# Cut it - kill it



## VonBradstein (Oct 18, 2017)

As I've been reading through the forum, and also IRL reading the work of aspiring writers (and a lot of my stuff as well) I have noticed that often the difference between writing that works and writing that doesn't seems to lie in the ego of the writer themselves.

By ego I do not mean in the sense of "I rock, I'm so awesome" but rather the love for ones work. As a writer reading another's work you can always tell when the writer has lost themselves in the pure joy of creativity. You can always tell when the description and/or dialogue has taken over. On the other hand, you can also tell when the writer is unsure as to whether they have got the point across and is insecure about the strength of the narrative. You can feel it unraveling like a badly knotted sweater.

I personally found my writing improved massively when I was able to let go a little bit. There are some writers who are able to wax lyrical and use unconventional sentence structure, vocabulary, grammar, etc to carry their narrative (Virginia Woolf, Jack Kerouac, James Joyce, etc) but 99.9% of the best and most successful work is written in the simplest way possible to convey the story. 99.9% of the best and most successful work is carried not on the creativity of the writing itself but the story and character. 

I am not saying that a good description or vivid language is not important. It is. At the same time though, I do feel most of us worry overly about how we write and less about what we write. I have yet to meet a single reader who has said they didn't care much for he story but - wow - the descriptions of those mountains were just great. 

My personal approach in editing is once finished to cut away until all that is left is what is essential, what I cannot remove without reducing the story or the character concerned. Often times this will cut a word count down by 20,000 words over the stretch of a whole novel. Often times this will result in the loss of writing I love. 

What do you all think? 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 18, 2017)

I have repeatedly suggested folks get the story and plot down pat before worrying about the sentences. Usually that advice goes over poorly.

I agree that getting lost in the story as a writer makes for a better story than when I try to force it. That statement also is usually goes over poorly.

Bottom line, if getting lost in the story works best for you, accept that and use it to your advantage. Everyone has to work with their own strengths and make their own choices.

If you're looking for reassurance that you are not the only one -- you've got it. (We may be in the minority here, though.)

I do think it's a mistake to edit out what you love. Why would you do that? To please critics or writers? Get someone who is a regular reader, someone from your target audience, to read it before cutting pieces out. Find out if what you love is also what readers love! After all, they won't buy what they don't love.


I am reminded of house makeover shows. Sometimes the end product looks great. Sometimes it looks striking, but not very liveable. I saw a house that had been "fixed up" on one of those shows. It was for sale -- at HALF the price of other, similar, houses in the neighborhood. Oh, it was eye-catching. Too vibrant to come home to every day. And a calling card to thieves, who would be likely to assume the owner has a lot of money to pay for all the upgrades that were visible. No. Not a good house to live in. I wonder what happened to it.


----------



## The Fantastical (Oct 19, 2017)

To be the devils advocate here - On the flip side if that I do believe that there is room for "pretty" in books. When you cut all of the "pretty" out, to just the bones of the work, it is enjoyable to read? Does it please the eye and tickle the imagination? Does it truly bring wonder to the reader or is it just functional?


----------



## The Fantastical (Oct 19, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I have repeatedly suggested folks get the story and plot down pat before worrying about the sentences. Usually that advice goes over poorly.
> 
> I agree that getting lost in the story as a writer makes for a better story than when I try to force it. That statement also is usually goes over poorly.
> 
> ...



Good points! One needs to know where you are going before you can worry about how you are going to get there!


----------



## Bayview (Oct 19, 2017)

I think there's a balance to be struck, for sure.

And I agree that a lot of aspiring writers get too caught up in the polishing and fine-tuning and perfecting of individual lines, without giving enough attention to the larger issues of plot/characterization/etc. There's a macro/micro division, and too many writers get caught up on the micro.

That said, as a reader I _do_ enjoy beautiful, creative turns of phrase, lyrical writing, etc. It's not a _substitute _for great characterization and plot, but it's a lovely augmentation to it.

(Personal note: In my own quest to take my writing from good to great, I've had to work in the opposite direction. I've never had a problem focusing on the macro, and that's been fine as far as it goes. But to really get to the next level I think I need to pay more attention to the micro.)

ETA: this may tie in with what a blogger (who's apparently a successful screenwriter/writing teacher?) calls Intuitive writers vs Conceptual writers... http://coreymandell.net/why-story-structure-formulas-dont-work-part-three/


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 19, 2017)

I am the other way. My writing often stems from a vivid phrase, a word, a mental image I wish to capture, a name, a style, some fundamental element that I can't get rid of. That is what excites me. I can easily bolt it on to a sequence of events but the initiating thing is definitely a love of language. Characterisation seems to happen relatively painlessly as legions of imaginary friends start paying dividends. True, it is a balancing act to then nudge all this flowery prose into some sort of shape without losing either the plot (literal and figurative) or the voice and feel, but don't just give me the plain and the functional; give me baroque twirls of words that transport and delight. 

Not the most popular view, I know, but there you have it


----------



## The Fantastical (Oct 19, 2017)

Personally, I think that at times, no not at times, all the time; the words used and the turn of phrase are just as important as the story. A Wild Sheep Chase would not be as brilliant as it was if it was not written how it was. If the language was not as large a part of the story as the plot or the characters were. 

So give my Harukami, Tolkien or Yann Martel. Give me Salman Rushdie or T.H.White. Hand over your Michael Ende, your Kenneth Grahame. These are beauty in written form, words that are more than just things to tell a feeling but create an image a moment, something beautiful.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 19, 2017)

I think every writer has to find their "sweet spot". For some, it's really sparse, clipped prose. For others, its energetic, vibrant writing. For others still, it might be something entirely different. 

I agree that you don't want to let your writing itself get in the way of the story. There's an author I love who, occasionally, self-indulges on the page. When reading, it always distracts me when he does so. I stop and think, _Okay, yes, that's a very clever analogy/nice description. I get it. Now can we get back to the story?_ I find this usually means he's dabbled too long on a tangent, like wandering too far off the main trail. Eventually your readers may stop and ask, "Wait, weren't we supposed to be going _that_ way?"

I've cut some of my favorite writing away in the editing phase, mostly because it didn't mesh well with the rest of the work. Sometimes you can weave it in and everything jives. Other times it disrupts the pacing and belongs in the trash bin—even if it's lyrical/pretty/moving. Sure, it always stings a little to remove a passage that you particularly enjoy. Sometimes I try to talk myself out of it. But if I keep coming back to it and scratching my head, it usually means it's not working. So I just throw it into a scrap folder and move on. Sometimes it can be salvaged and Frankenstein-ed for another story.

Otherwise, I've learned not to fret over killed darlings—if I wrote it once, I can write something better the next time. Creativity is infinite, in my opinion. The well won't run dry if you keep priming the pump. It's easier to be ruthless with edits if you keep a "there's always more where that came from" mindset. Until then, it's back to the story at hand . . . :encouragement:


----------



## SueC (Oct 19, 2017)

There is a book I read many, many years ago . . . _Colony, _by Anne River Siddens. In this book, she spends a good deal of time trying to get her readers to understand what an ineffectual person her MC's father-in-law is. There are situations where he is mute, does not speak up for himself against his strong-willed wife, and so on. 

Then, somewhere towards the end of book comes this phrase  - "He did not displace air."

I am, for better or worse, one of those writers who becomes completely submerged in my stories. I feel what my characters feel and sometimes it makes me quite wordy!  When I review, I find myself cutting out things that I loved writing, but they didn't seem germane to the story. I hear myself thinking "do my readers need to know this? Do my readers care how much that paper cut hurt?" I can be repetitious, I know. But I have found that the most effective methods of conveying the emotion and imagery I feel is the wording I use. Maybe just condensing everything would be more effective, instead of deleting, deleting, deleting.

 In _Colony _I wonder if she had used that phrase earlier in the book, would it have had the same impact. I remember growing slightly weary of the father-in-law's passivity being on display so frequently in the mind of her MC, but when I read _he did not displace air_, I thought I GET IT! I think I even smiled., and thought to myself _I will remember that phrase forever._ And I have.


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 19, 2017)

SueC said:


> I have found that the most effective methods of conveying the emotion and imagery I feel is the wording I use. Maybe just condensing everything would be more effective, instead of deleting, deleting, deleting.



Totally agree. It's not just about lopping off word after word in a mad dash for brevity; it's about selecting the right word, the only possible pithy expression that can sum up the subject. That's a great example: "he did not displace air", particularly after the lengthy expositions detailing the exact ways in which he did not displace it. It reminds me of a quote from _A Place Of Greater Safety_ by Hilary Mantel, concerning a minor character, can't remember who, that goes "She was a bossy little woman who approached life with her elbows out."  Truly, that's class. I mean, you can see the woman, right there! If I could easily think and express myself with that kind of drone-strike precision, I would probably never shut up


----------



## SueC (Oct 19, 2017)

BD, there are a couple of phrases that I have collected in my head like that. Out of a whole book, there's this phrase! Right? I loved the one you quoted, and yes, I can see her, this woman and her elbows. How do they do that? I always envy people who have sharp, quick responses to challenges. I always have to think about it, and the moment is lost. I spend a sleepless nights, cuddling up to "I should have said . . ."


----------



## Avid Daydreamer (Oct 20, 2017)

When it comes to reading I like anything with great characters and a story that ties together nicely, but I only fall in love with a book when story and voice intertwine perfectly. When writing however, I start for the story and get hooked on my love for the language. I'll obsess over the best word choices to evoke emotion in the reader (while making it sound 'pretty' if appropriate), until such time as that becomes tedious. Then I need to remind myself of the overall story or I'll edit too much as I go, bore myself, and the flow seems to break up a little. It's a constant mental battle.

Got a little off track, but the point is; voice is incredibly important for *great* writing. The greatest stories can be utterly ruined by a lack of elegance or even ferocity (if that's what the situation calls for) in their prose.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 20, 2017)

Definitely a middle ground to be struck, I am just a little less 'middling' in my middle ground I guess 

I look at it a little like this: Writing too simplistically is like living in a tiny town where you know absolutely everybody. It's straightforward, easy, there's a certain familiarity to what happens in the overall story, however there's a point where it does get boring. Colorless. There's a point when you see the same thing over and over again. There's less capacity for change. There's less capacity for invention. There's less capacity for color. On the other hand, writing that is too wordy swarms and scrambles like some huge city. There is too much going on. Singular activities get drowned out in a world of noise and color, a lot of which is actually pretty ugly and meaningless. It becomes a dirge of run on sentences, jaywalking verbs, meandering metaphors.  

Call me the guy who lives in the smaller town but occasionally enjoys hopping the bus to the city, just for fun.


----------



## Avid Daydreamer (Oct 20, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Definitely a middle ground to be struck, I am just a little less 'middling' in my middle ground I guess
> 
> I look at it a little like this: Writing too simplistically is like living in a tiny town where you know absolutely everybody. It's straightforward, easy, there's a certain familiarity to what happens in the overall story, however there's a point where it does get boring. Colorless. There's a point when you see the same thing over and over again. There's less capacity for change. There's less capacity for invention. There's less capacity for color. On the other hand, writing that is too wordy swarms and scrambles like some huge city. There is too much going on. Singular activities get drowned out in a world of noise and color, a lot of which is actually pretty ugly and meaningless. It becomes a dirge of run on sentences, jaywalking verbs, meandering metaphors.
> 
> Call me the guy who lives in the smaller town but occasionally enjoys hopping the bus to the city, just for fun.




Oh damn, this analogy is perfect. You win.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 21, 2017)

It's simple; if you lose the reader to boredom by either being too wordy, or too simplistic, it's bad. If you keep them engaged it's good writing, regardless of the brevity or opulence of the writing. Was Hemingway too spare? McCarthy? Was Bradbury too wordy? Melville? Dickens? Faulkner? The answer is, no, to all those questions. Personal taste aside, they are all well-regarded -- hell, legendary -- writers. The times you write in have and effect, but mostly it's your own writing voice which determines these choices. Experiment with styles, but know that however you choose to write, the end result will be heavily influenced by your own, unique voice.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 21, 2017)

Terry D said:


> It's simple; if you lose the reader to boredom by either being too wordy, or too simplistic, it's bad. If you keep them engaged it's good writing, regardless of the brevity or opulence of the writing. Was Hemingway too spare? McCarthy? Was Bradbury too wordy? Melville? Dickens? Faulkner? The answer is, no, to all those questions. Personal taste aside, they are all well-regarded -- hell, legendary -- writers. The times you write in have and effect, but mostly it's your own writing voice which determines these choices. Experiment with styles, but know that however you choose to write, the end result will be heavily influenced by your own, unique voice.



Legendary does not mean perfect. Too wordy, boring, choppy, all these criticisms and possibly more apply to many "legends". 

Though I agree each of us needs to find what we like and can make work.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 21, 2017)

Terry D said:


> It's simple; if you lose the reader to boredom by either being too wordy, or too simplistic, it's bad. If you keep them engaged it's good writing, regardless of the brevity or opulence of the writing. Was Hemingway too spare? McCarthy? Was Bradbury too wordy? Melville? Dickens? Faulkner? The answer is, no, to all those questions. Personal taste aside, they are all well-regarded -- hell, legendary -- writers. The times you write in have and effect, but mostly it's your own writing voice which determines these choices. Experiment with styles, but know that however you choose to write, the end result will be heavily influenced by your own, unique voice.



I agree, however I would caution against using those examples considering all but McCarthy are long since dead - and, lets face it, McCarthy ain't got long. 

I'm not trying to be contrarian about this, or disrespectful to canon, but I think there's a good case to be made that the good chunk of classics would probably not land a publishing deal if submitted in 2017. 

Most - not all - of the classical literature that has stayed popular (and by popular I mean still being read by a vast and non-academic readership for the purposes of enjoyment) tends to be on the simpler side. I know of very few people (non-writers) who enjoy Melville or Faulkner but a whole bunch who adore, say, Jane Austen. George Orwell is another writer who I suspect will remain read for hundreds of years because the simple, effective and non-adorned nature of his style renders it timeless. A large part of this lies in subject matter, of course, but I sincerely doubt Pride and Prejudice would be anywhere near as popular were it written in a style like 'As I lay Dying". There are of course exceptions - Dickens would be one - however I do feel the trend of market tastes has ever since the enlightenment period consistently moving more towards simple writing, at least in western literature. The small-to-medium sized town, as it were.

You may disagree, and that is fine, but I maintain that not all styles are created equal when it comes to commercially viable fiction. There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that any aspiring writer who wishes to write in a William S. Burroughs stream-of-madness style is going to be limited as far as opportunity regardless of how well they discover their voice in doing so. Not saying it can't be done, but it's difficult.


----------



## Grizzly (Oct 21, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> As a writer reading another's work you can always tell when the writer has lost themselves in the pure joy of creativity.



I definitely agree with you! My experience with writing has been a process of learning to cut out excess, even when I had so much _fun_ writing the excess... What's fun to write isn't always fun to read, and the more I practice the more I see that. 

One of my favorite teachers told me about poetry: it isn't about you.

The point is to suss out a poem from the word-barf your bard-brain channels; let go of ego and learn the weight of the wordless.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 21, 2017)

Grizzly said:


> I definitely agree with you! My experience with writing has been a process of learning to cut out excess, even when I had so much _fun_ writing the excess... What's fun to write isn't always fun to read, and the more I practice the more I see that.
> 
> One of my favorite teachers told me about poetry: it isn't about you.
> 
> The point is to suss out a poem from the word-barf your bard-brain channels; let go of ego and learn the weight of the wordless.



Yes, that was probably the most valuable lesson I learned also. You know how they say the customer is always right? Well, that's not true, but the reader always is.

"It isn't about you" - I love that. I only wish more people heard that more often.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 22, 2017)

I agree that the reader can tell when the writer enjoyed the writing.

I disagree that those are sections that should be removed.

The reader generally follows the writer. So if the writer enjoyed writing it, then the reader will enjoy reading it. And that's the goal. At least for me. Maybe others have different goals.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 22, 2017)

I truly doubt Dickens would be popular today.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 22, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I agree that the reader can tell when the writer enjoyed the writing.
> 
> I disagree that those are sections that should be removed.
> 
> The reader generally follows the writer. So if the writer enjoyed writing it, then the reader will enjoy reading it. And that's the goal. At least for me. Maybe others have different goals.



Well, there’s no absolutes here. Speaking for myself I tend to enjoy writing just about anything. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother.

That said, your claims that the reader follows the writer and that if it was enjoyed being written it would enjoyed being read I don’t think can be true. If the writers enjoyment was the only component piece in establishing a committed and passionate readership, trust me when I say I would be a millionaire author by now. On the flip side you have a guy like James Patterson who obviously has no passion whatsoever (by his own admission) but draws in a huge audience. 

You might say “ah but the quality of the work does not always correlate with readership and I am speaking about the quality of the work as opposed to how many books are sold”. Fine, yes, but does it? There are millions of good writers who love what they do but remain unpublished and unwanted because for whatever reason their output fails them. That is why it is important, in my opinion, to remain as objective and removed as possible when it comes to deciding whether to keep or discard work. The reader only follows the writer for as long as the writer gives them what they want. Ultimately most readers just want something for the plane they can escape into and maybe, hopefully, be moved by. What they want is often not what we are aiming for and it’s important to keep that in mind when creating and editing. Being honest, how many times do we start reading something then stop a few pages or chapters in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 22, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I truly doubt Dickens would be popular today.



I disagree. I think some of his books wouldn’t be popular - Little Dorrit comes to mind. Bleak House. Possibly Great Expectations. But A Christmas Carol is still much loved, as is Oliver Twist. Some of Dickens work carries messages just as relevant today and I find his writing style to be generally quite accessible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bayview (Oct 22, 2017)

I agree that there's no real correlation between the writer's enjoyment of the process and the readers' enjoyment of the product.

There are millions of people who love writing who are producing work I don't want to read.

And writing well is hard damn work. There may be an overall "satisfaction" type of enjoyment taken from it, but in the moment, struggling over the intricacies of plot or phrasing or whatever? A strong writer will fight through that unpleasantness and produce something worth reading, while a weaker writer would be more inclined to gloss over it and go on to the next "fun" part of writing, regardless of the quality of the finished product.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 22, 2017)

Speaking for myself and someone I work with on joint projects, what we enjoy writing gets the most positive feedback from beta readers. Every time. 

Great Expectations has it's place for history, but not as an example of good writing.

The story lines of Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol are loved, but are the books? I don't know, in real life, anyone who read them.

It's kind of like Harry Potter. There are those that know the movies and those that know the books. Time will tell if the books remain popular.

Adding : For me, the writing process is usually enjoyable. I love seeing the story unfold. The editing process is different. That can be tedious, but even that is offset by a good story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 22, 2017)

What are we talking about? This is an important topic, right?

I remember when I used to love sitting down to write. Currently I have to force myself to work on my WIP. The process is that hard; I feel so uninspired. Sometimes, at the end of my solitary confinement, all I can say is, _I added 500 words_. But sometimes it's really good. In my opinion. And then I'm happy.

I was looking at:

"But so can you."

I am delighted with simple, but _the line wasn't working_. I tried

"But, but, but, but so can you."

I wasn't trying to be fancy or clever or different, though I am happy to do those too. I just want the line to work. And . . . the above doesn't, I think it needs a little more creativity. I will break every rule in the book -- or write the simplest line ever, if that works -- to get the reader to feel my character.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 22, 2017)

A strong understanding of people, of personalities, really helps the writing process, in my opinion.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 22, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> What are we talking about? This is an important topic, right?
> 
> I remember when I used to love sitting down to write. Currently I have to force myself to work on my WIP. The process is that hard; I feel so uninspired. Sometimes, at the end of my solitary confinement, all I can say is, _I added 500 words_. But sometimes it's really good. In my opinion. And then I'm happy.
> 
> ...



Yes! I have said it before and I will say it (just once) again: There are no sacred cows. I hate absolutes on this and pretty much any other subject - absolutely (ha).

Quite frequently (though less often now) I will go through a piece and add stuff. Editing is not a one dimensional effort. As great as this discussion has been I am a little, I suppose, weary that at times people have responded as though my original argument was to just hack away at everything and no going back. It isn’t.

I mentioned the small town vs big city analogy in an earlier post and I stand by it. I think the “city” should be avoided but so should the really really tiny “town”. I outlined the reasons and stand by those, too. My motivation for beginning this discussion is because I see too many people heading to the city and it usually leads to bad writing. But you can and should still visit, from time to time. Not good for anybody to stay around  forever in their old home haunt.

I tend to “add” when I feel a scene needs a splash of color - perhaps a death scene. Saying “he shot him” doesn’t work. Neither does saying “bill loves Susan” the color in those kinds of tapestries is important. However this does NOT mean over cooking it and the same rule still applies - use only the minimal quantity of words to convey. Also avoid any word that would send the average reader to the dictionary if a simpler one exists.

I also tend to add with dialogue. I mentioned in a critique of Sue’s work capturing accurate speech is crucial to holding compelling dialogue and stand by that. Often this means over-stating a point as that is what people tend to do when they talk. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 23, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I'm not trying to be contrarian about this, or disrespectful to canon, but I think there's a good case to be made that the good chunk of classics would probably not land a publishing deal if submitted in 2017.



Ah, but how about the reverse?

Would modern fiction be well received by readers of the past? I'm not sure it would. I imagine they'd find the pacing of modern fiction too jerky, the exposition too brief, the introspection too shallow . . .


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Kyle R said:


> Ah, but how about the reverse?
> 
> Would modern fiction be well received by readers of the past? I'm not sure it would. I imagine they'd find the pacing of modern fiction too jerky, the exposition too brief, the introspection too shallow . . .



Almost certainly not, however since almost everyone from the past is dead and not likely to read anything soon, its of no real relevance one way or another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Terry D (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Legendary does not mean perfect. Too wordy, boring, choppy, all these criticisms and possibly more apply to many "legends".
> 
> Though I agree each of us needs to find what we like and can make work.



Who said anything about perfect? No writing is perfect. All the writers I mentioned are considered masters of their craft with their works still being read and enjoyed long after being created. The various styles, be they profuse and words, or spare and bare-boned, can work. Those who try to decide if one is better than another are on a fool's errand.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Who said anything about perfect? No writing is perfect. All the writers I mentioned are considered masters of their craft with their works still being read and enjoyed long after being created. The various styles, be they profuse and words, or spare and bare-boned, can work. Those who try to decide if one is better than another are on a fool's errand.



In point of fact I would like to say this isn’t really about deciding which one is better. Better is a vague term and you are right. I would not dismiss the chatty Cathy’s across the board. I think I said as much in the OP.

I would however, go back to the issue of readability and finding the more straightforward route to achieving it. Ultimately the true geniuses can do what they want and it will work. For most of the rest of us, firmly in the journeyman camp, writing is a constant struggle between marching to the beat of our own drum and trying to attract readers. 

You can give me all the canonical greats. I will not argue with their skill. I would however enter into evidence the vast majority of writers active now who have found success, the vast majority of whom write clearly and without fancy flourish. And that means they most likely understood the importance of editing down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 23, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> You can give me all the canonical greats. I will not argue with their skill. I would however enter into evidence the vast majority of writers active now who have found success, the vast majority of whom write clearly and without fancy flourish. And that means they most likely understood the importance of editing down.



I'd argue that the emphasis there should be on _clarity_, whether the prose is elaborate or trim.

When I edit, at least, I'm rarely thinking, "Is this simple enough?" Most of the time, I'm thinking, "Is this _clear_ enough?" Two similar questions, but with obvious differences. Can the reader follow along without confusion? Does everything flow without any unintentional hiccups or bumps along the way? Are the character motivations communicated well? Is the conflict easily understood?

These are questions that relate to the _reading experience_, rather than the _ease of reading_.

There's that famous quote (famous among writers, anyway ) about varying sentence length (This sentence has five words...), which I believe is another great counterpoint to paring down just for simplicity's sake—one runs the risk of cutting all the rhythm and soul out of their prose.

Slash the fat with red ink, by all means! But please, don't slash all of it—it's the best tasting part of the steak. :encouragement:


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Kyle R said:


> I'd argue that the emphasis there should be on _clarity_, whether the prose is elaborate or trim.
> 
> When I edit, at least, I'm rarely thinking, "Is this simple enough?" Most of the time, I'm thinking, "Is this _clear_ enough?" Two similar questions, but with obvious differences. Can the reader follow along without confusion? Does everything flow without any unintentional hiccups or bumps along the way? Are the character motivations communicated well? Is the conflict easily understood?
> 
> ...



You raise some good points. However I still disagree [emoji846] not so much with what you are saying but in how it pertains to what I said in the OP and elsewhere 

- Most writers struggle to write clearly when they do not write simply. I count myself in that category. Perhaps I am not a very good writer (I have stuff posted on here so others may be the judge) but again for the purposes of this thread I am not concerned with the minority of geniuses but in the majority of talented hard workers who need reining in more often than they do not.

- Totally, absotively posilutely, disagree with the assertion that paring down risks losing the rhythm or “soul” of a piece. More often than not I find it improves it. Now granted people can always do things badly but to use that as a criticism of the philosophy is unfair. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 23, 2017)

I agree that clarity is important. I also add plausibility. Too many works feature implausible plots or scenes.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 23, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Who said anything about perfect? No writing is perfect. All the writers I mentioned are considered masters of their craft with their works still being read and enjoyed long after being created. The various styles, be they profuse and words, or spare and bare-boned, can work. Those who try to decide if one is better than another are on a fool's errand.



The only people I know who claim to enjoy some of those masters you mentioned I don't really know at all. I meet them on forums like this one. In real life, no one likes Dickens, for example. At least no one is willing to admit to liking Dickens.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> In real life, no one likes Dickens, for example. At least no one is willing to admit to liking Dickens.



Here in Columbus, OH a local theater company puts on free outdoor show of A Christmas Carol every year and it “sells” out every time despite the fact it’s regularly below freezing. I’m pretty sure some of those people like Dickens. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kevin (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> The only people I know who claim to enjoy some of those masters you mentioned I don't really know at all. I meet them on forums like this one. In real life, no one likes Dickens, for example. At least no one is willing to admit to liking Dickens.


i find it difficult to find anyone that reads. If they do, it's all specific genre only. Same with music. It's all 'niche' market, and there's a million of them ( niches). I do know one guy that reads nothing but James Pattinson. He buys them, hardcover, used from the library for 99cents or something, reads 'em; gives 'em away. I don't know how anyone makes any money unless they get put on the best seller list, get a Pulitzer ( which puts them on the list) or.? One thing is with the computer you can find anyone, any subject, or niche you might be interested in. And the whole world is on the computer.


----------



## Renaissance Man (Oct 23, 2017)

Only skimmed as I don't have much time. Yes the successfulness or failure of any literary work depends on the writer's own enjoyment of the piece.

Renaissance Man


----------



## Terry D (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> The only people I know who claim to enjoy some of those masters you mentioned I don't really know at all. I meet them on forums like this one. In real life, no one likes Dickens, for example. At least no one is willing to admit to liking Dickens.



Well, since Dickens novels are still being printed and _A Tale of Two Cities_ is the second largest selling novel of all time, I'd suggest there are still plenty of people reading him. Bradbury still sells well too, and Cormac McCarthy is still writing best sellers, so these aren't obscure writers. But we're getting off the point. 

I agree that we should always pare the excess out of our writing (killing our darlings), excess being, by definition, that which is not needed, but I'm not willing to tell another writer what 'excess' means for his style, or her voice. Don't go into a story worrying about being too descriptive, or too spare. Write your story your way and let your readers tell you what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 23, 2017)

We are discussing the quality of the writing. Not the story.

Stage, theater and television performances don't count. Sales to schools, where the books are given out to students (who may or may not read them) don't count.

The problem with looking strictly at book sales of these masters is it's impossible to know how many are bought by schools. That is not an indication of readership or enjoyment.

It is my contention that few truly enjoy reading (not watching) these masters.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> We are discussing the quality of the writing. Not the story.
> 
> Stage, theater and television performances don't count. Sales to schools, where the books are given out to students (who may or may not read them) don't count.
> 
> ...



Among the five writers I mentioned they have 4 Pulitzer prizes (and one special citation), 3 Nobel Prizes for literature, multiple National Book Awards, and hundreds of millions of copies sold. Sales to schools are a minute fraction of that. They are studied because they are great writers. Your contention is simply wrong.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 23, 2017)

D'oh!


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> We are discussing the quality of the writing. Not the story.
> 
> Stage, theater and television performances don't count. Sales to schools, where the books are given out to students (who may or may not read them) don't count.
> 
> ...



No, sorry but you don’t get to wriggle out of a bad statement on technicalities. 

Are you telling me that none of those, nor any of the other millions of “real life people” who regularly watch the adaptations don’t also buy and read and love the books? Are you really suggesting that these adaptions got made by and for people who said “well That Dickens Guy, good storyteller but subpar writing style”? Because that makes zero sense. Even disregarding the logical argument, Dickens is one of the most oft quoted authors. The opening soliloquy in Two Cities (...it was the best of times, etc) is famous for summarizing the cultural zeitgeist and yet has little much to do with “the story”. It is just great, flowing prose and most people believe so. 

It is one thing if you want to speak to your experience of the people you know but please don’t make blanket statements, especially ones that are patently nonsense. It’s not a good look and I think you’re smarter than that. Yes, fewer people actively read the classics much anymore compared to, say, a new Stephen King epic, but that doesn’t mean nobody does. Far from it. It means the books are old, their stories part of the universal story, and as such the reading of the original text tends to be - converse to your point - less for the story and more for the style and depth they offer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

(also take into account most classics are out of copyright and therefore probably more widely downloaded and read for free than bookshop purchases suggest)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

In fact,Jack, just do me a favor would you?

Go to google image search and type in “people reading Dickens on subway”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 23, 2017)

In my local bookstore, Agatha Christie, James Herriot and the Harry Potter books have prominent displays from time to time. Harry is there most of the time. Dickens? Nope. Hemmingway? Nah. And none of the others you mentioned. Those displays are for books that sell well. A Christmas Carol might make it around the holidays, but I haven't seen it there in years.


----------



## aj47 (Oct 23, 2017)

Dickens sells well enough that he keeps being reprinted, even though he's out of copyright (thus there's no exclusivity to publishing a Dickens and you're competing with other publishers of the same material).


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> In my local bookstore, Agatha Christie, James Herriot and the Harry Potter books have prominent displays from time to time. Harry is there most of the time. Dickens? Nope. Hemmingway? Nah. And none of the others you mentioned. Those displays are for books that sell well. A Christmas Carol might make it around the holidays, but I haven't seen it there in years.



Did you miss the part where I mentioned that  the main reason for that is because most of those books are out of copyright and are therefore free in electronic form to anybody and therefore not big sellers?

That said, assuming it’s in America, if your local bookstore truly stocks no printed copies of freakin’ Hemingway then it isn’t a real bookstore. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 24, 2017)

astroannie said:


> Dickens sells well enough that he keeps being reprinted, even though he's out of copyright (thus there's no exclusivity to publishing a Dickens and you're competing with other publishers of the same material).



Because schools buy his stuff.

Whatever. If I build a time machine I'll study Dickens because I'll compete with him. Until then, I'll study those popular now.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 24, 2017)

The point I was trying to make by mentioning Faulkner, Hemingway, Dickens, Bradbury, and McCarthy has been smothered under this steaming pile of argument about their relative worth as writers (which really isn't much of an argument to anyone who knows anything about writing). The point is, style is individual. Complex and verbose works for some (Dickens, Faulkner), while simple and stripped down works for others (Hemingway, McCarthy). Still others (most of us probably) are somewhere in between like Bradbury.

I could have chosen a dozen other authors that fit into this spectrum from all time periods; from Melville, to Poe, to King, to Angelou, to Rushdie. My only criteria was a variety of styles and a general acceptance of great writing. I don't give a flying fornication if any one individual appreciates any of these authors, the fact remains they are considered great writers for reasons far beyond whether or not their books are promoted at the front of bookstores alongside _The Art of the Deal_, the latest from James Patterson's writing mill, or reprints of Agatha Christie.


----------

