For me cutting words is often a style choice, in my own writing, as many of my characters have a fairly direct style. In critique though it's more about cutting fluff or words that detract from the writing without doing anything good. In general, unless it's a deliberate style voice , if some writes "Bob went through the door quite fast and closed it very hard behind him" I'm likely to suggest that " Bob stormed through the door slamming it behind him" or "Bob slammed through the door" might be better.
I think that it might be worthwhile to discuss what "tightly" means, because I don't think I'd agree that none of those authors write tightly. I'd say that Kipling and Steinbeck, for example, do write fairly tightly. And I haven't read McCarthy, but if I go hunting for excerpts, I'd also say that it's fairly tight. Conrad, on the other hand, definitely doesn't write tightly as I define the word. And I never read Nabokov, but again, the excerpt hunt leads me to feel that, no, not tightly. To me, "tightly" tends to mean: - Meaning is found essentially immediately while reading--each sentence, and certainly each paragraph, has a fairly well-formed meaning. The sentences, paragraphs, pages, etc., no doubt build larger layers of meaning, but the first layer is promptly available. - The "meaning per word" is pretty high. I imagine this as being something rather like "proof" for a cocktail. A tight writer is writing pretty strong drinks. I realize that that was not a terribly coherent explanation. I've used a particular passage from The Wind in the Willows as an example before. To me, this passage is indeed written tightly. It's packed with meaning, even if it uses a lot of words. He thought his happiness was complete when, as he meandered aimlessly along, suddenly he stood by the edge of a full-fed river. Never in his life had he seen a river before—this sleek, sinuous, full-bodied animal, chasing and chuckling, gripping things with a gurgle and leaving them with a laugh, to fling itself on fresh playmates that shook themselves free, and were caught and held again. All was a-shake and a-shiver—glints and gleams and sparkles, rustle and swirl, chatter and bubble. The Mole was bewitched, entranced, fascinated. By the side of the river he trotted as one trots, when very small, by the side of a man who holds one spellbound by exciting stories; and when tired at last, he sat on the bank, while the river still chattered on to him, a babbling procession of the best stories in the world, sent from the heart of the earth to be told at last to the insatiable sea.
When I was in law school, the conventional wisdom was that the first year they scare you to death, the second year they work you to death, the third year they bore you to death. I spoke to a professor at some point after I graduated and she said the "work you to death" part of that was deliberate, and the idea wasn't to actually kill you with work but to help you develop your ability to manage a huge workload: to figure out what absolutely needs to be done, what can be skimmed, what can be safely ignored. I think we have to expect writers to develop a similar critical facility in terms of critique. We have to accept that if a writer is deliberately using bad grammar to establish voice, then the writer will have the sense to ignore critiques that correct the grammar. I'm not saying all writers do have this sense, but I think the only way critique on a public forum will work is if we proceed with the assumption that they do. Otherwise how do we justify allowing writers with little experience or evident skill to offer critiques at all? As I've said before, I don't think the first-three-sentences thread is a good place for people to get their work "edited". I don't believe we have a single professional editor in the membership. Critique isn't an authoritative voice, it's an opinion. If writers don't know that, they need to learn that. And they can learn it as well in the three-sentences thread as anywhere else.
I think you're right in many ways here. (Love the law school approach!) However, I do think our 'first three sentences' thread is designed to help the writer decide if their first three sentences are a good way to start their story. I think that's hard to determine, unless we get to see more. Unless they are riddled with the kinds of errors the writer didn't intend to make, I don't believe it's as good an indicator of the quality of the story as people sometimes assume. I think context is very important when crafting the beginning of a story. And I do believe that beginnings extend way beyond the first three sentences. Here's a screen shot of the beginning of Huckleberry Finn. We now know that the 'voice' of Huck Finn is often ungrammatical, and to correct his grammar and way of speaking in the first three sentences would have been a mistake. But that's because we all 'know' Huck Finn by now, from one source or another. We have read the whole book (or seen the film or whatever.) However, somebody who was totally unfamiliar with Mark Twain, Tom Sawyer and Huck himself, when given these three sentences, might easily fall into the trap of correcting the grammar: That's my point about that thread. Until we know more, it's very difficult to decide, from only three sentences, whether they are a good way to start a particular story or not.
This is true but most beginners, in fact most authors, are not mark twain. If they produce a paragraph packed with grammar errors it is more likely that it's because their grammar is lousy than it is that they are creating a deliberately ungrammatical character. Likewise a lot of beginners take show don't tell far to literally and subsequently show every damn thing which leads to paragraphs packed with unnecessary words which give little to either story or the setting
I agree that the more of a story you see, the better the chance is that you'll form an accurate perception of whether you'd like the story or not. That seems logical. But that's an argument against the entire first-three-lines thread, right? You're not commenting on the ways people critique there or whether it's appropriate to offer rewritten versions; you're saying the premise of the thread is inherently flawed. But I think we have to assume that people who post in the thread think there's value in the thread (even if it's only entertainment value). Honestly, I rarely critique longer pieces anymore because I find the time commitment too great. But I'll spend a few minutes on a post in the first-three thread. I don't think I'm alone in that. So I'd say the advantage of getting a longer piece critiqued is that it can be more intensely useful, but the disadvantage is that you generally only get a few voices, a few perspectives, and that can be problematic. The advantage of the first-three thread is that you can get a lot of different perspectives on your work because it's less of a time commitment. Breadth, not depth. Neither is perfect, but they both have their place.
The above posts are all great. Personally, a lot of the words I suggest people cut, I suggest because the words seem like they are coming from a place of fear: not wanting to be accused of intellectual naivety, fear that the meaning of the sentence isn't clear, and fear that a bold statement will sound pretentious. Almost all of the words like: just really, very, and in so much as, in light of, because of the fact that--they all sound fearful. (I originally wrote "most of the time" after "fearful" out of reflexive fear of intellectual naivety, so I deleted it.) Anytime something is repeated but not for poetic effect: "The door was stuck shut. He pulled, but it wouldn't budge." I write sentences like that all the time, but I try not to, and they stick out to me because I've started to hate how they sound.
What meaning? It's overwrought nonsense! Grahame turned a mystical river into a giggling, chatty teenage girl. Though, he is audacious. Not many a professional writer would be so brave as to use the word babbling in a passage describing a river. Indeed, of all the words I might use in such a scene, it's babbling that I wouldn't allow anywhere near my river. And what is up with this sentence?! He thought his happiness was complete when, as he meandered aimlessly along, suddenly he stood by the edge of a full-fed river. How does one meander aimlessly and, "suddenly" find they've happened upon a raging river! A river cannot sneak up on you, especially the one described above. I dare say it's the most boisterous river on Earth. It chuckles, and gurgles, laughs, rustles, chatters and bubbles. It's like a happy drunk at closing time.
Excellent! We have an example of different opinions of the same piece of writing to demonstrate how subjective this all is. And we have a bit of critique that's rendered useless because it doesn't explain itself (the mysterious outrage over "babbling") compared to the better-explained criticism in the second paragraph. A writer who received the critique in the first part would be left wondering what the hell is wrong with "babbling"; a writer who received the critique in the second part would be able to judge and decide for herself whether she should take any of it on board or whether it was written by someone who wasn't really in tune with what she was trying to create. Nice demonstration, Iain - thanks!
Questions to the bolded part: 1. Why? What is your purpose in editing / critiquing in that thread? (Not a sarcastic or accusatory question.) Is it to help? To entertain yourself? To test your skills? I ask because maybe our respective purposes of the thread are different, and I need to know that. 2. What is the place of the "first three" thread? I think that's where this whole thing gets muddled. I see the "first three" thread as, "Hey, I wrote this story, now I'm polishing to submit it. Help me polish my first three to knock their socks off so this thing is more likely to sell." As I've said many times on this Forum, I'm a non-fiction writer who doesn't write shit "for fun" anymore, and I'm transitioning to fiction. My stuff is either intended to be used, or it goes straight to the trash heap. If it's a fiction piece I'm taking the time to work on here, that means I'm trying to get it to a usable point. The exception is if I'm trying something off the wall, in which case it's prefaced with, "Hey, I'm trying something experimental..." But my end goal is always to see if it can be taken to a useable point, and if not, to the trash heap it goes, and I move on to something else. Is it a word game thread? I'm not here to play word games. Please me understand this so I'm not wasting people's time by misusing the thread. In one of my previous posts somewhere way back in this thread, I pulled the explainer from the first post of the "first three" thread and mirrored back my interpretation of it to see if I'm interpreting the use of the "first three" thread correctly. But unless I missed it, it wasn't answered. No terse tone intended here. I'm frustrated because I'm trying to understand this.
Yep. It IS an argument against the entire first-three-lines thread. I have no problem whatsoever with people using that thread, however, if they like. I just think it's not as useful as it might first appear. Sometimes less is NOT more. It's not more, when you can't see the forest for the trees. Concentrating on the bark of one tree isn't all that helpful, if it's the vista that matters. In general, I prefer people to take time, if they can, to dig into what they like and don't like about a more complete piece of writing. I think that's more useful feedback, in the long run. I would rather have no feedback than a quick response to a couple of sentences because people don't have the time to read more. (Although I sympathise with not having time to read lots of stuff. I just handle it differently. I do fewer critiques, but try to do them in depth.) As I hoped to illustrate with my Huck Finn example, a quickie reaction to a couple of sentences isn't always good advice. If the author is experienced, they'll easily recognise well-meant, but not terribly relevant advice and move on. I'm sure Mark Twain would have filed mine away in the 'She'll Be a Useful Idiot to Write An Essay About Someday' file. But if they're not experienced, or feel a lack of confidence in how they've begun their story? Who knows? If folks want only their first three lines looked at and reacted to, fair enough. Some people seem to have gained something from the feedback they got. As you say, quick reactions from lots of people can be interesting. I'm just not convinced they're all that beneficial, and I don't rate the 'first three sentences' thread myself. But hey.
To be honest I'm surprised @Wreybies allows it anyway given its crit outside the workshop. The first paragraph thread got closed on those grounds so it's surpring that the first three sentences, and last three sentences threads haven't gone too
Well, you know, Wreybies picks his battles. It’s a bit like being a mum with an estate car full of kids. Do you pull over every time they act a fool, or do you just ignore it, save your sanity, and turn up the radio on a song you love, but which the kids are sure to find heinous. *shrug*
I bit off topic... but every time I see Cutting: "Words" I keep thinking it's a book title. The Cutting Word by W.F. But what would be the Genre? Mystery, crime. Sounds a bit like a James Patterson novel.
Oh dear, well what are Sunday afternoon's for, eh? SPEECH IN PROGRESS Editing speech, end section too unkind.
Nah, sounds more like a crime and mystery novel. . About a tough as nails street detective named Trish Minstrel (thought I forgot about that, didn't you, ) . Solving the crimes behind a serial murderer who leaves cut up words.
I've always assumed that it was a way to get a lot of critiquing eyes on a little bit of prose, just to see what sort of entertainment and useful things might come out of that. But I don't really know.
What I'm getting is that the writers who post in the Three Sentences thread have various and differing reasons for doing so, as do the folks who like to critique there. It doesn't sound like there's any one true purpose it is supposed to serve for the members of the forum. Personally I steer clear of it - I posted on accident once not realizing it was a critique thread, but as soon as it was pointed out to me I skeedadled out of there as quickly as I could. Like @jannert I disagree with the whole premise, so posting or critiquing there doesn't hold any value for me.
