I read this morning (my morning, which can begin basically at any point of day or night, not the normal morning)
an article in Dave Steffen's e-zine,
Diabolical Plots, which begins thus:
"The most compelling stories draw the reader in, leaving the body in a trance, as you immerse completely into a character’s mind."
Thinking about it I realized how much I dislike the idea served to aspiring writers that their stories should be compelling. It's one of the phrases that, as Gary Cuba noted somewhere, tend to be repeated in workshops over and over ... I'm pretty sure David heard it, or read it, in a workshop too. I read it in numerous critiques to workshopped stories, "it doesn't compel me to read further ..."
I think I answered with that too a couple of times.
And we are told, there are ways to make sure that your story is compelling! Plot outlines and techniques, which really don't have anything to do with improving the literary quality of your work, or the story. They have to do with finding the comfort zone of your audience and staying there. Oh, that is very useful. There are actors that do that too - they are called 'easy actors.' I suppose that there are examples in any artistic craft of people doing it. Because, truth to tell, it does pay well. For an actor, I mean, which I actually did professionally, and it appears that it pays for writers too, because the magazines are full of 'compelling' stories.
The annoying thing is that most of them have nothing to say. I read too many stories where the prose is beautiful, the writing is top-quality, the 'compelling technique' is present, but the stories don't have a point. The author doesn't actually have anything interesting to say. These stories leave me mind whistling the moment I read the word 'end.' And all I get is the 'morning after' feeling of having another part of my life wasted. (But thanks to the
Torque Control's Short Story Club, at least I know that I'm not the only one feeling this way.)
I have a question, to anyone who happens to read this article (hello, coffee, tea, a mind-enslaving story?), do you only read a story if you find it compelling? You don't buy books if they don't hold the promise of addiction medicine on the back cover?
Because I really don't want to compel anyone. LIKE. I just want them to like the stories. That's a more honest approach to this relation, writer - reader, because you know, there's no weird enslaving stuff going on around it. I tell a story, you like it, read it. No addiction here. No side effects if you can't finish. Stories shouldn't produce withdrawal symptoms. If you don't find interesting what I have to say, I won't trick you into listening.
I remember when I did it. I was in a play and I had the audience applaud after every one of my scenes. Man, that felt pretty cool. And I could do it each and every performance. I had a trick, I had my 'compelling technique' and I felt pretty darn smart about it. Here's what I did: I paid attention to the audience. Discreetly, of course. Stage actors feel their audience and you can always sneak a look too. And I always tried to see if they're bored, or edgy, or smiling, or ready to laugh, and I pretty much delivered what I thought they needed. Most of the times I was guessing correctly, and that was enough. There wasn't much of a part anymore, what I did, since you're not building a character if you're acting on the audience demands instead of the work of the playwright and the director. But you can still fool a lot of people. We had a live band on that play, three guys who sang hanging somewhere over the stage. Every time they told me that I had them laughing so badly that they couldn't play properly. But they should have known that it was wrong.
It was pure cheating.
And I'm really sorry that I didn't actually play the part. I think I would have been good.
So, yeah, I wouldn't like to try something like that with my writing. I mean, not that I could pull it out, but I simply don't want to learn it.
Oh, and all this has nothing to do with Dave's article, which is about POV's.
