How much "filler" is too much?

[bloodsimple]

No, this isn't about fixing a crack in the wall, it's about writing longer pieces.

Inevitably, not every page of your brilliant new novel can be full-on, eye-popping action, searing insights into the human psyche, or clever character development. Some of it will just be moving the characters on, or taking the plot forward, in a fairly conventional fashion - i.e. filler.

Now, when you are writing this, presumably you either

a) know it's filler, but that's okay because every novel has some, or

b) don't realise it and feel that you're writing crap.

So how do you know when you're just aimlessly writing and need to get back to what's really important, as opposed to justifiable links between patches of genius? Does anyone have any tricks or methods for catching yourself out writing too much filler?

 

[Weird Harold]

So how do you know when you're just aimlessly writing and need to get back to what's really important, as opposed to justifiable links between patches of genius? Does anyone have any tricks or methods for catching yourself out writing too much filler?

The best I dvice I ever got about writing was to not worry about writing crap or too much filler.

"Sit down and let the words flow from your fingers without worrying about all but the worst spelling and grammar errors. When you run down, go back and delete the two-thirds that is complete garbage and edit the rest into a readable story."

It really isn't until you go back to edit a story that you can tell where you've wandered away from the storyline by including too much "filler."

 

[bloodsimple]

That sounds like good advice, although I'm notoriously crap at editing my own work. I have no skill at taking a dispassionate view, or even an optimistic one.

 

[Weird Harold]

That sounds like good advice, although I'm notoriously crap at editing my own work. I have no skill at taking a dispassionate view, or even an optimistic one.

That's flaw that can be overcome through practice and a few tricks to make your mind see the story as someone else's work.

1: once you finish the first draft, do a spelling check and grammar check if you're so inclined.

2: set the story aside and forget about it for at least a week -- or however long it takes for you to forget exactly what your wrote.

3: open the story, "select all" and change the font, font size, and text color to fool your subconscious into thinking it has never seen the text before.

4: edit the story as if it was written by your worst enemy.

 

[bloodsimple]

Ah, now I like those last two points in particular. I never seem to re-read my work with a fresh eye, as I know roughly what's coming up. This is especially tricky since I write thrillers, and so there's no way of telling if the surprises are actually lit up in neon like a Vegas hotel, or sneaked in like a good magician's trick.

I'm always concerned when I edit that I'll be too brutal, cutting large chunks out, and then throwing the rest away in a belief that it's all crap, thus shredding six months of effort.

We can all kid ourselves that we're "editing as we go" but, aside from Spell check and typos, I don't think we do. "We" means of course me.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ah, now I like those last two points in particular. I never seem to re-read my work with a fresh eye, as I know roughly what's coming up.

Most of that advice is just passed on from the crusty old curmudgeon that who edited my first attempt at writing (and quite rightly ripped it to shreds.) He was a retired USAF Colonel, a retired publisher and a moderately successful author in three or four different genres.

One of the things I learned from him is that editing your own work is difficult for everyone because the eyes tend to see what your fingers were told to type raher than what is actually on the screen. His solution was editing a double-spaced printed draft manuscript -- which is still one of the best ways to edit your own work if you can afford the paper and ink -- but he was primarily oriented to print publishing rather than online publishing.

A second thing I learned from him is that there is no substitute for another set of eyes because no author will find all of the inconsistencies and errorrs in their own work. Also, Friends and Family are NOT generally acceptable as proofreaders/editors because they have to live with the author if the critcism is not well recieved -- and in the Erotia/Porn genre there is the embarrassment factor. (as my daughter put it, "Yuck! there's no way I want to wander through my father's dirty fantasies.") In his view, and mine, the best editor is the author's worst enemy because an enemy won't be afraid to offend the author by pointing out every error that can be found. If the enemy is also an anal renetive English major, so much the better.

The third, and probably most important, thing I learned from him is that the author is not his work. If you can't separate yourself from your work to consider criticism and editorial comments on their merits then you probably shouldn't be a writer and you'll never be an "author."