I stumbled onto myself

After many years of trying to teach myself how to write…experimenting with how I think…after trying to develop words into moving pictures…no though of time, nor conclusion of a story, I have stumbled onto myself by accident. I have five books I could not put down . For some reason unknown to me, I could not considered them complete. Something deep within would not stay silent…just a whispering, “It’s not yet done. It’s not yet done.” They were done, but I had a burning they were not. I was looking right at it, and could not find what it was?
None of my stories have a hero. There is no one character who is the apex in any of my stories. All of my stories have nine, ten, even twenty characters. Whatever the number, and their role in the story, all of my characters have important parts. I use the weather, rocks, dirt, sky, water, animals, smells, sounds as hidden characters.
What I stumbled across today…(realized)… my stories also have layers, which I did not understand I was doing. I can now see the layers clearly. I can now complete the stories I have written.

Here is what I had in one story;

The characters in Naked in West Upton, believed there were ghost in town. (the Indians who lived there 200 years ago.) In the story, whenever something strange happened, the three old timers who always sat on a bench in front of the Drug store would say, “It’s them Indians.” A female character asked the three old timers if there were really ghost in town. They replied, “The Indians think were in the spirit world.” I had completely left out the dead Indians as characters in the story. When I wrote the story, all the (living) characters aged, and died…at the end of the story they all got together after death in the spirit world with the Indians. The layer I had left out, was not showing the dead Indians as characters in the story. I am now sprinkling the complete story with this missing layer.
It has left me wondering, "What else have I missed?"

Domenic,
you make a good point and something to be remembered. I think good stories have a main character, a hero, that the reader is rooting for and there is usually a bad guy that the reader wants to see punished.

Thanks for the reminder.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

It has left me wondering, "What else have I missed?"

Whatever it is, Domenic, you will find it.

As part of my self-education on writing novels, I bubble-diagram and analyze commercially successful ones. I My observation is that most have one main character and a couple of strong secondary ones.

I know it's the norm to have one main character, a side kick...and even a bad guy. But, I've never seen real life like that. I understand non-fiction about a single person. That is not what I was saying. Writing (to me) is in layers. Who we think we are, how others see us, who we want to be, and who we really are. We write on the level we see. We build our characters, and our story on a given level. I have been writing on several levels, and did not know it. Levels have to do with...why we write.

Shelagh,
It has been said, “A writer can’t hide…they are all over their writing.” That is where I want to be.

Quote :

I know it's the norm to have one main character, a side kick...and even a
bad guy. But, I've never seen real life like that. ...
Writing (to me) is in layers. Who we think we are, how others see us,
who we want to be, and who we really are.

Isn't that still about one person, though? Maybe I'm not understanding.

I think the best way to answer that is; Read, Hemingways, "A Farewell to Arms." It is a true story about Hemingway in World war One. He wrote it as fiction. It is a story writen in layers. His love in the story died in his arms...in real live, she was older than him, and left him for a man about her own age...it broke his heart. He changed history to what he wanted it to be. He lost the women in 1915. He wrote A Farewell to Arms in 1929. Years later he told friends about his first great love, and how she died in his arms...did Hemingway understand who Hemingway was?
He was a great writer. He told great stories. I have always felt, If he wrote the truth in A Farewll to Arms...it would have been a better story.

I can't abide the formula approach to writing fiction. It is not for me. It is a case of whatever works for you.
My stories have to take on a life of their own in order to develop.
I like being surprised by my characters and situations.
I do plan my story to a small extent but only as far as the background, plot beginning and end.
The journey from A to B then takes form as the characters develop.
I tend to get inspiration as I write and think about the story.

It would be a little different if the story was historical.
For you LC you have a more ordered approach to writing perhaps because it is a job to you, a means of income (nothing wrong with that at all) so that discipline reflects in the way you work. You are good at it and would likely succeed.

I love telling stories and if I sell a few well that is a bonus. I am not reliant on it for income. It would be nice sure.

Domenic you have to follow your heart your creativity is dependant on it.
The way you work is what best draws out the talent you possess.
We all are learning our craft and adapt ourselves as we go on.

It is who you are that puts the soul in your writing.

Thank you for the insight, Domenic. I like the way you think.

A great story is one that the reader thinks is great. Today's readers are different than readers of other generations. It's difficult to know what will make a commercial success versus what is great literature.

I find modern novels are not my interest. I still fall back to the classics. Therefore, it's hare for me to write a modern, formula novel. The classics were based on characters who develop with the story, surrounded by those who influence them and sufficient background of the setting for the reader to transport themselves into that time.

One thing that a great story seems to require is emotion, drama, and tragedy, hopefully balanced with a measure of joy. Jet, some famous, tragic novels never stop the flow of tears. Others create interest by their fluff. Who's to know for certain?

Isn't that the way of all true art? The artist emotes on the canvas, with words or paint or other means of artistic expression. The artist is part of the work itself. That's what makes it unique.

A reader of Ghost Orchid said to me, " I couldn't put it down. Just about the time I had it figured out, there was a new twist. I started to identify with Roger and create my own ending to the story only to find I was wrong. Once I reached the ending, though, the rest of the pieces started to fall in place and I remembered the clues I had missed. I understood why Neev made the choices she did, followed the path she took. I felt her pain for the missing pieces in her life that the mystery of the ghost orchid seemed to gather together for her.

However, it wasn't until I walked her path at Corkscrew Swamp that I fully understood. The life force in the Everglades has a power that was defined in the story yet fully lives in experiencing that setting.

Ghost Orchid was an inspired book - words on a canvas that arose from the setting itself. How can you write a formula story when the story writes itself?

I know a good story will allow "every" reader to see their self in one of the characters. Those who have read the Bible know everyone can see a great part of who they are in one of the twelve Apostles. Even if a writer is not into the Bible, they will find it is a good teacher when it comes to character match for readers. You have a reader who will follow your work if they see their self in a character.
This is the main reason I never have just a hero, and a bad guy. It is also why I never, never, just follow my story to see where it's going. I want to lead the reader along within on of my characters.
Fiction is about, "Taking the reader on a trip, not yourself."