Blathering Style · 6:00pm Mar 18th, 2013
My writing style is not nearly verbose enough. I end up writing things and then having to go back and extend them. I'd like to have the problem of writing too much and then trimming it back. Insofar as I end up trimming things off during editing, it's usually because of redundant statements or spineless word usage.
Redundant statements are the usage of unnecessary clarifications or outright repetition[1]. Meanwhile, spineless word usage[2] is the use of softeners and vague words like almost or seeming. I'm the omniscient author. I can state things exactly as they're happening. There's no need to say things are 'somewhat' one way or 'almost' another way. Moreover, I can state things incorrectly! That's a very freeing thing to realize. If my viewpoint character gets the wrong idea, so does the reader. If my viewpoint character is too certain about something they should be questioning, so is the reader. This isn't the story going haywire. It's normal.
I trim these things off, but they're honestly not very much. I've been reading ponyfic today and it struck me that the stories I most enjoy tend to be very wordy. When I edit each chapter of my story, they tend to grow about 20% per editorial pass as I see things I want to elaborate on. Chapter 4 of Whispering Stars ("Wingwarming Gift") got two passes, which is where I'm drawing my numbers from.
I feel like I risk brieving[3] when I ought to risk blathering. I could be doing more to fully illustrate the setting and the reactions of the characters. Moreover, even if I'm being digressive enough as it is, I still wish to be moreso. I want to have the problem of writing too much and then shedding 10% of the length of each chapter when I edit it, instead of writing too little and gaining 20%. I believe writing too little and then elaborating during the editing process is an unhealthy pattern.
[1]This is an example of unnecessary clarification. It's fine here but would be trimmed out of a story. Of course, it'd be an odd story where the phrase 'redundant statements' even came up like this.
[2]As near as I can tell, the issue with spineless word usage is more unique to me, and thus more deserving of explanation.
[3]Neologism, means 'speaking or writing too succinctly'. Big Macintosh tends to brieve. Pinkie Pie tends to blather.
First of all, the link "very wordy" goes right to my profile...yup. Got my number alright.
Second of all, I'm in love with the word 'brieve.' It's wonderful. I'd probably go with 'laconate,' but I think I like the linguistic vigor of 'brieve' better. Also, Firefox ol' bean, brieve is a word. PPP just made it so.
Thirdly, every writer ever is in some way unsatisfied with their style[1]. That you can delineate precisely what it is about your style you wish to change is a good sign!
Also you can rely on my expert kvetchery to help you, too.
[1] Yes, I use singular they. No, I am unrepentant.
Yea! Winningverse!
I admit, I strongly support wordy fiction. Device Heretic was my favorite author on this site. He tended to be....descriptive. Some times too much so, though I think he got more flak for that than he really deserved. ANYWAY. Away from that can-o'-worms. I don't see how adding content as you edit is unhealthy though, if you find it needs it. Certainly, it doesn't seem hurt the finished product. Go with what works, and count on your pre-readers to back you up.
So "brieving" is a verb form of "brief". Got it.
I've also got the idea that you may be defining what constitutes "writing" wrong. Specifically, if you're still adding stuff, I'd say you're still "writing", even if you're editing as well. Thus, you're not done "writing" until you've added enough stuff that you have to take stuff away (or at least no longer have to add stuff).
'Course, my method (HA! As if I had one!) has been to throw stuff at the story until it feels right. Often, I'll fully realize bits and chunks and just wander around with them trying to see how I can fit them in. The one thing I've actually published was conceived in its entirety one afternoon and written in a mad rush over about four hours.
929937
I'm "writing" until I've finished the first draft. This may take several sessions. Every time I pick it over thereafter is an "editorial pass". Usually, one session of editing is one editorial pass, but I've been known to declare multiple sessions as a single pass. The inverse is not true; one session cannot be more than one pass.
If I'm "writing" up until I stop elaborating, then you're asking me to swallow a fist-sized lump of cognitive dissonance and declaring all my efforts thus far as being published with no editing whatsoever. I regard that as a mortal sin. It's not going to be easy to convince me that I'm defining writing wrong, and the effort is likely to result in Whispering Stars being removed from the site for extensive editing. If you think it needs that editing... well, by all means, try.
>spineless word usage[2] is the use of softeners and vague words like almost or seeming.
One of the things on my revision checklist is a list of words & phrases to kill: 'actually', 'in fact', really', 'very', 'quite', 'though', 'simply', 'somehow'.
I learned a lot about how unwordy I am by writing Severus Spike and The ones who walked away from Equestria. Those are both retellings of another author's story, and they both came out at a little over one-third the length of the original. I studied JK Rowling's text closely to rewrite it as Severus Spike, and was shocked at how long she dragged things out, writing 2 or 3 descriptions or repetitions where I would have written 1. But the way she wrote it worked. She's taking the reader out for a stroll, not sprinting to a destination. She's playing baseball, not football. Her books are long, but people complain when they're over.
Mortality Report was a boring story. I kept trying to make it more interesting by making it shorter, until I figured out that I needed to make it longer instead.
929625 I would call device heretic descriptive, but not usually wordy. I reserve "wordy" for people whose text has low entropy.
Spineless word usage. My god, man. If I had a nickel for every equivocation I've deleted from my stories …
930035
I could do
verywell to learn from you. Stealing that list for personal use. (ThoughA quick search through Fugue State found less than 10 of all of those combined, but the idea of a standard revision checklist for unconscious verbal sins is too smart not to use.)Does "just" give you problems? I swear I deleted 20 in my final pass through FS.
Adverbs. Not always to delete, but to make me justify them, and think about better phrasing.
929990
I suspect the accretive writing style you describe is foreign to most writers, so a lot of the counter-definitions that come with this sort of discussion should come with the grain of salt that they are maps for a territory you don't inhabit.
The spineless word usage isn't just you. As a proofreader, I manage to stamp some of that wishy-washy wording out. And SUDDENLY, too.
I find the most commonplace redundancies make my brain hurt while reading, I just want to correct them, but when I highlight them and press delete, they just don't go away. These include nodded his/her head and shrugged his/her shoulders. There was one particular story where ponies were nodding their heads every few sentences. Almost drove me crazy!
I write too much when I'm just putting down my thoughts, but like you, I have to add a lot to my stories in their second draft form. I suffer from major description-fail and most of my first drafts are nothing but scenes of dialogue strung together.
I forgot to say the main thing I meant to say, which was: Practice whatever you don't normally do. If you write tersely, try being verbose. It's hard. You may have to designate a story as a practice story and write it in a way that you think is bad.
930141 Just, argh.
930155 EqD rejections often ask for more body language, and we don't have a lot of body language options with ponies.
Ever try writing ponies as if they were actual horses? It can get awkward and intrusive. Does Twilight snort and whinny? Do those things with her lips that horses do?
930224
Here's a body language tip that I've broadly ignored with our little ponies. Readers aren't likely to understand it. Still, with proper footnoting, it might work...
You know how humans get cold limbs when they're afraid? That would not happen with horses. You see, the human circulatory system is in the 'core' of the body, so when it's conserving energy for burst exertion the limbs get short-changed. By contrast, the equine circulatory system routes prominently through their hooves, such that running makes it more efficient. A scared horse gets hot hooves rather than cold hooves. Their body increases blood flow through their feet in order to optimize their ability to run away.
930224
Hmm. That's interesting indeed.
I think I need to submit something for Equestria Daily. Not because I think they'll accept anything of mine, but because a lot of novice writers send me things to proofread saying they want to send it to EqD. Experience in being rejected would come in handy.
930141
How foreign could the accretive pattern be? I'm not quite sure what you were saying.
930297
Huh! That would explain the running-in-place we've seen on the show.
When I talk about the accretive writing pattern, I'm referring specifically to the idea of finishing a draft, and then planning to add significant content during the editing process. The "default" writing style for most authors I've met is to sow a field of words, then go in with a sickle during editing and carve away the things that don't add to the core of their story. That's what makes accretive writing foreign: the notion that editing is about growing rather than trimming.
930352
Well, I was under the impression that growth during editing is an anti-pattern. It's not like it's something I specifically set out to do. It's that my drafts are terse and undescriptive. When I'm writing them, I'm focusing strictly on my own story. When I'm editing them, I start comparing the style to manuals of style and stories I want to emulate. While it has happened before, manuals of style rarely make the prose longer. Stories I want to emulate always do.
930359
The reason that growth during editing is an anti-pattern for most authors is that, as above, most authors write too wordy to begin with. But to think of it as an "anti-pattern" means that what you're doing isn't working for you. Given that you've identified your early drafts as being more laconic than the (finished, polished) stories you wish to emulate, I genuinely don't see that as the case here.
Anyway, all I was trying to say was that writing patterns are not one-size-fits-all and to be wary of outside advice that is counterproductive to your style. I hope that's a good takeaway.
931044
Okay, so the key difference is that my drafts are laconic, whereas you're suggesting that many authors are too verbose when they draft. I appreciate the additional effort you took at explaining until I understood. Thank you. You've given me something to think about. At the very least, I'll stop worrying for a while.
931063
Yep! No problem, and glad to hear.
I am late to the party, as always.
So. My experience is definitely in line with 931044's, in that I think most writers start out being too wordy and need to whittle down. Most of the time, though, I think that's a matter of language – your #2, 930035's list of dodge words, etc. Though having just gone back through my most recent publication here and looked for those dodge words, I think they have their use, just as adverbs do. On the one hand, they're often very natural in dialogue. On the other, they're occasionally good pacing words. Short, choppy sentences convey tension. Well, if you have short, choppy ideas but you want to dial back the feel they give, I suppose that somehow you might really find a use for some of them.
Now maybe I'm just being lax, but these days I often find that when I do editing passes, I add and subtract in about equal measure. Intellectually, this seems a bit odd to me, because I'm used to working in the framework that says "editing is for paring down bad writing". I suspect that your habit of adding in editing suggests a very different (and more sophisticated) approach than the one I default to thinking of. Or you're just padding out your writing with useless crap, but judging from what's on display here I don't think that's the case.
The issue, here, I think is one of "editing for content" vs. "editing for readability". Editing for readability usually means removing dodge words, or spotting and avoiding repetitious words and structures. It's usually about making a piece of writing punchier, adding some power to the prose. And generally, I think that this is an area where shorter is better. Generally.
Editing for content is a very different beast, though. Content wants what it wants. If that means an entire section of a story has no larger purpose and needs to go on the chopping block, then there's some huge paring down. But at the same time, if it turns out that there's no real connection between A and C without finding some intermediate point B, you might wind up writing a heck of a lot more. And that's only on the large scale. Smaller-scale, all sorts of times a passage may either wander off on its own without reinforcing story themes, or it may provide an excellent example for exploring those themes that got left unnoticed on an initial pass. I think content editing can take all sorts of shapes. It's a higher order skill.
I'd say if you're finding a drive to add considerably more writing while you edit, the only truly important question is whether that writing serves the vision you have for your story and its themes. That said, I don't think there's always a need to dig as deep as possible in exploring setting and character. I can appreciate Device Heretic. Eternal has a great story, and I love reading it. But for me, those first couple chapters really drag as he spends far more time beating us over the head with characterization than he does showing us the path and letting us walk down it. I don't need six or seven mediocre passages discussing Twilight's refusal to get beyond her role as Celestia's student, especially not when he's going to hit me with one or two note-perfect passages to sell the same point.
I'm just as frightened of boring readers as I am of confusing them. I want their intellectual faculties dedicated to immersing themselves in the story, nothing else. Though how one walks that balance is not something I can claim to know. I just try to do my best, trying to look for some sort of happy middle ground.
My problem? When I try commenting on things after midnight, I lose all ability to filter for less words. And then I kick out Brobdingnagian stylistic monstrosities like this.
935847
It is a nice Brobdingnagian stylistic monstrosity.
935847
> "editing for content" vs. "editing for readability"
Great distinction.
929990
Given horizons' analogy of a map, let me draw you a map of what I'm seeing, so we both know what I'm talking about:
First, there is writing. Writing is all about creating and adding content -- whether that be dialogue, descriptions, or as I find is frequently the case, entire new scenes if not whole stories.
South of writing is re-writing. Re-writing is about presenting the same ideas in a new way, rather than creating and adding new ideas; or about removing and replacing pieces that simply can't be salvaged. Picture trying to come up with alternate versions of the ending scene in Ghost's A Canterlot Carol: that would be re-writing.
Re-writing is in a seemingly-perpetual border war with its southern neighbors, editing for content and editing for correctness. Editing for correctness is not of much use to us here, it's more useful in academic-type contexts where a fact is either correct, or it isn't. Editing for content, however, is about making sure your ideas are presented clearly, understandably, and correctly. It's a place where you rip out that poorly-worded sentence about quarks and explain that they are the building blocks of atoms, and also a place where you ask yourself whether you should be talking about quarks at all.
Farther south is editing for style, sometimes known as editing for readability. This is where you get down to the nitty-gritty of the language:
For example: That "simply" up in re-writing was "simple" before I corrected it, and the semicolon-separated list here used commas until I used a comma in the item about parenthetical information. Even this paragraph went through editing for style.
adding and removing commas; exorcising comma splices; moving parenthetical information inside parenthesis or out to a footnote, assuming you even leave it in; replacing commas with semicolons if need be; correcting all the misspelled words that got past you in previous passes; removing words on the readability checklist as Bad Horse talks about. The stuff Wil Strunk instructs us on. It's a nice, easy-to-see type of editing, and for a long time I had a hard time recognizing any other editing as editing.
To assist in understanding (mainly by serving as an object lesson), here's a piece of fic I have lying around. It's not complete -- there's still a letter to Spike at the end that's in "writing" (nominally). Meanwhile, the first scene could probably stand to go through re-writing, and I'm sure that despite my perfectionist tendencies all of it could stand to go through every phase of editing.
All this mainly to say, I don't see any problem with something being in "writing" and "editing" at the same time. horizon's right about you and accretive style, though.
Also, at least in theory, this 'pattern' can apply to writing chunks of any size. For example, you seem to be following the standard fanfic/internet-release pattern of writing a chapter, running it through this process (or whatever pseudo-similar process you use, sorry) until it's good enough to meet your standards, publishing it when it's done and moving on to the next chapter; whereas Ghost apparently runs his entire stories through the entire process before publishing.
938709
Okay, so the processes can run concurrently. It's not a strictly sequential matter as I'd been envisioning it. Thank you.
Believe me, I'd love to run my entire stories through the entire process before publishing, but it seems I am not that organized or motivated. I say 'seems' because I'm not sure if I could do it now. I certainly wasn't there before. I have odd morale issues that have resulted in a few nightmares about my writing. It's a nice rest from nightmares about even less sensible things, and has helped me to get my thoughts in order. These nightmares have been improving my morale. I might just be able to write my next story ahead of time to be checked over entirely before publishing anything. That would be nice.
I actually admire stories with clear and rewarding endings. The chapter-at-a-time fanfic pattern lends itself all too well to stories which have beginnings, middles, and middles, and middles, and middles, and... No matter how I'm organizing my writing, I'm not going to do that. I know where Whispering Stars is going.
939515 Hey, you're welcome. I respect[1] you for not wanting to publish anything that hasn't been edited; and for being set on going somewhere with your writings. Whispering Stars is doing great, and I'd hate to give the wrong idea.
It's... funny[2]... that you say that about nightmares. I mean, that's in line with what I've gathered about you, but that you're able to say "Yeah, I've been having nightmares about this. It's kinda nice, actually" is... let's say disconcerting.
[1] And salute. The salute is important.
[2] Sure, funny. Let's go with that word.
941128
It's not that I enjoy them, it's that I hate them less than the alternative! Firstly, they're triggerable and I understand the trigger. That means they only happen when I specifically set them off (whereupon they pre-empt any other potentially worse dreams that might have occurred instead). Control is nice. Secondly, they're fairly pathetic as nightmares go, in that they require me to do things on FiMFiction that I blatantly would not do. That makes them as fragile as a single priceless vase in a comedy.
This was an informative conversation!