An authorly question: Control issues?

[Weird Harold]

How much do you feel a need to "control the action" in your writing?

Do you detail every little action, ensuring that your readers know just exactly where everyone is positioned and every little move they make?

Or, do you, "Point your reader in the right direction and let them run free," (in the words of an editor that chastised me for "insulting the readers' intelligence" by being too specific with actions and dialogue tags?)

This question was prompted by a re-read of an outstanding story with great characters, an interesting plot, and lots of hot sex. The problem is that it sometimes felt like an episode of the Outer Limits -- "We control your televison. We control the vertical and horizontal..." -- because it's filled with "guidance phrases" and "timing marks.

In a way, it's a redundancy problem -- Explicitly stating things that should be obvious, like following "we sat together on the couch," followed a bit later by "next to me, she added to the conversation by saying..."

 

[MLyons]

I've been working very very hard to strike a balance here.

I have a tendency for lots of control, and a fair amount of repetition, etc. Although the fruits of my labors to tame that back a bit are not yet posted, I feel I've gotten much much better.

Still, I'm aware that I like to describe things very vividly, and I'd like to be able to step back from that a bit, not because I think what I'm doing is bad, but because I want to see if I can settle into a less controlling style effectively.

I think there's a place for both. It depends on what kind of story you're tying to tell.

 

[Guest]

Let me guess...

Dr Mabeuse?

I like giving the little details not to insult anyones inteligence, but to put them into the action by giving them a specific picture. If done properly the reader can almost feel it themselves. I tend to dislike the basic "He spread her legs and fucked her hard, cumming inside her" descriptions. Well? What the hell happened? What was she doing? Her nails? Was there any other contact or was he just pumping away while looking at his watch to see how much time he had left?

I like literature that paints a picture then puts me in it.

Go ahead and be as descriptive as you like.

Just my oppinion. I could be wrong.

 

[Guest]

 

[Dream Keeper]

In a way, it's a redundancy problem -- Explicitly stating things that should be obvious, like following "we sat together on the couch," followed a bit later by "next to me, she added to the conversation by saying..." [/B]

I understand what your saying, and I see your argument. Perhaps this tactic was used as a way to remind the reader of whats going on in the story. This may have been done a bit too much, agreed, and it would seem as though the author questioned the readers comprehnesion. This is more than likely not true though. This tactic may also be used to put emphasis on a detail, such as 'next to me'. If the author was going for a romantic viewpoint it would be important to include details of how the couple were very close, and sharing thoughts, etc. If this was varied throughtout the story, it would make for a very interesting plot, while around the idea that they were together. Reminding a reader of a key detail occasionally is not always a bad idea. It is not redundant unless done many times, and I doubt that it was in the story you described. Finding key details in a story can change your view on the story in its entirety. You shouldn't have to search for the key details to get the story. This is another example of why an author would do this. Now, I don't know much about writing, because I'm a bit new to it, but that's my opinion. Hope I answered some of your questions and what-not. Hehe.

 

[pop_54]

I do the best to paint a picture of the scene... but mainly leave it to the reader to put it all together in their own mind... no two readers will see a scene exactly the same way in a written erotic piece... too much detail can mess it up for some people.

 

[gauchecritic]

Well lately my readers are barely aware of what's happening at all because I take so much for granted. In my head I have every single detail and almost always make the mistake of implying everything and assuming the reader can see what I see. This is hardly ever the case.

I try to take very small parts of what I know is happening to give a feel rather than a precise description.

On top of that I then go into the most fabulous imagery I can think of at the time and then hope that they understand, because when I read it back it still makes perfect sense to me.

Lots of people on the boards say "don't just tell me what's happening, tell me how they feel about it."

So then I go the whole opposite and go almost entirely for feelings and neglect the descriptions to the point of hinting.

But I actually like writing like that, even though at the moment, I'm attempting to revert to my original Lit style when I first posted.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

In my head I have every single detail and almost always make the mistake of implying everything and assuming the reader can see what I see. This is hardly ever the case.

Gauche’s comment made me think of something I finally learned about photography which I think merits note here.

My photographer-teacher said our camera sees only in terms of how light reacts to our subjects; it’s to do with physics, not aesthetics or intelligence. The lens helps transfer/translate the objects lit in our frames into light and dark via the mechanism of the camera—but it does not transfer what our eyes make of the scene or objects we shoot (e.g., perhaps our baby's face is clearly distinct to us, but in the photo print it's all shadowy and fuzzy). Not understanding that is why we get crappy pictures if the scene was not lit right (or our camera’s technical features were not adjusted to correct for this).

I don’t know if that makes sense—found it very difficult to express—but there’s something similar about using light in photography and using language to tell a story, even if it’s not a very narrative-driven piece.

I’d be most interested in what Gauche thinks of this, but others too if they get what I’m saying (not that I’m presuming Gauche gets what I say, hahaha).

As for my writing, I’ve never felt any particular desire or need for control the way WH speaks of it. I try to use whatever language tools are required for the piece at hand (e.g., erotica, poem, tonal piece, rant, whatever); don’t think I can say more than that about it.

Perdita

 

[doormouse]

That was a great description Perdita.

I'm one that likes to read details. The scene around them, smells... What a certain touch 'feels' like. It's easier to imagine and brings a story to life.

Now if I can only do that with my stories...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I write straight from my head, sometimes I seem to be hyper controling, someitmes I barely give enough direction for a reader to know what's going on. I think a lot of it is an issue of your style.

I consider myself more of a story teller, in the oral tradition. So there are times where I perhaps over tell, to make up for a lack of ability to use inflection & gesture. At the same time, there are connective or transitional sections where I barely say enough.

I believe the entire question is really tied to how you tell the story. For me control of the action is situational.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: An authorly question: Control issues?

If this was varied throughout the story, it would make for a very interesting plot, while around the idea that they were together. Reminding a reader of a key detail occasionally is not always a bad idea. It is not redundant unless done many times, and I doubt that it was in the story you described.

It's true that an occasional foray into the kind of detailed control that caught my attention isn't necesarily a bad thing -- in fact it works fairly well in the sex scenes.

The problem is that it IS everywhere and unrelenting throughout the story -- all 300,000 words and 700+ pages of it. It's an inherent part of the author's (NOT Dr M. In fact not even a LIt author) writing style, because it's also apparent in the OTHER saga of his I re-read recently and in his short fiction as well.

Dranoel:
I like giving the little details not to insult anyones intelligence, but to put them into the action by giving them a specific picture. If done properly the reader can almost feel it themselves. I tend to dislike the basic "He spread her legs and fucked her hard, cumming inside her" descriptions. Well? What the hell happened? What was she doing? Her nails? Was there any other contact or was he just pumping away while looking at his watch to see how much time he had left?

I like literature that paints a picture then puts me in it.

My editor's comment wasn't meant to imply that I intended to insult my reader's intelligence but that I was underestimating it. My writing background before I took up erotica was mostly technical procedures -- i.e. step-by-step checklists -- and my first forays into fiction reflected that. In writing a checklist, you have to cover EVERY step, whether it's intuative or not.

In fiction, you can leave some of the obvious and uninteresting details out -- especially those things that are VERY obvious from the following text.

I said, "<something funny>"

She smiled at what I said and I continued to speak, "..."

The above is the kind of extraneous detail that I noticed in the story (and I put into my first attempts at fiction) -- the part in Italics is completely redundant because The preceding <something funny> explains her smile and the quote that follows couldn't exist if the speaker hadn't "continued to speak."

Someplace between Not Enough Information -- "He spread her legs and fucked her hard, cumming inside her" -- and Too Much Information --"He unbuttoned the top button on her blouse. Then he unbuttoned the second. One by one, he undid the buttons until, finally, he had undone them all so he could begin to open her blouse. He continued to open her blouse until he could see her breasts overflowing from her bra. As he finally opened her blouse completely he began to slide it from her shoulders. ..." --there is a happy medium of "Just enough information."

Sometimes a lot of extra detail to emphasize the feel of a slow seduction is a good thing, but sometimes it just causes a "Enough already, I know how a blouse is removed," reaction -- especially if the sex scene is NOT supposed to be a slow seduction.

Perdita:I don’t know if that makes sense—found it very difficult to express—but there’s something similar about using light in photography and using language to tell a story, even if it’s not a very narrative-driven piece.

You made sense. I think painting is a bit closer to the kind of control over the scene that I'm talking about than photography, though.

With a photgraph, you get what the camera actually "sees" -- every bit of it in as much detail as the focus allows. With painting, you can paint in every little detail of the scene, or you can use light and shadow to suggest the image you want to depict and let the viewer's mind fill in the details.

Writing is like photography or painting -- the artist has to learn how to compose the image to obtain the desired effect. Some images require a very sharp focus with as much detail as possible, others require a soft focus so the details don't overwhelm the desired impression. Anything that draws the eye (or mind) away from the central image -- whether photograph, Painting or essay -- makes the image less than it could be.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: An authorly question: Control issues?

You made sense. Hooray!
Writing is like photography or painting -- the artist has to learn how to compose the image to obtain the desired effect. Some images require a very sharp focus with as much detail as possible, others require a soft focus so the details don't overwhelm the desired impression. Anything that draws the eye (or mind) away from the central image -- whether photograph, Painting or essay -- makes the image less than it could be.

That's a more precise analogy (and I won't argue here that photography can now produce many of painting's results vis-a-vis technique).

When I said that I try to use language tools for the piece at hand, I meant something like the above, Harold. I will choose a different wide-angle focus for one story, and a micro-lens for another, or even different lenses for different characters or places within a single story.

Perdita

 

[rgraham666]

What I usually try for is what I call 'the colouring book' approach.

I draw the lines of the picture and trust the reader to colour within them.

In my forst story, one scene took place in a zoo. I described the zoo as modern, with large enclosures for the animals. That seemed to be enough.

I never described what exhibits were in what directions, how far they were form each other and what animals were in each exhibit. There was no need. Everyone that commented could 'see' the zoo.

My second story took place in a strip club. The only real details I went into is, there were lots of mirrors, the cans were downstairs, and what the performer's stage looked like. Again it seemed to be enough.

So, I would say that you should do just enough description to draw in the reader's imagination, but no more than that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When you focus in on the details in a story, you’re telling the reader that what’s happening is important. I’m not sure if this is what Perdita meant in her photo analogy, but it does have a lot in common with a tight shot or close-up in a movie. The reader or viewer starts paying attention to the details because they understand that something important is in there.

It’s like this: you can take a long shot of the scene and say, “They sat and idly discussed the weather.” Or you can pull in for a close-up and tell the reader exactly what they said and how they said it, but if you do the latter, there’d better be a good reason for it. There’s better be some hidden meaning in their talk, otherwise you’re misleading your readers and making them waste attention on something that’s not really important.

A story that’s done entirely in high detail is very tedious to read. It has no topography, and everything seems as important as everything else. We’re all very concerned with showing and not telling, but telling is sometimes necessary. Telling is like pulling back for an establishing shot in a movie. We don’t need to know who’s sitting next to whom unless it has some meaning to the story.

I think what doormouse means when she says she likes detail is the telling detail: the little piece of information that tells us more than it means. That some character wears scarlet red lipstick tells us more than just her taste in make-up. It tells us something about her. But see, it’s a detail, so we know it’s important.

---dr.M.

 

[Boota]

To me, the hard part about controlling all the action (or any description for that matter) was learning what not to write. I don't know if anyone will ever get totally away from over writing, but it is what I watch myself for constantly. When I edit I look at each word and ask myself, "Do I need that?" (And since I primarily write comedy, if the answer is no, I then ask, "Is it funny?" If it is funny, then I ask, "Is it funny enough?") I like to have someone else read my stuff and make sure they get everything. I have some pretty good proofreaders who I call on quite often and they aren't shy about calling me up and going, "What the fuck did you mean on page 14?" They also don't have a problem with telling me I've over written.

I would say my best gauge for how much control is appropriate is by having readers close to me who aren't writers.

 

[Weird Harold]

To me, the hard part about controlling all the action (or any description for that matter) was learning what not to write. I don't know if anyone will ever get totally away from over writing, but it is what I watch myself for constantly. When I edit I look at each word and ask myself, "Do I need that?" ...

What NOT to write -- that's about the best description for what I was trying to ask there is. Thanks.

Over-controlling is actually a fairly common fault in amateur writing. The following is from another long saga by a different author than the one that prompted this thread:

Entering the house through the kitchen door Paul went straight to the laundry, tossed the soiled clothing into the washer and started the cycle. Returning to the kitchen he filled a pan with beef stew left over from the previous night's meal, turned the stove on low and went to his room to change. Picking out the smallest robe in his wardrobe he carried it to the kitchen and placed it on the table. Paul stirred the stew and went to the living room. He stepped behind the bar, picked up a shot glass and a bottle of Harvey's Bristol Cream Sherry and half filled the glass. Paul swallowed the liquid and poured another half ounce for the girl. He returned to the kitchen, stirred the stew again and picked up the robe and started for the door. The washer buzzed and he made a u-turn to put the clothes in the dryer. That done, he headed back to the bath house.

The parts I put in italics are the parts typical of the kind of over-controlling that bothers me.

Does it really matter which door he used? He went directly to the laundry-room, and then the kitchen -- and from the previous part of the story, we know he came from the bath-house behind the main building. If he'd detourd around the house to come in the front door, it might make sense to mention which door he entered through.

Left-over stew is left-over stew -- does it really matter whether it was left-over from last night or yesterday's lunch?

He went to the bedroom to get a robe for the girl he rescued from a storm -- wouldn't any reasonable person expect him to carry it back to the kitchen with him? Is it really important that he placed it on the table instead of throwing it over his shoulder while he stirred the stew or maybe tossing it on the counter next to the door?

When he went for the Harvey's, is it necessary to note that he stepped "behind" the bar, or to specify that he picked up a glass before pouring? He went to the bar in the living room and poured a double shot of Harvey's, downed it, and poured a half-ounce in a clean glass for the girl, (or something similar) gives essentially the same information without the extraneous detail that bogs down what should be a hurried scene.

If it hadn't been specified that he put the robe someplace specific, it wouldn't be necessary to specify that he picked it back up -- Extraneous details tend to multiply and/or leave gaps in continuity when something like picking the robe bck up gets left out.

"That Done" is genrally wasted verbage, IMHO. "he put the clothes in the dryer and headed back to the bathhouse." is to my eye, a smoother way of saying the same thing.

Any of these examples by themselves or even all together in this one scene aren't really all that bad -- it's when the entire 40,000+ word story (in this particular case) is the same way that it becomes distracting.

 

[doormouse]

The Russians are coming!! The Russians are coming!!

Granny knew it...

(sorry Pop... your story had me in tears LOL)

 

[bloodsimple]

Dr Mab makes a good point - if you are going to go into detail, especially about something that the reader could reasonably be expected to know, there must be a reason for it. Either there is significance in what you are describing, or it is significant that the character did or said or observed that, or whatever.

Look at it this way. You start with a blank page. then you put some words on it, because you want to tell the reader something. Each time you add words, they must be adding to what you are telling. If they don't, you don't need those words. Especially in short stories, this layering and paring down is what makes the format work.

It is also a question of your "voice" as an author. Sorry to crap all over Patricia Cornwell again (if you've read my story) but she uses what I consider inordinate detail about forensics in her books. Personally I find it boring and unnecessary because I don't feel it's telling me anything I need to know to enjoy the story. However, I'll read ten pages of Tolstoy telling me about peasant life in 19th century Russia, because it is intrinsic to the subject matter and to the rest of the book - I won't get as much out of the story if I skip it.

Try re-reading and constantly asking yourself, "what if the reader skipped this bit - would it actually matter?" If the answer is no, edit that bit.

Hope that
a) helps
b) makes the slightest sense

 

[Clare Quilty]

There are no hard and fast rules. I can equally appreciate Evelyn Waugh's lingering macroscopic poetical descriptions of people and places and Chuck Palahniuk's frenetic minimalism. It is a matter of aesthetic sensibility, intention and talent which direction a given writer leans. However, I agree with Dr. M that varying the degree of detail improves readability, as with varying sentence and paragraph lengths--and even the varying sizes and serifs of fonts. As to which criteria should determine the elaborateness of ones descriptions, I leave that to the individual.

 

[oggbashan]

Less is more

I helped edit someone else's first long story.

Their recurring problem was too much detail of movement as italicised in Weird Harold's post above. They had to consider the layout of the room so that he strode across it and not through the table and chairs.

Their problem helped me to think about description of venue and movement within a scene.

I only include details of movement when I want to slow the action down. If the characters go to the bedroom I don't detail opening the living room door, climbing the stairs, crossing the landing, opening the bedroom door, switching on the light etc. - unless I want to interrupt them halfway. For example they get to the bedroom door and there is a knock on the front door.

For detective stories (my 'Danger! Naked Woman pts 1 & 2') everything should be there for a purpose, if only to mislead. The clock on the mantlepiece must play some part in the plot if it is mentioned.

We are writing 'short' stories. One of the essentials of a short story is that it should be stripped to the bone of all unnecessary detail. What is permissible in a blockbuster novel is fatal in a short story. Readers on Lit seem to have a short attention span. Anything longer than 2 Lit pages in an episode and most of them have back-clicked.

Og

 

[gauchecritic]

I think it was TheEarl that asked a similar question a long while ago 'How much of making a cup of tea can a reader be expected to furnish themselves?'

Do they need to know that he 'warms the pot'? In the elements of tea making it isn't a necessary requirement. However, if coupled with 'all the cutlery in its own compartment' then this tells us something about the character rather than what he is actually doing.

About the same time as TheEarl's question I read a sample of something (which I wish I could find again) which was something along the lines of "He fucked his girlfriend and he fucked her mother. He fucked her sister and he fucked her aunt."

This is pretty spare writing by anyone's standards. It tells us nothing about how he conducted or plotted to do any of this fucking but it conveys quite a lot about the main character and his (or the author's) view about both the act and the word.

Like others have said (apart from pace changes) an author has to find the necessary middle ground between describing each button being undone and simply taking off the blouse.

There is another use of detail which can be significant for other reasons, taking the unbuttoning:

He reached forward and flicked open the button at her throat. The second button revealed a butterfly.

Simple and easy. Adding some detail, sans italics, can create tension without altering the pace.

He reached forward with his guitar player's nails and with practiced ease flicked open the button at her throat. His simplicity with the fastenings of her blouse sent shivers down her melting spine. The second button revealed a butterfly pinned by a tattooist's needle to her collar bone.

This sort of detail (completely extraneous) however, reveals things other than unfastening buttons.

Gauche

 

[Weird Harold]

I think it was TheEarl that asked a similar question a long while ago 'How much of making a cup of tea can a reader be expected to furnish themselves?'

Do they need to know that he 'warms the pot'? In the elements of tea making it isn't a necessary requirement. However, if coupled with 'all the cutlery in its own compartment' then this tells us something about the character rather than what he is actually doing.

...

There is another use of detail which can be significant for other reasons, taking the unbuttoning:

Simple and easy. Adding some detail, sans italics, can create tension without altering the pace.

He reached forward with his guitar player's nails and with practiced ease flicked open the button at her throat. His simplicity with the fastenings of her blouse sent shivers down her melting spine. The second button revealed a butterfly pinned by a tattooist's needle to her collar bone.

This sort of detail (completely extraneous) however, reveals things other than unfastening buttons.

Gauche, the details in your example are anything BUT extraneous -- unless it's part of a longer piece where you're beating me over the head with the fact that he's a guitar player or that he's practiced at flicking buttons open throughout a story.

You give a very good example of how detail should be used.

oggbashan:
I helped edit someone else's first long story.

Their recurring problem was too much detail of movement as italicised in Weird Harold's post above. They had to consider the layout of the room so that he strode across it and not through the table and chairs.

Their problem helped me to think about description of venue and movement within a scene.

I only include details of movement when I want to slow the action down. ...

Oggs, this is exactly the point of this thread -- to get people to think about how they detail movement and/or tag dialogue. It's not so much about the amount of detail as which details are over-done.

To be fair, the two authors I've mentioned as prompting this thread have more technical difficulties in their work than over-controlling the movement -- both tend to use run-on sentences, have stilted dialogue with lots of long monologues, and about 2% of their work is the word AND.

I just focussed on this problem because it's one I had to learn to overcome myself and overcoming it solved most of the other "newbie" mistakes my early work was infested with. Changing the way I thought about controlling the movements and tagged the dialogue required a shift in thinking that also changed the way a structured the rest of my work.

Bloodsimple:
Try re-reading and constantly asking yourself, "what if the reader skipped this bit - would it actually matter?" If the answer is no, edit that bit.

Hope that
a) helps
b) makes the slightest sense

Bloodsimple pretty much describes the change in thinking I had to apply to my work to make it better. The wording of the"question" I use is actually, "Would any reasonable person be able to figure that out without me explicitly telling them?"

There are variations on the question, but they're all based on that principle. If there is only two people in a scene, is it necessary to specify who each is speaking to -- there's only two choices; they can speak to the other person or themselves and if I don't specify that they're speaking to themselves, a reasonable person would assume they're speaking to the other person.

 

[Weird Harold]

Bump for the AH Archivist to find.

(and for any new thoughts anyone might have.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Most of my effort is about getting the details out of the story. As Dr. M. points out, attention given to details suggests that they are important - but one cannot emphasize everything. Intensely emphasizing every detail will, in the end, destroy all emphasis and bury the significant and vital in a mountain of luciously described irrelevencies. Personally, I'm trying to work leaner and terser. Less control of the visual details; more control of the focus and structure.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]