Should a piece of fiction be made of 100% concise writing?
I recently finished reading William Strunk's Elements of Style. The book mostly teaches how to write concise paragraphs (e.g. by removing, changing, and rearranging words).
So I decided to apply that to my writing:
Saki
practicallyspent everyday absorbed in other of herfavoritepastimes: making porcelain dolls. She had set a mini-studio in her room whichmainlyconsisted on a sewing machine, alargeadjustable desk, and a flexible lamp. Hanging on a wall, she had a wide variety of fabrics in all patterns and colors. Beneath, she kept the doll'snakedbodies and a tin can filled with tiny glass eyes. The finished dolls sat on themanyshelves around the room;, andthey were almost of all styles: Japanese, Chinese, Indian, African, even one shaped as a Tim Burton character. Her roomhad the characteristics of awas a true doll factory.Although she had nearly a hundred of dolls, she never sold any.
Nor had planned to do so in the future.She just enjoyed making themThe joy of making them was enough for her. She likedthe fact thathow she could turn them into anything she wanted them to become. Or, as Saki put itherself: into anything they wanted to become. Each doll had a flower inside, waiting to bloom. AllthatSaki had to do was to bring it out. It feltso easy andnatural to Saki she sometimes felt the dolls where the ones building themselves.
Are there times when it's better to be redundant in order to vary pacing or add flavor to the novel? Or is conciseness a rule every fiction writer should follow (with no exceptions)?
(Most of the time I try to write like I talk. Some say it's a good approach, specially for beginners. But that won't produce very concise sentences, since people ramble a lot while they speak.)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/8405. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
In a way, the advice to cut out unnecessary words is solid advice. The trouble is working out what is "unnecessary". By the time you can work that out, you probably don't need the advice any more.
Too many writers think it means that every word needs to be communicating new information, which is fine if you are just trying to get facts across. But in creative writing the words can be there for lots of other reasons such as adding to the mood or helping the "flow" of the narrative. Quite a few of the words you have struck out as unnecessary I would leave in. Some you have left in I would strike out.
Rather than learning "rules" of good style, it's far better to learn to be aware of what effect a particular style has on the reader. Then you can choose your style for the effect you want at that particular point.
Before you get down to cutting out words, I think you need to pay more attention to grammar (or write in your native language if that's not English) because there are quite a few issues in that passage. Also, be careful of vague descriptions such as "wide variety of fabrics", "many shelves". The vague descriptions are telling us things it's good to know, but in a bland way. And are those fabrics hanging on the wall as a sort of patchwork wall-hanging, or are there rolls of them on hooks?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/8422. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
There are almost no rules which have "no exceptions." (Which ones are the "no exceptions" is an exercise left to the student.)
Your writing tends to be flowy and lyrical. Tightening it up does add some motion and spark to it. I wouldn't tighten everything, because sometimes you want "flowy and lyrical."
I think tightening in general is a good thing, but just because you have a hammer doesn't make every sentence a nail. Be judicious, and check with your editor/beta readers.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads