[HN Gopher] Ian Fleming explains how to write a thriller (2019)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ian Fleming explains how to write a thriller (2019)
        
       Author : antiviral
       Score  : 119 points
       Date   : 2022-12-07 16:52 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (lithub.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (lithub.com)
        
       | antiviral wrote:
       | "I am excited by the poetry of things and places, and the pace of
       | my stories sometimes suffers while I take the reader by the
       | throat and stuff him with great gobbets of what I consider should
       | interest him, at the same time shaking him and shouting "Like
       | this, damn you!" about something that has caught my particular
       | fancy. But this is a sad lapse, and I must confess that in one of
       | my books, Goldfinger, three whole chapters were devoted to a
       | single game of golf."
        
       | ajkjk wrote:
       | Good read, and as engaging as any novel, but I have to remind
       | myself that by "heroes who are white, villains who are black" he
       | means as in black-and-white contrast...
        
         | RajT88 wrote:
         | That tripped me up too. Ethnicity makes less sense in that
         | sentence than moral alignment.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | goto11 wrote:
         | But when he says he writes for heterosexuals he is being
         | literal!
        
       | AnimalMuppet wrote:
       | Fun fact: Ian Fleming wrote more than James Bond books. He also
       | wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang".
        
         | pdonis wrote:
         | Not only that, but the film of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang had Gert
         | Frobe, who played Goldfinger, as Baron Bomburst of Vulgaria.
        
       | withinboredom wrote:
       | The mechanic who worked on Ian Fleming's yacht once worked on my
       | boat in a small coastal town after I got caught up in a nasty
       | storm -- bear hugging a mast in pouring rain and lightning is
       | generally when you realize how fragile your life can be.
       | 
       | We had a few beers after he was finished and he told me some
       | crazy stories... I still need to blog about that adventure; that
       | was a highlight of my early 20's.
        
       | adamc wrote:
       | Nothing against his piece but Fleming was a dreadful writer. Aim
       | higher, at Eric Ambler or John le Carre.
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | Interesting perspective to think that the point of each page is
       | to get the reader to turn to the following page.
       | 
       | It's like a pitch deck: the point is to keep it simple but show
       | enough ankle that the reader asks for a meeting. But really I
       | should look at each page to see: how do I keep the reader from
       | stopping here?
        
       | legitster wrote:
       | What an amazing read. It feels like it could have been written
       | yesterday.
       | 
       | Throughout I am impressed with the value of professionalism. The
       | most consistent artists seem to see themselves with no more
       | sanctimony than an experienced plumber would.
        
         | nick4780167 wrote:
         | Oh, experienced plumbers get pretty sanctimonious, at least in
         | online forums!
        
         | nemo44x wrote:
         | I think it's precisely because he sees himself as more of a
         | craftsman that creates entertainment rather than an artist who
         | is trying to express the nuance of the human condition. He is
         | secure in his work and purpose and understands just what he is
         | doing.
         | 
         | I believe it's important to make distinct the difference
         | between "art" and "entertainment". Art is inward looking and
         | for the individual to experience uniquely theirs, whereas
         | entertainment is for the masses and outwardly.
        
       | angst_ridden wrote:
       | Interesting contrasting Fleming's work to that of Le Carre.
       | 
       | A lot of Le Carre's work contains the kinds of details Fleming
       | talks about, but the plots are more complex and the pace is
       | slower.
       | 
       | I also personally find that there's an emotional impact from Le
       | Carre that's lacking in Fleming, but perhaps that's just me.
        
         | thomascgalvin wrote:
         | Counterpoint: I know who Ian Fleming is, but I had to Google Le
         | Carre. I am aware of _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_ and some of
         | his other works, but they aren 't lodged in my head the way
         | James Bond is.
         | 
         | And I think that's the point of Fleming's essay. He wasn't
         | writing to be high art, he was writing to make money. Fleming
         | avoided deep plots and emotional exploration, because those
         | detracted from the guttural response he wanted out of his
         | readers.
        
           | angst_ridden wrote:
           | I don't think Le Carre was trying to write high art either,
           | but I think they were interested in different things. Fleming
           | wanted a fast-paced popular thriller, while Le Carre wanted a
           | realistic depiction of spycraft.
        
         | yodon wrote:
         | If you enjoy Le Carre and haven't checked out the Slough House
         | series (novels and mini series on Apple TV) you're in for a
         | treat. It's not exactly Le Carre, but it's definitely Cold War
         | caliber spy fiction set in the present day with a very Smiley-
         | esque old spy master and a budding young spy who is learning to
         | think like a Smiley rather than act like the Bond he's been
         | trained to be.
        
           | GavinMcG wrote:
           | Slow Horses?
        
           | astro-codes wrote:
           | Slow Horses contains absolutely none of the complexity of Le
           | Carre. They're in the same genre, but are not comparable.
        
             | LgWoodenBadger wrote:
             | It also stars an actor who played George Smiley in another
             | film.
        
       | Archelaos wrote:
       | "But the point I wish to make is that if you decide to become a
       | professional writer, you must, broadly speaking, decide whether
       | you wish to write for fame, for pleasure or for money."
       | 
       | Is that the same for devs?
        
         | szundi wrote:
         | Counter-example: Harry Potter
        
           | gamegoblin wrote:
           | I think authors like JK Rowling, Stephen King, etc are the
           | exception that prove the rule. The vast, vast, VAST majority
           | of authors are ones you have never heard of, eking out a
           | living.
        
             | kevinh wrote:
             | Those exceptions don't prove the rule. They prove that
             | there _isn't_ a rule, but merely a high likelihood.
             | 
             | An exception that proves the rule would be a statement like
             | "Parking permitted between 3-5 PM."
        
         | caminante wrote:
         | Seems like a false tri(?)lemma. Ian said pleasure/money.
         | 
         | Why not ALL three?
        
           | Archelaos wrote:
           | Actually Fleming became famous too, but most of it was
           | posthumously. Maybe one should ask oneself what one wants to
           | achieve first.
        
           | runevault wrote:
           | Because, often (though not always) you have to write in a
           | different way to get them. It is hard to write well enough to
           | make money purely for pleasure, as the editing/etc process
           | can be a grind trying to make everything smooth and pleasant
           | to read. And with caveats the writers that are most famous
           | tend to be ones who write big L Literature, which rarely
           | makes significant money but is the stuff you hear about on TV
           | in the news etc.
           | 
           | There are exceptions but it tends to require more than a
           | little bit of luck to hit the zeitgeist in a way to work out.
           | Take for example Brandon Sanderson. Outside SFF I doubt
           | almost anyone has heard of him but dude makes millions.
        
           | pessimizer wrote:
           | Because without a priority, you have no means to make a
           | decision when the goals conflict. If what's most important to
           | you is having cake, you might have to limit how much of it
           | you eat. If you instead value eating cake more, you might
           | have to give up on the idea of keeping it.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related:
       | 
       |  _Ian Fleming Explains How to Write a Thriller (2018)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25181256 - Nov 2020 (18
       | comments)
       | 
       | and for that matter, here's Raymond Chandler explaining how to
       | write a murder - from yesterday:
       | 
       |  _The Simple Art of Murder (1944)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33888453 - Dec 2022 (3
       | comments)
        
         | adamc wrote:
         | Nice references. Chandler was a pretty good writer.
        
       | pdntspa wrote:
       | > [I] lost my virginity like so many of us used to do in the old
       | days
       | 
       | What's he referring to here?
        
         | jgrahamc wrote:
         | I would assume with a prostitute.
        
           | tezza wrote:
           | I read it as a swipe at the non-consensual buggery that was
           | de rigueur at top English schools.
           | 
           | I looked at Wikipedia about Fleming's schools and Eton and
           | Sandhurst werelisted there... archetypical venues for that
           | ingrained behaviour.
           | 
           | Fleming in that section of the article was highlighting that
           | he personally had some axes to grind but kept them firmly out
           | of his novels.
           | 
           | I don't think paying for sex quite has the sting
        
             | nemo44x wrote:
             | He was in the war though. The majority of guys who fought
             | probably lost their virginity during the war to a
             | prostitute. You're facing death every day, you might as
             | well.
        
             | RajT88 wrote:
             | In period fiction, I have seen a few times a father or
             | other older male taking someone to a prostitute to lose
             | their virginity. Common enough that it can't come from
             | nowhere. Sometimes they watch. It is almost always shown as
             | traumatic.
             | 
             | The buggery angle is also viable.
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | jgrahamc wrote:
             | This is Fleming writing not Le Carre.
        
       | 5tefan wrote:
       | Imho after Casino Royale the book series went south rather
       | quickly.
        
       | photochemsyn wrote:
       | I vastly prefer George Smiley to James Bond when it comes to spy-
       | vs-spy fiction (though perhaps Mad Magazine's take on that genre
       | is the best of all). Bond stories consist mostly of one-
       | dimensional heroes and villains and their empty-headed sidekicks,
       | predictably shoehorned into some Disney-style morality play, all
       | designed to improve the public image of the CIA and the MI5/6
       | (both of whom were very upset about Le Carre's take on the Cold
       | War, and basically seem to have promoted Fleming as an antidote).
       | 
       | Usually, when people these days want an unambigous good-guys-vs-
       | bad-guys storyline, they have to go back to WWII and the almost-
       | universally despised Nazi regime. This is because there's a lot
       | of uncertainly about who the 'good guys' were in the Cold War, or
       | even if there were any. The Berlin airlift looks good for the
       | West, but the effort to perpetuate French colonialism in Vietnam,
       | not so much. There are at least a dozen similar examples on both
       | sides, from eastern Europe (USSR not looking so good) to Africa
       | and South/Central America (lots of bad behavior by the 'pro-
       | democracy West').
       | 
       | John Le Carre famously portrayed the conflict as two giant gear
       | wheels grinding against each other and destroying the lives of
       | people unfortunate enough to get caught in the middle, and his
       | doubtful self-questioning protagonist, George Smiley, though
       | obviously devoted to the West, carries that theme well. Le
       | Carre's "A Perfect Spy" and "The Russia House" are also some of
       | his best works, with similar themes and central characters.
        
         | mongol wrote:
         | I can admit I have not read Le Carre. But I have seen some
         | movies and series, and I find them strange. It is implied the
         | stakes are very, very high, but never is explained what exactly
         | is at stake. Very puzzling.
        
           | yodon wrote:
           | >It is implied the stakes are very, very high, but never is
           | explained what exactly is at stake. Very puzzling.
           | 
           | Is it rude of me to ask if you were born after about 1972 (so
           | less than about 17 at the time the wall came down and the
           | Cold War ended)?
           | 
           | Le Carre's books, even the newer ones, are deeply embedded in
           | a grand battle to the death between superpowers. He didn't
           | bother to explain that in his books because at the time he
           | was writing them his readers (and most of his original film
           | audiences) understood and took that context for granted. By
           | about the age of 17, most people in those days had a very
           | clear understanding of the stakes involved in conflict or war
           | between super powers, including for example the Cuban Missile
           | crisis when everyone in the world understood that tens of
           | millions of people could be killed in the next 12 hours or so
           | (if you're not personally familiar with the era, the movie
           | Thirteen Days starring Kevin Costner is a powerful and
           | engaging view into what was perhaps the height of the Cold
           | War experience).
        
         | bell-cot wrote:
         | > Bond stories consist mostly of one-dimensional heroes and
         | villains and their empty-headed sidekicks, predictably
         | shoehorned into some Disney-style morality play...
         | 
         | Sounds like you've seen the Bond movies. Ian Fleming wrote the
         | books. The relationship between those often amounts to "the
         | movie used the book's title, and the name of the book's
         | protagonist".
        
           | adamc wrote:
           | Well, I haven't read all the books, but I read several in my
           | youth (because they were around), and they were much, much
           | worse than the movies.
        
             | logical_proof wrote:
             | You're the first person I have heard that from. We're there
             | any plots in particular that you thought were worse
             | (barring man with the golden gun as that was contrived and
             | I am not sure if Fleming even truly finished it before his
             | death)?
        
         | kaveh808 wrote:
         | Also an excellent spy series: Sandbaggers
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9c6MTFimTk
        
           | spitfire wrote:
           | The sandbaggers was /fantastic/.
           | 
           | For those who don't know, it's basically accountancy with
           | violence.
        
       | mistrial9 wrote:
       | I read every James Bond book as a school kid (eight of them,
       | ten?).. they were fun! the Cold War themes and international
       | mobster stereotypes were not a big deal for me at that time of
       | life.
        
       | more_corn wrote:
       | When I encounter the phrase "full stop" I'm inclined to
       | immediately stop reading. It ranks up there with misusing
       | literally.
        
         | recuter wrote:
         | Literally full stop.
        
         | burkaman wrote:
         | Same, I stopped reading at "I recently stumbled across an
         | essay". Really, did they trip over the essay on the floor?
         | Ludicrous, all word definitions should be frozen in time to
         | whatever they meant when I was in school, and let's get rid of
         | all these confusing "idioms".
        
         | cafard wrote:
         | Do you have the same reaction to the American equivalent,
         | "period"?
        
           | nemo44x wrote:
           | It's annoying when Americans say "full stop" after something
           | they think was powerful or something. It's like dude, just
           | say "period", please.
        
         | BeetleB wrote:
         | You literally don't know what literally means. Literally!
        
         | dang wrote:
         | " _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an article
         | or post to complain about in the thread. Find something
         | interesting to respond to instead._"
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        
         | ajkjk wrote:
         | Maybe work on that. Stopping reading something over a phrase
         | would be petty.
        
       | nyc111 wrote:
       | "I never correct anything and I never go back to what I have
       | written, except to the foot of the last page to see where I have
       | got to."
       | 
       | I think this is tough to do, but a good idea.
       | 
       | And everyone says how important is the routine.
        
         | progre wrote:
         | I'm sure I saw a text "editor" a few years back where it was
         | impossible to actually edit the text. Adding text was the only
         | function. It was meant to help with this style of writing.
        
       | t43562 wrote:
       | I was disappointed when I read the Bond books - they seemed to
       | have no charm at all. I think it was the Italian producer (Albert
       | Broccoli) who must have made the initial films worth bothering
       | with.
       | 
       | My spy hero is Bernard Sampson from the Len Deighton Trilogies -
       | starting with Berlin Game, Mexico Set, London Match. He talks
       | about how experienced spies are like frightened old women and
       | avoid risks and it's only the noobs who charge into things
       | bravely. Sampson is the believable opposite of Bond who would
       | obviously not have a long life in reality. Sampson is still
       | extremely brave - just not idiotic - and he's very clever but
       | human so it takes time for him to work out what's going on.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | Hm.
       | 
       |  _" My plots are fantastic, while being often based upon truth.
       | They go wildly beyond the probable but not, I think, beyond the
       | possible. . . . Even so, they would stick in the gullet of the
       | reader and make him throw the book angrily aside--for a reader
       | particularly hates feeling he is being hoaxed--but for two
       | further technical devices, if you like to call them that. First
       | of all, the aforesaid speed of the narrative, which hustles the
       | reader quickly beyond each danger point of mockery and, secondly,
       | the constant use of familiar household names and objects which
       | reassure him that he and the writer have still got their feet on
       | the ground."_
       | 
       | That's what makes action-adventure movies work. It keeps people
       | from realizing that all someone needed to do was some simple
       | thing, instead of the adventurous thing. That Fleming did this in
       | his writing made the move to the screen easier.
       | 
       |  _" Above all there must never be those maddening recaps where
       | the hero maunders about his unhappy fate, goes over in his mind a
       | list of suspects, or reflects what he might have done or what he
       | proposes to do next."_
       | 
       | Much "great literature", and wannabe great literature, is full of
       | such introspection. Ayn Rand takes it to an extreme. The other
       | big vice for writers is the info-dump, where there's a long
       | description of the setting. Read anything self-published, and
       | you'll probably find both of these problems. "Show, don't tell".
       | 
       | There are major action movies with voice-overs or explicit scene-
       | setting at the very beginning, from Star Wars to Kick-Ass. But if
       | it's in the middle, you're doing it wrong.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | > Much "great literature", and wannabe great literature, is
         | full of such introspection. Ayn Rand takes it to an extreme.
         | The other big vice for writers is the info-dump, where there's
         | a long description of the setting. Read anything self-
         | published, and you'll probably find both of these problems.
         | "Show, don't tell".
         | 
         | As usual, the rules can be thrown out _if you 're good at it_.
         | A master writes whole chapters of introspection and makes them
         | sublime and compelling. Woolf filled the entire middle of a
         | book with description of an unoccupied house passing the years,
         | featuring very little that could even generously be called
         | action and hardly even any characters to properly introspect
         | despite the whole affair _feeling_ introspective, and it 's
         | excellent. An author even slightly below that level of skill
         | and talent creates only trash of one variety or another, should
         | they attempt anything similar.
         | 
         | But the point definitely holds for most writers, and you're
         | exactly right that you can dig through (especially, but not
         | only) self-published works and easily improve most of them
         | several times per chapter by swapping a _tell_ for a _show_. I
         | suppose one hallmark of what might be called literature--at
         | least, the kind that truly deserves that label, not just any
         | work that aspires to it--is that if you were to edit it in that
         | fashion, instead of getting better, it would get worse.
         | 
         | > There are major action movies with voice-overs or explicit
         | scene-setting at the very beginning, from Star Wars to Kick-
         | Ass. But if it's in the middle, you're doing it wrong.
         | 
         | Same here. See: Tarantino. He interrupted a thrilling, tense
         | narrative to have a distractingly-famous actor who wasn't
         | otherwise in the movie explain, directly to the audience, a bit
         | about the chemistry of film, and somehow it worked. And that's
         | not the only time he's done something like that. Don't do it...
         | except if you can.
        
       | Octokiddie wrote:
       | I'd consider James Bond to lie more toward the genre of "action"
       | rather than "thriller."
       | 
       | An action story has three obligatory elements:
       | 
       | - a hero (James Bond)
       | 
       | - a victim (humanity, or maybe a damsel)
       | 
       | - a villain (rotating)
       | 
       | This sounds childishly simple, and it is. But it's also very easy
       | for authors of thrillers to forget the triangle because it's not
       | something you even notice in a well-crafted action story. But all
       | three need to be fleshed out to the extent that the audience
       | cares about them.
       | 
       | The difference between an action story and a thriller is that in
       | a thriller, the victim and hero are the same character. For
       | example, Stephen King's _Misery_ is a thriller because the hero
       | is the victim. Action stories often involve the hero 's facing
       | death, but it's done to save the victim.
       | 
       | Something else that's easy to forget is the human value at stake
       | in an action story: life and death. James Bond is always on the
       | edge of being killed, even when in extracurricular persuits. If
       | Bond doesn't succeed, the victim is toast, and the stranger that
       | death is, the better. At the end of the story, there's no doubt
       | which way it went.
       | 
       | This is why good action stories are page-turners, or as Fleming
       | writes:
       | 
       | > "You have to get the reader to turn over the page."
       | 
       | Humans are hardwired to pay attention when death is a possible
       | outcome. That's why rubbernecking is a thing even though people
       | complain about it. It's also one reason cited for the popularity
       | of NASCAR. Death can come at any time even though the action is
       | quite repetitive.
       | 
       | More than that, the scenes in an action story tend to turn on
       | life and death. That's one place where action story authors can
       | get into trouble: writing too many scenes that turn on a value
       | other than life-death, or don't turn on anything. It's shockingly
       | easy to write scenes that offer nothing more than information.
       | One or two of them is all it takes for the reader to yawn and
       | quit.
        
         | jameshart wrote:
         | Not sure I agree with this taxonomy. Remember, the genre
         | 'thriller' has a different meaning when applied to written
         | fiction, as opposed to movies.
         | 
         | As Eddie Izzard once memorably pointed out, you get a lot of
         | car chases in movies; very few car chases in books though.
         | 
         | So in movies we see 'action' emerge as a distinct genre, with
         | 'thriller' left for more Hitchcockian psychological excitement
         | (and then Michael Jackson comes along and confuses everyone by
         | writing a song about horror movies and calling it 'Thriller').
         | 
         | But meanwhile in novel-land, spy stories (and detective
         | stories) were _always_ 'thrillers' - although maybe that does
         | conjure more Len Deighton or Le Carre than Fleming... Still,
         | from 'thrillers' we also get 'techno thrillers' which in some
         | ways also build off Bond-like action elements.
         | 
         | I suppose there is the other pulp-ish fiction category of
         | 'adventure', which you could also shelve Bond under, alongside
         | war stories and explorers and space captains.
        
           | thaumasiotes wrote:
           | > As Eddie Izzard once memorably pointed out, you get a lot
           | of car chases in movies; very few car chases in books though.
           | 
           | > So in movies we see 'action' emerge as a distinct genre,
           | with 'thriller' left for more Hitchcockian psychological
           | excitement
           | 
           | I would say that e.g. _The Da Vinci Code_ is written with
           | pacing that would make me characterize it as a  "thriller".
           | There's no psychological excitement going on there.
           | 
           | I don't think it's true that you don't see car chases, or
           | their equivalent, in books.
        
             | jameshart wrote:
             | Well no, the Da Vinci Code can not be accused of embodying
             | any form of excitement - psychological or otherwise.
             | 
             | And are you characterizing the multi chapter long taxi ride
             | of exposition from the Da Vinci code as a _car chase_?
        
           | Archelaos wrote:
           | > in novel-land, spy stories (and detective stories) were
           | _always_ 'thrillers'
           | 
           | I do not agree with regard to detective stories, because the
           | thriller aspect varies a lot from story to story. There are
           | many examples where the focus is primarily on the who-done-it
           | aspect: the detective arrives at a crime scene and
           | demonstrates his superior ability of deduction.
        
             | jameshart wrote:
             | Oh, naturally, there's a world of difference between a
             | whodunnit and a detective thriller. I'm thinking Dashiell
             | Hammett, not Agatha Christie.
        
               | Archelaos wrote:
               | My remark was targeting the "always" with regard to
               | detective stories. Of course, I would have no objections
               | if you only claim that detective thrillers are always
               | thrillers.
               | 
               | A more interesting question is what narrative principles
               | are at work when a detective thrillers leans more towards
               | the "whodunnit" side in contrast to when it leans more
               | towards the thriller side of the spectrum. For example, a
               | classic narrative strategy of the "whodunnit" story is
               | further murders during an ongoing investigation, with the
               | victim being the respective current prime suspect. This
               | thriller element increases the urgency of the
               | investigation (thriller aspect) and it at the same time
               | is meant to impress and confront the reader with the
               | challange that the hitherto closest explanation of the
               | murders needs to be replaced by something more
               | sophisticated ("whodunnit" aspect).
        
           | parenthesis wrote:
           | (The song 'Thriller' was written by Rod Temperton, by the
           | way.)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-07 23:00 UTC)