How writing is like improv

[resonant]

I just finished reading Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. It's a highly quotable book, one of those books that tempts you to drive your companions nuts by saying, "Hey, listen to this." Which is basically what I'm doing.

The book quotes Keith Johnstone, who's apparently a trendsetter in improv theater:

"If you'll stop reading for a moment and think of something you wouldn't want to happen to you, or to someone you love, then you'll have thought of something worth staging or filming."

Then he goes on: "In life, most of us are highly skilled at suppressing action. ... Bad improvisers block action, often with a high degree of skill. Good improvisers develop action."

So that takes me back to what I've been saying about my difficulties in creating action in stories.

One of the ways good improvisers create action, by the way, is by what Gladwell calls the "rule of agreement" -- if one actor suggests something, the other actor has to go along with it.

There's a rule like that in brainstorming, too. And now I wonder whether it ought to work with writing as well?

Comments

[wyoluvr.livejournal.com]

i think that would be a really interesting way to write a story. i'd hate it, of course, because i'm a very controlling writer and i want my story happen my way in my time and mmmm...yes, controlling *g*.

[corinna-5.livejournal.com]

As I recall, and I read Blink back in the spring, the improv goal is to not only accept what the other person says, but to top it -- to say "yes, AND" rather than "no" or "but." Which is an excellent way to set up action in a story -- Sturgess's line about chasing your hero up a tree and then taking away his ladder comes to mind...

[randomblade.livejournal.com]

I'm an aspiring writer, and I've been doing impro in the sydney competitions for the past three years, and I agree with you that the skill of accepting and developing action carries across the disciplines.

More than that, though, is the ability to pull something out of thin air and then JUSTIFY it. Justification- creating some kind of internal logic to a scene, however far out it might be- is integral to impro and I've found it incredibly useful in writing, particularly fiction, where unforseen problems almost always arise.

[vass]

Keith Johnstone, who's apparently a trendsetter in improv theater:

I highly recommend his book Impro. It's one of those books that redecorated the inside of my head. You do not need to be anything to do with theatre to find this book interesting.

[rydra_wong]

Ditto, ditto. He's fantastic on storytelling, and ways around self-censorship.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Depends on whether you mean the characters in your story ought to agree (and top the suggestion) and create action that way, or if you suggest two or more people writing a story together?

I think either way (and I have certain good writers in mind) you might end up getting slightly hysterical texts, hilarious action and dialogue, one bada-bing after the other.

Unless, once again, you are talking about drafts, and getting ideas that way might help. Splainy?

[julad.livejournal.com]

heh, isn't that betaing? at least, betaing of the story-hijacking variety. *g*

I've got Blink on my list of to-read (it's a loooooong list) but I've been a bit suspicious of it-- skimming it, it struck me as very anecdotal, the kind of book that takes, okay, an interesting phenomenon, and makes it much more universal and fundamental than it actually is. Did you find it credible?

[giglet.livejournal.com]

the kind of book that takes, okay, an interesting phenomenon, and makes it much more universal and fundamental than it actually is.

Yes. I know many legitimate science writers who hate the book for exactly that reason -- especially the journalists who cover psychology.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

The friend who recommended the book said, "You don't really have to read it. You can just skim it. It's an example of itself."