Forum: Author Hangout

He got off of the horse (do you need "of"?)

I believe that usage is now considered old-fashioned, cf on to and in to.

Two more examples commonly cited are 'suddenly' and 'begin/began to'.

However the trend for minimalism is sometimes taken too far. In a couple of SOL stories recently I found examples of multi-person conversations with too few dialogue tags, and certain lines could arguably have been spoken by more than one participant.

AJ

Two more examples commonly cited are 'suddenly' and 'begin/began to'.

Those typically aren't "extra" words. They're usually used incorrectly.

began/started

I see this so often in SOL stories. The author writes something like "began walking" when he meant "walked." To use "began" you need something like "while" or "when" in the sentence.

suddenly

This is about "show don't tell." Don't tell the reader something suddenly happened; show it. It's one of Elmer Leonard's 10 writing tips (Never begin a sentence with suddenly).

"Then" is a word that is often an extra word. But just like "of," it's needed at times.

EDITED:

LOL Also "just" as in my previous sentence.

Two more examples commonly cited are 'suddenly' and 'begin/began to'.

"Began" and "began to" are considered "passive" text, in that they distance the reader with unnecessary text, making the story seem like a summary report written from a distance from the events, rather than something happening right then.

However the trend for minimalism is sometimes taken too far. In a couple of SOL stories recently I found examples of multi-person conversations with too few dialogue tags, and certain lines could arguably have been spoken by more than one participant.

I've often fallen into this trap. I found myself adding attribute after attribute identifying the same person. So I started replacing each reference with "him", "he" or "they". However, my editors started asking "who the hell are you referring to, as the sentence reference two different people and you refer to "he". So I double back, ensure readers can identify who's being referred to, often restoring several duplicates. (No one ever claimed these processes were either easy or simple.)

How does one decide an author is failed? I suppose if his stories were never read by any one then that might be failure.

Was Van Gogh a failure because he never sold a painting?

Your process is much too structured for me. It's why I don't like writing software tools. Writing isn't mechanical; it's an art.

I actually take a different tact. The mechanical aid highlights common problems (aka. too many adverbs, too many past-perfect verbs, etc.). I then examine each flagged item, deciding whether each term/phrase is needed or not. Frankly, most of them aren't. If they are, I leave them in, but eliminating those I'd never have questioned before, I come out with cleaner text. It's more a case of unexamined vs evaluated phrasing. At NO point does the automated tool suggest what should be written, it simply highlights items which should be evaluated.

Ross asked (privately) about another issue, trying to eliminate the "to be" verbs: have, had, was and were. In general, I rate these on a sliding scale. Past-perfect verbs (had) are at one end. Technically, they're correct, but they distance the reader, creating passive text. Changing most of my "had" verbs to "were", and many of the "were" to simple "was", generally cleans the text up. The text is easier to read. It's not so much, "does this need to be deleted", as "does it add anything, and would the sentence read better without it". Readers like action, continually having someone say "I'd" makes it sound like they're afraid of taking any action (making them sound like indecisive wimps).

If it wasn't for the automated tools, I'd never examine each of those usages, since they seem natural when reading.

The same is true for filler words (that, then, just, etc.). I'll go through, checking each usage in a sentence, evaluating whether the words are necessary or are just taking up space. If they add nothing of value (i.e. they're just place fillers), then they get ejected.

Perhaps my biggest item is adjectives. I typically use a lot of them. After studying them, I end up keeping most of them, but I at eliminate the redundencies (repeating 2 or 3) and cut out 10 to 20% with no loss to the story. Again, reading through, nothing jumps out as being incorrect, but eliminating those unnecessary words makes the story easier to read, and eliminating a whole litany of unnecessary words reduces the text size significantly.

Finally, the automated approach doesn't inhibit the creative approach (i.e. I don't curtail my words initially). I'll go through a clean up a first pass, let it sit for some time, go back and revise the chapter once I know how the entire story flows (so I know what's essential and what ultimately doesn't lead anywhere), and then, as a last pre-editing step, I'll run it through autocrit, which highlights issues I should look at. It generally takes about an extra day per chapter, but it's generally time worth spending on the text.

I actually take a different tact.

tact = tack
That's an error I make all the time because "tact" sounds like "tactic." But it's "tack."

tact = tack
That's an error I make all the time because "tact" sounds like "tactic." But it's "tack."

Thanks. It's one I often repeat, never quite learning my lesson. Luckily my editors catch it, but I typically don't use them when writing on-the-fly messages.

Here, have a Tick Tact.

Sorry, but that sounds ticky-tacky!

Here, have a Tick Tact.

Ticca tacca is so last decade - the current fashion is kick and rush :)

AJ

Ross asked (privately) about another issue, trying to eliminate the "to be" verbs: have, had, was and were. In general, I rate these on a sliding scale. Past-perfect verbs (had) are at one end. Technically, they're correct, but they distance the reader, creating passive text. Changing most of my "had" verbs to "were", and many of the "were" to simple "was", generally cleans the text up.

was

This word is a red flag for me. First, it could be passive voice where I don't want passive voice. But that's not common for me.

The other case is "was running" when I meant to say "ran." It's the same as what I said before about "began." It's a matter of time (is the character still running when the action occurs?).

had

As to "had," that's not passive. It's tense (past perfect). If you're writing in past tense and you need to go back in time, as in a flashback, you must change the tense to past perfect.

A lot of "had"s is a problem, though. So when you have a long past perfect flashback, you begin it in past perfect tense, switch to past tense, and then switch back to past perfect tense near the end of the flashback to notify the reader the flashback is coming to an end.

I have problems with "was" because I frequently use past tense and passive voice when I speak.

If I were granted a "One Time Only" round trip back into the past; I would use it to kick myself in the ass and pay attention in English class. My inattentiveness and laziness then, makes my writing hobby difficult. I've spent weeks rewriting sentences and paragraphs to remove "was" errors.

BTW, this topic is very informative.

I have problems with "was" because I frequently use past tense and passive voice when I speak.

Writing in past tense isn't a problem. Although the current trend seems to be present tense, most novels have been and still are written in past tense.

Passive voice is used all the time in English. When to use it in fiction and when not to is the trick. And not all "was" situations are passive voice. For example, "John was running to the store" is not passive voice. But "was running" often should be "ran."

I'm like you — somehow I slept through grammar classes in school. I've been trying to catch up now that I'm writing which is why I spend so much time in this forum on grammar.

most novels have been and still are written in past tense.

That may be true of 20th century US writers, but not true of all novels of all time. Both past and present tense have been the preferred option at different times through history, and both are equally as valid a way to write. When you take into account all the works written for entertainment you're more likely to find present tense is the more common due to its use in plays and scripts for films etc.

Creative writing courses teach that different types of stories come across better in different tenses. For example, a first person action thriller would normally come across better in the present because of the immediacy. A third person drama would normally come across better in the past tense.

My personal preference is for the past tense. I believe I have used it for all my SOL stories, although I do try my hand at present tense occasionally.

AJ

My personal preference is for the past tense.

If you're happy with it, good for you. I'm just a little tense about the tense issue because I've received too many abusive emails, and comments in past discussions, along the lines of past tense being the only valid way to write in as per the poster of the message. When the reality is both past and present are valid, at it all comes down to a personal preference.

Yeah, I know what you mean. A supposedly reputable authority (name forgotten) advised writers to think very carefully before deciding to write in the present tense, and then choose past tense anyway. That seemed to be the pervading dogma when I took up writing again.

AJ

I'm like you — somehow I slept through grammar classes in school. I've been trying to catch up now that I'm writing which is why I spend so much time in this forum on grammar.

Join the club. The only ones who paid attention in English class were the pretentious girls dreaming of becoming poets and writing Harlequin romances. I didn't take a single English class in my entire post-graduate years, never dreaming I'd need to know that crap.

Now, years later, we've all decided we want to write/post/publish, and suddenly we're trying to make up for lost time. However, while we all seem to lack the polished credentials, what we have are better grasps of life and story telling, rather than techniques to write the perfect sentence/paragraph, and that's much more valuable. We can learn the rest, but without decent ideas, all the techniques in the world don't amount to a pile of semicolons! :)

This might be an unusually short Do-Over story. Its not clear to me how the hero can kick himself in the ass. Maybe if he is a contortionist or a specialized kind of gymnast.

Clearly, the present-day do-over guy gets the original olden days guy to kick his do-over ass for him. (I wonder if that hurts both guys?) :)

If both the Present-day guy and the olden-days guy are both present, wouldn't that be more of a 'time travel' scenario (ala Mayhem in a Pill) rather than a do-over?

Oops, I guess I'll do-over my do-over scenario, though technically, if the present day guy comes back as someone else, he could still have his original self kick his/her ass for him. In that scenario, I'd assume it wouldn't hurt the past version of himself for another 30 to 50 years. :)

My older, wiser, and grammatically challenged self would kick my younger, dumber and self absorbed self.

In my time travel stories, a paradox, is just two doctors.

My older, wiser, and grammatically challenged self would kick my younger, dumber and self absorbed self.

My problem was never that I made bad decisions when I was younger, I just never envisioned myself as an author/editor. I came to it completely by accident. I lost my career (disability), couldn't do anything else, started reading stories online because my concentration was suffering too much to read books (helped when I reduced the medication I was on), and figured, 'I can do better than this'.

However, I'd always been fairly good at expressing my eyes, and always knew enough to keep friends around who could edit my reports before submitting them to the boss. I knew the basics of communication and story telling, I just didn't know the specifics of sentence construction, what goes where and why. Thus I knew how to construct a story, but I needed to learn the techniques I'd never studied before.

One thing I learned, an author going back to relearn how to write makes for a terrible do-over story--even his he has a paradox to control his medication issues.

By the way, I live for paradoxes. A single one just won't do!

I live for paradoxes

Oh, sorry, I thought it was a pair of doxies you lived for.

The other area to watch is excess sidelines in the story. Yes, you need some material to fill out scenes, places, characters, etc. but watch out for scenes that do nothing for the story, the plot, or the characters. These are often gratuitous and stand out to readers.

To be fair, that's not always the clear line you imagine it to be. I recently (this year) changed my writing style, going from 10,000 to 15,000 word chapters down to 3,000 word chapters, seeking to improve my writing, and not only have my scores dropped, but so have my number of weekly readers.

I haven't figured out exactly what it is about the new style that they don't like, but along with the excessive verbiage, I cut out a lot of the subplots and character details my readers' loved. I'm trying to recapture some of that, but when no one can point out "You know what this scene needs, someone to come along and talk about their experiences in Yemin!"

Without specific advice about what to slice and what to retain, we're all swimming in a cloudy bowl of fish soup.

Extraneous detail, especially those which reflect who the character is, is vital. Cut it, and expect to see your reader satisfaction scores drop. Yet, a vital stage of becoming a better writing in learning what to cut, what to keep, and how to tell the difference.

That, plus you've got to figure out what a difference 'score nominalization' makes. Since Lazeez continually modifies scores, there's no way to know whether your readers are truly dissatisfied, whether there's just more competition, or whether the subject matter just doesn't appeal to them.

I cut out a lot of the subplots and character details my readers' loved.

CW,

I'm not saying there isn't a place for sub-plots and character details, just that they have to be relevant to the story being told in some way.

For example, story about political wheeling and dealing in Washington where a sub-plot goes into the political games about the power one of the characters has is a relevant sub-plot. While a sub-plot about the political wheeling and dealings going on in France where the main story has no interaction with France is an irrelevant sub-plot.

One case from my story Will to Survive I have a scene where Will has a mild run in with an Army officer on the outskirts of the town Arizona when the officer is leading a patrol out, and later there's a short scene on the road when they meet him returning with his patrol. The scenes show a bit about Will's attitude to the way the Army is at that time. If I had included a scene about what the officer did on the patrol it would have been gratuitous and a waste of time, so I didn't have anything about the patrol. Hope this helps to show what i mean about the relevancy to the story.

Some stories have a whole lot of sub-plots, needed in longer stories - hate to try and count the sub-plots in Finding Home

I think I said it before, but two things:

1) Write to please yourself. A storyteller weaves a tale that his audience will enjoy. Normally, it means the tale flows smoothly from start to finish. Trying to tweak it to meet some perceived ideal style of writing damages what you are trying to produce. Be yourself and let the words flow. You can reduce word count or modify it afterward, if you want, but that usually interferes with the smooth flow of the tale.

2) Don't worry about Lazeez's weighted scores. Look at the story's Histogram of raw scores. That is where you will find your reader's opinion of your writing. No, not the number of high scores, but a low number of low scores.

The key is to convey the intended message as clearly as possible with as few words as possible.

I'm not sure the latter is true.

There's a much touted (in the UK) woman author who kept on getting rejection after rejection. After 20 years of not getting published, she had an epiphany. Her writing was too verbose. She then wrote a book entitled something like 'The Word Loss Diet'. It's self-published. Despite paring her writing to the bone, she still can't get published in the traditional sense.

I think it's crucial to write stories that people actually want to read. Pruning the occasional adverb is going to have a minimal effect. (Perhaps that's a bad example because JK Rowling goes nuts with adverbs and she's sold millions of books.)

AJ

I think it's crucial to write stories that people actually want to read.

True, but excess wordage will also turn them off.

1. You need a Story.

2. You need a good presentation.

3. You need luck to get to a publisher.

I think it's crucial to write stories that people actually want to read. Pruning the occasional adverb is going to have a minimal effect. (Perhaps that's a bad example because JK Rowling goes nuts with adverbs and she's sold millions of books.)

The story is always paramount. A beautifully written boring book is still boring, but a crudely written captivating book (of which there are multiple examples) does well. Unfortunately for most of us, what sells books isn't either terrific stories or beautiful writing but extensive marketing. Most book deals for independent authors come down to manipulation. Authors manipulate Amazon's rating system, arranging for hundreds of people to purchase books within a specific 15 minute period to get onto the Amazon best seller list, which then attracts the attention of traditional publishers.

The point of cutting excessive words, though, isn't to 'make an impact', it's instead to make the book easier to read. We're cutting out the unnecessary text, whether filler words, duplicate phrases, or subplots which don't advance the story. Everything you don't need should be eliminated, but as my example shows, you don't want to cut too much, though the difference is often difficult to determine precisely.

As far as raw scores go, my scores now run the gamut, from 1 to 10. The majority are 10s, but the outliers are so scattered it's hard to determine what they represent.

@Ross

if they're advancing the plot, they MUST advance the character?

Subplots, however short, should either advance the plot or reveal something about the main characters, so you care about them. Cut too much of the story, and readers won't care whether the hero saves the world or not.

The point of cutting excessive words, though, isn't to 'make an impact', it's instead to make the book easier to read.

At the risk of evangelism, writing must be the only creative medium where it's fashionable to go back to a finished work and consciously remove stuff, for whatever reason (and I'm not sure 'easier to read' is in fact the reason.)

I can't imagine Beethoven revising his 9th Symphony to remove some of the instruments or secondary themes, or an Old Master revising a painting to remove some of the cherubs, or use fewer brush strokes or shades of red.

AJ

I can't imagine Beethoven revising his 9th Symphony to remove some of the instruments or secondary themes, or an Old Master revising a painting to remove some of the cherubs, or use fewer brush strokes or shades of red.

There are records to show where the great composers of the past had earlier versions before they ended up with the finished version, and x-rays of many great works of art show different details under the final painting.

I suspect what you really mean is writing is a creative art where the artist will put it on display and then wokr on it to make it better.

I can't imagine Beethoven revising his 9th Symphony to remove some of the instruments or secondary themes, or an Old Master revising a painting to remove some of the cherubs, or use fewer brush strokes or shades of red.

You obviously haven't noticed any design work for the last 30 years. Photo manipulation is rampant in all avenues of advertising and the artistic movement. The removal of blemishes, blurring of background, clouds, recoloring clothing, the addition of texture, etc. are all examples of 'refinishing' finished works.

This also applies to the fine arts as well. How many painters repaint patches of unsuccessful works, or add overlays to works which just 'don't pop'?

The general rule of thumb is, if you can make something better, then do it. It further manipulation will screw it up (like mucking with paint until it turns into a muddied brown), then leave it alone.

The cutoff with published works used to be the publication date. Once a publisher ran off 200,000 copies, the work was frozen in time, never to be corrected or updated until the twentieth anniversary release of a successful book. However, with independent publishing, you can make changes on Monday and republish an hour later. Why NOT make changes if it improves the story?

Not everyone agrees that deliberate minimization/simplification constitutes improvement.

Absolutely no one is dictating you should do anything. If you don't want to, that's Jim Dandy. However, the thread was asking authors to detail how THEY managed to eliminate excessive verbiage. So we're just explaining what techniques we've found successful.

Don't get so defensive about what others discuss. If you're not interested, then there's no need to dive into the discussion. As I said earlier, there are repercussion, often unintended, from doing too much. However learning that line is often a necessary process in becoming a better author.

So when you start saying things like reducing "excess" verbiage is "necessary" to becoming a "better" author I have to stop and ask.

We're talking two distinctly different techniques here. One, the one first asked about, is how to trim the excess verbiage from sentences. That includes filler words (ex: "just", "that", "then", etc.). The other, which I introduced when reflecting on my own experience, involved trimming the story plot and reducing the number of subplots which don't necessarily advance the main theme of the story.

It sounds like you're objecting to the second technique, and not the first. If so, it's important to state that so people know you aren't advocating never editing a story.

If we're truly discussing the second, then we should start a second discussion about how much of a plot can be cut before you drain the story of life. That's an important point, and one I think I overstepped, though I still think my earlier 250,000 word books were a bit much. So there's got to be some middle ground. Unfortunately, the only way I've discovered to reduce a book's overall length is to constrain runaway subplots and endless expansion of detail. I've been utterly unable to do it by cutting back on excess wordage in each sentence.

However, I am questioning both techniques. I don't see why either should be considered an unqualified improvement.

So, aside from correcting typos, you're suggesting that NO author should EVER attempt to either edit or improve their story telling techniques?

I find that to be unfathomable advice for any author. In other words, write a rough first draft, do a rudimentary review for typos, and post it as is, warts and all? How is an author ever going to improve if they don't review their work, or ask for advice regarding how to improve their efforts?

It actually sounds like you've been in a terrible mood for the past couple weeks and are simply taking a contrary position to anything suggested. Frankly, I can't see any benefit to what you're suggesting. Yes, it's entirely possible that authors can overthink their stories and over-edit, but to suggest that NO author should EVER edit invalidates the advice of authors over the course of the last 2,000+ years. It's hard to balance that much advice against the word of one contrarian with nothing to back up his claim.

So I'll politely (as I can) suggest that you either put up or shut up. Either suggest an alternative (i.e. a better way of editing), or quit denouncing attempts by other authors to improve their techniques. So far, you're adding no advice, no suggestion and no contributions. Instead you're simply telling everyone to 'give up and ignore whatever might be wrong with your story'.

It sounds like you're objecting to the second technique, and not the first

Nope, he is objecting to the first, or at least wants proof why an author should bother deleting unnecessary words. He said he likes verbose stories. My suggestion is that he read Dickens and others who were paid by the word.

I'll live by what Mark Twain wrote at the end of a letter to a friend. Something like: "I'm sorry this letter is so long. I didn't have time to make it shorter."

I am asking for a clear explanation of why the words are unnecessary.

Because the sentence is stronger without the extra words. "Stronger" = more impact; clearer; quicker to read (says the same thing with less words); etc.

Here's one from Purdue University that has wordy examples followed by concise versions. You should see why the concise ones are stronger and clearer.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/572/02/

Presumes with no argument as to why that quicker to read is an absolute good.

Short sentences play a crucial role in setting the tempo for action scenes. But I think they needed to be contrasted with longer, more verbose sentences in between, incorporating filler words if necessary to slow the pace.

I was very unimpressed with the Diana Urban blog and, if she practices what she preaches, that would explain the less than stellar success of her books.

The Purdue University article looks better, but they've deliberately slanted their examples by going over the top with the wordiness.

AJ

It doesn't help that their examples are heavily weighted towards formal business writing

Take the source into consideration. It wasn't about fiction writing. But I thought the examples made their point.

I actually prioritize advice by who is giving it. My priority is: 1) traditional publishers and their editors, 2) literary agents; 3) Creative Writing/English professors; 4) traditionally published authors, 5) everyone else. The most trusted being numbers 1 and 2.

Here's one from a literary agent/editor/publishing coach: http://www.rachellegardner.com/how-to-cut-thousands-of-words/

Her goal is to reduce the size of the manuscript, but the information is good. I love "Passages that tell the reader what they already know" and "And remember, no matter how many words you're able to cut, your editor will always find more."

Her goal is to reduce the size of the manuscript

An absurd goal in it's own right.

It's a valid goal if you want to get traditionally published. Most manuscripts are too long. It costs a publisher more to publish a long novel. They usually won't take the chance on an unknown.

But the reason I gave that link was because it had some information about getting rid of excess stuff (even though it did it under the guise of reducing the size of a manuscript).

That they are in a position of authority doesn't make them right.

True, but they are in the business. Are they always right? Of course not. The rejections of "Harry Potter" proves that. But they work with this stuff day in and day out so they know what they're talking about.

Can you quantify that out of all the books they publish, the number of successful books significantly outnumbers the failures.

I don't have the numbers, but if it wasn't true they'd be out of business.

Keep in mind, the definition of success in publishing is making the investment back in the 1st 6 weeks. If the book makes a profit over its life, but not in the 1st 6 weeks, they consider it a failure. Weird, but that's their measurement.

Keep in mind, the definition of success in publishing is making the investment back in the 1st 6 weeks.

That's likely due to that being when the great bulk of the sales occurs. With many book stores they want to return a book they have to do it within 6 weeks (I'd guess they're related). Once they do they get credited for it. Thus after 6 weeks the publishers has a good idea of how the book stores (their main clients) view the book. If they don't have enough sale by then it's unlikely they'll get much of an improvement after that.

I'm not impressed by her advice unless every point is qualified by "if it's right for your story". Everything she slates as candidates for removal adds colour to a story. The trouble is, novices reading her advice will go around deleting adverbs etc from their stories without considering the context, and the result may well be flat and anaemic.

AJ

I'm not impressed by her advice unless every point is qualified by "if it's right for your story".

I've seen this objection everywhere in this forum. The advice isn't never or always. Show don't tell doesn't mean never tell. Don't use adverbs doesn't mean never use adverbs. Use active voice instead of passive voice does not mean never use passive voice. Delete redundant words doesn't mean never use redundant words (e.g., for effect).

What you are asking her to state is implied.

She prefaced her list with 'consider', true, but she also said to cut stories which were 'perfect' if the wordcount seemed too long. Seems to me like the tail wagging the dog.

AJ

but she also said to cut stories which were 'perfect' if the wordcount seemed too long. Seems to me like the tail wagging the dog.

That's because that was her intent. There are word count ranges per genre. What I hear on wattpad all the time is someone trying to get an agent interested in a 150,000 word romance novel. That might be acceptable in fantasy, but not romance (which is typically 70,000-90,000 words). It's too expensive and, therefore, risky for a publisher to produce a novel that long. So she was offering advice on how to reduce word count.

The reason I mentioned the link here is because there is useful information pertinent to the subject of this thread.

If an author can't get an agent interested in a 150,000 word romance, it's almost certainly because it's not good enough. If the intro letter and description appeal, the agent will typically assess the first three chapters. If they pass muster, the agent will be interested and concerns like wordcount can be addressed later. Perhaps Mills & Boone would object to 150,000 words, but the cost of producing a 150,00 word novel is not that much greater than a 90,000 word novel.

AJ

If an author can't get an agent interested in a 150,000 word romance, it's almost certainly because it's not good enough. If the intro letter and description appeal, the agent will typically assess the first three chapters.

One of the first things in a query letter is the genre and word count. There's a reason for that.

Word count is definitely a factor with cost. The obvious cost is printing (paper, etc.). But don't forget other costs, such as editing.

Even if you self-publish you need to take novel size into account because the longer the story the higher the shipping costs are.

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. She thought it mattered so she gave tips for reducing word count. As I said, I didn't list that link for us to reduce word count. I did it because there was information in there relating to the topic.

The reason I mentioned the link here is because there is useful information pertinent to the subject of this thread.

True, but the thread has drifted into encompassing why stories should be pruned, and there's a sort of pervading atmosphere that pruning for pruning's sake is good.

For authors writing for themselves, that's clearly not true.

For authors writing for readers, the readers' views should be paramount. CW's experiments (professional editor, Singularity) don't support a culture of succinctness.

AJ

CW's experiments (professional editor, Singularity) don't support a culture of succinctness.

Pardon me, I said I wouldn't but when you take my name in vein I've got to step in.

"Singularity" received some tremendously positive reviews, where it fell short was on the online ratings on SOL, and it turned out most of that was due to the site's score manipulation. Before the manipulation was put into effect, it ranked at nearly a perfect 10 on Sci-Fi, ranked higher than my other stories. Afterwards, the story was among my lowest ranking. So either the score manipulations aren't unilateral, or readers are seeing the score demerits as evidence the stories are to blame.

Again, presumes the words are unnecessary as an explanation of why they are unnecessary, circular reasoning/definition.

mainly because they are either repetitive, redundant, or just sound stupid. Think back to a few movies where they have characters sound stupid by saying things like, "There are many, many, many things in this." - in this case two of the word 'many' are unnecessary, unless you really, really want it to sound stupid.

I very very occasionally use repetition for emphasis but three seems over the top. ;)

That's the point, and why it was used for humorous intent in the films. However, I've seen it done in stories, usually by amateurs who want to emphasis something.

I am asking for a clear explanation of why the words are unnecessary.

After I posted my last post, I googled it. The first article listed said:

When you're revising any piece of writing — a novel, a news article, a blog post, marketing copy, etc. — there are certain words you should delete to make the text stronger and cut your word count. When I'm writing a novel, one of my last drafts focuses on cutting these useless words. Removing them helps speed up the pacing of both action and dialogue, and makes your work more polished and professional

The author is a marketing manager at BookBub where she blogs about book marketing and publishing tips.

She lists 43 words and gives examples as to why.

http://dianaurban.com/words-you-should-cut-from-your-writing-immediately

She lists 43 words and gives examples as to why.

Some of the words in the list need to be considered on a case by case basis as to the need for them in the story at that point, but a blanket removal would be wrong.

Some of the words in the list need to be considered on a case by case basis as to the need for them in the story at that point, but a blanket removal would be wrong.

Nowhere did she say to always remove them.

No, I am not asking for prof of why an author should bother deleting unnecessary words. I am asking for a clear explanation of why the words are unnecessary.

I can't apply it to my own writing without the why. But the whole thread seems to dance around that without addressing it.

Clearly, that's because the thread wasn't entitled "Why bother editing?" Instead, Ross asked, "How can I eliminate excess words", triggered by comments by other authors (myself included) that we typically work to do just that, but had never outlined exactly the steps we undertook to accomplish it. As an editor advising others, he was looking for suggestions how he could better make editing recommendations based on what's worked for other authors.

Again, if you can't offer either explicit suggestions or objections to what's been suggested, I suggest you get OUT of this thread, since you're contributing nothing of value, and start a separate thread where you discuss the value in editing complex stories to make them easier to understand. That's a valid point, and one well worth discussing, but you're sidetracking a valid discussion here for nothing more than an abstract objection to an approach most others are already committed to.

In short, if you can't read this thread without grating your teeth, STOP reading the damn thing!!!

Perfect examples of why doing it is not a good thing.

Neither one was an artist (aside from a few crude paintings in their youth), and the removals were for reasons other than the betterment of their 'art'.

Frankly, it's a terrible example!

Charles appears as a courtier and also as king; his predecessor died whilst the work was being painted and Verio simply didn't change the courtier Charles.

I have no clue what your point here is. While an entertaining historical fact, how does this impact the discussion about whether to edit or not?

writing must be the only creative medium where it's fashionable to go back to a finished work and consciously remove stuff

How about movies? Did you ever see an "uncut" version? They advertise those as "never seen scenes," but it's just extra crap that when removed the movie is stronger. There's a reason there's an Oscar for Best Editing.

btw, I hope we're not talking about a finished story. This is done during the editing phase.

it's just extra crap that when removed the movie is stronger.

That's the usual result, but there have been cases where a movie was weakened because a cut scene made a later scene seem a piece of rubbish because the required background material was in the cut scene.

been cases where a movie was weakened because a cut scene made a later scene seem a piece of rubbish because the required background material was in the cut scene.

Poor editing

Such edits are often forced by studio demands that the finished movie fit specific length parameters.

It's still poor editing, no matter what the reason.

This thread is about good editing.

As far as I can tell, this thread is about editing for the sake of editing. I don't see why that is "good".

Then you totally missed the point. I don't know any author that does editing for the sake of editing. They enjoy writing. Those who take pride in what they write edit to make their piece of art better.

Now "better" might be subjective. I consider fixing typos to be better. Someone else may not. I consider changing one word to another as better. Some would disagree, either preferring the former word or saying it doesn't make a difference. I consider restructuring a sentence because it sounds or flows better (to my ear) as better. Someone else may not agree.

All you are really doing is trimming for length,

Then you have no idea what we're discussing. Length is not a factor.

Yes, but this thread isn't about typos or flow. It's about removing "excessive" verbiage. To me, without a solid explanation of what constitutes excessive and why, that sounds like editing for the sake of editing. All you are really doing is trimming for length, like the movie editing you were criticizing.

So you're suggesting that, without extensive research into 'proven, documented' edits, there's absolutely no sense in trying to improve one's work? If so, then it sounds like we all invest in an endless array of "write better, write smarter books", which have never (in my humble opinion) helped anyone!

Instead, writing is a difficult field: not only because it's difficult to create imaginary worlds, but also because it's difficult to make the final polishes necessary, or to express yourself adaquately.

If you can determine what needs to be cut, and what doesn't, then go ahead and publish yet another "how to be successful at writing" book. But again, for all but a couple I've read in my time, they're mostly written by moderately successful authors who want to eliminate potential competition rather than an honest evaluation of what works and what doesn't.

Instead, each other has to struggle to determine what works and what doesn't. With luck, they can discover someone to take them under their wing and show them what they've learned, but those authors are few and far between. Mostly what you get, is either terrible or ineffective advice.

DO YOU DELIBERATELY FUCKING MISINTERPRET EVERYTHING I SAY?

This wasn't directed at me, but I can answer for myself: Absolutely! Since I can't understand your specific objection, or what you're proposing as an alternative, clearly I'm misinterpreting everything you say. And three guesses why? You NEVER established your point, because your objections are convoluted, impossible to decipher, contain no central premise, and have no satisfactory ending. In short, if you spent more time editing both your words and your thoughts, you might have more success in expressing your ideas!

As for your (DS's) objection to this entire thread, I refuse to waste time with your shitting on the constructing advice of everyone else, not allowing us to trade ideas useful to us. As such, I won't respond anymore unless you establish a separate thread to discuss the value of editing in general, where the discussion is clearly focused, instead of shitting on the good work of others.

However, since you've taken over the entire discussion in this thread--killing another useful discussion (without even mentioning Hitler this time), I'll quit the entire thread, as I doubt we'll ever get it back on track after this.

Ross, if you want to discuss specific ideas, I suggest we take this discussion off-line, where Trolls uninterested in the discussion can't derail the exchange of ideas.

This is another [really] good one

Did my humor go unnoticed on the unnecessary word in brackets?

You're welcome. :)

Did my humor go unnoticed on the unnecessary word in brackets?

Not only is it unnecessary, but it's weak and overly generic (i.e. it doesn't add anything to the sentence). "Terrific" is stronger than the two-word "really good".

The humor went straight over my head, and I still cannot notice it.

"This is a good one."

That sentence says it all. "This is a really good one" says the same thing.

Some here will argue "really good" is more good than "good." So be it.

Some here will argue "really good" is more good than "good."

And some here will argue "really really good" is more gooder than "really good." :)

AJ

Some here will argue "really good" is more good than "good." So be it.

Again, I'd argue that "really good" is only marginally better than "good", which is a middling grade, at best. If it's only "good" or "really good" I'd go with "Ahh!". Otherwise I'd go withing stronger and more authoritative, such as "tremendous", "terrific" or "captivating". Why bother describing things which are "merely good"? If it's only so impressive, why include it in the story at all?

However, if you're trying to demonstrate the character isn't particularly impressed, then "good" or "really good" (if he's trying to convince the girl he likes her boring movie) are perfectly fine.

Again, both "good" and "really" are considered "weak", overly generic words, while "dynamic" words help drive the story.

I just eliminated some excessive words. I really wanted to keep them in, but it wasn't needed. There's no strike-through option here so I'll put the deleted sentence in [] brackets.

His guilt was telling. His redemption was showing.

His guilt was telling. His redemption was showing.

Yes, I took out the telling.

It's very easy,

What's easy? Cutting out words?

That's very hard. The hardest writing I ever did was for a "Writer's Digest" contest that limited me to a maximum of 750 words. Before I even got into the story I was over 1,000. The story "Coming Home" is the result.

What's easy? Cutting out words?

That's very hard.

That's true, but it's often the best training for how to reduce word counts. You only learn by doing, and if you only ever eliminate what's superfluous (not part of the plot), you never learn to delete to actually improve the story (i.e. make it more concise).

I want a story that has color and flair and emotional energy, and that takes description. I can more easily get into stories with a vibrant well described setting than one that's all action but could be happening anywhere.

That's a valid point, but the key is rich descriptions which evoke real life, rather than emotionless generic descriptions. However, we're not arguing to drop all descriptions, just to review the text to make it cleaner. The descriptions which inform and define the characters should definitely stay, but we're hoping to eliminate the unnecessary fluff which makes them difficult to manage.

However, I've run into just this problem with my own stories. Since my earlier stories ran 150,000 to 300,000 words, I thought it excessive, but was unable to edit it down. I've been trying to change my writing style instead, being less descriptive, and I'm running into what you're describing. It's not that my descriptions aren't written as well, but that I'm writing fewer of them.

Since I'm sticking to elements which directly advance the plot, I'm shying away from those which don't. Typically, I add involved discussions to help counter short action sequences: short, fast action sequences followed by longer, detailed chapters as the characters reflect what happened. But many of my recent stories have fewer action scenes (outright fights), so I wasn't finding the opportunities to flesh out the characters as much.

Part of that is I'm now planning out my chapters in advance, rather than just writing and seeing where the story leads, which prevents me from exploring the many 'everyday' moments. But that's a story planning and execution issue, not a 'making the writing clearer' issue.

@Ross at Play

May I assume both are (in principle) in favour of eliminating "glue words", i.e. rewording a sentence to have EXACTLY the same meaning, usually with exactly the same root words, just the total number of words is less.

That's a little much. The focus shouldn't be on "fewer words" in total, but on easier to read and more expansive exposition. You want emotional scenes, but not ones which are difficult to parse.

Another important component, which is often difficult to achieve, is varying sentence length to keep the story from sounding stilted (i.e. intermix short, normal length and long sentences, rather than having every sentence ending up at nearly the same length).

@Ernest
I hate to say it, but your description of your "house" passages reflect much of the difficulty the DS is pointing out. We've discussed this before, but both you and Switch have long emphasized not including descriptions of how people appear, because readers rarely remember it. However, I find that describing characters allows me to focus on individual traits that allow me to flesh out their personalities.

In "Catalyst", I emphasized Alex's "bushy eyebrows". That's hardly an essential story element, but it emphasized his unorganized manner, and helped show how others perceived him. By pointing it out, I could also capture how he felt about the single character flaw, and how it helped define him.

Not all descriptions are bad, but we need to carefully choose which help, which don't advance the story (plot or character development) and when to utilize both.

That's the whole problem, in my mind, once you get passed basic spelling and grammar issues, "cleaner" is meaningless nonsense.

"useless fluff" isn't any better. What makes it "fluff"? Why? What makes one piece of fluff useless and another not? Why? If you can't answer these questions (in detail not generic platitudes), it's just more meaningless nonsense.

D.S., you seem to be arguing for automated stories which don't rely on the 'variability' and individual choices of random authors. Most of us see writing more as an art than a science, with some better able to identify when to use one technique or another, rather than a 'once size fits all' approach.

Your approach seems to be 'if you can't Prove shorting any single sentence makes it better, then you shouldn't ever eliminate any single word, since it may not work in that one instance.

That argument is akin to saying: you should never walk outdoors, because you never know when an elephant may fall from the sky and kill you!

Instead, we're arguing that it's often a judgment call, which we sometimes get wrong, but which we more often get right.

We can't offer you any guarantees, just that we're happier with the results.

Note: Get take my objections the wrong way, as I'm trying to do two separate things, clean up my language and shorten the story. One technique clearly circumvents the other, and the two techniques aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, beyond grammar/spelling issues, I have no idea what it means for your language to be "clean" it simply doesn't mean anything to me.

Clean: Not as confusing as it would be otherwise. Easy to read, with a clear meaning.

I don't at all understand why hair/eye color falls into the not to do category.

He means, don't just list a series or random facts. Hair color is okay in the right contexts, but height, weight and bra size are novice errors.

nothing that you have said shows why including height (aproximate), hair color, or eye color is necessarily weaker than leaving them out.

Okay, here are some. Few people can accurately guestimate height or weight. Hair color is okay, but doesn't add much of value to a description. What percentage of humanity is brunette? Eye color is something few notice until they get right into your face, so why mention it unless it's a love scene?

Nervous ticks, things that define someone (because they're self-conscious or proud of them), or that reflect their state of mind are more worthwhile.

but both you and Switch have long emphasized not including descriptions of how people appear,

In my novel, the pastor has bushy eyebrows. In fact it gave him the nickname of Squirrel by the kids. My hero has a tattoo on his forearm and black hair. My other hero has thick forearms, is short and stocky and has a barrel chest. I never said not to do that in character descriptions. What not to do is: He was six feet tall, brown hair, brown eyes, 240 pounds...

I don't at all understand why hair/eye color falls into the not to do category.

Not hair. It's the driver's license character description.

not an example for descriptive information that should not be included.

I can't take credit for this. It comes from a "Writer's Digest" article on description.

4. Select physical details carefully, choosing only those that create the strongest, most revealing impression.

One well-chosen physical trait, item of clothing, or idiosyncratic mannerism can reveal character more effectively than a dozen random images.

So everything else should not be included.

I remember reading a description of a pirate walking into a bar (maybe it was from "Treasure Island"). His description was powerful, from his wooden leg and limp to the scar on his cheek. On the other side, I read an article about a character in a Hemingway short story. The only description of her was something like, "She placed her red hat on the table."

I wish I had the quote, but a famous author once said he has a thousand versions of his novel because every reader sees his characters a little different, making them their own.

If you want hard and fast rules, take up programming, not writing fiction.

That's his opinion, and his being a famous author doesn't make his opinion more authoritative, stronger or better than anyone else's

He meant the reader made the story their own.

So, that's still just his opinion and no more authoritative than anyone else's opinion.

When you talk about grammar and punctuation, you're talking about rules. Everything else is opinion. As I said before, a writer has a toolbox of "opinions" to use or discard.

I'm writing the last scene of my WIP novel. I just wrote this:

Mrs. Wayne appeared out of the darkness at the other end of the stage and strolled up to me.

"You look handsome," she said.

I tugged at the bow tie that was too tight around my neck.

"Leave it alone," she said. "Don't fiddle with it. It looks fine."

I pulled the jacket tails away from my body and said, "How 'bout this thing? Is it on right?"

"That thing is called a cummerbund. It goes with the tuxedo. And it's also fine."

Did I describe his nervousness? Nope, I implied it with the tightness of the bow tie. He was uncomfortable, but not from the tie. Did I describe his tuxedo? Like satin lapels, black, white starched shirt with those pop-in buttons, etc. Nope. I'm not sure I should even have her say "tuxedo" and may take it out. Then again, since my target readership is YA I may leave it in.

Is how the tuxedo looks important? Nope. Is it important that he's wearing a tuxedo? Yup. So I only described the pertinent parts of the tuxedo to make my points.

Actually, it would better imply nervousness if you had him fidgeting with the tie without saying it was tight.

As I said, I had just written those words. When I was reading the post I came to that same opinion and took the "tight around the neck" out. I originally had it because it's from his POV and because he was nervous it felt tight.

Actually, it would better imply nervousness if

And the latest version is... (which will probably be changed again)

Mrs. Wayne appeared out of the darkness at the other end of the stage and strolled up to me.

"You look handsome," she said.

I tugged at the bow tie around my neck.

"Leave it alone," Mrs. Wayne said. "Don't fiddle with it. It looks fine."

Spreading the jacket out to the sides, I asked, "How 'bout this thing? Is it on right?"

"That thing is called a cummerbund. And it's also fine. See how nice it is to live in Woodland? No place to rent a tuxedo here."

"Is my hair okay?" I patted the side and then the back.

"Cory, everything's fine. You look fine. Do me a favor. Take a deep breath."

I did.

Mrs. Wayne chuckled. "And let it out."

Whoosh!

She laughed again. "Better. You were turning blue."

Nice. I'd guess a wedding, but then the types of men likely to get married on a stage would generally be more familiar with wearing a tux.

He could be the best man, but I'd probably guess, from that scene alone, he's the MC for an event of some sort - probably a fund raiser for something he supports or believes in.

Nice. I'd guess a wedding, but then the types of men likely to get married on a stage would generally be more familiar with wearing a tux.

LOL You'll have to read the 80,000+ words preceding this scene. He's 17. It's backstage, behind the closed curtain, in a high school auditorium.

Is how the tuxedo looks important? Nope. Is it important that he's wearing a tuxedo? Yup. So I only described the pertinent parts of the tuxedo to make my points.

which is how it should be for effect. If you went into the fine detail of all the clothing the fact it's a tuxedo is lost and not emphasized.

The hard part is to decide what detail is important and what isn't, then choose the right level of detail and what to mention. Mind you, I'm the guy who gives a lot of detail on certain projects to show some of the decisions and actions being take in the work on the buildings.

That's his opinion, and his being a famous author doesn't make his opinion more authoritative, stronger or better than anyone else's

This statement also applies to other things, such as what is promoted by certain style manuals which are the opinions of the editors of those manuals. The sad thing is how some people and educators see the manuals as handed down by God and promote them as hard and fast rules.

This statement also applies to other things, such as what is promoted by certain style manuals which are the opinions of the editors of those manuals. The sad thing is how some people and educators see the manuals as handed down by God and promote them as hard and fast rules.

Uh, in case none of you have noticed, writing has NO rules. They can't revoke your creative license for putting in an extra comma. Style guides are suggestions, however, if you want to be published by someone, or you work with a given university, then your work is required to conform to the appropriate style guide. That IS a hard a fast rule, otherwise they simply won't publish it (though even this has a lot of wiggle room).

More than anything else, style guidelines point out 1) what's commonly accepted, and 2)what's likely to get you into trouble. In most cases, you can violate them all you want, but you should understand why the standard exists, so you realize what the risks are.

Style guides are suggestions, however, if you want to be published by someone, or you work with a given university, then your work is required to conform to the appropriate style guide

Exactly, CW, and the guides have no application outside of a publisher wanting them used on the stories they publish. Sometimes they'll accept a story and have their editors make it conform. Which is why I don't like it when someone says a thing is an absolute rule of writing in English, especially when the first reference to using the style mentioned can only be found in a certain style guide meant for publishing in an academic situation not that many decades ago.

More than anything else, style guidelines point out 1) what's commonly accepted,

What you should say is 1) what's commonly accepted by some publishers.

I don't at all understand why hair/eye color falls into the not to do category.

Now that I've finished my 1st draft, it's time to edit. Guess what I came upon in Chapter 1?

The left side of his head was shaved, starting where a part would be. The rest was long, swept to the other side and hanging over his ear. It was blue.

I've heard of glue ear but not blue ear. Science fiction? :)

AJ

I've heard of glue ear but not blue ear. Science fiction? :)

I guess the "it" pronoun could be confusing. Thanks.

What not to do is: He was six feet tall, brown hair, brown eyes, 240 pounds...

BMI 32.5 - obese :)

If you had been writing a stroke story, details like hair and eye colour, weight, bra size etc are de rigeur. Horses for courses.

AJ

where an over-emphasis on reducing word counts during the revision process may end up detrimental to the story.

Depending on how and where you cut you can end up with important information to make sense of a later scene being cut and the story doesn't work as it should.

I would be interested in opinions of more experienced writers on the types of situations, and examples if possible, where an over-emphasis on reducing word counts during the revision process may end up detrimental to the story.

The goal isn't to reduce word count (unless you do it for the reason stated in one of the blogs — to make the word count better fit the "norm" for the genre).

The goal is to make the story stronger.

Often, if you say the same thing again, it adds nothing. However, sometimes I actually repeat a word or phrase for emphasis. Many words that should be deleted add nothing and interfere with the flow of the sentence. They simply get in the way.

As with most rules, it's not a rule. It's something in the author's toolbox to consider when writing/editing.

The goal is to make the story stronger.

Beyond a certain point, it weakens the story not strengthens it.

I repeat — "The goal is to make the story stronger."

If eliminating words does that, delete them. If repeating words does that, put them in. If description gets skimmed over by the reader because it's boring, delete it. If description engages the reader in the story, put it in.

If it was black and white, computers would write stories and authors would be extinct.

May I assume both are (in principle) in favour of eliminating "glue words", i.e. rewording a sentence to have EXACTLY the same meaning, usually with exactly the same root words, just the total number of words is less.

In principle, yes.

One of the advantages of writing in the vernacular is cutting a lot of the formal crap out of a sentence. For example:

Formal English - Peter says, "John said that they are over in the next valley."

Vernacular English - Peter says, "John said they're over in the next valley."

...............

A certain amount of description is needed in many situations, but it should be kept to the minimum needed for the item and the scene. When i was revising Shiloh with The Scot we cut over 1,000 words out of one chapter, all of them were the way he described one room and its contents, even so it still ended up with about 400 words of description, but the original was just way to flowery.

In many of my stories I have people buying cars or vans, the descriptions of the vehicles and their contents varies between the stories. Part of that is certain aspects of the descriptions lead back into displaying aspects of the characters, so they have more detail than others where they don't. - it's a real case of you needing to decide how mush is relevant, and how much isn't.

Take my latest finished story, Mallard Heir. The house is beside a ridge, I could go into great length to describe the ridge, but only put in sufficient to let you know it's not an easy walk up it. For most of the rooms I give little more than a basic dimension, and then that's in the drawing of the house. I could've gone into detail about cupboards etc., but didn't. The same is true for all the furniture, most are a simple basic description or just a note they exist, when i could have spent a few hundred words on the colour engraving, design, etc. - not relevant to the story, so I didn't.

Take a house in a story, is the colour of the exterior important? Then it needs to be given in detail, if not it can either be given a single word mention (eg. blue house) or not mentioned at all. But, if the colour is important, then you may wish to go into more detail as to the shade of the blue and the trim etc.

edit to add: You can always go and trim out excess adjectives that don't help the story. But be sure about them being excess.

The rest of your entry I go with

I go [over] with? :)

I suggest that you can safely omit the word "over". If it were "up" or "down" then it might have significance (depending on the context) but "over" does not have any implications apart from being elsewhere which is covered by "the next valley".

and thus we have another example of how it can be trimmed.

I enjoyed Mallard Heir EB. However, there was at least one bit of detail I felt it was missing - what was in the boxes and trunks that were in the attic.

I enjoyed Mallard Heir EB. However, there was at least one bit of detail I felt it was missing - what was in the boxes and trunks that were in the attic.

Frank and Eric get them down and they got mixed in with the lot from the basement while Sven was there. In the sub-chapter Wednesday the boys bring the trunks up for Jenny to go through in the kitchen, at the end of the 2nd paragraph it says ... Then the boys bring the trunks and boxes down from the attic. From that point they're part of the group Sven looks at.

On the other hand if it's a background element to provide a source of wealth, it should still be given some description, but the description can be less detailed.

Except, how a person approaches work often informs who they are as a person. Are they meticulous? Do they focus on the details (like the polish on the chrome) or are the overly efficient, leaving the grease on the metal because it doesn't impact efficiency?

Describing the building of new technology isn't just to reference to it (and problems with the design) later in the story, it helps to identify who the person is and how they really feel about the project. If the character cares about it, then hopefully the readers will. If he simply views it as a means to an end, the reader will likely consider it immaterial as well.

Again, cutting content simply because it 'doesn't advance the story' can leave you without much of a story.

@DS

This is purely subjective.

Which is why Switch described it as a tool which each author must evaluate on a case by case basis, rather it being a rule that "everyone must follow".