ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: arianne on June 09, 2011, 04:14:47 AM
-
We've all read those books where the sun takes fifty pages or so to rise (and then fifty more pages about how the hero and heroine felt when watching this wonderful sunrise).
However, I sometimes found myself writing long sentences, not flowery description actually, but kind of longish anyway.
Example I have used when talking to people about this, is where one of the characters smashes a pane of glass with his fist, and the subsequent description goes “...the slivers [of glass] showered down to disappear into the dark of the pavement”.
I personally like this, but I'm wondering if maybe it's too wordy? Should the glass just shower down? In a few simple words? Or just have the glass fall down instead?
Thoughts?
-
I'd suggest getting it down first and then going back and looking to see if it's too wordy.
You want your words to evoke the scene and to flow - and there's no right or wrong amount of words.
Please note that I come from a background of trying to write scripts so I'm used to trying to keep the word count down
and when I'm writing prose I have to remember that I have room to be more descriptive.
-
Do what Snow suggested--first get everything written down. Then you can go back through. I wouldn't worry too much on being too wordy until you've gotten through several revisions and tightened the story. Then you can worry about whether or not it's too wordy. And sometimes, all you need is a slight little tweak. My take on that would be "the slivers showered down and disappeared into the dark of the pavement."
So basically--get it written and worry about it later. Also, there are times where it might be preferable to keep it simple, and other times you want that little bit extra to keep people interested. One way to look at that is along the lines of "Will this keep people reading?" and "Does this keep the story going forward and keep the tension?"
Oh, and the type of story you're writing can also make a difference in the way things are done. An epic fantasy is usually written in a completely different style than an urban fantasy.
-
I'd say something is "too wordy" when the prose goes beyond setting the atmosphere and begins to obsure the story you're trying to tell. When your Average Intended Reader starts to have trouble tracking what's going on amidst the descriptive artwork.
Try feeding a several pages to your friends/betas/writing group associates and say "what's it about?" If they have trouble telling you, then you might want to strengthen the central narrative and ease up on the atmospherics. Personally, I like the bit you gave us. Just have to make sure you've got enough solid carpentry beneath the varnish to hold things together. ;)
-
Example of "too wordy with no good point".
Stephen King.
There's a chair in a room where something happens. Or doesn't happen. The main character(s) aren't even in the room. Rather, a minor character who serves the main character a hamburger is in the room with the chair at some point during his childhood.
Author then spools off a page or two describing said chair, then 50 pages of an anecdote regarding an old woman who had a similar chair 60 years ago, and how she really liked to eat soup with a certain brand of crackers when sitting in that chair, and how the cracker company was owned by a fellow who didn't have a chair anything like the one the old lady is eating soup and crackers in, and there was a nephew of hers who found the chair kind of creepy, and mentioned it to the minor character who's hamburger serving function is or is delayed by .12 seconds as he briefly brainfarted and thought about the chair instead of promptly saying "do you want fries with that?"
Application of Starbeam's "will it keep people reading" and "does it advance the story" screams a big howling "nope, not really."
As Snowleapord and Starbeam both suggested, get the framework laid out first. You can then wander around adding atmosphere and prose to flesh things out without being as likely to meander too far away from your intended path.
-
I read a blog post earlier today, and if I can find it later will try to link it, and it mentions about the details and moving the story. The context was what authors can learn from a trip to Disneyland/world. This particular bit was about how Disney uses the little details to add to the experience, the example being at the Animal Kingdom park and how the cement is pressed with leaf patterns so that it doesn't detract from the atmosphere and stand out as cement. I know it was worded much better than that.
**Here's the link (http://www.iggiandgabi.com/2011/06/3-things-i-learned-about-writing-at-disney-world/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+IggiGabi+(iggi+%26+gabi)&utm_content=Google+Reader) I mentioned about Disney.
Also, PG's example of Stephen King is a good one. Also, King has a good example in On Writing--I forget exactly, I think the sentence example is something like "The man stopped to have a bowel movement." Or something like that, and King says to say what you mean, i.e. "The man stopped to take a shit." I know that one is right, though I never quite remember the other couple examples he gives. And I'm not sure where my copy of the book is. And with King, he's definitely an example of listen to what he says, but don't do what he does. Cause it's extremely contradictory.
-
Sorry, I don't think I have enough of the story to give you an answer.
Yes, this might be one of those famous babies that we are supposed to cut.
But, this might be a wonderful pre-set up for what happens to the main character over the course of the book. In which case, it earns its place in the paragraph.
I agree. I personally like it a great deal and would be loath to cut it. I like detail that draws me in, but detail that earns its place for more than one reason is far superior. Write and decide later, but never cut and delete, instead cut and save it somewhere. You might really want it back in there later.
Description and dialog need more than one reason to be on the page. If it ain't revealing or adding tone or setting up something coming, it isn't working hard enough and you are being lazy! LOL
-
I dunno. It depends on the scene.
Something like that isn't too wordy if the scene is dramatic and emotional. If the scene is tense and action-oriented, you want to keep your word choices short and punchy. Sentence structure can echo the mood of the scene.
Not must. There are almost no "musts" in writing. You can end a dramatic, emotional scene with "He wept." Short words, short sentence, lots of impact. But in general, if you're writing a fight scene, you don't want lots of purple prose with lush description and poignant word choices. If you're writing the post-death emotional trauma scene, you don't necessarily want lots of colorful, bright verbs with choppy paragraphs.
Edit: Oh, my nitpick? They wouldn't drop *into* the darkness of the pavement unless there's some kind of shadow being cast by the pavement. They'd drop *onto* the darkness of the pavement, which implies there's pavement that's not well-lit and is thus dark.
-
For some examples of evocative, atmospheric writing that still carries the story, I'd suggest Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep and John D. MacDonald's Darker Than Amber. It's the sort of writing where you can smell the wet pavement but the story and characters aren't overwhelmed.
-
Depends on the style you are doing.
If you're aiming for Alexandre Dumas, an average sentence length of fifty words is not too many; and Dumas endures.
-
Depends on the style you are doing.
If you're aiming for Alexandre Dumas, an average sentence length of fifty words is not too many; and Dumas endures.
There are some readers who think it's more like "and Dumas just doesn't end." :D
-
There are some readers who think it's more like "and Dumas just doesn't end." :D
People keep going back to the first Musketeers book and Monte Cristo, at any rate. I'll grant precious few people read Louise de la Vallieres these days, and I can see why.
-
Yeah. but you have to consider your target audience, assuming you have one. Dumas isn't that likely going to sell to people who like a crisper, more modern writing style. Now, if the writer's goal is to emulate a certain writing style or explore/invent a new style without regard for whether or not anyone's going to read it, that's another matter.
In terms of beginning to write though, it seems to me one should master the basics of description, characterization and storytelling before trying to push the style envelope. Much the way Picasso mastered the fundamentals of accurately depicting what he saw before venturing into more stylized work. (Also helps to establish a reader base, if the goal is not simply to write for the sake of writing but to share those stories with more than a handful of friends or niche readers. When the base is established, they will hopefully follow the writer as his style evolves.
-
Another issue to keep in mind is your pacing.
Lovingly described details slow down the action of your story. This is better for introspective passages, or when you want to Make A Point. Short, choppy descriptions (or no descriptions at all) speed things up. It's why thrillers and page turners in general aren't usually praised for their scintillating prose.
-
Yeah. but you have to consider your target audience, assuming you have one. Dumas isn't that likely going to sell to people who like a crisper, more modern writing style.
Dumas may not be an NY Times bestseller, but he's pretty much never gone out of print for more than 150 years, so there is an audience for that.
In terms of beginning to write though, it seems to me one should master the basics of description, characterization and storytelling before trying to push the style envelope. Much the way Picasso mastered the fundamentals of accurately depicting what he saw before venturing into more stylized work.
I think we may be hitting a philosophical disagreement here, in that I don't see style as distinct from those other elements; everything one writes has a style, and that is a thing it seems worth being conscious of. Picasso's early more naturalistic work is work in a naturalistic style, no ?
-
Again, it's a question of who your target audience is, and the practical matter of getting established with that audience. Dumas is still in print, yes, because there are still enough people appreciate classic literature and/or enjoy that writing style.
But a new writer flopping a Tome O' Wordyness out there is not dreadfully likely to catch up with him simply on the basis of "It's wordy, like Dumas.", assuming he's able to even get published simply because he's yet to establish much in the way of credentials with the classic lit fans. Most likely, publisher is going to look at and say "Yeah. Give me something shorter that might sell, then maybe we'll talk about your magnum opus here."
How many Dumas fans are going to buy a book simply on the basis that "It's long like Dumas, and has lots and lots of words?" They're going to need to be convinced it's worth the time to read, that that big old heaping pile of words actually add up to something worth their time. Unless the author has enough published material under his belt to make a say "hey, I'll give that a try."
Stephan Brust established himself as a successful and entertaining writer and built a reader base with the Taltos books before trotting out his Phoenix Guard. In all likelyhood, he was learning more and more about writing during that time period. In regard to the logistics of making a published book happen, without having laid that groundwork his odds of having the Phoenix Guard published would have been slim. On top of that, without already having led so many readers to Vlad's world it probably wouldn't have done as well. The publisher had a reason to trust that The Phoenix Guard was worth investing resources and money into, and there was an established base of readers who had reason to trust it was worth their time and 8 dollars.
Picasso's earlier work demonstrated that he spent time learning the fundamentals of depicting what he saw, and he then moved to a style where he depicted what he felt about what he saw. Having a foundation, a set of tools he was able to work with allowed him to do so more effectively than the current frustrated art students who never learn to draw but go straight to throwing fried monkey vomit at a canvas and then get frustrated when nobody understands how profound their work is. By mastering the basic tools, Picasso was able to create work that acted as a bridge from his earlier, realistic style to abstract style he developed over time.
It's a recurring theme, mastering the basics before moving to the more complex works. Michelangelo learned to draw simple things, to make pigments, basic composition before he did the Sistine Chapel, etc.
In the same way, Dumas most likely learned words and grammer and the fundamentals of communication before he laid trotted out The Three Musketeers. That's why most writers find it useful to start with short stories, character sketches, vignettes before they try to tackle a full blown novel. If a writer never learns to write a basic short story, never learns and exercises the skills to effectively describe basic events and emotions, it's not terribly likely they're going to produce the next Jitterbug Perfume, Ishmael or Atlas Shrugged.
-
Another reason Dumas is wordy, like Dickens, is because his works were serialized before novelized. So they were paid by the word.
-
I'm pretty sure that "wordy" is unlikely to become a genre in the near future ;D "Oh, hey, check out this new wordy novel by so-and-so"? Not happening.
Looking at my own stuff, I find that I tend to use "wordier" sentences to "create atmosphere" (Oh, how grand thou art making thyself out to be!) I like the feel of making things sort of flow in movie-like manner.
However, several of my action (aka fight) scenes also seem to have longer sentences.
Would it be better to say,
"He shot me."
or
"He shot me, the bullet exploding in the enclosed space like fireworks on the Fourth of July."
Possibly a bad example up there ;D Hopefully SOMEONE got what I'm trying to say....
Personally, I'm a little biased against classic authors, because it seems to me that they take a WAY long time to get to the point sometimes. Granted, most of them were not writing thrillers, and some of them were getting paid by the word, but there is a limit to the number of "gentle reader" asides that I can take in a given page :D
-
Never thought of that. Irony, thy name is Word Count Filler.
Makes me wonder....
"Look, Jeff, these little stories about Canterbury are funny and all, but I need a few more of them if you want me to pick up your bar tab for you."
-
Another reason Dumas is wordy, like Dickens, is because his works were serialized before novelized. So they were paid by the word.
And not much per word either.
-
Correcting myself--Dickens was paid by installment, not by word. But still makes people think he overwrote when he should've ended stories.
And not much per word either.
This still holds true today. Most of what I've seen from magazines is that they pay anywhere from around $.02 to maybe $.08 per word. I might've seen one that paid $.10, but I'm not certain.
-
Which brings to mind the burden of convincing a periodical editor that your words are worth that few pennies each compared to a competing author .... "who's words will bring us more subscriptions..."
I'm not saying that trying to be Dumas is an inherently bad way to write, just that it's not the most practical approach if one's a new author seeking to get published rather than writing purely for their own gratification.
I do find myself chuckling at the many young aspiring writers over the last century plus who've emulated the style of Dumas and Dickens because they thought it represented the Truth Of The Art, The Noble High Calling, when the poor bastards wrote that way because they were just trying to make the rent and needed to fluff up their submissions. To be fair, common speech and correspondence were More Wordier in those times, but it's still kind of funny.
-
For some examples of evocative, atmospheric writing that still carries the story, I'd suggest Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep and John D. MacDonald's Darker Than Amber. It's the sort of writing where you can smell the wet pavement but the story and characters aren't overwhelmed.
Agreed! I have NEVER thought that MacDonald was wordy.
-
Another side to look at it is to use Mote in God's Eye as an example. Pretty sure that's the title-Larry Niven and someone else, I think. They were told that they had to cut out something like 10-15%, and they went through the novel and pared down each chapter by something like 5-10% and have since said that the book still sells and gives them quite a bit of royalties. Which goes back to making every word further the story.
-
I'm pretty sure that "wordy" is unlikely to become a genre in the near future ;D "Oh, hey, check out this new wordy novel by so-and-so"? Not happening.
Stephen King seems to do OK writing things that, well, strike me at least as immensely wordy.
-
"Look, Jeff, these little stories about Canterbury are funny and all, but I need a few more of them if you want me to pick up your bar tab for you."
Have you by any chance seen:
http://houseoffame.blogspot.com/2006/04/idea-for-poeme.html
(That's one where I have literally bought the t-shirt.)
-
I'm afraid that link seems to be kaput. Do you have another link to the same material?
In regards to King, wordy indeed. But how many Stephen Kings are there, compared to Failed Stephen Kings? Anyway, he started with workshops and writing exercises, short stories and smaller books before moving to Epic Tomes. Sometimes it works (The Stand) other times, not so much. And for a good long while it seemed he was just phoning it in. But the average or new writer trying to emulate his style is likely to get a lot of rejection slips, and reviews using phrases like "ponderous" and "plodding" or "lost in the sound of his own typing."
King established a his "street cred" and has been successful enough that editors let him do it his way, that existing fans would buy everything he puts out. But frankly, I think that King's writing style is not one that too many people could emulate successfully. I also suspect he gets a lot of slack publishers, critics, reviewers readers would not grant anyone without his track record.
-
Being hit by a van doesn't help either.
-
We've all read those books where the sun takes fifty pages or so to rise (and then fifty more pages about how the hero and heroine felt when watching this wonderful sunrise).
However, I sometimes found myself writing long sentences, not flowery description actually, but kind of longish anyway.
Example I have used when talking to people about this, is where one of the characters smashes a pane of glass with his fist, and the subsequent description goes “...the slivers [of glass] showered down to disappear into the dark of the pavement”.
I personally like this, but I'm wondering if maybe it's too wordy? Should the glass just shower down? In a few simple words? Or just have the glass fall down instead?
Thoughts?
I would write it:
"the slivers [of glass] showered down to the pavement below, tinkling as they went.
A lot of how you construct the sentence depends on what you are writing and what kind of mood you are trying to convey.
-
The problem with suggesting actual re-wording is that the context and the reason for the line can be so different, and it's the author that needs to gage that.
In this case, you could begin with the sound of the glass makes and it chances the nuance of the line. The longer version can be just as relativent and important. We don't know, because we don't have the complete context or the entire manuscript...
-
I'm afraid that link seems to be kaput. Do you have another link to the same material?
No, but it's working fine for me now.
-
Shiney. I'll try it again later tonight.
-
Works now. That blog has about 31 flavors of awesome. The perverse thing is I didn't really need to shift mental gears to understand it. Don't know if that says something bad about my brain, or something good about the writer. Probably both.
-
Love the new sig, Paynes!
-
I'm coming into this late but I have to tag in so I can keep up with this thread. I never had much trouble with Dumas but I admit that Victor Hugo had me gnashing my teeth at times in Les Miserables when he would, for instance, spend multiple chapters describing exactly what a "guttersnipe" is only to say that the boy the story was about was not a true guttersnipe because his heart was "absolutely gloomy and void." He gave a long and detailed description of the Battle of Waterloo only to introduce a character wandering on the battlefield after the battle was over. I guess when you're paid by the word you do what is necessary to maximise your earnings.
-
Which reminds me of one of the best negative reviews of all time:
The corpse of many a hero slain
Decked Waterloo's ensanguined plain
Yet none by salvo or by shot
Fell half so flat as Walter Scott.
-
I have a wonderful book called Rotten Reviews - about bad reviews given to authors who later made it good with the book
that was reviewed.