Must narrative stuff end happily?

Thanks for posting that again, DD. I remember that entire piece--and particularly the ending--floored me when I read it.

Raab also wrote a great piece in 1998 about how the Indians' 1997 near-miss destroyed him and how Paul Assenmacher couldn't possibly understand it. I remember it had a great pic of Assenmacher in a field (might have even been a cemetary) looking completely forlorn. In theory, such a piece shouldn't work. But it was just about perfect.

 

Glad to see all the Raab love here. He made a fan of life out of me when he talked at length about the fiery fate that awaited Art Modell.
As far as unhappy endings, think of the greatest books and movies of all time. Did "The Great Gatsby" have a happy ending? "All the King's Men"? "Gone With the Wind"? "Chinatown"?

 

I think Franklin would argue those were written by masters, Walter, but I see your point.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit tonight... I'm thinking Franklin would argue that the risk with a sad story is someone's overwriting it -- that somehow they might come off ham-fisted in some hands -- and I can remember stories I wrote when I worked at the paper that would make me cringe now. You really want to say to the readers, HERE'S WHERE THE STRINGS COME IN, and you sit back smug and you think you've really nailed it, and you can picture the readers on their sofas, crying at the haunting sound of cellos, and really, you've got them reaching for the puke sack.

But if you can say to someone, just write the story, then I think it might actually be easier to write a memorable sad story than a memorable happy one. A happy one, they all read the same. But a sad one, if it's a story worth telling, will have something intrinsic in it that spikes the heart. So long as the writer just tells the story, and doesn't try to squeeze every last tear out of it -- not to cross-pollinate threads, but the Death of a Racehorse discussion down the hall rings true here -- then it should hang pretty neatly on its own narrative.

And that seems like the easiest lesson of all for a guy like Franklin to teach -- just write the story. No?

 

I've heard Jon Franklin speak a few times and the man clearly thinks he is a genius. He talked over a lot of people's heads and was proud of it.

Not saying the man doesn't know his stuff, but it was annoying.

I dont agree with his happy-ending stance, but I do agree with someone else he said, which is this: Young writers need to master the 25-30 inch story before moving on to 50-60-inch stories. They then need to master the 50-60 inch story before moving on to serials.

He said there are two many writers these days who try to go from Point A to Point C without learning basic feature-writing techniques and story-telling fundamentals. I agree. I think it's fine to stretch, but I also think everyone wants to take a 20-inch story and stretch it into 40 because it's what "the good writers
do. (Cant tell you how many times I did this. Some of my cliffhangers were downright embarrassing)

Anyway, the point is this: If you're going to ask a reader to stay with you for 60 or more inches, please, for the sake of all us, make it worth their while.

 

And I see your point as well.
When I was covering crime and calamity, I developed a very simple rule.
These stories are so dramatic that all I can do is screw it up with my dime store prose.
In those situations, I just try to step out of the way and let the story tell itself.

 

Well, for one thing he's a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner in feature writing. How many of those do you have hanging on your wall?

Sorry, but this attitude among journalists and writers is one of my biggest pet peeves - if you look at it as craft, then you're not a "real" writer. "Real" writers do it au naturale. They don't use things like techniques and craft. They write and - voila! - there it is. Perfection! (the same snobbery is practiced by musicians and chess players, I would imagine).

Franklin's book is terrific, I believe, as a way to begin to understand how to put together a story. It has helped me immensely, along with other books in its genre. "The New New Journalists," Alice Laplante's "The Making of Story," Blundell's "The Art and Craft of Feature Writing," plus some of the Writers Digest books on elements of fiction writing, particularly "Scene and Structure." Also, screenwriting books.

All of them demystify the process for someone who wants to do more than just throw some quotes together and call it a story (which is sometimes what has to be done - not every piece fits the narrative model, nor should it). That doesn't mean you can't disagree with their thoughts or tweak them to fit your piece, but there's a reason that a lot of these techniques work for modern audiences, and anyone would be well-advised not to blow them off.

Franklin's book gives you a lot of stuff to think about. The weaknesses of flash forward is something that really stuck with me, for example. I really like the book. It was a huge influence.

P.S. Your idea of "happy ending" and Franklin's is a little different. I think his is a little bit elastic. In his first Pulitzer winner, the story of a doctor performing dangerous brain surgery, the patient dies at the end. The "happy ending" is that the doctor lives to fight another day, since that's what he does. It's the life he chose. So there can be a "happy ending" with very sad, dark elements.

 

that is the fucking shit

that is sport writing

 

On "who is Jon Franklin?": if that was meant literally and not as an insult to Jon Franklin, I apologize - the original thread title had his name in it, but then I changed it.

Jg, Double Down, Jones, silentbob, Pulitzer: thank you for your thoughts.

Jones: excellent point on Death of a Racehorse.

Pulitzer: I did actually understand what Franklin meant by "happy" endings. Even with his caveat, though - that "happy" doesn't have to mean HAPPY - I wondered about the rule.

 

What if I told you I had three? You'd feel like a real asshole, wouldn't you?

And I didn't know who Jon Franklin was. Excuse the fuck out of me for not having the list of Pulitzer Prize winners memorized.

I still stand by my post.

P.S. How do you even know my idea of a "happy ending?" I never addressed that point.

 

Traded insults aside, do you really believe that writers shouldn't read books about writing technique? That it's a concession that you've "lost the battle"? I just don't understand that point of view. I think it's harmful to young writers who could be good with some work. If you don't know how to play Texas Hold 'Em, and you study the game to learn how, does that lessen your achievement in the game?

Why must writing alone be this mystic process that arises only from parts unknown?

 

I think writers should read as often as possible if they want to improve. I just don't think how-to manuals are the things they should be reading. Sorry if my point of view offends you.

 

It doesn't offend me. I disagree with it.

You can read all you want, but you may not understand the mechanics of what made the story work and resonate. A book like Franklin's de-mystifies that. So now, you can read something that Gary Smith or S.L. Price wrote, and see exactly what they may have been trying to do, structure-wise. That's really what Franklin's book is - a guide to structuring narrative feature stories. Some of it's fairly intuitive - chronological order and so forth. But it sure has bolstered my feature writing to know precisely how to get at what I'm trying to do. And it enhances my reading, as well, just as studying screen writing has enhanced, not taken away from, my enjoyment of movies.

I don't think that you can't go off script when it comes to structure. But it's like anything else - you have to know the basics before you can start to effectively deviate from them with clear purpose.