Avi

word craft

blog

The Logic of Writing

logic puzzleArtists, and that includes writ­ers, have the stereo­typ­i­cal rep­u­ta­tion for being impul­sive, liv­ing and work­ing by intu­itive steps. Beyond all else there is—so it is often believed—an emo­tion­al basis to cre­ativ­i­ty. Sure­ly some. From this writer’s point of view, what is also fun­da­men­tal is ratio­nal log­ic. To write true, to use a Hem­ing­way term, a sto­ry must unfold in a log­i­cal sequence of events. Crude­ly put, a plot is a series of cause-and-effect sequences until the end­ing has a log­i­cal res­o­lu­tion. When cause and effect are not log­i­cal, read­ers balk. “Doesn’t make sense.” “I can’t fol­low the sto­ry.” “Too many coin­ci­dences.” “You lost me.” “Not believ­able.” “Implau­si­ble.” In fact, there is a ver­i­ta­ble dic­tio­nary of phras­es that are used to reject sto­ries which have no innate log­ic. That doesn’t mean a sto­ry can’t have the unex­pect­ed or sur­pris­es. Indeed, if the unex­pect­ed is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly per­ceived as log­i­cal, the read­er is pleased, even delight­ed. Just wit­ness the enor­mous suc­cess of mys­ter­ies in which the log­ic expla­na­tion is there, but hid­den. The extra­or­di­nary pop­u­lar­i­ty of Sher­lock Holmes is due, I think, because bril­liant log­i­cal deduc­tive rea­son­ing is his char­ac­ter. Of course, to com­pose three hun­dred pages or more (or less) of log­ic, is any­thing, dear Wat­son,  but “Ele­men­tary.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.