Less is more

[driphoney]

We’ve all heard that phrase. We’ve probably thought it, maybe said it, and in my case, been told it.

But I’ve come to the conclusion that less is usually only more when the writing’s bad or mediocre. Anyone who’s read outside of pop fiction has run across well-crafted pages and pages of description and been held captive by it.

Sure, some stories need every word of their 800+ pages to tell the tale and if one tiny detail is left out, the story would be weaker, but all descriptive classics? Yet we still enjoy the words even if they aren't needed. British author Leslie Thomas does description to great effect, and Victor Hugo went on and on and on going into minute detail on everything from religion to language to battles. I’m sure those who are better read than I can name many more.

I’m not saying a trim, concise writing style can’t be brilliant, or not something in which to strive. That's just a different discussion than this one, I think.

So what do you think? Is it just pure talent that allows good heavy description? Should a writer strive to be succinct, then over time, perhaps clever verbosity might come? Or perhaps great descriptive writers spent a lot of time being bad at it, then mediocre, and by the time they were discovered the literary world thought they were freaking geniuses?

 

[tulipsonanorgan]

less is always more when it's bad

when it's good, it's usually because they wrote the right amount.

 

[D_K_Moon]

First off, this is an excellent discussion topic.

I first heard this expression from a person that instructed drummers. He would tell them they didn't a double-kick, every size tom made, 112 cymbals, and a chinese gong. His kit consisted of a kick, snare, 10 in tom, 16 in floor tom, hi-hat, crash and a ride, and he could sound like two guys playing.

Now, onto writing.

Less is more, Haiku, so much can be said in those 5, 7, and 5 syllable lines. But, it takes more work on the readers behalf to interpret the meaning.

On another site, I frequently tell novice writers, "Less is more." I reviewed a piece a few weeks ago where the writer detailed the main character running home and packing supplies to run from the zombies. The problem was that she detailed every single item of food, and every single thing she put in her first aid kit. It read like a shopping list. So, less would have been more.

There are places where descriptive language is needed, and wanted by the reader. They want you to paint them a picture at times.

She had 36D breasts.

Her breasts had the firmness and size of large, ripe oranges.

In this case, less is definately not more.

I don't see myself as a real writer. I tell stories, I don't agonize over the perfect word or phrase. I know I take more time that is necessary to tell a story, but, isn't that what a good story teller does?

I don't there is any clear answer. I think any good story is going to take exactly the number or words it takes to be told. Not a word more, or less. I think a good writer knows when to be short and to the point, and when to leg it out.

I look forward to reading more in this thread.

 

[PacoFear]

Seems to me that descriptive density is a matter of pacing as much as anything else. There will be times within a story to wax slow and descriptive and times to step lightly and quickly.

Action scene (non-sexual)? I try to move the story along. Verbs matter more. Your dreamy guy/gal just stripped down to his/her skivvies by the moonlight? I try for slow and sweet. Bring on them juicy adjectives.

And yes, I made up “descriptive density” but I kinda like it. There's probably a real term for it. Prosaicity? Oh hell.

-PF

 

[_Lynn_]

We’ve all heard that phrase. We’ve probably thought it, maybe said it, and in my case, been told it.

But I’ve come to the conclusion that less is usually only more when the writing’s bad or mediocre. Anyone who’s read outside of pop fiction has run across well-crafted pages and pages of description and been held captive by it.

Sure, some stories need every word of their 800+ pages to tell the tale and if one tiny detail is left out, the story would be weaker, but all descriptive classics? Yet we still enjoy the words even if they aren't needed. British author Leslie Thomas does description to great effect, and Victor Hugo went on and on and on going into minute detail on everything from religion to language to battles. I’m sure those who are better read than I can name many more.

I’m not saying a trim, concise writing style can’t be brilliant, or not something in which to strive. That's just a different discussion than this one, I think.

So what do you think? Is it just pure talent that allows good heavy description? Should a writer strive to be succinct, then over time, perhaps clever verbosity might come? Or perhaps great descriptive writers spent a lot of time being bad at it, then mediocre, and by the time they were discovered the literary world thought they were freaking geniuses?

But if we didn't know the story had 800 pages before, and only read it with 700, we wouldn't know if it was weaker. We would only know the 700 page version and be happy with it.



As for the 'less is more' bit. A good story ends where it should. More words won't add anything but more words. However, a piece can lack depth with them.

I can begin a piece and think it will be around 5k. The final word count is whatever works for that set of characters, ending whenever they're done telling their story.

But what do I know. I manage more writing with less thinking.

 

[bronzeage]

If you are writing about maintenance of a nuclear reactor cooling system, details are important.

If you are writing about a couple sitting in a diner, sharing a meal and talking, the need for details is different. Most people have been in a restaurant. It only takes a few details to frame the scene. The color of the tablecloth and the price of every item on the menu does not need to be included, unless it is part of the plot. If the next paragraph tells of them driving away, the reader can assume the check was paid and they left a nice tip.

When a writer includes too much detail to the point of superfluous details, a generous reader skims and skips sections of the page, searching for the relevant words. This is especially true in erotica. The less generous reader goes to the next story.

 

[driphoney]

This is an erotica/porn site, and the writers who hang out here, by and large, are busy doing that, this forum is in support of that, I understand. But just for this discussion, maybe we can talk in more general terms? I also understand that "write more, think less" is a valid argument and this discussion might not be of interest to everyone.

I wish I could give an example, but there are those here who get upset if you include more than a sentence of attributed material, and I don't want this to become a discussion about that. (I was taught, apparently wrongly, that you could include a paragraph or so of copyrighted material as long as it was properly attributed, not plagiarized - which attribution takes care of - and was not overly long, such as pages worth of material.) I'm (sort of) reading Leslie Thomas right now, and I'd love to give an example from him.

I'm pretty sure M. Hugo, long dead, is out of copyright, but just to be safe, and because it's pretty long, I'll just include a page link. Note how M. Hugo goes into details of the bishop's life. Now, don't you figure French contemporaries of the writer pretty much knew this? He does this over and over in this classic. Also note how little dialogue is there.

http://www*******-literature.com/victor_hugo/les_miserables/5/


The details are not exactly a laundry list, but perhaps close?

The reason I'm stuck on this issue is personal, I guess, or rather, that's what got me thinking about it. Maybe perplexed is a better word. I have a buddy who sends me lovely, lyrical descriptive writing, such as the Thomas book, and another by British author Laurie Lee. But this same friend, himself, writes and advocates a very sparse style and no matter how lean a piece I do, I get back, "Let the dialogue move the story. Your description sucks." Of course, that could be two things going on there: my description sucks (without a doubt!) and/or he also is projecting his own style. However, he obviously loves to read well-done descriptive prose! When I try to get him to explain, he says, "Less is more."

When do you get to the point of "more is more"?

Here is some of an award winning story by a popular writer here on Lit. One I happen to like as well.

A Good Student Ch. 02 by dr_mabeuse

I think you could safely say the dialogue between characters is not what moves the story along. Also, note the paragraph about two thirds down the page that starts "In any case, I'd already decided to try and ignore her as much as possible during the lecture." This adds to the story by giving mood and depth, in my opinion, but does it move the story along? I could ask more specific questions, but I don't want us tearing into a fellow member's writing without his consent. I'm just using it as a positive example.

So, now I'm back to wondering how you get there. If you're constantly practicing less is more, how do you learn to develop your narrative? How do you improve?

 

[bronzeage]

Hugo's description of the Bishop is exacting, but not over detailed. Each sentence contains a frame and the reader paints the picture.

"He visited the poor so long as he had any money; when he no longer had any, he visited the rich."

Where did the money go? Did he just give it away? I read this sentence and see a man buy a basket of food at a village market and carry it a poor person's home, where he shares his meal with them. There is no mention of it, but I have a clear image of a man dressed in purple, carrying a basket of bread and fresh vegetables.

If Hugo's intention was to give me an image of a generous and clever man, who knows the poor need food and the rich need company, he has succeeded.

The technique of framing is essence of "less is more" writing.

 

[D_K_Moon]

(I hope this doesn't end up being a double post, I had a computer glitch while hitting send.)

This is an erotica/porn site, and the writers who hang out here, by and large, are busy doing that, this forum is in support of that, I understand. But just for this discussion, maybe we can talk in more general terms? I also understand that "write more, think less" is a valid argument and this discussion might not be of interest to everyone.

I wish I could give an example, but there are those here who get upset if you include more than a sentence of attributed material, and I don't want this to become a discussion about that. (I was taught, apparently wrongly, that you could include a paragraph or so of copyrighted material as long as it was properly attributed, not plagiarized - which attribution takes care of - and was not overly long, such as pages worth of material.) I'm (sort of) reading Leslie Thomas right now, and I'd love to give an example from him.

I'm pretty sure M. Hugo, long dead, is out of copyright, but just to be safe, and because it's pretty long, I'll just include a page link. Note how M. Hugo goes into details of the bishop's life. Now, don't you figure French contemporaries of the writer pretty much knew this? He does this over and over in this classic. Also note how little dialogue is there.

http://www*******-literature.com/victor_hugo/les_miserables/5/


The details are not exactly a laundry list, but perhaps close?

The reason I'm stuck on this issue is personal, I guess, or rather, that's what got me thinking about it. Maybe perplexed is a better word. I have a buddy who sends me lovely, lyrical descriptive writing, such as the Thomas book, and another by British author Laurie Lee. But this same friend, himself, writes and advocates a very sparse style and no matter how lean a piece I do, I get back, "Let the dialogue move the story. Your description sucks." Of course, that could be two things going on there: my description sucks (without a doubt!) and/or he also is projecting his own style. However, he obviously loves to read well-done descriptive prose! When I try to get him to explain, he says, "Less is more."

When do you get to the point of "more is more"?

Here is some of an award winning story by a popular writer here on Lit. One I happen to like as well.

A Good Student Ch. 02 by dr_mabeuse

I think you could safely say the dialogue between characters is not what moves the story along. Also, note the paragraph about two thirds down the page that starts "In any case, I'd already decided to try and ignore her as much as possible during the lecture." This adds to the story by giving mood and depth, in my opinion, but does it move the story along? I could ask more specific questions, but I don't want us tearing into a fellow member's writing without his consent. I'm just using it as a positive example.

So, now I'm back to wondering how you get there. If you're constantly practicing less is more, how do you learn to develop your narrative? How do you improve?

I think it's hard to compare M. Hugo and the good Dr. I enjoyed reading the piece by M. Hugo. It was written in another time and place, and the French can and will use 40 words when 1 would suffice. I think his narrative gave us a good view of the Bishop, and at least to me, the story didn't suffer.

I don't practice less is more, I only write. I cannot write like Hugo, or Dr. Mabeuse, and I wouldn't want to. I want to write like DK Moon.

I don't actively practice less is more. I think my narrative has evolved as my writing improved (Im hoping). Write, write, and write some more, I think that's the key.

 

[_Lynn_]

. . . If you're constantly practicing less is more, how do you learn to develop your narrative? How do you improve?

My only answer is to write more and think less. As DK said, don't try to be like anyone else. Be yourself. Why copy another person's style instead of finding your own?

It's rare I read something without becoming bored or feeling a bit inadequate. Yet I don't want to be 'just like' someone else. So when I find time to open a book I ignore how the author wrote it and just read it.

 

[meathead96]

It's our readers that count the most!

I agree with DK. The aforementioned authors are both good in their own right. But we each have our own ways of doing things. That is what makes us unique. That is why people keep coming to this site to read our work. If we all wrote the same, thought the same, the stories would be too much of the same, and literotica would suffer. Write as you are. Is your grammer correct? Have you spell checked your piece before you submit? Are you happy with what you wrote, and would be proud for anyone to read? If the answers are all yes, then WRITE! Ask for votes and comments (you must first turn them on) and go with what you get. What I am trying to get at, is if the readers love your work, and you love what you are doing, who cares what this guy thinks of your work? It's a free country. He doesn't have to read your work!

 

[driphoney]

This concept of copying another writer is leading us off the rails and was not anywhere on my radar screen. Didn't think I was advocating wriiting exactly like someone else. As a matter of fact, I would be the last person to suggest someone produce cookie cutter works. For what it's worth, I have a green E because I submitted a stroker many here would cringe over, and its score reflects that dislike. It's not bad, but it's outside the bounds of "acceptable" writing. If I were to write it today, I'd be too afraid to submit it, but back then I hadn't read all the rules, I didn't know it was a verboten style.

But just for argument's sake I'll go down this path a bit. In most visual and auditory art forms, the artist's influences are considered important. All master painters, no matter how unique or original the world thinks their work, were influenced by other artists. And I mean both specifically and generally. They often copied other's works then imitated their style in their own original pieces. Eventually, after they were very skilled painters, they started finding their own originality, their "voice" so to speak. All beginners in most fields copy work until they gain a mastery of it. So, I don't think it's such a dull or silly notion.

Without giving examples of what is considered a good version of wordy prose (since we all know what bad versions look like) how can we discuss the idea of less is more? When a writer is told that, is that good advice? I think it usually is, but how so? I wasn't trying to compare the two writers, just point out where they appear to use extensive narrative that isn't pushing the story forward in an obvious way.

If dialogue is (usually) the body of the car, the pretty stuff, then the narrative is what? The chasis? The engine? I guess I'm trying to have a discussion on how you improve the underpinnings of a story.

Seems to me that descriptive density is a matter of pacing as much as anything else. There will be times within a story to wax slow and descriptive and times to step lightly and quickly.

Action scene (non-sexual)? I try to move the story along. Verbs matter more. Your dreamy guy/gal just stripped down to his/her skivvies by the moonlight? I try for slow and sweet. Bring on them juicy adjectives.

And yes, I made up “descriptive density” but I kinda like it. There's probably a real term for it. Prosaicity? Oh hell.

-PF

Pacing. I love how you can clearly see in technical terms what is going on with the story. And descriptive density is a great term! I can see where maybe, if the story isn't reading well, then stepping back looking at the pacing might help a writer see the issue. But I'm still figuring out what pacing means. I got a comment on an English paper by the prof "Great pacing." I hadn't a clue what I'd done. It was an accident!

Hugo's description of the Bishop is exacting, but not over detailed. Each sentence contains a frame and the reader paints the picture.

"He visited the poor so long as he had any money; when he no longer had any, he visited the rich."

Where did the money go? Did he just give it away? I read this sentence and see a man buy a basket of food at a village market and carry it a poor person's home, where he shares his meal with them. There is no mention of it, but I have a clear image of a man dressed in purple, carrying a basket of bread and fresh vegetables.

If Hugo's intention was to give me an image of a generous and clever man, who knows the poor need food and the rich need company, he has succeeded.

The technique of framing is essence of "less is more" writing.

The comment on framing was interesting because it sure looked to me like a very Rococo frame!

 

[YoursSINSerely]

Honey, I think a great vocabulary helps a story--colorful words, I'll call them. This is something that I don't have and I struggle, so I tend to repeat the same thing a different way to get my point across.

"I don't want you in my life any longer. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things."

"Fuck off! You bother me!"

Still not great words, but less of them and you get the point. I'm sure someone else can make both of those sentences much prettier.

 

[sr71plt]

I think that it isn't a choice. Good writing is good writing. With me the setting and time period often dictate the amount of description I use. For a contemporary piece--especially when I'm striving for a tight focus and for the reader to see him/herself in the story--I often go for trimmed-down writing that doesn't limit the reader's vision. When I'm writing a historical piece--especially in anything like the Victorian period--I try to write in the mode of the period, which usually means fuller descriptions, a slower pace, and third person voyeur.

Variety is the spice of literature.

 

[driphoney]

I think that it isn't a choice. Good writing is good writing. With me the setting and time period often dictate the amount of description I use. For a contemporary piece--especially when I'm striving for a tight focus and for the reader to see him/herself in the story--I often go for trimmed-down writing that doesn't limit the reader's vision. When I'm writing a historical piece--especially in anything like the Victorian period--I try to write in the mode of the period, which usually means fuller descriptions, a slower pace, and third person voyeur.

Variety is the spice of literature.

I was thinking of some of your descriptive writing when I was going on and on in my ramble. How could we ever have envisioned your creature in the Halloween piece you did last fall if not for careful description.

So we come back to when you're told you need to follow less is more, it's probably because what you wrote was crap!

 

[sr71plt]

I was thinking of some of your descriptive writing when I was going on and on in my ramble. How could we ever have envisioned your creature in the Halloween piece you did last fall if not for careful description.

So we come back to when you're told you need to follow more is less, it's probably because what you wrote was crap!

Or whoever told you that is the only one true gospel of writing was awake only half the time during the one creative writing class they took down at the local community center.

(Thanks for the plug--and for remembering one of my stories.)

 

[driphoney]

Or whoever told you that is the only one true gospel of writing was awake only half the time during the one creative writing class they took down at the local community center.

(Thanks for the plug--and for remembering one of my stories.)

True. But I guess that is the rub when getting advice. How do you know when to trust the helper and when do you trust yourself?

 

[sr71plt]

True. But I guess that is the rub when getting advice. How do you know when to trust the helper and when do you trust yourself?

Ultimately it is yours--and your call and responsibility.

 

[driphoney]

Ultimately it is yours--and your call and responsibility.

True.


Practicing less is more.

 

[Keroin]

True. But I guess that is the rub when getting advice. How do you know when to trust the helper and when do you trust yourself?

I deal with advice by enlisting several helpers. In my case, this would be my local writer's group. I then look for repetition. If the same comment comes up from two or three different people, then I know it's probably something I need to address. From just one person? That could very well just be personal taste, so it's really just a matter of whether I agree with their comment or not.

As for less is more, I think it's not so much about how many details and descriptions you include as it is about what kind of details and descriptions you include, and where...and why. And even then, what you consider "perfect" someone else might find verbose.

To be honest, I skimmed/skipped entire chapters of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Too much description for my taste. Snore.

DH, I would be interested in reading some of the passages where you have been told "less is more". Just a thought.

 

[sr71plt]

Largely I think the less is more kicks in when it's precise, evokes imagery, and is relevant. Much of the problem with "more" is when it isn't relevant to and focused on the story.

 

[driphoney]

I wasn't dropping the ball here, and unlike everyone else who probably thinks this is a silly or boring topic, I'm just a slow thinker. So I've been pondering.

Honey, I think a great vocabulary helps a story--colorful words, I'll call them. This is something that I don't have and I struggle, so I tend to repeat the same thing a different way to get my point across.

"I don't want you in my life any longer. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things."

"Fuck off! You bother me!"

Still not great words, but less of them and you get the point. I'm sure someone else can make both of those sentences much prettier.

You make a very good point here, Babs. You reference dialogue, but this premise extends to narrative I think. Those of us who tend to write loopy, expansive sentences, have to take this to heart.

I deal with advice by enlisting several helpers. In my case, this would be my local writer's group. I then look for repetition. If the same comment comes up from two or three different people, then I know it's probably something I need to address. From just one person? That could very well just be personal taste, so it's really just a matter of whether I agree with their comment or not.

As for less is more, I think it's not so much about how many details and descriptions you include as it is about what kind of details and descriptions you include, and where...and why. And even then, what you consider "perfect" someone else might find verbose.

To be honest, I skimmed/skipped entire chapters of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Too much description for my taste. Snore.

DH, I would be interested in reading some of the passages where you have been told "less is more". Just a thought.

This is really great advice. I've gotten more than one opinion and it's left me more confused than helped occasionally because each editor/proofreader has picked on completely different things, leaving me scratching my head. If I fixed them all, it would almost be a Mad Libs story (okay, so probably not that bad), however, unlike you, most of those various things that are pointed out in my own writing probably need to be seriously considered and have a greater chance of being more than stylistic preference.

I wanted to discuss this is in a more neutral stance and not have it being a critique of my own stuff, but for me, I guess it is personal as I struggle to see what I'm being told. I've have a couple small epiphanies this last week or so.

One thought is that even catchy or natural sounding dialogue can bog a story down just as much as wordy narrative. The latest thing I was working on is a case in point. I won't post it here for scrutiny because it's very rough and I'm done trotting out rough draft for others to see. I was having trouble getting the dialogue to project the impression I wanted to give. No matter how I fiddled with it, the focus was skewed and the dialogue gets redundant and lengthy. I might finally be figuring out what is meant by pacing.

The other thing that hit me just yesterday are the truisms about not saying what's not needed. I re-read a chapter I wrote over a year ago and haven't looked at in about that long. Over and over I saw redundant phrasing and narrative repeating what the dialogue already conveyed. I pored over that thing for ages when I was writing it, but never saw it. I'm surprised those who edited it for me didn't point them out. To be honest, when I wrote it, I hadn't a clue what I was doing. My buddy read it all, but he didn't edit. I'm sure this is some of what he's been meaning.

But that's all along the lines of what not to do, the negative aspect of it. I think if I go back through the thread and read some of the earlier comments on what to do, it'll be a lot clearer.

I hope beating on this very small, and probably dead, horse of "less is more" will help someone else, not just me. Well, if nothing else, it might help those poor sods who attempt to read any of my future writings!

Thanks.

 

[nerk]

One thought is that even catchy or natural sounding dialogue can bog a story down just as much as wordy narrative. The latest thing I was working on is a case in point. I won't post it here for scrutiny because it's very rough and I'm done trotting out rough draft for others to see. I was having trouble getting the dialogue to project the impression I wanted to give. No matter how I fiddled with it, the focus was skewed and the dialogue gets redundant and lengthy. I might finally be figuring out what is meant by pacing.

The other thing that hit me just yesterday are the truisms about not saying what's not needed. I re-read a chapter I wrote over a year ago and haven't looked at in about that long. Over and over I saw redundant phrasing and narrative repeating what the dialogue already conveyed. I pored over that thing for ages when I was writing it, but never saw it. I'm surprised those who edited it for me didn't point them out. To be honest, when I wrote it, I hadn't a clue what I was doing. My buddy read it all, but he didn't edit. I'm sure this is some of what he's been meaning.

I think this is a great subject, generally, and in particular:

The things that you're talking about here are things that I struggle with. How much information is needed for something to feel real without feeling too long? When Victor Hugo was writing, the novel was a fairly unfamiliar form, and he went to great lengths to 'sell' his scenes, spending countless pages establishing the backstory of a house, for example, and writing every syllable of dialogue as documentation to allow his readers to suspend disbelief. Contemporary readers are much easier to sell in that respect, so you don't need to write as much. Look at the dialogue in contemporary fiction: nobody talks that concisely. It's a short-hand summarizing of real conversation with just enough specificity to keep the reader in the moment. The writer has to decide how much to expect its reader to take for granted, and concentrate on finding the details that move the narrative while keeping it alive.

 

[Jake Marlow]

I'm a wordy writer, so I do not always subscribe to less is more. Like someone else mentioned, it's all about pacing. There are places where more description is warrented, and places where it's not.

Raymond Chandler is an excellent writer who described very little. S.M. Stirling is someone else I actively read and he describes everything down to the kind of grass the characters are walking through. It drives me insane and sometimes I just end up skipping large chunks of his paragraphs.

Just find a good editor and consider their suggestions.

 

[driphoney]

I'm a wordy writer, so I do not always subscribe to less is more. Like someone else mentioned, it's all about pacing. There are places where more description is warrented, and places where it's not.

Raymond Chandler is an excellent writer who described very little. S.M. Stirling is someone else I actively read and he describes everything down to the kind of grass the characters are walking through. It drives me insane and sometimes I just end up skipping large chunks of his paragraphs.

Just find a good editor and consider their suggestions.

But that's a bit reactionary isn't it? To always rely on that? And maybe tiresome to the editor, also.

Some of it is just taste, but it seems that when detailed narrative is done well, you don't realize it's occurring, you just read and enjoy.