On a need to know basis...

One of my favourite things about taking writing workshops with school children is finding those brilliant examples or summarising phrases that capture a 'truth' about writing. My favourite at a class yesterday came during a discussion about setting. Plenty of writers provide more setting than the story needs. Plenty of writers provide too much detail that bogs the story down when the reader just wants to know what happens next. Sometimes we do it to show off how much research was done, sometimes it's because we feel the need to provide this really detailed complete picture 'cos it looks great. Sometimes its a substitue for plot - look at all my shiny fabulous world building, doesn't it feel real, even though all my characters are just standing round doin' nothin'. But folks, setting should be included on a 'need to know basis'. If it isn't relevant, you probably don't need it. In my latest novel on which I have just completed a little rewrite and spruce up and which is to be published this December I worried quite a bit about how little setting I provide. I kept writing and wondering and worrying, but the story just didn't demand more setting than I was giving. Sure you know what time of day it is and what season. You know where you are in terms of home or school or the skate park or a friend's place. But there is little additonal detail about the town the story is located in and barely anything about the country. It wasn't relevant to the story. It felt wrong to add it. Rather than advancing the plot or explaining the change in the character it got in the way.

There are times when a lot of information about setting is necessary. From the size and length of that mountain range to the way the locals produce their food. If you create a new world, we won't know anything about it except what you tell us. Go for broke and build that world. But the 'need to know basis' rule still applies. If you story is set in the past or the future, then we will need to know how the world worked/works to understand how the characters behave in it. But the 'need to know basis' rule still applies. And one of the weird-ass phenomenons of writing is that all that extra detail that you thought of or researched or developed, that you have to leave out because it isn't relevant to the action and doesn't propel the story along acts like the bit of an iceberg that sits below the water. Although the reader only reads the visible bit above the water line they sense the bit below the water. Because that bit below the water informs the visible bit above and even though you don't get to spell it out, it has influenced what you did choose to put in and the reader can tell. It supports the credibility of your story and you know if some kid ever asks you to explain that bit in your story you WILL know the answer because it was something you thought about even though it never made it to the final version.

What will I do for the rest of the year without Harry...

I was looking forward to the November release of the next Harry Potter movie (HP and the Half Blood Prince) and felt pretty grumpy when I learned it was being held back til the middle of next year, apparently for commercial reasons. As much as I revere The Dark Knight, I'm afraid its partly responsible as it earned a million simollions on its mid year release this year and as the writers strike has left the film industry a little movie-lite for the middle of next year HP jumped into the mega-buck-opportunity providing breach. With no more books in the series, having the movie delayed seriously compromises the R n'R plans I'd made for what remains of 2008. I will just have to console myself with James Bond instead.

I have at least been cheered by the ongoing efforts of our Kiwi Olympians. Still trending up from all the fourth place showings at the last games, we now have a slew of bronzes. I like where this is going and look forward to London 2012 when we should be in the silver medal position for everything. Don't for one minute think I am dissing third place. Having watched a range of events I respect everyone who actually makes it to the games as a competitor in the first place. These are mostly people who have put just about every other aspect of their lives on hold to train right, eat right and mentally prepare themselves to battle it out on the day. When you think that many events are only of a few minutes duration, some even less then that, it blows my mind that people make so many sacrifices in the hope they will come first, second or third. Kind of puts into perspective all the difficulties of the writing business. Sure, I work for hours to maybe earn about ten cents an hour if my book is accepted, nothing for all that effort if its not, but I can write for years, I can still do other things, and I get to eat chocolate if i want to.

I've been a little worried the last few days. My current WIP is looking a bit setting-lite. In my last two novels (Jack the Viking and his sequel) the setting was kind of a character in itself. It was essential to maintain a sense of setting both in Jack's modern location and back in the time of the Vikings. Contrasting the two times was something I wanted to explore but I also needed a clear image of the Viking period to background Jack's emotional state and the changes he experienced. Now with the new story, place doesn't have a key role and as I progress, the characters dominate and I find, while I know where they are, the setting refuses to assert itself. I'm not sure whether this is a problem or not? But I have the feeling I should decide on this now. If i have to write more on setting after the first draft is finished i might be making a large and difficult job for myself. What do you think?