What I'm reading about writing, and some story updates · 5:36pm Dec 15th, 2013
This is my first time using the 'tagged story' update, so we'll see how it goes. If you're not following me and are wondering why this blog post appeared in your feed, it's because you favorited The Wind Thief. But before we get to talking about The Wind Thief's sequel, I wanted to talk a bit about the craft of writing.
If you care more about reading than writing, you can skip this part.
It's probably no surprise that, like many of the dedicated authors on this site, I own a fair number books on the art and practice of writing. I am a firm believer that to become an expert in any discipline requires not just practice but study as well. It's not enough to simply write a lot – you need learn why your writing is or isn't effective.
The other day I picked up an interesting book by Brooks Landon, Building Great Sentences. It is the first purely 'mechanical' book on writing I've bothered to purchase, in that it doesn't care about characters or plot or setting or any of the other things authors care about. It teaches toward a single goal: how to write a good sentence.
Sentences are the most fundamental level of writing a story. If you can't put together a good sentence, everything else is for naught. I've always felt like my sentences needed a bit of help, and this book has already paid for itself in that respect. It is filled with insights:
"Pay attention to your sentences, and most other writing problems take care of themselves... To be better writers, we must first and foremost write better sentences." This seems like a simple concept, but it's probably the most important piece of advice I can give new writers. As an EqD prereader, almost every story I see could be improved if the author took this line to heart.
"Effective writing is writing that anticipates, shapes, and satisfies a reader's need for information... Unless the situation demands otherwise, sentences that convey more information are more effective than those that convey less." This is a tremendously useful insight, but the second part points to the most controversial part of this book, and the part that makes me feel as though I'm fighting with the author as I read: longer sentences are better.
If you've taken any fiction writing courses or studied writing in the past 50 years, that simple proposition, longer sentences are better, will seem anathema to you. We're all taught that less is more, that writing should be simple and direct, to omit needless words, that our words should not interfere with our intent.
Landon describes what he calls 'cumulative sentences,' in which new phrases are added to provide detail to the 'kernal' of the sentence, or even previous phrases. The result is something like a ladder of description, in which action takes place, and layers of meaning are added to it. He offers numerous examples, and here is a particularly beautiful one.
The numbers here indicate the 'layers' of the sentence. (1) is the kernal, or main idea of the sentence, and subsequent numbers modify or proceed from the number before them:
(1) It is with the coming of man that a vast hole seems to open in nature,
(2) a vast black whirlpool spinning faster and faster,
(3) consuming flesh, stones, soil, minerals,
(3) sucking down the lightning,
(3) wrenching power from the atom,
(4) until the ancient sounds of nature are drowned out in the cacophony of something which is no longer nature,
(5) something instead which is loose and knocking at the world's heart,
(5) something demonic and no longer planned –
(6) escaped it may be –
(6) spewed out of nature,
(6) contending in a final giant's game against its master.
That line, by Loren Eiseley warning against man's rapacious pursuit of new technology, is a wonder to read, but it never seems overwrought or purple. It is the kind of sentence that I can admire, but everything I have been taught tells me to avoid.
My writing style could be called spare. I prefer the simple past tense, avoid adverbs, eschew exposition, shy from participial phrases and gerunds, wince at modals, and enjoy the punch of a strong verb. I don't have much patience for authors who wander away from the topic at hand with pointless asides. There is a story to be told, and needless flourishes just get in the way.
And yet... sometimes I can't resist, and we get lines like this one from Salvation: "And above, in ones and twos and then by thousands, the silent stars emerged to witness the slow resurrection of night."
The modern fiction purists out there would cross that out with their red pens, for it is a useless line. The reader already knows from the previous lines that night has arrived; there's no need to mention that the stars are coming out, much less in such a flashy manner. But I can't seem to resist it every once in a while.
This book is like that. I want to disagree with the author's proposition that longer sentences are better, because it goes against what I was taught and what I believe to be true 95% of the time. But for that other 5% of the time, when I'm at a point in the story when the timing seems right and I hope the reader is ready for it, a few rhetorical touches seem justified, even necessary.
So, let's talk about The Wind Thief and its soon-to-be-published sequel, The City in the Shadow of Night. If I keep to my writing schedule, the first few chapters should go up sometime around the new year.
Before that, though, I have a little surprise. A short story following Sly and Twilight set shortly after The Wind Thief. It doesn't quite stand on its own as an independent story, so it will be published as a final chapter of The Wind Thief (taking the place of the teaser). In game terms, think of it as a side quest and a segue into the new book.
Speaking of teasers, here's the first few paragraphs from The City in the Shadow of Night:
Canterlot was at its most beautiful at night.
By day the city teemed with over a million ponies. They squeezed past each other in close-packed streets and rubbed together in boisterous markets. The air resounded with the din of countless hooves on granite flagstones, and the odor of horse sweat and other things hung above the marble towers like haze in a warm, muggy spring. To those who loved the sun and crowds and noise and the comforting sensation of never being alone, Canterlot was beautiful by day.
It was safe, and in a world beset by troubles, that counted for a lot.
But Sly believed the city showed its better face at night. The wide avenues with their marble statues grew quiet and contemplative; the parks and gardens filled with the rustle of the wind in the leaves rather than idle chatter and screaming foals. It was in twilight moments like this, when the thick, sweltering air vanished and was replaced by a cool breeze, teasing the hair of her coat, that Sly remembered why she loved Canterlot at all.
Also, it was much darker at night, which suited her purposes. She stopped at the edge of the high wall around her target, a large mansion in a wealthy district that housed many of Canterlot’s noble families. After a long pause to listen for any itinerant guards, she crouched against the stone and fished a grappling hook tied to a long black rope out of her saddlebacks. The hook itself was smeared with charcoal, and reflected none of the bright moonlight that filled with city with a soft silver glow.
Finally, some art! Those of you who've followed my blogs know that I dabble with digital painting, and I recently managed to land one of my pieces on Equestria Daily's Drawfriend. Being a prereader doesn't help with that, by the way – the blogponies who handle the art stuff couldn't care less about the writers.
Luna, victorious over her sister and reborn as Nightmare Moon
I'll let you decide if the image has anything to do with the rest of this blog.
Ooh, nice pic you got there.
And yes, sentence use can be a bit tricky. I try to vary mine as much as I can so it doesn't become repetitive or boring as the story continues. Sometimes the way a story functions calls for the use of longer sentences for things such as imagery or description, while shorter sentences can be used for action scenes in which a faster pace is needed. Really, I say sentence use and how long one should be is all up to the author's own style. Though that doesn't necessarily mean one should go overboard with it. It's up to the author's judgement and critiques from readers for how exactly they should vary their sentences. Can't wait for the sequel, by the way! 
Those are some lovely insights on writing and all, but—
CHRIST THAT ART IS FUCKING INCREDIBLE
k i'm done
Don't care if it does or not, that is an extremely expressive bit of art. Fantastic.
Sentences? As Lincoln said of his legs, they should be as long or as short as they need to be to reach the end. I like variety in sentences. It creates a flow. The human mind tends to wander a little if it's presented with a very repetitive pattern, and the use of short sentences presents the reader with that same repetition in format structure, if not necessarily in content.
Picking a random example from a random book on my bookshelf here: American Gods by Neil Gaiman.
Long, short, middling. Also I wish I could write half as well as that...
that big sentence pulls the reader into a contemplative mood to fit Shadow's own, as his thoughts move round and around the events of his past. The shorter sentences drag the reader back to the present, to act. There he searches for clues, and uncovers secrets in rapid succession. It feels more active. More purposeful.
Personally I think that's the key. Short, active phrases need to be balanced with longer passages, to give the reader's mind a varied diet - for want of a better metaphor. If you stick with all short, you risk becoming bland and repetitive. If you go long exclusively, you become sonorous and ineffable; and ultimately, insufferably purple.
i.imgur.com/yO3rbh3.gif
Ah, sentence structure:
There is nothing I find more incredibly--I'll even say debilitatingly--addictive. I'll finish a story or a chapter, then spend three days combing through it and tweaking sentences till I have to figuratively slap myself and send the thing on its way. I think it's the main reason I write poetry: 'cause in a poem, you're taking regular sentences, sharpening them to their finest point, and then adding extra structure by making them rhyme and scan and such!
Mike
I tend to agree with 1610306 on the compositional side, that variety and tone-matching are critical to sentence- and passage-construction. And certainly I think that there are good reasons for using longer sentences on occasion. But while I agree with the idea that "sentences that convey more information are more effective than those that convey less," to me that means something very different from "longer sentences are better".
Personally, I understand that sort of advice as "denser sentences are better". Given three lines of text, it's far better to have that block be information-dense than information-light—which holds under both interpretations of the more information rule—but I don't think there's any pressing rule why you should then have fewer sentences in any equal length block of text. Tonally, if longer sentences are called for, sure. And longer sentences open up a wider variety of thoughts that can be communicated. But shorter sentences are easier for a reader to parse, and if there's no need for a more complex thought, I'd tend to argue that short information-dense sentences are about on par with long information-dense sentences.
In particular, looking at that sentence from Salvation:
This reads as very information-dense to me. It's not necessarily carrying new information, but what information it is carrying, it's carrying very efficiently. It gives an excellent sense of timing, and it's moody as hell at the end. Words like 'witness' and 'resurrection', and arguably 'thousands', are some nice, unexpected words. I think my biggest gripe with this sentence would be the use of 'emerged', which is a pretty abstract motion verb and, in my opinion, doesn't do anything to increase the information in the sentence. I think the sentence length here is integral to the fact that this carries a weight of duration; that's something I think it'd be hard to capture with shorter, punchier sentences.
Anyway, this may be why I don't care much for the aforementioned modern fiction purists. If artistry in writing is disallowed, if you only permit yourself flattened canvases and restricted color palettes, the whole thing becomes less about beauty and more about advanced combinatorics.
You're definitely right that there's been a fashion for efficiency and conciseness in writing for the past several decades, thanks in no small part to the influence of Hemingway. But I can't say I 100% agree. Yes, less can often be more, and there's something to be said for sparseness. But, like most "rules" for writing or any kind of art really, people can get too dogmatic with it, and let the idea of a guideline override the guideline's intent, which is to facilitate more effective writing. That's what writing is all about: effect, immersing the reader in the story. And sometimes, the best way to do that is to mix things up, the balance short, concise sentences with descriptive flourishes and elements that might not seem strictly "necessary" but help to flesh the world of the story out a little more in the reader's mind.
I dunno. Personally, I've always found Hemingway's writing to be a little tedious after a while.
Anyways, looking forward to the Wind Thief sequel. And that's a very, very awesome pic.
I've found that a lot of writing instruction has no business being given as much credence as it is. People will look at some style of writing and say, "This is good writing, therefore in order for writing to be good, it should be like this," which goes against the fact that writing is a creative process.
Personally, I come from an art background, so I tend to see a lot of parallels between the two. If a sentence is intended to deliver a blow, then it should be stout, straight, and direct to the point. If, however, the mood is more pensive and philosophical, then a sentence that flows on and on with embellishments can help get that mood across.
I haven't read the book you mention, though I think I should since it sounds like one I'd agree with. A similar "technical" book that's my favorite at the moment is Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer, which I've found helpful for its ability to explain many things which I do by instinct and when I should be doing them. I recommend it.
Also: Congratulations on getting your art on EqD
"The modern fiction purists out there would cross that out with their red pens, for it is a useless line."
I want to find those fiction purists and take their red pens away from them. I enjoy lines like that, so long as they're not so overdone that the story moves noticeably slower for it. I read fiction for enjoyment, and if I can appreciate some evocative sentences on top of the story itself, then that's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.
I skipped the teaser. I'm not sure I'd be able to handle only reading a tiny piece and then having to wait for the rest.
And holy shit dat lunamare moon. The drippy-ness makes me think of Venom from Spider-Man. What was that thing called? Just 'symbiote', wasn't it? Symbiotic Nightmare Moon.
I'll have to remember that.
By the way, close to being done with the first chapter to that story I promised you. So look forward to that in..... hopefully the coming week. Before Christmas if I'm lucky.
Thank you for this: I often struggle with the structure of my sentences. The placement of the action in them is very important, and I can't help but feel that things get muddy simply as a result of poor word placement (all other problems aside). I think I'll go ahead and get this.
I have a long way to go as a writer, but I've not been concerned about long sentences, simply because any story requires it's own tenor and shape and flow. Sometimes a long sentence, such as that beautiful example from Salvation, is exactly what's needed. Conciseness isn't a goal that should be the be-all end-all of a story or sentence structure, but a tool that aids the story.
EDIT: Wow, fantastic artwork, by the way!
I'd be coming from the opposite approach, where flourishes and asides and the quibbles of tiny wordy tangents are my default. And yet I agree with you, because it is oh so easy to lose the beat of events in deadend pockets of only nominally relevant exposition. The river of narrative flow can be bogged down in the marsh of extraneous...stuff, and rocking the boat derails the train of thought. So to speak.
The image is properly creepy, CiG. Love it. I note that the only solid aspect at all is the metal helmet, everything else is not the thing but the idea of a thing- an idea of hellish teeth, of tattered feathers, of two tassel/ribbony...wait, what are those things anyway?
Ernest Hemingway has a lot to answer for.
More seriously, it's quite hard to write spare prose well, and the more your writing moves away from the everyday realism, the harder it gets to convey things with the sort of modernist leanness that you speak of here. I think that most of us fan writers get better results if we abandon the belief that ideal fiction has the stark austerity of Ancient Greek ruins. After all, in their heyday, those statues and temples weren't pure white marble, but vividly painted and decorated.
All purism is suspect.
Reading about writing is really something I should do more of. I have dabbled in the idea of writing a book, and actually already have a plot, setting and world almost fleshed out in my head, I just need to get started. Which is of course my biggest problem.
Writing those special first sentences, the first words the readers see when they open the book, that's sort of hard for me...
And while writing this comment I realised I'm an idiot. Why do I need to start from the beginning? While the act of reading a book is mostly considered a chronological endeavour, who is to say that writing must follow those same lines?
As have been touched upon by the other commenters, writing is a creative process. As I am the father of the creation, though it is nothing but speculations and ideas at the moment, I have the power and authority to raise it as I see fit.
So maybe I'll just finish this comment, load up Word, and start writing!
Thank you, all of you, I have had this idea for a week but only now found out how to begin
Oh right, appropriate fangasm, need that too.
Wind Thief sequel! *SQUEE!*
"I sentence you to thirty words describing a character's taste in hats." - Smelly Writing God
1611091
Remember also that, like a child, each written work may start out ugly and full of poop. That's fine and perfectly normal. You don't have to let it out of your sight until it's eighteen and moving across the border to live with its Canadian lover.
...who would be your editor, I guess?
Edit: The point is, you can start at the beginning too, even if you don't yet know the perfect words for it.
1611204
Oh, stoned Twilight, you make me laugh
Obligatory snark remark about blogponies who handle writing not caring about writers either.
But those are probably just untrue accusations spewed by writers who had their work rejected. I wouldn't know.
Anyway, thanks for the hooffull of interesting info.
1610469
Sly is very much based off my main Skyrim character, with an important caveat: I play her as a ranger rather than a thief. She's a sneaky archer, but I don't think I've ever intentionally stolen anything.
Well, I mean, from someone who didn't deserve it.
Wait . . . did you just say that Nightmare Moon is going to be in The City in the Shadow of Night? Cool. Also that you'll be starting to publish that, so that's very nice.
This is my professionalism voice, you see.
1611148
Wide brims and daring colors, perhaps some feathers, an ideal fit about the crown, perfect for the situation, it should be, a cap for any time... in a word: all.
*shrug
1612115
Ms. Harshwhinny got you too?
I think the rule for sentence structure is "Use the proper sentence structure for the proper purpose". Some stories are well-served by being sparse in their writing, using utilitarian sentences, doing what needs to be done. Others are served with more florid language, beautiful sentences woven by the author for the purpose of drawing the audience into it and pulling them in a certain way. Sometimes you need to use one type or the other in a story which is mostly the other type to accentuate a certain scene or to make the reader feel a certain way.
I think part of it has to do with the author's voice, and part of it has to do with what you're trying to accomplish. Every story has its own proper way of being told.
If beautiful sentences were the only way to write, Harry Potter would never have been published. ut if beautiful sentences were the wrong way to write, no one would care about JRR Tolkien.
1610863
Tassel/ribbony things works pretty well for me. Really I just felt like picture needed something more concrete to ground it than just the helm. So, ribbons.
1612904
I like them. The way they're whipped about and twisting in the wind, it works like a physical representation of her own mind. From a more technical standpoint, they also work to fill out the picture-space directly above her head and between her wings. As to what they actually are, do you anything specific in mind, or are they stylistic purely?
1612940
I'm going to go with stylistic. Don't expect any huge insights into any of my stories from the artwork :)
>I don't have much patience for authors who wander away from the topic at hand with pointless asides.
And yet, you read Lacuna.
1612962
There's always time for tea.
1612966
Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
See, I love this sentence. I love everything about it.
Do not give me only notifications of presence, for that is merely lifelike. Instead, take my hand and guide me into the wondrous. Write poetry in prose as simple as breathing, take me from the mundane to the magical with words that are not correct, but right.
For it is not just your story, but your words that I would love.
Shortness has its place, aside the flourish, and all great pleasures must be taken with care, lest their shine be dulled--familiarity breeds contempt.
The flourish sweeps me off my feet and into the beauty of imagination.
Shortness stops me, stops my heart, stops my breath, stops my soul, makes clear to me the weight of airy words.
History records precisely one visit by Luna and Celestia to the Heartspire.
Your use of plain prose 19 sentences of 20 serves to emphasize the passages where you do break out the fancy stuff, like the sentence from Salvation above. I remember just stopping in my tracks and admiring the passage whence comes the quoted sentence when I first read it. In fact, it stayed with me so long that I used an abridged version of the passage as my yearbook quote.
I suspect that the passage would not have nearly as much of an effect if it were stuck in the middle of SS&E's work.
I would suggest you keep your style as it is and perhaps only apply the book's suggestions when you'd use complicated sentences and prose anyway.
Re. that picture: I'm sorry, but you have too much talent. You have to give some of it back.
There is little agreement among writers who love words about sentence structure. That blog post I linked to a while back from a member of the Pulitzer committee quoted several sentences as examples of beauty that I thought were abominations. Ursula Le Guin wrote a book on sentences that I thought always recommended long, confusing sentences over good ones. I'm afraid I had the same response to Landon's lectures, which I have in audio form. He didn't have advice on how to make sentences better, only on how to make them longer without making them worse. He loves long sentences merely for being long. Almost any EQD pre-reader would insist that an author rewrite any of the sentences that Landon recommended.
The advice, "Pay attention to your sentences, and most other writing problems take care of themselves... To be better writers, we must first and foremost write better sentences" — This is a volley from the enemy side in the war between style and content which I've talked about often. It's absurd if taken literally, because it's actually an ideological claim, not an artistic one.
The sentences from your own work that you quote here are beautiful:
But I like this next line better, and not because it's a beautiful sentence:
It slaps us in the face with the sudden knowledge that we have been fooled into sympathizing with a criminal, and the content that came before it-- not particular words or sentence structure, but the subject-- indicate that this is an unusual criminal.
1620989
I did find many of Landon's "sample" sentences grating. His reliance on participial phrases, in particular, had me wincing at every step. But, like I said, one time out of twenty he had an example that I thought made a good case for paying attention to the style of the words just as much as the content.
On the "Style v. Content" war, Landon went out of his way to argue that the dichotomy was false:
Of course, a cynical reader might accuse him of trying to preemptively defuse accusations that he's taking sides in the conflict. Later on in his book he even favorably quotes Francis Christenson, who pioneered Landon's cumulative sentence structure:
So it's pretty clear where he stands.
At the same time, I can't claim pure innocence myself. A lot of times I find myself deliberately using a short sentence specifically for the impact I know a short sentence will deliver. Is that not a stylistic choice on my part?
1622251 I don't interpret Landon as saying that style/substance is a false dichotomy; I interpret him as saying only style matters. If he were taking an evenhanded approach, he would also say that all choices are choices of content, and style emerges from a thousand little decisions of what needs to be said. I don't think he would endorse that statement.
When he talks about dazzling readers with syntactic dexterity, it is like musicians who try to dazzle their listeners by playing as many notes as they can as fast as they can.
I've read many books on the mechanics of writing, and his is the only one that I concluded had no value at all. And he hasn't got any authority to talk about writing; he's never written any fiction. He's written lots of books and articles about science fiction, but there is no fiction on his CV. I think he's just a guy with a professorship and some odd opinions.
1622805
I did notice that. I have a few books by Orson Scott Card on writing, and he's got the authority to back up his prescriptions. Same with Stephen King's On Writing.
So, since we're on the topic, what books did you find useful? What ones would you recommend?
1622811 I should take back what I said--that book had at least one thing of value, which was to get me to re-examine long sentences and admit that sometimes they're good. My renter, who is an Italian / English translator, says that the continental Europeans prefer very long sentences, and it is only the English-speaking world that likes conciseness. I tried reading some Proust today, in the very literal Moncrieff translation, and his sentences are usually hundreds of words long. I think they are very bad (and his books boring, though I've never gotten far enough to have an opinion worth respecting), but many people think they are wonderful.
I seldom remember more than a handful of details from books I've read (which makes me wonder whether I gain anything from reading them). I know that I've read books on writing by John Gardner, Stephen King, Damon Knight, Orson Scott card, Ursula Le Guin, Ray Bradbury, and Nancy Kress. I can't remember a single thing that any of those books said. I'm currently reading a book called" the breakout novelist" by Donald Maass which I like a lot, because it gives advice that is specific rather than vague, and gives examples from books and movies. Also because it addresses writing from the perspective of someone who wishes to do so professionally, without falling either into the bitter anti-populist rants of Wells Draughnon's "Advanced Writing", the naive populism of Jack Bickham, or the cynical populism of "Save the Cat" or "Writing movies for
fun andprofit". I know I liked Francine Prose's "reading like a writer".There are a series of web videos promoting the "Dramatica" theory of fiction, which is a bit crackpot, but very interesting. It tries to break stories down along about a dozen major dimensions and create a typology of possible story types.
I'm not nearly as much of a theorist as I'd like, but I do have one reaction to share.
Not only would I not cross that out, I consider this kind of sentence one of the essential parts of making a story engaging. It's a little piece of beauty. I wish I could write something similar in my own stories.
On the other hand …
This sentence is so long and flowery that by the end I've lost track of what it's about. The author might be trying to impart as much information as possible, but they end up imparting none.
Each sentence is a single thought. Long sentences can absolutely be good, but the longer they are, the more carefully they need to be constructed to prevent the thought from twisting out of control and getting lost. (Or maybe it's my problem for having a simple, shallow way of thinking, which is an issue I'm already aware of.)