Can you fix these sentences? And address this question about mainstream fiction?

[AG31]

One
I requested a book from the library by mistake. I had run out of books, so I took this one on. At around page 69 I stumbled over these two sentences. They occurred together as you see here.

Kimber walked into her apartment and dropped her keys onto the kitchen table.

Her conversation with Director Yarrow still seemed like a dream rather than reality.

They sounded klunky enough to me that I began paying more attention to the writing than to the story. Here's a third klunky sentence:

...rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad from the takeaway bag and set it on her desk.

How would you improve these sentences? How would you 1) establish location, 2)convey her preoccupation with Yarrow, 3) show MC not commenting on a message?

I made some feeble tries, but, as usual, my imagination failed.

Two
This author has published 45 books, most in the "Mystery/Suspense Romance" genre, and she is "a popular writing instructor."

I'm continuing to read the book for two reasons: I'm hooked on analyzing what's wrong, and I want to see how the romance evolves. I haven't read a romance in many decades. So far it doesn't seem to have evolved beyond 8th grade crushes.

My question is, how does an author who's written a text book on "telling instead of showing" (the book I'm reading), where the plot consists of rapid fire implausible events designed solely to bring the two protagonists into contact with each other, become so successful???????

 

[TheRedChamber]

I guess I'm not overly concerned with clunkiness when reading, but it's hard to really judge these sentences without the context surrounding them.

1) Is it important that the reader knows where the keys go? I'm not overly bothered by this sentence. Is it that she walks into the apartment and is then in the kitchen that bothers you?

2) Yes this is an incredibly cliche sentence. Replace it with practically anything.

3) Fine as long as the next sentence is her doing something other than eat or make further preparations to eat. (From.this sentence alone I get the fractional impression that MC is somewhat finickety in her habits which may or may not be the author's intention)

Do you mean telling rather than showing or the more traditionally recommended other way round? If it is the way round you said, whats the main argument?

 

[AG31]

Do you mean telling rather than showing or the more traditionally recommended other way round? If it is the way round you said, whats the main argument?

I mean the author is behaving badly by almost always telling instead of showing.
Not sure what you mean when you ask "whats the main argument?" My argument? None, just a question.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I mean the author is behaving badly by almost always telling instead of showing.
Not sure what you mean when you ask "whats the main argument?" My argument? None, just a question.

I think I misread your original post. I'm not sure any of your examples really involve 'show rather than tell' issues.

 

[TheLobster]

The thing that is most clunky for me in those excerpts is the overuse of pronouns. Why is everything her?

Her apartment.
Her keys.
Her conversation.
Her salad.
Her desk.

About 80% of those should be replaced by 'the' and it would instantly read better.

 

[TheRedChamber]

The thing that is most clunky for me in those excerpts is the overuse of pronouns. Why is everything her?

Her apartment.
Her keys.
Her conversation.
Her salad.
Her desk.

About 80% of those should be replaced by 'the' and it would instantly read better.

I don't see that, particularly. Either would be correct but I dont see 'the' as being better than 'her'

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The sentences do feel clunky, and not written by someone I'd take writing advice from. It's always hard to judge out of context but something that struck me was:

Her conversation with Director Yarrow still seemed like a dream rather than reality.

Should be shortened by dropping the "rather than reality". It's redundant. I'd apply Orwell's rule :

1. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

.rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad from the takeaway bag and set it on her desk.

This one could drop "from the takeaway bag" and keep it's meaning.

rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad and set it on her desk.

You might be able to drop "set it on her desk" depending on the remaining context.

 

[NotWise]

How would you improve these sentences? How would you 1) establish location, 2)convey her preoccupation with Yarrow, 3) show MC not commenting on a message?

I made some feeble tries, but, as usual, my imagination failed.

"Kimber walked into her apartment and dropped her keys onto the kitchen table.

Her conversation with Director Yarrow still seemed like a dream rather than reality."

Assuming that the detailed actions in these sentences all fill a specific purpose (which they probably don't) I might revise them as

"Kimber walked into her apartment and dropped her keys on the kitchen table. Her conversation with Yarrow still seemed more dream than reality."

My revision of the second sentence assumes that Yarrow has already been introduced as a Director and it isn't useful to include the title.

...rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad from the takeaway bag and set it on her desk.

Not much context to work with.

"She ignored Patricia's message and set her salad on the desk."

The two examples you gave both contain detailed actions that should probably be removed. Possibly the author's purpose was to use those details to place the reader in the action. Personally, I don't think those actions belong unless they have some other significance in the story. I can't imagine that "retrieving her salad from the takeaway bag" has any later relevance, so I lost it.

If the whole story is written that way, then removing all that padding could make it a lot shorter. FWIW, I fight the "unnecessary action" battle in my own stories.

Two
This author has published 45 books, most in the "Mystery/Suspense Romance" genre, and she is "a popular writing instructor."

I'm continuing to read the book for two reasons: I'm hooked on analyzing what's wrong, and I want to see how the romance evolves. I haven't read a romance in many decades. So far it doesn't seem to have evolved beyond 8th grade crushes.

My question is, how does an author who's written a text book on "telling instead of showing" (the book I'm reading), where the plot consists of rapid fire implausible events designed solely to bring the two protagonists into contact with each other, become so successful???????

Just because the promotional material says she's successful doesn't make it so, especially if she's self-published.

As far as "show vs tell" is concerned, I've always had trouble with snippets that people post here. The difference between showing and telling is often small, and there's rarely enough context to know enough of what the author is trying to convey.

In the first sentence, "dropped her keys" could be replaced with "her keys clattered" and it would show more. I'd love to rewrite "Kimber walked into her apartment." The phrase is flat, but there's nothing to go on for a rewrite. Depending on context, the whole sentence could become "Kimber's eyes adjusted to the light in her dark apartment, and she let her keys clatter to the kitchen table."

 

[Pabiporffor]

Kimber entered her apartment and dropped her keys on the kitchen table.

Her conversation with Director Yarrow felt more like a dream.

 

[redgarters]

How would you improve these sentences? How would you 1) establish location, 2)convey her preoccupation with Yarrow, 3) show MC not commenting on a message.

The sound of Kimber's keys hitting the glass top kitchen table was as jarring as her preoccupation with Director Yarrow.

The salat alone wouldn't take her mind off Patricia's message, but it was already out of the takeaway bag, just sitting there on her desk.

 

[Britva415]

The sentences do feel clunky, and not written by someone I'd take writing advice from. It's always hard to judge out of context but something that struck me was:

Her conversation with Director Yarrow still seemed like a dream rather than reality.

Should be shortened by dropping the "rather than reality". It's redundant. I'd apply Orwell's rule :

1. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

.rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad from the takeaway bag and set it on her desk.

This one could drop "from the takeaway bag" and keep it's meaning.

rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad and set it on her desk.

You might be able to drop "set it on her desk" depending on the remaining context.

I was thinking, "retrieved" is a bullshit action which serves no purpose here other than to give the bag a raison d'ètre. So if we're getting rid of the bag, let's get rid of the retrieval too.

And why are we playing with salad if she's not even eating it. Hell with the desk, too, and the setting the salad down. Let's just move directly to eating.

 

[Britva415]

As far as "show don't tell," this IS showing and not telling. By telling about the salad, the author is showing that K. is distracting herself with other shit so that she won't be preoccupied with the message she doesn't want to react to.

Would it have been better to maybe just tell that? Could be! Especially if one is not a slave to "show don't tell," or, one recognizes that you can't show something without telling something else.

Why is it important that she doesn't want to comment on the message? What does that show? And why obscure it behind additional unnecessary layers of showing? You get to a point where the story turns into Darmok if you're too avoidant of just telling something.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't think I can judge a write with so little to go on.

 

[StillStunned]

My question is, how does an author who's written a text book on "telling instead of showing" (the book I'm reading), where the plot consists of rapid fire implausible events designed solely to bring the two protagonists into contact with each other, become so successful???????

You've become spoiled by hanging around so many writers who actually care about their prose, rather than just churning out stories.

That said, for a lot of readers that's all that matters: a story that sparks their imagination, a main character who they can empathise with. Their eyes just gloss over the actual words and how they fit together. But if she's published 45 books, and people are reading them, she's found her audience and they've found their author. And even if nobody's reading her books, she's probably deriving some satisfaction from writing them.

Personally, if I was being paid to edit these sentences with as light a touch as possible, they'd probably turn out something like this:

Kimber walked into her apartment and dropped her keys onto the kitchen table.

"Inside her apartment, Kimber dropped her keys on the kitchen table."

Her conversation with Director Yarrow still seemed like a dream rather than reality.

"Her conversation with Director Yarrow seemed more like a dream than reality."

...rather than comment on Patricia's message, she retrieved her salad from the takeaway bag and set it on her desk.

"...deciding not to comment on Patricia's message, she took her salad from the takeaway bag and set it on her desk."

Obviously all of these could be improved if I had carte blanche. The first fragment would probably sound much better with a bit more detail and emotion:

"Kimber unlocked her apartment door and went inside. Making her way to the kitchen, she dropped her keys on the table and opened the fridge. A glass of wine was what she needed. Her hand was still trembling, she noticed, an hour after her conversation with Director Yarrow. The whole experience felt unreal, looking back, more like a dream than something that had actually happened to her."

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The first is basically telling us she's now home, only in two different boring ways.

I'd go for something like "Kimber dropped her keys on the kitchen table, glad to be home." Adds an emotion, removes a statement of the obvious (she didn't drive or teleport into the apartment). I assume the fact that she lives in an apartment is mentioned elsewhere.

Is 'Director Yarrow' a plausible way to refer to someone in whatever organisation they're in? Seems weird to me.

Maybe "Her conversation with Yarrow still seemed dream-like." Perhaps say why? The 'rather than reality' is stating the obvious. but sometimes you want to add a little clarity and rhythm.

For the third, I'd be tempted to split it. "She didn't want to deal with Patricia. Instead, she rummaged in her bag for her takeaway salad, setting it on the desk. She could answer the message later."

A lot of fiction would be improved by varying sentence lengths more. You can take this to extremes like Lee Child, but there's no denying his stories are pacy and readable.

 

[JGittes]

This is a romance novel, and if the author is successful (as determined by the number of books they've published mainstream), they will most likely write three or four novels a year. It's a brutal business, and something like Scrivener is perfect for a schedule like this.

The author cares about the formula and likeable characters. Word economy is an issue only if the story grows much beyond 70k words.

On the bigger, philosophical issue of how sloppy writing is rewarded in mainstream publishing, life's just damned unfair. Then you get old and die.