 'we'; third person plural= 'they'

[Lord Pestilence]

Nice peice of work how long did it take you?

[Olis]

Very nice, Fet. I appreciate those pointers in your article. Considering I am an amateur, it helps a fair bit. I kinda needed help on structuring and plot anyway. Thanks!

 

Oh, got meself a copy too. :P