posted
whenever i write fiction i condense things. i have this terrible habit of writing amazing amounts of plot, into small amounts of words. i need to add more meat to my story. any suggestions?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
There's nothing wrong with a tight story. Don't feel the need to be more verbose, too many words kill a good story. If people can read and understand what you're writing, there's no need to get wordier, in my opinion. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
I seem to have the opposite problem. Even though I despise writers who wax verbose (Robert Jordan) it frequently seems like I use an immense amount of verbage just to convey all the feeling I am trying to put across.
I doubt that helps, but just wanted to let you know you could have opposite problem. I'd rather have your problem than mine, probably because I have my problem.
posted
Okay, this is what you've got to do when you need to flesh out a story, ATMH (According to me, humbly):
1) Have you explained everything you need to explain? A lot of times I find when a story is thin it's because characters just do and say things and the thought processes behind them are never explained. Motives are never brought to light (or dark as it may be), etc. Do we know the history or information we need to know.
2) Have things been described? And I don't mean describing every freaking little object in the room and waxing WORDY (cough::robertjordan::cough). I mean, have you given us enough of the characters?
3) Are you showing or telling? And I realize the "show don't tell" rule is stupid, but what I mean by that is are you fast forwarding. Fast forwarding is: There was a war for four years in the land of Fantasyland. After the war. Showing is writing four chapters where we see battles happening and then the end of the war in Fantasyland.
And that's where the writer's skill is shown or disproven. Somethings need to be fast forwarded through. We don't need to see every mundane detail of someone waking up or walking or getting home. You can say "Mr. Fantasycharacter arrived home after work. He put his things down at the door and greeted his wife". You do not need to go into a long scene about the scent of the house, the look of his wife, the things he's carrying.
So, see what that does for you. Tell me how it goes.
posted
okay, here is the things in order of my head: 1) thanks for the posts. really insightful. 2) My problem is more in the exposition, how to include things in the history by tidbits and things. Using some terminology from OSC's book HTWSFF my story is event based. i am very proud of the world i created (even though it probably sucks) and i had a brief history of the world written as a prologue, but i then decided to just use it as a ref as i wrote. so i'm trying to make the historical exposition to come out like tolkien's (get to know characters then reveal the grand sceme). i know this is my first outing on planned, serious writing, but i am still trying to do well. sometimes i feel that my writing is childish, and even more so as i read more about the art of writing. seg-way into... 3) thus do any of you have any books i could read on the simple act of writing? OSC's book was helpful but self-admittingly ignores writing in general. thanks again
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
I really don't see this as a problem. I have what I call a bare bone style. I really don't get off on describing flowers and the sky and every ale stain on a taveren wall. I decribe my main characters but I minor character someone meet in passing and his physical appearance adds nothing to the story---why bother? I'm telling a story not spoon feeding the reader leave some of the conclusions to them. I have to go back from time to time and add more detail but I'd rather do that than needlessly pontificate.
If that's your writing style then work with it for the moment. You can worry more about fleshing out when rewriting.
I have the utter converse problem - my own major work is massively detailed and slow to start. I'm finding it a little unwieldy in submissions because I feel agents want to be hooked by something quickly, and I feel I can't work on that level.
So now I'm writing a supporting novel in a different style, which is much more fast and punchy.
If I continue to have submission probs with the first, I can try to submit the second and then use it as a lever for the major work.
posted
Georgie, your point #3 actually shows that "show, don't tell" isn't always stupid.
I think what may be stupid is that "show, don't tell" isn't self-explanatory, and if you don't know what it means, it isn't much help to you.
(Showing is when you go into detail on something--spend enough words on it so that the reader can "see" what's happening. Telling is when you skim over or summarize something because it isn't very important. When someone says "show, don't tell," they are probably saying "you didn't spend enough words on this part for me to understand or appreciate it.")
JesuitJedi, what you might want to do is have people read what you've written, when you're finished with it, and ask them to tell you where they needed more information, more description, more interaction between the characters, and so on.
You may be surprised to find that you don't need to add much--less really can be more if it's the right "less" (the "telling detail" in other words).
Feedback is particularly helpful when your writing problem is not giving the reader enough, because people will tell you that in the feedback.
posted
The essential judgement of plot is whether or not the audience is involved with the events of the story. If readers have no reason to care that an event happens, then it doesn't matter how clever your plot is. On the other hand, if your plot is weak, then readers will stop caring.
Ask your readers (and yourself) what events in the story are compelling, and why. If an event doesn't matter to any of your readers (or if that event seems implausible)...then something is wrong. I can't tell you what exactly (unless I read your story, and I don't know if I did).
For all writing (maybe especially nonfiction), it is necessary to engage the reader's imagination. A compelling vision of a possible future, a faxcinating story of a strange place, a character that touches our sympathies, all can be that spark.
posted
Correction, Survivor: if your characters are weak, readers won't care about your story. It's almost a direct correlation. I have read so many well-plotted stories with weak characterization that I couldn't care less about, and I have also read so many virtually plotless works that I love. A good plot adds the "cool!" factor, and it keeps the reader thinking, but ultimately, the character keeps the reader caring.
If you're speeding up so much that characterization is overlooked, you're going too fast. Scenery description often adds a lot of insight to the characters and the plot as well--you may find that neat things happen when you stop and describe a field or a waterfall. I have a tendency to blaze through stories, but I always like my work better when I take time to settle into the scenery and characters.
posted
I direct the jury's attention to Exhibit Number 4412: Wuthering Height's. This is a novel in which the plot is pure pants, and the characters are wet blankets. Both are weak, and yet the novel is held in esteem. I only mention this book to play devil's advocate. It's my opinion that a plot and the characters within it must both be strong. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
Gotta once again disagree with the both plot and characters have to be strong. Characters are plot! I have read several books and seen several movies where you just follow the characters around with no major climax or conflict and I'll keep reading and keep watching just because I'm so interested in the characters. I on the other hand refue to read a book with weak ass characters. The TV show Party of Five, aformentioned guilty pleasure of mine, had the worst plots ever. Everyone died, or or had a drinking problem, etc. The characters were great though. You got to know each one of them and they never did anything out of character.
Speaking of characters another pet peeve of mine, which I'm sure I mentioned because I have a bad habit of repeating my self. Speaking of characters another pet peeve of mine, which I'm sure I mentioned because I have a bad ha---oops sorry. I hate when I author had all the characters separated at the beginging of the story and it take 500 years for them to meet which you know they're going to do eventually anyway. Tad Williams is guilty of this but the book by him I tried to read had some of the worst characterization I've ever seen.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
