Fiction versus Non-Fiction: They Don't Require the Same Skills

 

     I am trying to migrate from blogs to Substack newsletters. If these blogs/newsletters are of any interest to you then please sign up for a free (or paid) subscription. The blogs will probably go away at some point. Thank you.

Click here to subscribe at end of newsletter.

    I am a very good technical writer (according to both sales and professional critics). I am trying to expand into the area of fiction — particularly novels. I find that the two have quite separate needs for skills. In fact, they require almost opposing skills (it is certainly possible for an author to be skilled in both sets).

Now, this newsletter is NOT meant to be a discussion of writing skills. There are many good (and great) books on that. Stephen King’s “On Writing” is one of the best in my opinion. Ray Bradbury’s “Zen in the Art of Writing” is another very good one. There are others that specialize in a particular type of writing (screenplays, children’s books, mysteries, etc.) This newsletter does not substitute for any of those. It is an attempt to call out the skills needed for each type of writing.

What is the purpose of a book? In the area of non-fiction, it is to help you to learn about something — to impart knowledge from those who already have it to those who want to learn. In the area of fiction, it is to create a world. This world will have characters (humans, feline, aliens, …) and an environment (physical, emotional, spiritual, … space). And something will happen with those characters in that environment.

I would further divide the realm of non-fiction writing into the areas of technical and explorative non-fiction. In both areas, the writer wants to convey information. In the technical area, a desire for clarity and conciseness is needed. The writer takes a broad area of knowledge and passes it along to the reader in as few words as is needed to give the reader adequate, accurate, information. If you asked a reader to give a book report on the technical book, there would be a rephrasing of the topic of the book but a summary would be difficult as the content is already a summary of the information.

Explorative non-fiction takes a topic and tries to arouse the interest and enthusiasm of the reader. Once upon a time, that might have included made-up dialog and scenarios (especially for biographies). Now, such additions may relegate the book to the fiction shelves. Still, by proper imagery and description, a book about an event in the past can be inspiring (or heartbreaking) to the reader. In this case, a summary would be possible but you would lose the “atmosphere” of the presentation.

On the other branch, fiction takes an idea and expands, expands, expands. It creates new environments, characters, situations, interactions, and “Plots” (which are really “just” interactions between the other elements). A very brief idea can be expanded into a novel or even a series. And — for that infamous book report — it can be condensed back to that original seed of an idea.

Conciseness and clarity versus expansion and imagery. These are very different skill sets. There are also different ways to present fiction. It is possible that those areas of conflict are set up by a problem, or by nature (surviving an earthquake or a crash on Mars) and the book unfolds, piece by piece, as the protagonist solves the problems that she, he, or they, encounters. Many of the early science fiction books (by scientists, and authors, such as Lester Del Rey or Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke) are of this nature.

But, it is also possible for the protagonists to create their own problems. They do this by making errors of judgement, misunderstanding each other, not speaking when they should, or speaking without thought when they shouldn’t, and so forth. If you have ever watched a movie, or read a book, and said to yourself “why didn’t they just do X — then they never would have had all of these problems?” then you have answered your own question. They did “X” so that they would have the problems to solve. This type of book (or movie) is much more prevalent in the marketplace now. I suspect that it is because of shrinking attention spans. It is necessary to have more problems, within a shorter span of time, to solve in order to keep the interest of the reader.

I can write clearly and concisely. I can also present a succession of solutions to problems leading to a desired end. I am not nearly as good at creating the characters, imagery and general world as I would like to do (but I tell myself I am improving). I am horrible at getting the protagonists to do illogical and counterproductive things. This is probably because, as an “engineer”, I am used to working to find solutions and not in creating problems.

So, writing a book requires different types of skills. Contraction or expansion. Clarity or Imagery. Possible to be great at both but, similar to spectrums of intelligence or personality traits, people are likely to be better at one end or another. How do you approach descriptions? Do you expand or contract? Do you have a conclusion in half a dozen words or do you have a chapter’s worth of wallpaper, roses, and carpets giving a world in which to base your ending?

Walking a mile in another's shoes: blisters or insight?

     I am, perhaps, cursed in my use of language. I am unable to not hear language BOTH literally and figuratively. While this helps in inflicting punishing humor, sometimes it also forces my mind to look at issues from multiple points of view. This is almost always helpful as it is difficult to find many issues that have a single "correct" point of view.
     Of late, there have been various articles chastising people about attempting to write fiction, or non-fiction, from others' points of view. In some ways, this is certainly valid. I, as a pale-skinned male, will never have the insight, history, and experience of someone who has grown up with non-pale skin. I will never have the insight, history, and experience of someone who grew up as a woman. And -- they will never have the insight, history, and experience of growing up as a pale-skinned male. It works in all directions.
     It goes much further, however. I am a short, pale-skinned, early balding, white-haired, bearded, 60-something male, multilingual, U.S.-born but of mostly direct European with a trace of Melanesian ancestry, .............
     In other words, I -- as is true of every person of the approximately 7.6 billion people on the planet -- am unique. No one else has the complete combination of my genetic history, environmental history, and life experiences. I have considerable doubts that it would be possible to raise two clones such that they end up exactly the same at any point in time (the older the more divergent).
     Was Jane Austen able to truly write about Willoughby? Was Isaac Asimov truly able to write about the Mule? Did Ursula K. Le Guin have a similar history to that of Argaven Harge to be able to write about the character? Could Harriet Beecher Stowe directly relate to either Uncle Tom or Simon Legree?
     Back to the title of this blog. The saying goes that one cannot understand another until you have "walked a mile in their shoes". When I hear someone say this, I cannot do anything other than wince. After shoes are worn by someone for a while, they change shape -- they "mold" themselves to the wearer's feet. Some shoes, such as hiking boots, are specifically designed to do this. So, by wearing someone else's shoes, you not only are "stepping into their paces" but are trying to get your feet to react the same as the other person's feet. Bumps, muscles, and bones fail to match up. It is painful, as well as educational, to "walk in someone else's shoes".
     What should it be? Since every one of us is unique, should we be limited to only writing about ourselves? Or is the painful experience of trying to put ourselves into another's shoes a worthwhile stretch of imagination and understanding? Perhaps what is needed is the caution and respect to not try to pretend we know more about the other than we possibly can?
     Although we are all unique, I probably have sufficient commonality with another computer programmer to be able to write somewhat about what that experience is like within another character. I am not a life-long farmer, but I have driven tractors and pulled spring-tooth and fed cattle in the winter. Can I use those experiences within another character? My father was a machinist and a mechanic -- can I use those experiences even though they weren't mine? Can I possibly write about a non-pale skinned programmer even though I only have overlap in experience in the computer science and programming aspects?
     Personally, I hope so. I would hate to lose all of the literature of the world and to have only facts listed, without people, in non-fiction books. The lead character of my first middle-school book is a young woman. Is that bad? I don't think so.