How do I write like Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I have just finished reading Three by Ted Dekker and all I can say is Wow! The book was so darn hard to put down that I read it in a day (of course doing other stuff also).
How does he write so many twists into this book?

I was wondering what the key tips are to writing like Frank Peretti and Ted Dekker (their style is very cinematic) and I want my story to have that feel. This is not too sell millions of books (that's not ever going to happen) but I'm just interested in knowing and have always enjoyed that style of writing - easy to understand and action packed. I know lots of short sentences with strong words are good. What else?

[Photosoph]

I'm actually not sure. I wonder how they do write like that as well. I haven't read Three yet, but from what I've heard it's really good. I have, however, read some of Frank Perettti's novels.
Maybe there's a lot of planning involved? Like, perhaps (unlike what I've done a lot of the time), before they even begin to write the novel they both: a) think and make notes on it as they get more and more ideas and b)carefully script out the direction the story will take.
Of course, I'm only guessing.

Strong words... I know short sentences give an excellent effect in tense or action-packed scenes, but strong words.. I haven't really thought about that before. By strong words do you mean more descriptive ones -e.g, enormous as opposed to big, or perhaps more exact, e.g, tapered as opposed to pointed... or both?

[Maledicte]

Well, both of them do have punchy dialogue, I know that much. And an offbeat sense of humor.

Short sentences for terse situations and punctuations have their place, but it's wise not to rely on them too much. It does help the story move quicker though.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

SirThinks2Much and Photosoph thanks for that advice. Yes, it isn't good to rely on it too much, but using it wisely is the key.

By strong words I mean both of the examples you gave (Photosoph). I know Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti both do detailed outlines of their stories before they begin the first draft and that they have detailed notes for each scene. But I don't know anything else. I wasn't so much looking for that as for the literary devices the authors use to keep the reader on the edge of their seat every page and such a creative way of telling a story. I like to think I'm a creative person but I'm still an amateur writer (lol)

I've read reviews of Thr3e on Amazon and there were some people that couldn't pick up the Christian themes (I don't think everything needs to be served to us on a silver dish). Most people enjoyed it but some people said Ted Dekker did too much telling and not enough showing. Normally that's not a good idea but isn't that what make's his writings work? What are some examples of him telling when he should be showing? I can't think of any at the moment. Some things can only be told otherwise the pace would be off and one's 200 page book would be more like 800 pages of bordem.

Thankyou ladies!

[bigsleepj]

I consider it a mental curse to try and write like someone you admire (my attempts to try and write like Stephen King only resulted in tears...but that's a different story). Try to write like yourself - develope your own style rather.

PS: You called the above mentioned book "cinematic". How would you define it if a book is cinematic?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I already write in a similar style to the two authors mentioned but I don't have a developed talent like they do.
Thr3e is a cinematic style book in that you feel as if you are watching a high-class thriller. It creates vivid pictures in your mind. The sentences are often short and dynamic and easy to understand. Its pure entertainment but can be read at a whole deeper level. Its not a chore to read and the entertainment generation find it easier to identify with.
Its hard to explain really because it may just be my opinion. Maybe some people agree with me?

[bigsleepj]

I already write in a similar style to the two authors mentioned but I don't have a developed talent like they do.

That's good at least. But when you write and you look over your writing you mustn't think 'is this how Ted Dekker or Peretti would write' because it would cloud your writing. Also remember the most important rule of writing:

Don't try to please everybody with your writing. Christ did not try to please everybody, but just to tell them the Holy Truth wether they liked it or not (especially the Rich Young Man and the Pharisees). Be true to yourself and to Christ. But just remember: if you try and please everybody you end up pleasing nobody.

Thr3e is a cinematic style book in that you feel as if you are watching a high-class thriller. It creates vivid pictures in your mind. The sentences are often short and dynamic and easy to understand. Its pure entertainment but can be read at a whole deeper level. Its not a chore to read and the entertainment generation find it easier to identify with.
Its hard to explain really because it may just be my opinion. Maybe some people agree with me?

I don't think that all stories should be clear - it must leave a lot of room for speculation between the readers. I find it more fun when people discuss things that are not explained than those that are explained (it certainly has kept activity in "The Wardrobe"). All good writers should suggest and insinuate rather than just say "The reason Arthur Woke up on his head that morning was because someone broke in and placed him in that position" (random example). I think I may have mentioned something like this before.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

My writings would never please everbody, and that's not my aim. And yes I will let the Holy Spirit guide and direct me. The novel I'm working on is dark but has a good Christian message, my characters are flawed so people can relate to them. Its aimed at non-Christians and struggling Christians but anyone can read it.

Maybe I didn't word that right. Maybe clear isn't the right word to use for this instance. What I'm trying to say is I don't like it when a story has so detailed descriptions that it doesn't gel with the rest of the story, make you turn the next page etc. I like it when books have different levels of meaning and stuff is left up to speculation, but not when the book is just a chore to read because of the writing style used or something like that. Thanks J!

[bigsleepj]

Maybe I didn't word that right. Maybe clear isn't the right word to use for this instance. What I'm trying to say is I don't like it when a story has so detailed descriptions that it doesn't gel with the rest of the story, make you turn the next page etc....

Nah, I understand that part the first time.

I actually like incredibly discriptive books but I have my limits. An overly discriptive book must place a reader so inside the character's adventures so that they can feel they lived it with them.

Off course if you're writing a pulp-novel (not that Dekker's pulp) or a thriller then a Charles Dickens style would be very stupid. A thriller's writing should be spare and quick and can still hold a large amount of literary subtleties. A supernatural thriller or horror story can be discriptive (Stephen King! for instance) because in horrro is not about a fast pacing but about a slow building of horror. You must decide when you write what style to use because its imperative.

[starwarsboy90]

My writings would never please everbody, and that's not my aim. And yes I will let the Holy Spirit guide and direct me. The novel I'm working on is dark but has a good Christian message, my characters are flawed so people can relate to them. Its aimed at non-Christians and struggling Christians but anyone can read it.

Maybe I didn't word that right. Maybe clear isn't the right word to use for this instance. What I'm trying to say is I don't like it when a story has so detailed descriptions that it doesn't gel with the rest of the story, make you turn the next page etc. I like it when books have different levels of meaning and stuff is left up to speculation, but not when the book is just a chore to read because of the writing style used or something like that. Thanks J!


Well, I'd have to agree with you on that one Warrior 4 Jesus. As Authors, both of us are into deep theology, however if you get stuck too deep in it, it might get dull or someone might think you are a descendant of Edgar Allen Poe. I try not to be at least, so I'm always looking for someone's opinion on my writing projects and so forth or an unmention series,lol. Send me some of your writings. Frank Peretti is pretty good, especially the Cooper Kids Adventure Series, which I have the first and last book. He's a very good writer.

[Photosoph]

Short sentences for terse situations and punctuations have their place, but it's wise not to rely on them too much. It does help the story move quicker though.

Definitely.

Those are some good points, BSJ (btw, like your new avatar). Yes, detailed description has its place, but like you said, when a story is moving quickly, too much description can hold it back.

I understand what you mean, W4J; there have been quite a few books where I've skipped forward several pages or even a chapter because it seemed to dawdle. As long as it fits the story and is done well, a lot of shortish, dynamic sentences can make the book very racey -in a good way.

[Maledicte]

oddly enough, I've skipped pages because the shortish, dynamic sentences bored me ;;>.>

[bigsleepj]

Those are some good points, BSJ. Yes, detailed description has its place, but like you said, when a story is moving quickly, too much description can hold it back.

I actually prefer very discriptive books because they place you perfectly into the shoes of the characters. My own writing style is very discriptive but I don't overdo it because I'm actually hyperactive and get bored when I spend too much time describing something in detail.

(btw, like your new avatar)

Thanks. I tried to base him on Buster Keaton but failed miserably.

[quote="Photosoph"]I understand what you mean, W4J]

Addmittedly I've done it myself. One book I've skipped the most of is also one of the best books I've read - Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. It's a wonderful, epic story that I consider some of the best reading I've done, but many times I've skipped the historical details like to 50 page description of the Battle of Waterloo told in the utmost detail just for an anecdote of two supporting characters in the book, one who dies quickly and whose son ends up being a major character. Or his 70 page history and oppinion on the dead language of argot or the history of the Paris Sewer system or his criticism of convents. His discriptions of the battles in the Parisian barricades however are justified because its a major event in the novel. The story itself is good but the author overdid the historical information incredibly. Still you can't really claim that Victor Hugo revised history just to make the plot fit and I admire that in theory although not in practice.

[Pent]

I loved Thr3e! That was a CRAZZZZZY story. And Frank Perreti of course is Frank Perreti. How to write like them I don't know. It is there style. They developed there unique style+good writing skills=Great books. So to become a great writer you will need to practice. To write like them you...I don't know. You would have to be a good writer and be able to copy there style really precisely. Only there style changes from book to book some times. But if you where a good writer you wouldn't copy there style because you would allready have your own. You can't really be a good writer without your own style. And you can't really copy a style like Ted or Franks without being a good writer. So your stuck in an endless cycle.

[starwarsboy90]

You have an interesting point. I doubt even I could get out of a cycle like that if my writing was pretty close to a really good authors, but luckily, it isn't!

"To write like them you...I don't know. You would have to be a good writer and be able to copy there style really precisely. Only there style changes from book to book some times. But if you where a good writer you wouldn't copy there style because you would allready have your own. You can't really be a good writer without your own style. And you can't really copy a style like Ted or Franks without being a good writer. So your stuck in an endless cycle."

[bigsleepj]

If any of you are interested you can join this e-mail list started by a fellow called Karlton Douglas where Christians who love fantasy can join in and discuss potential reads, books, Peretti, CS Lewis, Tolkien, writing projects and the like. We even discuss movies, comic-books such. You don't have to be part of Yahoo to join this list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cfanwriter_reader/

[Lochaber Axe]

I have been told that i write like Frank Peretti, but one does seem to write like their influences. I write what is in my head, and so any similarities is like the movies have in the credits... coincedental. On another note, the term "strong words" was used an I'm afraid the wrong assertion was put as to its definition. A strong word is one that impacts the reader... such as this hastily written example.

"The banner twisted and flailed at the air, breaking apart the clumps of smoke that slivered from the wreckage below. The rock, that the staff impaled, quaked with each concussive blow from the battalion's artillery. Cracks grew with each heartbeat boom; the blocks of centuries' hands fading away from the forlorn land.

A black pearl sheered through the abyssal sea of smoke, rammed into the trembling foundations that upheld the flag, and sent both aloft. The flag glided sideways to splatter into the muck and grime, but the centuries' wrath arched from its former point and barreled through the shutting clouds. Roar it did, as it threw all its pain in one final triumph...

[SPOILER]The soldier's head, a man no more than twenty, was sledgehammer pounded into the soft dirt below the battlements.[/SPOILER]"

I think that qualifies as a good reaction, though i do tend to over-metaphor my nouns.

Oh and I spoilerized the last part, because it is a tad bit graphic.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

You have great description there but it seems stilted and hard to read because you have a little to many. Try saying it in simpler terms and it will get the same point across but be easier to read and understand.

[Lochaber Axe]

You have great description there but it seems stilted and hard to read because you have a little to many. Try saying it in simpler terms and it will get the same point across but be easier to read and understand.

I had written it in only a few minutes... I wanted to show what I meant by strong wording. The awful amount of elaborate description was entirely intentional.

I do appreciate the criticism though, just don't worry... this isn't how i normally write.