Components of writing

I've just finished a book by John Updike, Rabbit is rich. Here is one of my burblings about the book, which by the time I finished it I mentioned on the book thread "What are you reading now" several times. I spoke of description, and the narrator's internal monologue, and failed to mention the obvious, actions of the characters. I think of those as a kind of triangle.

Quoting myself and including my misplaced apostrophes:

'I finally finished John Updike's Rabbit Is Rich. It is the third book in a series of three, and I hadn't read the first two, thus missing some context as I started it - as I mentioned earlier. I gradually began to appreciate the pagefull's of Rabbit thinking to himself in stream of consciousness, all very believable, and the pagefull's or at least multiple paragraph's at a time of description of the environment he is going through at any given moment. It was slow going, as I would tend to drift off from Rabbit's state of mind into my own dream state, either mulling my own thoughts or actually going to sleep.

I wouldn't recommend it easily to others, but I ended up enjoying the ride."


Further components of writing - plot, story line, pacing

I suppose dialogue and/or monologue would be a separate component.

I don't think so mister or misses O. There is action and there is description. Dialogue is action (whether internal or not). Plot can only be revealed with actions.

I guess action and description are the basic parts of a story?

I think that the words themselves make an important part. I mean, not only how everything is described, but how it all fit together. But you're right cole, it's all description and action

I can't think of anything else.

You folks might enjoy an article about John Updike in today's New York times. There is also a seven minute video of the article author interviewing Updike.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/books/21updike.html?pagewanted=all

Hey Mr. K.

What exactly do you mean by the words of 'action and description'?

Action and description are not mutually exclusive either. Authors describe action.

These are vague terms that don't really lend valuable insight into what makes up a story.

All art is comprised of content and form. In terms of stories, under content I would list setting, character, and plot. Under form I would include stylistic elements such as diction, imagery, metaphor, the list goes on.

Such terms could be used to deconstruct a story and discuss its value or import to us.

I was thinking in terms of the most general, but your little diddy works too.

Hello Transcend

Action= movement (kuzushi) and dialogue

Description= Explanation of the setting, mood, or anything that falls under the 'Action' catagory

And by "mood" I mean the feeling of the environment, objects, or character(s)

I'll rearrange my thoughts on this.

I do have some writing experience, but in non fiction. I got as far as having a ten page proposal for book about architecture, land use, and history accepted by a reputable architectural publisher. There are many stories involved in all that, including characters and actions - but they are not all so relevant to this discussion. (Never did finish it, as life intervened.)

Otherwise, I spent a couple of decades around some screenwriters. (Even some screenwriting is changing, what with the relatively new "bucket shops" that writer groups form.)

So, on observing one particular screenwriter close to hand: he would start with a basic story idea, and try to pummel it into a salable concept of relatively few words. There would be some kind of general action or actions by some characters in the basic story idea. While he was doing that, he'd already be developing who the characters might be. He might not have an ending in mind yet, but might have a beginning clue of what conflicts would occur on the way to whatever it was.

As he developed the story, much would change. Characters would be rethought. New actions would supplant earlier ideas., and settings would change. He'd start plotting the story points out. Start with scenes for the actions and the dialog of the characters. Usually, in contrast to Updike books, inner dialog was not verbalized, but perhaps manifest with descriptions of behavior.

Scenes and the dialog in them would bring up more ideas for possible actions, possible new characters. The original 'basic story idea' might or might not change. Back at the story idea, there may or may not have been a point of view for writing this thing in the first place, except that it sounded neat.. but that may start happening as the plotting of the actions and the development of the characters start to have ramifications not evident earlier.. and this in turn may change how the story works.

What am saying? it is all a kind of dance between these elements.


I don't look at this as a paid script reader (I've friends who did that) nor as an academic analyst, just as an observer. The other screenwriters we knew hung out together and their discussions mirrored this. But, of course, I'm only talking about some writers at one time and place.

Hi ossobuco, and thanks for the reply

Are you saying that there is more than the basic components of action and description?