I'll admit to be a little skeptical of Franklin--in general, but especially with regard to his outlining process. Though I myself tend to think in somewhat of a scientific-ish manner while I'm constructing a piece--I have a jumbled blueprint in my head and it's when the pieces in it start to fit together that I really feel like I've hit something--his process, at first anyway, seemed to be almost too analytical. It really does make sense, in terms of having the conflict and the resolution match, knowing where one is going, etc., and I feel like it could be really helpful, so I'm going to try it--but I still feel a little weird about it.
I really enjoyed the two stories of his own that he included in the book--they were interesting on their own, but they also provided good examples to use in his description of the outline process because the reader was familiar with them.
Overall, there were some things that Franklin said that I really liked and some that I didn't. I liked his analyisis of transitions, for example, as well as his talk about the story changing itself and the writer having to adapt as a result. But I don't want to write the end of my story first (I don't usually write the beginning first, but I definitely don't want to write the end first), even though I recognize that, unlike poetry, I do need to have an idea of what the end is before I start. I also didn't really like his last chapter, though I don't yet have a concrete reason as to why--I was with him for awhile, but then he started talking about being at a stoplight and his world changing, and he lost me. Maybe it was that it was too abstract, I don't know, but I didn't like it.
I do think that the outlining was the most important part, though, and it is something that I want to try as I figure out how to revise my piece (because I wholeheartedly recognize that I don't even know what I'm trying to say).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that perhaps Franklin's process was a bit too analytical. I have never really put as much thought and process into my writing as he has said necessary. How can I apply ALL of these ideas and methods into my writing?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm with you on the last chapter. It didn't seem to add much to what he had already said in the rest of the book. To me, it seemed like just another rant designed to bash on the amateur writer...maybe I'm taking this a little too personally, but I could have gone without all of the stern warnings (ex. : "Woe be unto the poor writer who transforms his character into a stereotype, for his story shall be boring and he shall be known as a hack" p. 86). Just tell me what I'm doing wrong and how to fix it, don't terrify me and undermine my confidence. Phew. Ok, rant over.
ReplyDeletehaha I loved that quote from 86. Mostly just because i thought it was funny. In general I think there's something to be said for stereotypical characters, as long as it's not the protagonist or all of the characters in a story.
ReplyDeleteJess, I'd like to hear more about what you liked or got from his analysis of transitions, because I was really confused by that part, as well as his discussion of preparatory narrative.