On Writing: Immersion

[AStrangeDesire]

This discussion has taken a very interesting turn.

I can't imaging being able to write without visualizing the scene. To the point where I try to set stories in places I've been / had specific experiences / can recall to immerse myself in the scene while writing it. I'm the 'stage manager' for my actors at that point for the 'play' they are in.

I can't imaging how tricky it would be to write without that. Of course, that could just be because I don't have a lifetime of experience with it, so maybe it's just a different ability and process altogether.

Also goes towards what a reader may find immersive, when turning it around and thinking about it from that perspective.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I’m

This comment feels very experiential. I’m not trying to argue, but I feel you are doing the: ‘my eyes are greeen, my nose itches; your eyes are green, your nose must itch’ thing here.

You are projecting arrogance onto writers when you don’t know what is in their mind. You cannot know that all writers who adopt a literary style do so for these reasons, even if you have personal knowledge of some who do. Which, it very much sounds as if you do.

Anyway, I have no desire to turn this into from a discussion into an argument and so will move on. If you want to rebut what I suggest, that’s cool.

I'm not at all saying all writers who write more literary do this. I tried very hard to distinguish a specific type of person, rather than blanket statement on all people who write more literary, use larger vocabularies, have those obtuse references. I do not believe most people who write like that are doing so because they want to show off how smart they are by putting down other people who struggle to read their works. I've known plenty of more literary writers who were beyond humble, they just enjoyed writing like that.

This is from lived experience, knowing some of these people, or reading interviews of them, where they express disdain for those who don't know some word, or who don't get some incredibly obtuse reference. I've been told how shitty a writer I am by some of those people who claimed that because I didn't read "The Greats" or immerse myself in "Classic Lit" that there's no way I could be a quality writer, or anything but a peddler of purile nonsense not worthy of "art" or some such bullshit. They, of course, never deigned to read anything I wrote, because my drivel wasn't worth their time, but they knew all the same. How could it be anything different?

Funny thing is, almost to a person, they weren't that good of storytellers. Couldn't really tell a compelling story because they were so busy trying to prove themselves worthy of being The Best™. Couldn't see their work for what it really was, and anyone who told them different, like me, well, they were mouthbreathers who really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near their stories.

Those are the types of people do not respect the story, too busy with anal ouroboros, crawled up their own ass kissing it, to actually put thought and care into the plot and characters.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Sounds familar.

You know that thing in Star Wars (everything is about Star Wars, right?)

No, but moving on...

where they have a big projection of the galaxy and can move it around and zoom in (and fit in a missing jigsaw piece)? That’s my mind. It was very helpful in structural biology.

My mind knack is a memory for detail that can join up disconnected bits of information, seemingly unrelated at first, and voila, there's the bigger picture.

Together with an almost psychic ability to open a folder of papers, never on the right page, but the page before or the one after. That happened constantly in a job, decades ago, where everything was hard filed. The project duration was many years, so a topic history might have a dozen or so ring file folders. I'd say, I can remember blah blah blah, and pull a folder off the shelf, flip it open, flip the page, and say, here it is. To the point where several people said, "What the fuck, you did that last week." Doesn't work, obviously, with electronic copy - unless you know exactly where it is, you can never find it.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm not at all saying all writers who write more literary do this. I tried very hard to distinguish a specific type of person, rather than blanket statement on all people who write more literary, use larger vocabularies, have those obtuse references. I do not believe most people who write like that are doing so because they want to show off how smart they are by putting down other people who struggle to read their works. I've known plenty of more literary writers who were beyond humble, they just enjoyed writing like that.

This is from lived experience, knowing some of these people, or reading interviews of them, where they express disdain for those who don't know some word, or who don't get some incredibly obtuse reference. I've been told how shitty a writer I am by some of those people who claimed that because I didn't read "The Greats" or immerse myself in "Classic Lit" that there's no way I could be a quality writer, or anything but a peddler of purile nonsense not worthy of "art" or some such bullshit. They, of course, never deigned to read anything I wrote, because my drivel wasn't worth their time, but they knew all the same. How could it be anything different?

Funny thing is, almost to a person, they weren't that good of storytellers. Couldn't really tell a compelling story because they were so busy trying to prove themselves worthy of being The Best™. Couldn't see their work for what it really was, and anyone who told them different, like me, well, they were mouthbreathers who really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near their stories.

Those are the types of people do not respect the story, too busy with anal ouroboros, crawled up their own ass kissing it, to actually put thought and care into the plot and characters.

We are all products of our experiences. I imagine your antennae (not that bird-dinos have those) are acutely attuned to that type of hypocrisy. My only caution is to beware of false positives.

Loving words and wanting to play with them, to push the boundaries of use, that doesn’t have to come with a big dose of holier-than-thou. My experience is that awful people will always ls find something to be awful about. But not everyone is awful.

I’m sorry for your experiences .

 

[EmilyMiller]

My mind knack is a memory for detail that can join up disconnected bits of information, seemingly unrelated at first, and voila, there's the bigger picture.

Say I’m reading a paper in a field of biology I’m unfamiliar with. I very viscerally feel that I am assembling parts into a shape in my head. Not as an intellectual concept, images of actual shapes and connections to other things. I can turn my nascent model around and tweak things, or discard bits I don’t need. When the ‘puzzle’ is complete, I have a basic knowledge of the field.

 

[anthrodisiac]

There's the clue. Your desire (and possibly/probably, your need) to decompose the literary construct of writing and the way stories work, is because you mostly only have the words on the page, and perhaps you have to intellectualise them, because they're what you've got (all you've got?).

You don't have the mind's eye picturing that I've got, as a contrast. I've got an intensely visual mind and a thought process that comes with it, and I happen to be handy with words that express it. This is a neurological difference though, not a philosophical one.

You're very like @AG31, who is also aphantastic - her literary curiosity, the way she deconstructs the process of writing, really examining words and how they work when "visualising" something - where she can read the visualisation but can't "see" it the way I do, when I write it.

It fascinates me, the things she likes in my work, the way certain sentences really work for her, because I've written something her mind can truly grasp - whereas in my mind, I've just written about the velvet texture of a rose petal where I can almost taste the colour, and there it is, a visual sentence from a different mind. Still using words, but I doubt they're being used the way AG31 or anthrodisiac use them, or read them.

This is about how different minds work, and for me there's a deep fascination with thinking about it. With my very visual mind, I can't ever imagine a perception process where the images in my head don't exist as anything else but images, pictures, colours and shapes and people. It's simply not possible for me to "see" with any other "eyes", regardless of the words used to construct them. And vice versa.

It certainly plays a big role in why I'm so fascinated by implicit cues, to be sure. Someone writing something where they're relying purely on imagery doesn't need to worry so much about the difference between tossed and thrown (bad example, I know), but someone who is running on abstractions and concepts, they're very different things, and color the scene very different.

My inner world is entirely words, I think, with some emotion and conceptualization. But trying to recall a sight, or smell, all I get back is the description, not the visual or olfactory memory. It's why, prior to erotica, I didn't write overly descriptive scenes. But it's part for the course here, and while I know what I want the scene to "look like" on a conceptual level, I can't see it. I can still detail it, figure out how to describe it, which is fascinating to me. I know what elements I want to include, what something "should" be. Gold dust day gecko anthro: fires up, fires down, speckles of gold scales on her back, blue toes, gorgeous emerald green, little red stripes on her head and snout, creamy underbelly. Can't see it at all. But I still can go into a couple paragraphs' worth of detail about it.

The brain is an absolutely wild thing

 

[EmilyMiller]

No, but moving on...

This is why you fail…

 

[anthrodisiac]

We are all products of our experiences. I imagine your antennae (not that bird-dinos have those) are acutely attuned to that type of hypocrisy. My only caution is to beware of false positives.

Loving words and wanting to play with them, to push the boundaries of use, that doesn’t have to come with a big dose of holier-than-thou. My experience is that awful people will always ls find something to be awful about. But not everyone is awful.

I’m sorry for your experiences .

Once again, not projecting this onto people I don't know. I can't claim to know why someone wrote something in a more literary voice. Most likely they're into craft immersion, and that's a perfectly valid method of writing, like I said in the OP, like I've been saying all along. I am not attacking people who do this. I am not saying it's wrong, or shouldn't be done, or anything like that. I think I've done a pretty good job clarifying that I have no beef with people who write like this.

But in case it's not clear: I have beef with people who write like that as a way to rub it in everyone's faces and make themselves feel like the Big Brain in whatever room they're in. I have no issues with someone choosing to focus on craft immersion and celebration of language. I enjoy that, actually. I just enjoy story immersion more.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Say I’m reading a paper in a field of biology I’m unfamiliar with. I very viscerally feel that I am assembling parts into a shape in my head. Not as an intellectual concept, images of actual shapes and connections to other things. I can turn my nascent model around and tweak things, or discard bits I don’t need. When the ‘puzzle’ is complete, I have a basic knowledge of the field.

That sounds like the mind of my mathematical friend, who thinks her maths with sketches and diagrams on paper.

 

[EmilyMiller]

But in case it's not clear: I have beef with people who write like that as a way to rub it in everyone's faces and make themselves feel like the Big Brain in whatever room they're in.

I understood that from your clear exposition.

My point - such as it is - relates to what is clearly some depth of feeling about this issue. That depth of feeling can lead to misinterpretations, and then forever will the dark side your destiny dominate.

Wait, that’s the wrong piece of text. Let me refer to Emily’s Big Book of Unasked for Wisdom - BRB.

 

[EmilyMiller]

That sounds like the mind of my mathematical friend, who thinks her maths with sketches and diagrams on paper.

I wish. I love math. It dumped me for some prettier girl

 

[anthrodisiac]

My point - such as it is - relates to what is clearly some depth of feeling about this issue. That depth of feeling can lead to misinterpretations, and then forever will the dark side your destiny dominate.

Pretty hard to misinterpret someone telling to your face that you're a shitty writer because you don't read The Greats, but okay.

 

[Cagivagurl]

If I pick up a book to read. I do so for entertainment. to let my mind take me on an adventure, a journey of discovery...
If I am to read more than the first chapter, it must grip me. It must hold my gaze, and yes I need for the author to lift me up and transport me into the story.
I prefer first person because that gives me a vision other perspectives often miss...
But... Yes, I need to be immersed in the tale told. To feel part of it...
Words I am unfamiliar with don't drag me out of the story so long as the context is explanatory...
I adore the wordsmiths, the writers of sweet prose. I cherish words and the way they are interwoven to tell a story.
So yes... for me immersion is important as a reader.

 

[XerXesXu]

Together with an almost psychic ability to open a folder of papers, never on the right page, but the page before or the one after. That happened constantly in a job, decades ago, where everything was hard filed. The project duration was many years, so a topic history might have a dozen or so ring file folders. I'd say, I can remember blah blah blah, and pull a folder off the shelf, flip it open, flip the page, and say, here it is. To the point where several people said, "What the fuck, you did that last week." Doesn't work, obviously, with electronic copy - unless you know exactly where it is, you can never find it.

Ah. The 'bathtub memory'. I have a poor autobiographical memory but an excellent 'bathtub memory'. I can read through a brief containing a large number of witness statements and remember where everyone said where they were, and where others say they were, and what they did. I can move effortlessly between these statements and cross-refer. It's called bathtub memory by analogy with filling a bath, then emptying it when you've bathed. Then refill for the next case.

It's also how I write. I have a theme and plot, beginning and end before I sit down to write.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Pretty hard to misinterpret someone telling to your face that you're a shitty writer because you don't read The Greats, but okay.

We are taking past each other. I’ll PM you tomorrow .

 

[dmallord]

Hey @anthrodisiac,

Mind listing a few of your favorite authors? Maybe we are simply debating taste here

I like authors who use language that I don’t have to pull out an unabridged dictionary to look up. Too many of those plinks, and I can find plenty of other stories on lit that have elegance at my reading level. Your works are an exception. I read those even if the vocabulary is over my nose. You make up for that in content and character development.

I do employ an old reader’s technique: read over the word and keep going. Usually, the meaning becomes clear soon if the writer is worth their salt.

My vocabulary isn’t what it used to be. Age dulls most of them, and I find myself saying, ‘I know that word, just can’t recall its meaning right now.'

Most Americans read comfortably at about an eighth-grade level. Most lit stories, I’ve read, are about that level.

Deliberately setting out to plink a reader is…not nice. Can’t imagine a Lit story that’s about fucking has many plink words in it.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Self-indulgent EmilyMiller post (aren’t they all? is the cry from the peanut gallery).

My novel - The Story of Nix - is intentionally literary in style. It takes cues from Jane Eyre (and The Modern Prometheus - no, not that one, Ridley ). It’s a compressed Bildungsroman masquerading as a piece of SciFi. A mediation of the lot of women in the 2020s, based on the experiences of a female-identifying cybernetic being in the 2040s. It’s tagged “Literary Novel” FFS.

Part of this is as Nix is the narrator and has read most books. She’s very fond of Conrad. Part of it is to reflect her rather stilted and emergent approach to communication - “I am learning idiom now.”

It includes recondite vocabulary and recherché scientific terms. It’s descriptive passages reflect the wonder of a being seeing things for the first time. And hence flirt perilously with being purple.

So, thusfar we are in negative territory with the patented @anthrodisiac immersion scale (insert Archimedes joke here). But…

Multiple people have said they couldn’t put it down. Several read all 90,000 words in a day. More did so over two days. And then they paid me the compliment of commenting about their addiction.

So… as always, I believe it just depends on the work. Immersion can come in many flavors.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Once again, not projecting this onto people I don't know. I can't claim to know why someone wrote something in a more literary voice. Most likely they're into craft immersion, and that's a perfectly valid method of writing, like I said in the OP, like I've been saying all along. I am not attacking people who do this. I am not saying it's wrong, or shouldn't be done, or anything like that. I think I've done a pretty good job clarifying that I have no beef with people who write like this.

But in case it's not clear: I have beef with people who write like that as a way to rub it in everyone's faces and make themselves feel like the Big Brain in whatever room they're in. I have no issues with someone choosing to focus on craft immersion and celebration of language. I enjoy that, actually. I just enjoy story immersion more.

There are certainly writers who are "writer's writers". They write for the approbation of other writers rather than normal readers.
It all turns into a circle jerk.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I like authors who use language that I don’t have to pull out an unabridged dictionary to look up. Too many of those plinks, and I can find plenty of other stories on lit that have elegance at my reading level. Your works are an exception. I read those even if the vocabulary is over my nose. You make up for that in content and character development.

Thank you - and lovely to see you

Can’t imagine a Lit story that’s about fucking has many plink words in it.

I have vasocongested in a current WIP

 

[dmallord]

I’m

This comment feels very experiential. I’m not trying to argue, but I feel you are doing the: ‘my eyes are green, my nose itches; your eyes are green, your nose must itch’ thing here.

You are projecting arrogance onto writers when you don’t know what is in their mind. You cannot know that all writers who adopt a literary style do so for these reasons, even if you have personal knowledge of some who do. Which, it very much sounds as if you do.

Anyway, I have no desire to turn this from a discussion into an argument and so will move on. If you want to rebut what I suggest, that’s cool.

Ouch. Not so mean there, youngster.

Thank you - and lovely to see you

I have vasocongested in a current WIP

I have congestion in my legs, not related to that kind in your WIP. LOL

 

[EmilyMiller]

not related to that kind in your WIP.

We both know what kind of vasocongestion I had in mind

 

[Kelliezgirl]

True immersion isn't "it's 2am and I have to read one more chapter", it's finishing the book, looking around and thinking "holy shit, why is it light outside? What time is it? Damn, I'm hungry."

What it takes to achieve that really depends on the reader. Character driven stories tend to be more immersive for me than idea driven stories. For example I recently finished Poul Anderson's "Ship of a Million Years" and it's a great idea driven story, but it has an ensemble cast and is more interested in the concept than the people. Contrast that with Heinlein's Citizen of the Galaxy which I read before that. It follows one character and focuses more on his experiences and how that shapes who he is. I find that much more immersive as a reader.

I'll also agree that technical accuracy is important for an immersive story. If you're going to get into the details make sure you get it right. My brother has a t-shirt that says "The Army ruined war movies for me", and I can completely understand. But you really don't need to bog down with details that aren't relevant to the story.

To use the Murder on the Orient Express example, you need to know the configuration of the passenger cars and the time table from Istanbul to Vinkovci, but if you are going on about the UIC classification of the locomotive...probably not relevant.

 

[Britva415]

What I've discussed so far is story immersion, which is about immersing the readers in, well, the story. The other approach is craft immersion, which emphasizes giving the readers a literary experience, where they immerse themselves in how the story was crafted. They stop and admire a well-constructed sentence, or marvel at the beautiful prose, the delightful word choices.

I don't really believe in craft immersion. I mean, I do, but between the two, plot is the only thing I value becoming immersed in.

Stopping-and-appreciating isn't really an immersive experience, to me - even if that's all I'm doing because the craft has outshined the plot so grandiosely. I'm not saying I don't appreciate craft, but for one thing, plot is craft too, and for another, the plot stops when the wordplay captures your attention.

So, adequate wordcraft is necessary to facilitate plot immersion, but it isn't anything I give a damn about becoming immersed in, itself. I can appreciate it without being immersed in it. Plot, I like becoming immersed in.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I don't really believe in craft immersion. I mean, I do, but plot is the only thing I value becoming immersed in.

Stopping-and-appreciating isn't really an immersive experience, to me - even if that's all I'm doing because the craft has outshined the plot so grandiosely. I'm not saying I don't appreciate craft, but for one thing, plot is craft too, and for another, the plot stops when the wordplay captures your attention.

I'd agree, while I appreciate a good turn of phrase in a story, if I stop to admire it, I'm no longer immersed in the story.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Great storytelling is a combination of all the skills an author has.
It must have a great plot, something that gives the story direction.
If that story is told using wonderful prose it is elevated from good to great...
I do love words, and the way they are used to build the story, but they must be part of the telling...

Merely my opinion of course.