On Writing: Immersion

[liliput1]

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.

You make the best dish you can make with the ingredients available. Maybe that's cookies, maybe that's a pie.

 

[StillStunned]

These are but a few aspects to invisibility and immersion. What ways do you use to keep the reader engaged and immersed? Do you value craft or story immersion more? Any other thoughts, opinions, insights, etc. are more than welcome.

Unsurprisingly, our my views are pretty much identical to ours yours. I've mentioned a few times that ideally writing should go from the reader's eyes to their heart (or other relevant body parts), without passing through their brain.

Like you, I try to avoid plinkage (except, as you say, to focus the reader's attention on a detail). So yes, words that don't belong or details that are wrong. But also the order in which details are presented. If you keep the reader's mind moving forward - left to right, up to down, past to present, cause to effect - you're not asking them to waste energy on jumping back and forth. And the less energy the reading takes, the more the reader will stay in the story. (See also this thread from last year: Making the reader finish.)

But I also use positive techniques to create positive effects. The sounds of words have a huge effect on immersion: the tolling of a sonorous gong, the clanging of a broken bell, the hissing of a slithering snake. Alliteration (proper alliteration, not "these words begin with the same letter"), assonance and consonance, with their repeated sounds, plant certain words more firmly in the reader's mind.

I also break paragraphs down into one element only: one person's thoughts, actions or words, one detail of a longer description. This helps to keep the words organised in the reader's brain, and short paragraphs allow for regular breaks so the reader's mind doesn't wander.

I'm not the best at plotting, but I get quite a high rate of votes and comments to views. I like to think it's because my writing makes reading effortless. It's like a plate of cream puffs - just one more, what's the harm? And before you know if the plate is empty.

 

[StillStunned]

But let's address the other school of thought when it comes to immersion. 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. These stories tend to be geared toward the more literary readers, many of whom prefer a stop-and-smell-the-roses approach to reading, whereas story immersion tends to be the focus for those who want to be subsumed within the world you create. To put it another way, craft immersion is about immersing the reader in language, while story immersion is about immersing the reader in the world. For craft immersionists, literary element is just as much part of the experience as the story element.

I've done this once: Upstream. It was a deliberate attempt to be lyrical and draw attention to the words. The rating isn't the best - not that I'm complaining about 4.59 - but the comments almost all lavished praise on the beauty of the writing. So I'd say there's an audience, even here on Lit, for craft for the sake of craft.

One point that I think might be worth discussing here is the relationship - not a distinction - between prose and poetry. More and more, I think it's a sliding scale. At one end you have poetry that's all about the form (Paul Muldoon's Madoc, or "She Being Brand" by ee cummings, or "A Prayer To The Sun" by Geoffrey Hill), and at the other is prose that's concerned only with putting out a narrative.

In between the scale goes from the various intricate poetic forms like sonnets and sestinas and alliterative poetry to simpler forms where the focus shifts to the content rather than the form ("v." by Tony Harrison springs to mind, with its iambic pentameter and ABAB scheme but its powerful message, as well as poems that tell a story) and then blank verse and poetry that's snippets of prose in an unusual format (Geoffrey Hill's Mercian Hymns), and then you get to "crafty" prose where the emphasis is as much on the form as it is on the story. This probably includes Joyce Grenfell's monologues and stream of consciousness, but also epistolary novels and perhaps even illustrated stories.

So for me it's not one thing or the other, it's just a matter of what element you want to stress. I've enjoyed experimenting with form over story, because I spend all my time working with language and the words are as important to me as the content. But I've never managed to get very far into the form/poetry end of the scale, and I suppose that there are plenty of writers who consider some of my stories to already be quite a bit further along than they'd be interested in writing.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic because, to me, there are different ways a story can give me pleasure. Most of the time, I enjoy immersion. But I can also enjoy an author like Nabokov who relishes word play for its own sake.

 

[EmilyMiller]

At the risk of lowering the tone, I keep having this image flit through my mind:

 

[BeechLeaf]

I feel you're not taking this seriously.

 

[StillStunned]

At the risk of lowering the tone, I keep having this image flit through my mind:

"They call me the Wild Rose, but my name was Elisa Day..."

 

[EmilyMiller]

"They call me the Wild Rose, but my name was Elisa Day..."

Yeah, I’d have gone with The Fate of Ophelia

 

[crookedletter]

Honestly I think this is a false dichotomy. I feel like the central question here is contrasting good writing of one style with bad writing of another.

There are writers out there who show off, whose prose is ostentatiously purple, where every sentence seems intended to impress: Look how brilliant I am, look at all these fancy words I know.

That's not good writing.

Then there are writers -- Nabokov, as @SimonDoom noted, is a good example -- who write lyrically, with complex language and imagery. But the words they choose are not chosen because they're fancy, they're chosen because they're the right words. Because they flow with the sentences and evoke the appropriate tone and feeling and impression.

That kind of writing, when done well, can be incredibly immersive. You get immersed not only in the world of the story but in the world of the language.

That style of writing isn't for everyone, to be sure. What you call "invisible" writing has its points in its favor, and certainly its audience. But I don't think it's necessarily more immersive, it's just a different kind of immersion.

Personally I lean toward good lyrical writing. But I've seen as many -- if not more -- examples of bad attempts at "invisible" writing (which is thus painfully visible) as bad attempts at lyrical writing. And both sides have their plinks.

 

[Cagivagurl]

That is not how you do the backstroke my dear. Remember, stretch your arms higher, and you have to kick darling. Kick like the devil himself was chasing you.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Honestly I think this is a false dichotomy. I feel like the central question here is contrasting good writing of one style with bad writing of another.

There are writers out there who show off, whose prose is ostentatiously purple, where every sentence seems intended to impress: Look how brilliant I am, look at all these fancy words I know.

That's not good writing.

Then there are writers -- Nabokov, as @SimonDoom noted, is a good example -- who write lyrically, with complex language and imagery. But the words they choose are not chosen because they're fancy, they're chosen because they're the right words. Because they flow with the sentences and evoke the appropriate tone and feeling and impression.

That kind of writing, when done well, can be incredibly immersive. You get immersed not only in the world of the story but in the world of the language.

That style of writing isn't for everyone, to be sure. What you call "invisible" writing has its points in its favor, and certainly its audience. But I don't think it's necessarily more immersive, it's just a different kind of immersion.

Personally I lean toward good lyrical writing. But I've seen as many -- if not more -- examples of bad attempts at "invisible" writing (which is thus painfully visible) as bad attempts at lyrical writing. And both sides have their plinks.

I agree with all of this. I’ve been flattered when more than one commenter has compared the style of my more lyrical pieces to Nabokov. Obviously Nabokov >>>>>>>>>> me, but still nice to read.

I think it’s just as much of a mistake to think that writing is a single, monolithic thing, as to believe people or groups of people are homogenous. Good writing can take many forms, as can bad writing. What we like is informed by who we are and what we have experienced.

There is no single ‘right’ way to be human and no single ‘right’ way to write. Consider the vast diversity of style in celebrated authors.

 

[yowser]

As others have suggested, immersion in a story is highly subjective. At the risk of fracturing a metaphor to bits, to me a good immersive story is like a real good first date.

I want my date to at least appear like this is a special event. (No grubby tee-shirt and soiled jeans, thank you.) But I don’t want an excess of make-up either (if I notice it, it’s probably too much.) I’d like my date (author) to be smarter than me, but not rub my nose in their intelligence. Spirited lively conversation is sweet, talking down to me is not. Show me you care at least a little about how much I might enjoy this date. I don’t need to know everything about you, and sometimes the tease of withholding is marvelous, but give me enough data points that I can dream about you later. Far more than your height or outfit, I want to remember how you smiled, the odd way you raised an eyebrow at an interesting story. Bring me along with you, I want you to be interested but not just so that it feels like I am doing the work of stroking your ego for you.

I am happy when writers are above my head and saturate me with immersive details. Folks have mentioned Nabokov, I would include Pynchon and David Foster Wallace also, the way they pile up specific details, describe a setting, and pull you into their sandbox. But it is real easy to go overboard, and for most of us that is a tangible danger. I’d rather have too much than too little (I am a non-believer in the let-the-reader-fill-in-the-blanks business unless you have given me enough dots to make a picture.) There are so many ways to get it wrong, and so few to get it just right. But that challenge is likely what keeps us all going.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Immersion is subjective, but silly platitudes about "gosh, we're all different!" trying to pass themselves off as deep thought ignores important aspects of writing.

Why does great writing transcend that? Why do people with wildly different tastes and interests share a love for certain books? Because there are universal truths, and great writing touches on them.

Understanding how different things appeal to different people is part of that. One of the weaknesses of many modern writers is that they often write for themselves. They don't truly understand any perspective other than their own, (It's why so many main characters end up being self-inserts, but that's another topic) and their work suffers for it.

If you're serious about your craft, threads like this are a goldmine.

 

[StillStunned]

(I am a non-believer in the let-the-reader-fill-in-the-blanks business unless you have given me enough dots to make a picture.)

I think - probably because this is how it works for me as a reader - that filling in the details is more immersive for the reader. They create the picture in their mind. They're not being told, they're creating it themselves. So what they experience is a co-creation between them and the writer. They feel a sense of ownership because they've put part of themselves into what they're seeing.

 

[AG31]

My inner world is entirely words, I think, with some emotion and conceptualization.

Your outer world is pretty heavily into words also.

I'm glad you brought up conceptualization, because decades ago, when aphantasia wasn't even a term, the accepted thought was that you processed audially or visually and sometimes somatically. I resisted this. I knew I couldn't conjure up words fast enough to deal with all my experience, but I didn't have pictures either. What I had were concepts. I think of emotion as being a separate thing.

 

[AG31]

When I stop to admire and look at the craft, I feel disconnected from the underlying story, but I appreciate when someone does something well.

I sometimes "stop" and look at the craft, but I think, for this conversation, it's more helpful to talk about "awareness" of the craft. Some authors write beautifully or compellingly and it doesn't take me out of the story at all. The best of both worlds. But some authors are so intentional about their language that it does put bumps in the road of immersion.

Over the years I've learned to trust my stream of consciousness flow, and to keep it raw.

And we thank you for that. It's why I've cited you as an example of "authenticity," which has nothing to do with whether things really happened.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think - probably because this is how it works for me as a reader - that filling in the details is more immersive for the reader. They create the picture in their mind. They're not being told, they're creating it themselves. So what they experience is a co-creation between them and the writer. They feel a sense of ownership because they've put part of themselves into what they're seeing.

The nub of the issue is that readers are different. Some behave as you describe, but I don’t and it seems from this thread that I’m not alone. There are different audiences for different styles of writing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think - probably because this is how it works for me as a reader - that filling in the details is more immersive for the reader. They create the picture in their mind. They're not being told, they're creating it themselves. So what they experience is a co-creation between them and the writer. They feel a sense of ownership because they've put part of themselves into what they're seeing.

The devil is in the details. I think I've heard that somewhere before....

We could take take an overly simplistic view of this and resort to "whelp, people are different" or look at it from the perspective of an author who cares about their craft and ask, "is there a middle ground?" Is there some level of detail that meets Yowser's need for enough dots, while simultaneously leaving enough space for you? Is there a "just right"?

 

[anthrodisiac]

I think - probably because this is how it works for me as a reader - that filling in the details is more immersive for the reader. They create the picture in their mind. They're not being told, they're creating it themselves. So what they experience is a co-creation between them and the writer. They feel a sense of ownership because they've put part of themselves into what they're seeing.

I'm very much into this concept of viewing writing as an act of co-creation with the reader. It's one of the things I constantly keep in mind when I write (well, on a subconscious level at least). I liken it to paint-by-numbers. You can give the reader the picture, but their imagination is what colors it in. You tell them the shape, you give them the idea "okay, this should be colored this way" but they might choose a slightly different color of red than what you pick. More heavy description is like increasing the different specific shades you tell them to color with, lighter description, leaving more up to them, is like having fewer specific shades of color. But in the end, you can only give them so much, it's up to them to really paint that full picture that comes alive in their minds.

I suspect this might get some pushback on the metaphoric level, and I'm first to acknowledge it's an imperfect metaphor. But the basic idea of you giving them words to build the world is still true. It's what makes reading so different from visual media. Everything's already all laid out and painted for them, they don't have to imagine anything. It's like you just gave them the paint-by-numbers already all colored in.

 

[anthrodisiac]

How to tailor plinkage is very much a "know your audience" situation. I'd assumed that was self-evident, as readers are very obviously not a monolith, but I guess I have to make that more clear that there are different expectations among different audiences, who value different things. What plinks most readers in one type of audience is perfectly normal, and even expected, in another.

 

[Britva415]

How to tailor plinkage

Measure twice, cut once, know which side plinkage dresses on.

 

[EmilyMiller]

How to tailor plinkage is very much a "know your audience" situation. I'd assumed that was self-evident, as readers are very obviously not a monolith, but I guess I have to make that more clear that there are different expectations among different audiences, who value different things. What plinks most readers in one type of audience is perfectly normal, and even expected, in another.

The issue is cross-pollination of readers. Our works are not hermetically sealed off. Know your audience? Which audience? And some people - me included - enjoy reading different types of stories at different times.

I appreciate good writing regardless of style or genre or adherence to writing precepts. Maybe good writing is the only valid example of irreducible complexity. You can’t break it down into pitfalls to avoid and precepts to follow.

A good writer pulling me into their world? Bring it on. A good writer breaking the fourth wall to address me directly? Bring it on. A good writer blending pathos and humor? Yup, where do I sign?

 

[liliput1]

Which audience? And some people - me included - enjoy reading different types of stories at different times.

This is perhaps nowhere clearer than with readers who have several books in progress at the same time. I limit myself to one fiction and one non-fiction... Well 2 non-fiction if one is self-help and one is not. I know people who have a serious problem (clearly I don't have a problem because I can stop at 2 or 3 which is perfectly normal).

Tonight might be an escapism night or a learning night or a "I'm starting to feel guilt about not finishing this so I'm going to power through it" night.

 

[EmilyMiller]

This is perhaps nowhere clearer than with readers who have several books in progress at the same time. I limit myself to one fiction and one non-fiction... Well 2 non-fiction if one is self-help and one is not. I know people who have a serious problem (clearly I don't have a problem because I can stop at 2 or 3 which is perfectly normal).

Tonight might be an escapism night or a learning night or a "I'm starting to feel guilt about not finishing this so I'm going to power through it" night.

I’m a one book kinda gal. But the next book might be wildly different to the last. Bad writing makes me nope out. But messing around with customary rules and practice? I’m in. So long as the messing is done with style.

UPDATE: And reflecting my reading preferences, my writing can veer from high literary to low farce. From stylistically plush to bare bones. It’s another reason I write in so many categories.

 

[anthrodisiac]

The issue is cross-pollination of readers. Our works are not hermetically sealed off. Know your audience? Which audience? And some people - me included - enjoy reading different types of stories at different times.

I appreciate good writing regardless of style or genre or adherence to writing precepts. Maybe good writing is the only valid example of irreducible complexity. You can’t break it down into pitfalls to avoid and precepts to follow.

A good writer pulling me into their world? Bring it on. A good writer breaking the fourth wall to address me directly? Bring it on. A good writer blending pathos and humor? Yup, where do I sign?

Hence the tailoring. Your job is to figure out how you want to tailor your story, if you want to at all. How you do it, with which audience(s) in mind, that's your job. Might be your audience is "Fuck it, it's just for me, if someone else likes it, cool." Might be you're playing to a wide readership, multiple audiences, so you give each of them something. Maybe you're writing for a specific subset of people in mind.

You can't control who reads your stories. Might be someone you didn't have in mind picks it up and loves it. Might be someone you have in mind picks it up and hates it. But you can have target audiences, it's a pretty standard concept. It doesn't mean a specific reader, it refers to a subset of readers, you're appealing to a certain market of people, who will most likely like more than one thing, but you're appealing to that one specific aspect of it. Play to the hard sci-fi crowd, or the bawdy romance, or high lit. You can play it straight to a single audience, or mix elements, whatever you want.