how much weaker it is to say 'I picked up the heavy bag' than 'The strap cut into my hand

I can see the point you're making with the example, Emma, but again I don't think this is something to avoid, either. Imo this (after all, wholly transparent line) is absolutely not, per se, 'weaker writing'. It depends where you want the camera shot to fall. If you see in front of your eyes the action of picking up, then you're going to want to convey this moment. (It might serve as an aural pause between two moments of speech, or as a variation in sentence length/structure which happens to be needed at that point on the page.) To change the detail of heaviness to the strap cutting into the hand alters the focus of moment. Neither is stronger or weaker than the other. Surely it's just what happens to be the requirement for that point of the writing?

Trouble is, what if you think (or have proof of in the way of rejection letters) that being yourself isn't going to get you anywhere? I think utterly being yourself is fine if you don't want to get published, but i feel you need to take a good, long look at your writing if things aren't progressing.

It's a fine balance, isn't it,not losing your integrity but being prepared to bend a little.

Kate, my cop-out is that I'm almost always writing in a character's voice as well as PoV, so which of the two I go for depends on that.

TBH, I'm letting off steam a bit because I've just had a run (well, two) of cracking manuscripts to report on, and it's made me realise just what a long way to go some writers have.

I think utterly being yourself is fine if you don't want to get published, but i feel you need to take a good, long look at your writing if things aren't progressing.

Casey, I've been here, literally beating my head against the wall because nobody wanted what I wrote, and yet I was writing what I wanted to write - the only thing I knew I could write well enough. 'Crossover doesn't sell, it's neither one thing nor the other,' was what they said, but I'm a crossover person, as my sister put it in one long drunken shoulder-crying session (my crying, her shoulder).

Publishing people will always tell you to cut something that doesn't work. Sometimes that feels as if they mean your throat. But actually there's always the option of making it work. The real questions are:

a) Are my technical skills so top-notch that there's nothing in the way of me writing it the best way it can be? Could I write the same couple of sentences twenty ways, depending on their job in the story? Until then, like an athlete not being fit enough, or a dancer insufficiently bendy, there will be things your instincts want to write that won't happen.

b) What's the core of what I want to write? Can I express that in a form/story/language that the publishing trade doeswant. 'What am I trying to say?' is a really important question that sometimes gets forgotten.

Emma

This may or may not be about the same subject.

As I am revising, I often come across an a sentence/paragraph that I feel needs to be rewritten to make it less awkward to read. I go ahead and rewrite it, so it reads smoother and easier. And then perhaps I decide to rewrite it again to make it read even easier. And so on and so on, until I have rewritten the sentence/paragraph five to ten times.

The sentence/paragraph now reads as smooth as silk and has no awkwardness at all, but I am not happy with it. With each rewrite, I feel like I have removed part of myself from the sentence/paragraph. The sentence/paragraph now reads/looks like a machine has created it because it is too smooth, too perfect, too standard stock. It has no life.

So how does an author handle this problem (if you see it as a problem). Should the author leave the sentence/paragraph alone after the first or second rewrite, and put some of his/her awkwardness (the authors awkwardness) in the work? Or should we make the work smooth enough, perfect enough for the agent/publisher?

I guess, some would call this awkwardness style. It’s something that sets us apart from each other as writers. Perhaps one writer uses too many adjectives and adverbs, and that is their awkwardness. Perhaps another, uses too few.

It’s hard for a beginning writer to know how much revising is needed for each awkward sentence/paragraph he/she comes across. It’s hard to know how much of oneself to leave in the work, and how much to take out.

Azel

Casey, back to your point. I don't see being true to yourself as being unbending. I mean, if you talk to a small child or a teenager or an adult you don't talk the same way but you are no less 'you'. What makes you less you is when you become self-conscious of the image of yourself that's coming across, when you're trying to impress as opposed to communicate. I think this applies to writing too. I think it's a good thing to adjust to your reader but only so that the communication passes better, not to impress them or impress some other third party.
By the way, I'm not in any way implying that you do this, just making a general point.

Azel, I've often wondered about that: if too much rewriting removes the spark of sponteneity from books. It could be that it just gets boring to the writer who's read it so many times. Although I think it is possible, as a reader, to tell the difference between spontaneous prose and polished prose.

Just going back to what Casey said here:

Trouble is, what if you think (or have proof of in the way of rejection letters) that being yourself isn't going to get you anywhere?

I think there's an interesting point here about the language agents use in rejecting writing that doesn't do it for them.

My last novel was rejected by one agent who wrote 'quite an interesting story, but the writing needs tightening'. I was intrigued by this question of 'tightening' & what it might mean to the extent that it prompted me to send the novel to Cornerstones for a report. One of the points made in that report was this:

IYou state in your notes that you are worried that your language may have suffered during your various drafts to improve the plot, and that one agent said that the writing needs ‘tightening’... I would suggest that when an agent makes a rather woolly remark like this, it’s often just a way of saying that this particular manuscript doesn’t float their boat. Because they are unable to pinpoint exactly what it is that doesn’t grab them, they vaguely point to ‘language’ or suchlike.

So, in some cases agents and publishers might reach for formal and serious/sounding reasons relating to issues like language, genre etc because they don't quite know what they didn't like and don't want to resort to writing 'it didn't float my boat' (which looks lame on paper even if true). And the upshot of this is that a lot of writers may be forcing themselves to write against the grain of their natural style on the basis of a slightly spurious comment by an agent or publisher, when perhaps what they should be focusing on is writing a better book in their own style.

Interesting point, RJH, and i'm sure they are right.

Ashlinn, I read a letter by Agatha Christie last night, about writing and she reckoned:

we are most true to ourselves, personality-wise, at the age of 6 or 7. As we age, through the teenage years, our twenties, we gain a perception of what is considered cool and adapt to that, project an image we think is right and acceptable - then, when we hit middle-age we care less and - to the disconcernation of those around us! - drop the act and go back to our true self.

She reckoned this was also true of our writing and that we go through a phase of writing how we think we should, maybe like a favourite author - but, in time, we care less and just write how we want.

I find this analogy very perceptive.

Hi Azel.
i havent been a member here long, but i have found comments that people have made on my stories helpful. but one comment i always get is that i put too many descriptive words in. i personally prefer to write with lots of descriptive words, even if i do find it hard to do so. i guess because i read a lot of books that include descriptions of a places or an item etc, and i like that.
i find it easier to picture it in my head, as i have a vivid imagination sometimes, it helps me slip into a story in my head. rather than read a load of dialogue and not actually get an idea of where they are or what they are doing in great detail.

my basic comment to you is do what ever you feel comfortable with. there are plenty of books out there with lots of descriptions and lots with barely any. so if you write with not much detail then go with it.
Every reader is different, some will prefer detail and others will prefer to go straight to the point. to me thats pointless, because i like to escape into the story. but like i said, if u like the way you write, dont go by what you feel you should write, write what comes to you.

hope i helped and sorry to go on.
luv GG
x

Thank you GG for the advice.

My first draft had 31 chapters. I have been revising all summer. The revising goes very slowly. I am now up to chapter 10. I find myself mostly cutting words and sentences, and seldom adding. I decided to leave my description as I have it in my first draft, and to not add anything extra.

Question anyone: My first draft (of my book) has 31 chapters, yet the whole book has 3 sub books of ten chapter each, which make up the whole book. In other books I have read, they would be titled as Book I, Book II, Book III. But, this is confusing when talking to someone about writing, because they may not know which book I am referring to. How does one distinguish between the complete book, and these internal Books of I, II, III, when one is talking about them? Do they have other names I could use?

Azel

internal Books of I, II, III

Some authors prefer to use Part I, Part II, Part III, possibly for that very reason.

Yes, I can see were it can be confusing. Each ‘part’ is a 30k novelette or long short story. I tend to think of them as books, not parts, since that was the way books were made, when I started reading years ago.

All three ‘parts’ (books) are a continuation of the story. When I write, I tend to think in terms of chapters that are self-contained short stories, that make up ‘parts’ (books). And three books, that make up a whole book. It’s all one story, but written in scenes like a stage play.

Anyway, I will try to use the word ‘parts’ in the future, instead of books.

Azel

As a metter of interest, how many words are in each 'part/novella'?

The complete book comes out to about 90k (it has been changing during revision). The book breaks cleanly into about 10 chapters per part/novella. Without counting words, I would say about 30k each.

I didn’t plan it this way. It just happened by accident.When I finished the first draft, I saw the division, and that, I had written three books, back to back. Each part/novella is a complete story with beginning, middle and end.


Azel

I recall Graham Greene split his novel The Quiet American up into three parts. Although the division was based more on timescales within the story, rather than telling 3 complete stories.


<Added>

I can see there would be advantages, and disadvantages to doing it that way, although some books split the 2 or 3 stories up within the novel (EmmaD's book, for instance) so you are switching backwards and forwards between them, which can work if you have a unifying theme such as a place, or a family, even if you have a difference in time frames.