# Use of "meandering" as a writing style



## jerich100 (Jul 1, 2015)

The past half-dozen novels I've read employ heavy use of what I call, "the meander."  That is, something happens.  Then there is 5-10 pages of backstory, description, introspection, deep thought, expression of fears, history of all family members, and other wanderings.  Then on page 11 something else happens.  Then 5-10 more pages of wandering.  Then on page 20 something else happens.

Whatever happened to, "telling a story"?  What I do now when I read a novel is I read the first page, then sorta-breeze through many pages until the next thing happens.  And so on.

I'm talking about authors like J.A. Jance (murder mysteries), Stephen King (horror), and Dan Simmons (sci-fi--"Hyperion").  These aren't fly-by-night authors.

In contrast, when people read my novel (written but not yet published--I'm too chicken at the moment), if so much of one-sentence appears that isn't central to my storyline, my test-readers make comments like "delete this", "cut that".  I'm humble and open to ideas.  But how do these comments fly with the many dozens of extra pages of STUFF in published novels that have zero to do with the story?

I read half of "A Winters Tale", which has about 1 billion pages--80% could be cut and the story and character development (in my opinion) would be just fine.  I had to put it down half way through because I was getting so darn tired of holding the book.  1 billion pages is a lot to hold.

What is going on here?  Must I write a novel with 10X the number of words JUST so a publisher will think, "Hey, this has lots of words--must be a good novel."

Of course not.  So, what is the true explanation?

One possibility is some writers and some readers treat fiction like artists do paintings.  Meaning, one does not just paint a woman or a glass of wine.  Rather, one paints a woman or a glass of wine A CERTAIN WAY.  The CERTAIN WAY in paintings is more important than the subject being painted.

Could it be true, then that the style of the writing is what people want, and whatever story happens to come along is incidental optional?  if so, then no one cares about the "meandering", because that is what draws the reader and not the story.

Please tell me this is not true.

Thanks


----------



## cinderblock (Jul 1, 2015)

Not sure what you're asking. On one hand, you say your beta readers did not approve of any "meandering." On the other hand, you ask if you need to write a book that's "10X the number of words." 

I'd say the majority of books waste a lot of time, especially if it exceeds 50,000 words. Not so much because it's their writing style, but because there's only so much interesting plot the conventional author can spin into a book. 

So indeed, a lot of popular authors practice padding up their book with characters wandering, cooking food, listening to music, musing about their favorite subjects, on the pretense of calling it character development. Fans seem to be cool about it. 

I do feel that the publishing world has a tendency to automatically regard bigger books with more literary prestige. This is contrary to any other medium, where bigger does not necessarily mean better. Especially in videogames, there's been a movement against watered down RPGs that take forever. The consumers just want a concentration of the basic idea and the goods. Gone are the days you have nothing to do. There are too many videogames now. Too many shows to catch up on. Too many things to do, to commit to something for very long, especially if it isn't worth the effort. 

That said, there may be an art to meandering. It's the POV, the voice, the "personality" of the writer that carries these sequences. This could be beneficial. In fact, what distinguishes a book from any other medium is the intimate relationship between the reader and the characters. The first person insight is where the medium shines. Simply a plot with typecast characters shuffling through the motions is more forgiving on film. Unforgivable in books. 

Introspection and philosophizing is fine. Needed, even. History for me, is a big no. Nobody wants to read about history. You should sneak it into the plot without the reader noticing. Last thing I wanna do is read chunks of history, even though again, there are best-selling authors who do this.   

If you're interested in writing straight-up plot/dialogue without any of the "meandering," I would highly recommend looking into writing scripts.


----------



## jerich100 (Jul 1, 2015)

Very good points, Cinderblock.


----------



## Smith (Jul 2, 2015)

I would have to read some of your work to have a better understanding of why your beta readers are saying those things.

Sometimes this "meandering" you call it works, and other times it doesn't. I read A Farewell to Arms and can't force myself to finish it, but Hemingway is highly regarded. On the other hand, Tolkien could describe that damn rock all day and I'd be drooling with interest. When his voice finally went out from dryness, I'd ask him to tell me about the history of that rock.

It comes down to your style really. But one thing that's typically true for readers is they want to feel a close connection to the main character. So musings and interests can be a good way to build connections with them, not only to the reader but the world they live in. As for history, just avoid info dumping. Try to sneak more in and avoid writing too many long paragraphs except when needed.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Jul 2, 2015)

If you're like me, you play those rpgs for hours and love every detail. 

Part of the reason I love the whole Wheel of Time. 

For readers like me, the 'straight to the point' stories aren't real. Sure, exciting things happen, but what about the big wide world around them? 

Yes, history and political details are boring. But you can weave them into conversation (As surely as anybody on any planet talks about the government) and it'll be natural. 

So I suppose that depends on your target audience, whatever you want that to be.

Just don't try and imitate a style, because then you're not writing in your own voice. If you're comfortable, in your element, the reader will feel it through the words. And no matter what you're describing, it'll sound amazing.


----------



## JustRob (Jul 2, 2015)

There are a number of pieces of information that I might convey to you on this but to do so I would have to choose the order in which I wrote them. You might regard my chosen order as meandering and knowing me as I do it might well be, but that wouldn't mean that anything was irrelevant to the message that I would be trying to get across. That's the problem that a writer has to tackle every time that they start to write and they can't be entirely successful from the viewpoint of every reader. A story is a meandering linear way of conveying information by its very nature. When we look at a painting we don't see the order in which the paints were applied, not at first sight anyway, but writers have to paint their pictures blindly in the readers' minds stroke by stroke and every mind is a different canvas on which to work, so the result isn't always successful. Therein lies the art.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Jul 2, 2015)

Hello Jerich

You need to have a read of Marcel Proust's _In Search of Lost Time_: six volumes, 3700 pages - a perfect triumph of style over substance.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 2, 2015)

jerich100 said:


> In contrast, when people read my novel (written but not yet published--I'm too chicken at the moment), if so much of one-sentence appears that isn't central to my storyline, my test-readers make comments like "delete this", "cut that".  I'm humble and open to ideas.  But how do these comments fly with the many dozens of extra pages of STUFF in published novels that have zero to do with the story?



I think a large part of this is that successful authors are given more leeway because they'll sell no matter what.  By the time Rowling got around to writing her last book, she had ballooned from 77,000 words (Sorcerer's Stone) to nearly 200,000 (Deathly Hallows).  When sales are guaranteed, there's no pressure on a writer like Martin or King to keep their works tight.  In contrast, any superfluousness can be the end of an unpublished writer, since he or she is competing with thousands of others that are just as unproven.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 2, 2015)

Many people do read to enjoy the style as much as the action. That's actually not a bad definition of 'literary fiction'. How the story is told is just as, or more, important than the events taking place. A successful author doesn't 'pad' their books with extra words any more than a successful composer 'pads' their music with extra notes. It's simply a different sort of writing. You may find a book that meanders boring -- someone else might find it relaxing, or contemplative. People who enjoy a more complex style would probably find books where there is non-stop 'action' just as boring.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 2, 2015)

If you have an interesting character then knowing a little about them off screen is nice. A four page ode to a daffodil will turn me off.


----------



## Snowflake (Jul 2, 2015)

JustRob said:


> When we look at a painting we don't see the order in which the paints were applied, not at first sight anyway, but writers have to paint their pictures blindly in the readers' minds stroke by stroke and every mind is a different canvas on which to work, so the result isn't always successful. Therein lies the art.



*A great analogy!*


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 2, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I think a large part of this is that successful authors are given more leeway because they'll sell no matter what.  By the time Rowling got around to writing her last book, she had ballooned from 77,000 words (Sorcerer's Stone) to nearly 200,000 (Deathly Hallows).  When sales are guaranteed, there's no pressure on a writer like Martin or King to keep their works tight.  In contrast, any superfluousness can be the end of an unpublished writer, since he or she is competing with thousands of others that are just as unproven.



I think Gamer hits at least one nail on the head here. An established author gets more leeway than a new one. Writers being the way we are, rather than phoning it in and sending manuscripts that are as short as possible the result is bloated and meandering writing.

There's also genre and style differences. Some stories need a different pace than others. If you don't care for a slower paced genre it will feel like it meanders.

I also think a meander can be a rest between the beats of a story. Music isn't one continuous sound; the spaces between the notes are part of the structure. Writing is a lot like that. Sometimes figuring out how to handle the pauses in a story is harder than writing the action.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Jul 5, 2015)

Hello Jerich

Meandering is cool; meanders _are_ cool.

Let's re-write _The Grapes of Wrath_ without any meanders: The Joad family were tractored off their farm in the Oklahoma dust bowl during the great depression. They moved to California where the owners of the lettuce farms where they worked hit them over the heads with baseball bats when they complained about working conditions and their accommodations but they never gave up believing. *THE END

*Naw - I'll take a few meanders every time.

I didn't care much for Proust but that had to do with content rather than style. But I'll read anything by Dickens from beginning to end even though we - well some folks, anyhow - acknowledge he was paid by the number of words and thus had a vested interest in generating pages of meanders. 

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 5, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Many people do read to enjoy the style as much as the action. That's actually not a bad definition of 'literary fiction'. How the story is told is just as, or more, important than the events taking place. ...
> People who enjoy a more complex style would probably find books where there is non-stop 'action' just as boring.



Well said Terry.  

It's a novel, not the latest blockbuster summer film.  Not that I go see those either because there is only so many explosions one person needs to see in a lifetime.  I've had my share.  If a film or a book doesn't offer anything other than action, it's no better than a one hour episode of television (which rarely gives me anything to think about)  

Continuing with the action movie comparison ... if the taste of the popcorn in your mouth lasts longer than the impression the movie made on you, what a waste of time and money.  And it take a lot longer to read a book.  There better be something in there for my mind and intelect other than sword fights, shoot outs, serial killers gutting their victims etc.  

jerich100 stated "Then there is 5-10 pages of backstory, description, introspection, deep thought, expression of fears, history of all family members, and other wanderings." .... and "Whatever happened to, "telling a story"? What I do now when I read a novel is I read the first page, then sorta-breeze through many pages until the next thing happens. And so on."  Sheesh!  Any book tells us a lot about the author.  The same could be said for those statements.  Hmmmm. Maybe you should be asking yourself, as a writer, what is it that these writers are putting into their books that is not action that is important to the story.  Hell, even though Stephen King has a lot of action and blood, guts, horror, ghosts, vampires and whatnot in his books, they wouldn't have half the punch they have if we didn't get the great character sketches he gives between the nasty bits.  

Who the hell would care about the Trashcan man if we hadn't learned all about his story? "bumpty, bumpty, bump!"

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 6, 2015)

jerich100 said:


> Could it be true, then that the style of the writing is what people want, and whatever story happens to come along is incidental optional? if so, then no one cares about the "meandering", because that is what draws the reader and not the story.
> 
> Please tell me this is not true.


Writing is subjective. A lot like art. A great read for one person can be painfully boring for another. There's no single correct way to write fiction, nor no single style of writing that every reader will like.

Some authors like to meander, and some readers like to read meandering. Some authors like to write quick and punchy, and some readers like to read quick and punchy. Then you'll have readers who hate meandering, and readers who hate quick and punchy. 

It seems that, for every style of writing, there will be lovers and there will be haters.

The trick is to find authors whose work excites you. If Stephen King and Dan Simmons and J.A. Jance don't work for you, look elsewhere! If you look hard enough, you'll find authors who keep you turning those pages with excitement and passion. :encouragement:


----------



## Newman (Jul 6, 2015)

jerich100 said:


> The CERTAIN WAY in paintings is more important than the subject being painted.
> 
> Could it be true, then that the style of the writing is what people want, and whatever story happens to come along is incidental optional?



I think you answer this question if you look at it from the perspective of a writing job.

Sure, style of writing is important. But it's not whatever meanderings happen to incidentally come along either. I mean, it has to be a proper story (and defining what that is is probably  the crux of your question).


----------



## ppsage (Jul 6, 2015)

A meander is really a part of a river. The path water takes in a mature valley is a precise reflection of greater natural forces. When you realize this, it's pretty awesome.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 6, 2015)

If I haven't lost it, I'm pretty sure Meander was one of those Greek fellows. Possibly the one who was looking to found a new city and so made his clan follow a stray cow around until she plopped an auspicious load.


----------

