Melancholia, a Gestault process of writing

There's that compact intricacy in short stories, I seldom find with longer-spanning works. Because you can put so much which evokes, in that little space, which I suppose gives me a certainty what I want to do in writing them. I like F. Young's The Dandelion Girl - in my profile page.

edited 12th Jul '11 1:08:01 PM by QQQQQ

(Huh, that wasn't yours?)

I see your point about short stories. When it's short, you have so much more freedom. You don't have to bother with continuity, or enstablishing things or foreshadowing for what happens 500 pages later. You get to write only the good, juicy parts, and can practically do whatever the hell you want. Short stories allow you to go wild, while long don't.

With this way of writing, I predict I'll be able to write chapters with the same ease I have with short stories.

I feel that short stories restrict my freedom, actually... and you need continuity and foreshadowing in short stories as well, just like everything else.

I very much agree with what you'd said about Villains being people foremost, breaking out of trite conventions, and the world taking a life of its own. Melancholia has this at mind— while you focus however on the World-Building, this system focuses primarily on the characters, as character-driven stories.

Yeah, but only a tiny fraction of the foreshadowing I need for a long story.

edited 12th Jul '11 1:32:31 PM by Dealan

That just sucks the fun right out of everything >.>

nope

It's ok Anne, people can have different experiences than you.

So the process so far is "break big projects into smaller pieces?"

So it seems. It's easier to cut that meat into pieces instead of gulping it wholesale. It also encourages you to imagine things as a whole, to encourage creativity.

edited 12th Jul '11 3:08:57 PM by QQQQQ

"So it seems?" It's your process. You're not deliberately trying to be obtuse, are you?

edited 12th Jul '11 3:21:04 PM by jewelleddragon

My main method is to not write anything down. I've made some maps and charts and some little notes (mostly for visual novels but hey they're way different) but otherwise, I've written out almost no notes or anything like that.

And you know what? It works.

Foof!

edited 12th Sep '11 10:28:27 AM by QQQQQ

How do you intend to keep your gestalts from feeling overly episodic in nature? By such subdivision into discrete portions, you risk making the transition noticeable on some level, creating a series of breaks in the flow that may eventually begin to grate upon the reader's subconscious. If your gestalts do not flow smoothly into one another (save at the points where a sudden change is desired), you'll merely have a series of ill-fitting fragments which will try your audience's patience every time they are forced to follow your mind from one whim to the next.

Certainly, it is possible to do what you envision. It is not unique, though it is somewhat uncommon in literature. On the other hand, concept albums must do this, being inherently divided into individual songs with their own gestalts. This is not a bad thing by any measure: Iron Maiden's Seventh Son of a Seventh Son and Queensrÿche's Operation: Mindcrime are among my favorite albums, and part of their strengths lies in the fact that the individual songs are works of art on their own terms. Only the Good Die Young (there are four separate songs of that name, utterly different in nature, but I refer to the one of Iron Maiden's aforementioned album) is a powerful Villain Song on its own terms, though its true meaning is unveiled when seen as part of the greater whole.

In that vein, you could fully embrace an episodic tone, creating a work that is explicitly a series of short stories united by long-term arc. You'd obviously not be the first to tread that path, but I don't believe it's a well-worn one, if that is of any value to you. In that case your problem is somewhat inverted: you must make each story satisfying and enjoyable, perhaps even on its own merits if you do not wish to demand your reader follow your gestalts linearly, while still keeping them connected in such a manner that they are greater than the sum of their parts.

Or do I once again hideously misjudge you? Because that is always a possibility.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:36:23 PM by KillerClowns

I think there's no reason to crticize Q's methods. She has found a way of looking at writing that enables her to tackle it in a fresh light.

A above the head, if you will.

I get the impression Q struggles writing lengthy works. It is much easier to observe, from a mental vantage point, 700 words than 14000.

All in all, this is her subjective approach to writing. If I told you I pound five shots of grey goose to begin writing you may think I'm insane, but that's my personal approach.

At the risk of sounding cliche (which is cliche in itself, now that I look at it), to each his own!

Note: I do not pound five shots before writing — grey goose is way beyond my booze budget.

Double note: I like how Q compared music to writing. Classy shit right there.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:50:49 PM by Jewbacabra

It wouldn't be a gestalt. Picking random songs to string together is no symphony, it's a playlist. And a symphony's movements have harmony, have a flowing progression - as the songs do.

edited 12th Jul '11 6:10:47 PM by QQQQQ

3 - Symphony

I must mention beforehand, if you're familiar with the three styles of learning – Visual, Auditory, and Kinsthetic – I prefer thinking by audio. I like music to a fault. I write my posts, according to what sounds best— instead of looks, or feels. Thus, I use the symphony metaphor, as it's what rings true for me. I'm well aware there are people who think differently.. I read Gault's and Morgulion's posts for example, and I feel they wish to have a firm grasp on the things they encounter. Some of you may have a hard time hearing me— so I will be considerate. I'll also try to offer you clear pictures to viddy, and foothandles to hold on, as I plunge deeper into ze rabbit hole.

Another note is that I prefer working with emotions, more than concepts. If it comes to it, I'd prefer a timeless love story to read, rather than The Ultimate World-Builder's Manual. So bear with me kindly that I wish to get in touch with how I feel, when I write.

Because we encode ourselves in our works; very little of what you read in someone's story is there by accident. Rather than simply saying "a cigar is just a cigar" – an easy cop out clause for those who prefer face-value meanings, it's worth acknowledging there exist universal patterns in how we express ourselves in art. We consistently express our own emotions and beliefs in what we create. Artists have a personal preference for using certain modes of expression. Some painters have great emphasis on certain colour combinations to establish moods (if you look at Reitanna's art). Some writers create complex worlds for characters to inhabit, or have protagonists with a history of psychopathic violence, or impress lessons to learn. And some musicians create notation that mimics the phonetic sequences of lyrics. This can very greatly so. Would I be writing all this in English otherwise?

To look at H. R. Giger's art (he did the design for the Alien, and he makes horrorshow paintings) – he gives the suggestion of people being physically fused with their own technology, and that sexuality is only an emotionless mechanism for reproduction.

If you're wondering, I do not suggest one mode of expression must be inherently better than another. It's apples and oranges. Through how we say our central messages, we convey a gestalt of experience for another mind to embrace. I hope Melancholia might help make a betterings out of your self-expression. (Or if not, come along for the ride anyways.)

So don't think of Inception, where our heroes delve into Fischer's mind and imprint suggestions by four layers. Think of a symphony instead, where we wish to tell our story by musical layers.

Our story symphony (1), once again, shall be composed of some over-movements (2). These movements, in turn, are each composed through individual songs (3). We all know to make a song, we must have instruments (4). These instruments, serving as our characters, bring their unique tunes to play out their conflicts.

If you prefer straightforward order, I illustrate the layer cake for you:

• 1. Symphony – Story/Premise
• 2. Movements – Storyline arcs
• 3. Songs – Scenes
• 4. Instruments – Characters

The symphony is the central gestalt of ideas, which breathes throughout your story. The overreaching gestalt which starts it all, as the blazing sun did for Earth's life. For von Donnersmarck's film The Lives Of Others – von Donnersmarck had mentioned he was listening to music, trying to come up with a scenario. Then he remembered how Lenin's favourite piece of music was Beethoven's Appassionata.

Lenin said:

And von Donnersmarck had an image in his mind, of a person who sits in a depressing room with earphones on his head, who listens to what he supposes is the enemy of the state and the enemy of his ideas.. yet what he really is hearing is the beautiful music touching his heart. What would happen, if Lenin kept on listening?

That is the symphony. Our germinating seed from which our progressing movements will drive. It is the centre where all else runs. You have a base melody you can hear, and you wish to add the specific tunes to elaborate. This is roughly equivilent to having an ideal image in mind you wish to paint – the rough sketchlines drawn.

Already you can sense the spark of inspiration in you. Cradle it, nurture it I say, it is your creative spirit which shines. If it dies, the planetarium plunges into absolute blackness.

The question now becomes, which instruments would come to play the tune? A song carries a different feel when played by violin, as compared to piano. The violin has a grave in its strings, with its vibreto to hone its notes in. And the piano has its petals to soften or lengthen its keys - and two hands to play the treble and bass clefs, which may play melodiously or counter to each other as if in a duel.

You may also pit the violin and piano together similarly, in playing relationship. They are your two star-cross'd lovers between lands, family of a father and his son - sworn nemesises set to eradicate the other like fire and water.

Shall you also have percussion, to add the constant beat to the song? The saxophone to sway with its seductive voice? The more rife the dynamics are with full emotion, the better. Trust your instinct in this regard. A good ear hones in on when you've got it right, just as a good eye distinguishes between the fine and the mediocre.

When you feel set upon how the melody should be played, it is time to craft your leading, unique instruments.

More I will write, stay tuned.

edited 14th Jul '11 8:57:25 PM by QQQQQ