I try to write lyrically in the first draft. I wind up revising lots as I go along, rewriting sentences and paragraphs almost constantly. I then have to revise the whole darn thing again, straightening out structural problems, pacing problems, etc. But I'm always trying to write lyrically. I hate the idea of just dumping a pile of text down and then trying to inject lyricism in a later draft - that doesn't work for me.
But what would happen if that happened? Couldn't you just go on and write a different paragraph? I feel as if you're paralyzed at the very beginning, afraid that something will go wrong with a piece of writing. But if something goes wrong with a piece of writing, why not throw it out and start a new piece of writing?
I so wish I could put into words what I feel when I just know a paragraph needs one more sentence, and it has to be this ]-------------------------[ long. I am a rhythm/pacing freak but....how could this be taught? I think I'd like to post short snippets, like....well, short ones of my writing and see if other people agree, "Yeah...yeah, that one needs just...another beat, y'know?" My rhythm isn't so much internal beats. It's more macro-like (she said, making up terms as she went), wanting to spend two sentences of time in someone's head before another person speaks. That kinda thing. How to teach...how to teach...
But let's say you have a relatively short sentence in which the most concise way to express the meaning is in a rhythmically plain or unpleasing way. How do you deal with that? How do you take a simple proposition, and ensure that it is embodied in a lyrical form? When I hear the sound of the Apostle Paul's words: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world, for God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers" I do not see any better way to phrase it, or any more concise way to phrase it, and yet it has that sound to it. How does one write in such a style, and say certain things? Isn't there a limit in the English language itself preventing people from writing like that? I'm not saying I want to sound exactly like Paul, but it would be nice if I could achieve something similar, or something like the narrative styles in the Old Testament.
There's a lot of talk on this forum about deleting all unnecessary words, thus stripping your story down to the clearest, barest essentials. Somehow, this has come to be regarded as good writing. To me, carried to the extreme, it makes everything look like a newspaper report. The Lord of the Rings would be written like this: ------------------------------------------------------ Hobbits Destroy Evil Ring, Save Middle-Earth A group of hobbits, aided by elves, dwarves, men, and a wizard, journeyed across Middle-Earth to Mordor and destroyed an evil ring. This ring would have allowed the evil Sauron to rule Middle-Earth, so its destruction saved us all. - Reported by J.R.R. Tolkien Red Sox Defeat Yankees in Ninth-Inning Comeback . . . ------------------------------------------------------ That would be it, pretty much. Personally, I hate this idea that writing is better if it's more concise; that we have to delete all unnecessary words. Writing is better if it's interesting, and that usually means lively, colorful, and musical. There should be fascinating characters, exciting action, vivid descriptions, moving themes, and beauty, beauty, beauty. Concision is way down the list of desirable traits in writing, as far as I'm concerned. So don't worry too much about being concise. Worry about being interesting in one beautiful sentence after another. Good luck!
I don't worry about concise, I worry about dense. That is, density of meaning. I'm fine if someone wants to spend three pages describing a beautiful scene, but I want three pages of different, separately meaningful, observations about that scene. I don't want to hear that it's beautiful, and also beautiful, and by the way beautiful. Now, I realize that density is also a style choice; it's my goal, not necessarily one that I advocate for everyone. I often think of The Wind in the Willows as an example of a book that goes on at length about a subject, but with a different angle at each turn. Edited to add, in case it's not clear: I see The Wind in the Willows as having density of meaning. Example, from early in The Wind in the Willows: 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.
Here's an example of taking a passage without rhythm and changing it into one with rhythm without changing the meaning. And, bear in mind, the original from which this was taken was in Greek, so had to be translated from that first. Psalm 23 A psalm of David. 1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters 3 he refreshes my soul. He guides along the right paths for his name’s sake 4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley I will fear no evil for you are with me your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil my cup overflows. 6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. The Lord's my shepherd, I'll not want He makes me down to lie In pastures green; he leadeth me The quiet waters by. My soul he doth restore again And me to walk doth make Within the paths of righteousness Even for his own name's sake. Yea, though I walk through death's dark vale Yet will I fear no ill For thou art with me, and thy rod And staff me comfort still. My table thou has furnished In presence of my foes; My head thou dost with oil anoint And my cup overflows. Goodness and mercy all my life Shall surely follow me, And in God's house for evermore My dwelling-place shall be.
Which translation is the first from? It is rather wooden, isn't it? (It'd be from the Hebrew, by the way. ) As for the Psalter versification . . . now I'm going to be singing "Crimond" for the next whenever. Nothing wrong with that, only-- I was going to get to bed early tonight!
