An Interesting Exercise

[lizvogel]

So there's this anthology call for which I thought I might write a story. I came up with a plot idea to fit the theme, and then I came up with a better plot idea. And then I wrote about half the story, then paused for research, which is when I discovered the science didn't work at all the way I needed it to. So there was a lot of flailing and more research and wondering if I should just let the story die. Finally I got my idea and reality to play nice with each other, or at least nice enough to be going on with.

Research issues aside, I didn't get quite as into the story as I would've liked, because the anthology has a hard upper limit of 2000 words, so I was trying to write short. So of course it came in at 2362. *facepalm*

Cut nearly 400 words? Not bloody likely, but I figured I'd give it a try, just for the experiment.

The current fashion for "efficient" writing is entirely wrong-headed, IMNSHO. But it's been an interesting exercise trying to edit for shorter ways to say things without entirely losing the rather sprawly, drawly voice of the story. Surprisingly, I was still fairly pleased with it after the first pass (2114 words) and even the second pass (2030 words).

The third pass, however, was a different matter. Apparently there is a point at which the character stops sounding like himself, and trying to cut those last thirty words passed it. It's down to 2003 now, and losing those 27 words hurt. And three more, while it should not be that big an obstacle, is a big obstacle. I'm about to give it another go, and then I'm going to have to think about whether this is still something I'm comfortable submitting.

ETA: Okay, done it! And amazingly, it's not bad. The longer version is better, but I wouldn't be sorry to see this one in print. (And if it doesn't sell, I can mine the various passes for useful phrases and go back to the +400 words version for regular submissions.)

Comments

[duskpeterson]

I did an exercise like this for a story I was submitting, and I ended up wishing I had the time to do it for all my stories. It taught me a lot about writing without wasted words. But I sure know what you mean about the problems of cutting down to the bone.

[lizvogel]

See, I have a problem with the whole concept of "wasted" words as promulgated in the writing community these days. For me, those words aren't wasted; they add color, personality, and dimension to the story. The cut-down version is like one of those cartoonist caricature sketches, while the longer version is like an oil painting.

But those caricatures have a place in the world, and in this one specific instance, I'm okay with it, particularly since this story was written specifically for this anthology. I'm still contemplating doing a "director's cut" version, though (assuming the anthology buys it, and assuming enough of the series ever sells to support publishing a collection, in whatever magical alternate universe *that* happens in).

[duskpeterson]

Since I haven't read those criticisms of wasted words, I wasn't following anyone's definition of waste except my own. :) I'll have to go back and see what I cut in that story. But in the meantime, could you say more about the writing community's advice that you dislike?

The director's cut sounds like a great idea. As I recall, a rule of one of the major SFF awards is that the author can ask that their own version of the story be the eligible version, rather than the published version.

[lizvogel]

LOL! Should I ever be up for a major award (bwahahahaha!), I'll have to keep that in mind.

In the segments of the writing community I've the most experience with, from the Absolute Write forums to the self-proclaimed professional editors at a recent conference, there's an obsession with cutting "filter words" and "weasel words" and any other words that can possibly be cut. Fewer words is *always* better. Never use "just", or "that"; never say "suddenly". If you used ten words to say something, it would be better to say the same thing in five. Never mind that the five words are *not* saying the same thing as the ten: Nuance? What's that?

There's no acknowledgement of the subtle difference between "She was running toward it" and "She ran toward it". And there's certainly no awareness of rhythm, of flow, of the pure joy of words that have a shape and nature and personality of their own. It's all about "efficiency" of prose; shorter is better, period.

To me, it smacks of insecure writers trying to find "rules" to make their writing not-actively-wrong, in the mistaken belief that that will make it good.

And of course, as someone who tends toward, shall we say, indulgent prose, who reads first for pretty language and who wallows in a well-constructed paragraph, I find their edits about as appealing as a Victorian mansion where somebody has chopped off all the gingerbread and squared off the gables to make it look "modern".

Or, as the advocates of efficiency would have me say: As someone who writes long, their efficiency doesn't appeal to me. Because that's a better way of saying the exact same thing, right?