Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #3

[penandpaper]

Thanks for the advice. I thought it was well stated.

But, I do have one question - Updike? I can't get through a chapter without finding 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 words I don't know. Yet, I like his writing. Just a thought, that I believe was stated earlier, that there's an exception to every rule.

That's the beautiful mystery of good writing.

One last thing, then I'll get off my high horse (because I swear I love the thread and its advice), but how does one call Hemmingway's "Old Man and the Sea" pedantic? It's spoken as plain as humanly possible. My favorite part, which was the only pedant part I could think of is when he talked about how the old man viewed the sea in contrast to the younger men. One was feminine, the other masculine. I always liked that, enough for it to stick with me for twenty-five years; which was the last time I read the book.

 

[McKenna]

Wow. Talk about a blast from the past! (The thread, not you, EricCalder.)

Personally I think the key here is to take the statement "Don't Show Off When You Write" quite literally. One shouldn't add obscure words just for the hell of it. But in many cases I think technical language can be used quite effectively to develop the setting. Stories with lots of police work or medical details are one type, historical fiction or science fiction another.

At the risk of self-promotion, I like this snippet from one of my own stories which takes place on an English frigate in 1804:

------

Hamilton looked out at the clouds along the horizon and then at the water.

“Set the stays’ls and bring the braces hard round, put us one point starboard.”

“We can outrun her, sir, all things equal. We’ve been two years at sea and Intrepid came down from Portsmouth, so it’s going to be a hard race.”

“Carry out my orders, please, Mr. Wray.”

“Aye aye, sir.”

“Damn,” Hamilton said to himself as he watched the approaching ship on the horizon.

--------

I think -- at least I hope -- one can fully understand that there is a tense sea chase here without knowing what a stays'l (staysail) is, what braces or the expression 'hard round' means, or even what direction starboard is or whether the reference to Portsmouth is to the one in New Hampshire, Rhode Island or England.

Stopping to explain these things in the story would be showing off I think, and would serve no purpose other than to slow down the pacing of the sea chase.

But there is a balance. What is written depends on the goals of the author in being technical, while the level of knowledge of the reader (as well as their interest, or lack thereof) will effect whether or not they are brought into the story.

I could probably have just had someone spin the ship's wheel to change direction and that would have been fine with almost everyone. But that is wrong, you can't just do that, the yards have to adjusted as well, and so I hope the addition or more realistic details help to create a more vivid setting that is more than a cornball pirate adventure.

This is from the original post: "Good fiction writers never show off: dump in abstruse knowledge for its own sake, or purposely use big words when simpler ones would do. Good fiction writers constantly seek ways to work in necessary background information in as unobtrusive a way as possible, and they remember that readers get irritated quickly if a writer's style sends them to the dictionary once or twice every paragraph."

I don't believe your example in any way resembles "showing off." I am not a sailor, but I had no trouble understanding the gist of the paragraph. I do not think you dumped in "abstruse knowledge for its own sake;" I do believe with one word, however, you've managed to make your audience believe you know what you're writing, or, at the very least, your character more believable as a sailor. What you did was unobtrusive (inserting the sailing term mid-conversation). A long, windy paragraph about the sailing ships of the time, the rigging, etc. would not only be out of context in the story (I think) but would be a prime example of showing of for the sake of showing off.

On the other hand, I am sure someone who read this and actually knows how to sail a ship -- which I do not -- would find my version overly simplistic or incorrect (you fool! it should be: "Haul taut! Clear away the sheets! Clew up! Handsomely now! Settle away the main topsail halliards! Round in the weather brace!" and he should be looking at the barometer!)

Right. But you aren't writing a sailing manual, either. A time and a place for everything, eh?

As in so many things in writing, whether it works or not depends on the skill of the writer in working technical language or words with more than three syllables into the story. The worst thing to do, obviously, is just shove in more complex words without really knowing what the mean. But there are certainly instances where this sort of thing can greatly aid in enhancing the setting or characters -- if done in ways that maintain the story flow for people who don't want to stop and flip through a reference book every other sentence.

As bridgeburner said in a previous post, "There's a difference between using one's intelligence to write a good story and using a story to demonstrate one's intelligence."

 

[McKenna]

Thanks for the advice. I thought it was well stated.

But, I do have one question - Updike? I can't get through a chapter without finding 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 words I don't know. Yet, I like his writing. Just a thought, that I believe was stated earlier, that there's an exception to every rule.

That's the beautiful mystery of good writing.

Right, but do you want to read Updike every time you pick up a book? I don't. I enjoy a good intellectual challenge once in a while when I'm tired of the fulff, but I'm not so sophisticated (is that the word I want?) that I have to read Updike-like stuff every single time I open a book. I like my plug-and-play fiction just fine.

One last thing, then I'll get off my high horse (because I swear I love the thread and its advice), but how does one call Hemmingway's "Old Man and the Sea" pedantic? It's spoken as plain as humanly possible. My favorite part, which was the only pedant part I could think of is when he talked about how the old man viewed the sea in contrast to the younger men. One was feminine, the other masculine. I always liked that, enough for it to stick with me for twenty-five years; which was the last time I read the book.

I don't think Hemmingway is often one thrown in with the $3-dollar-word crowd, but honestly I haven't read him enough to offer much of an opinion.

Your remark does make a perfect segue for this little gem I ran across earlier this week:

"He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." - William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway).

'Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?' - Ernest Hemingway (about William Faulkner)

 

[bridgeburner]

How great to see this thread bumped!


McKenna,

Did you ever get through all 37 Mistakes? Are links to the threads gathered in any one place or will I need to search for them?

I miss the AH. I love the pervs over on the BDSM forums, but I've been away from here for far too long.

 

[McKenna]

How great to see this thread bumped!


McKenna,

Did you ever get through all 37 Mistakes? Are links to the threads gathered in any one place or will I need to search for them?

I miss the AH. I love the pervs over on the BDSM forums, but I've been away from here for far too long.

I think I gave up before publishing all 37 mistakes. I don't remember the reason why, but suspect it might have had something to do with folks being too apt to defend their work rather than learn something new. *shrug*

It's good to see you again, btw.

 

[Edward Teach]

I think I gave up before publishing all 37 mistakes. I don't remember the reason why, but suspect it might have had something to do with folks being too apt to defend their work rather than learn something new. *shrug*

It's good to see you again, btw.

Hey, Mack! I'm always up for learning something new.

 

[driphoney]

I think I gave up before publishing all 37 mistakes. I don't remember the reason why, but suspect it might have had something to do with folks being too apt to defend their work rather than learn something new. *shrug*

Ahh! Dust off the cover, give it a go. Many of us are new vultures circling! Some of us might even act like the clueless writers that we are!

 

[penandpaper]

Right, but do you want to read Updike every time you pick up a book? I don't. I enjoy a good intellectual challenge once in a while when I'm tired of the fulff, but I'm not so sophisticated (is that the word I want?) that I have to read Updike-like stuff every single time I open a book. I like my plug-and-play fiction just fine.




I don't think Hemmingway is often one thrown in with the $3-dollar-word crowd, but honestly I haven't read him enough to offer much of an opinion.

Your remark does make a perfect segue for this little gem I ran across earlier this week:

"He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." - William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway).

'Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?' - Ernest Hemingway (about William Faulkner)

Great quotes.

And you are absolutely right, I enjoy Updike's books and others like him on occassion. But sometimes, you just can't beat a good Bill Bryson read. (Travel stuff, not science. Although the science was great too.)

 

[Kev H]

Ahh! Dust off the cover, give it a go. Many of us are new vultures circling! Some of us might even act like the clueless writers that we are!

Yes, please do, McKenna. Please. We writers ought to be forever analyzing and experimenting, and these posts seem like fantastic guides/discussion starting points. They are worthy of resurrecting, as long as we can stay away from bumpy parts (annoying McKenna by sounding defensive). We'll be good, won't we, peers?

Besides, I need help doing what the silly author said not to do in #1.