Thread: Succinctness in storytelling

I have been involved in a writing group for a couple of months now, and at the meetings several people read a couple of pages of their work aloud to the group.

One comment that I have received in response to my own writing on a couple of different occasions is "it could be more succinct." The comment doesn't really bother me too much, because I usually write my first drafts with the intention of "whittling them down" in later revisions. But it did kind of get me thinking of my own expectations when reading stories versus other people's.

When I read a book, I don't look at it as something to just consume quickly and be done with. It's not the same as a movie or tv show... it is a completely different kind of media. Typically I expect that I'm going to spend more time invested in the plot and details of a novel, and because of that, I don't mind if the author throws in some detail or extraneous plot elements that don't necessarily tie in to the main plot of the work. Now I'm not saying that I enjoy when a writer spends two whole pages describing the physical characteristics of a minor character, for example. But with books I don't mind if the plot "meanders" a little bit. For instance, in a book I read recently the main character's girlfriend has a secret past in Ireland from which she fled to America. The purpose of this plot element is to explain why the main character's conservative parents don't like the girlfriend. But the author does spend some time describing the events that happened to her back in Ireland. Are these details totally necessary to the main plot? No, I don't believe they are, but I didn't mind reading them because it broadened the world of the novel.

In my own work, I've sometimes included details like these to expand the "world" that my story exists in. Yet it seems like most of the criticisms I get are "do we really need to know that detail?" Well, no, I don't guess the reader does some of the time, but I wouldn't include something in my work that I didn't feel added to the quality of my story.

It probably sounds like I'm bitter about the criticism, but it's not that... I just wonder if the reason for wanting stories to be as succinct and to-the-point as possible has something to do with the mindset of the world of today or what. Because if you look at it, a good majority of a novel is what could be considered "padding" anyway, just fancy words and descriptions of something that happened to a single character or group of characters. You could summarize most stories in a few sentences or less if you wanted to take them to the extreme end of the spectrum. But the whole purpose of writing a story in my mind is to "transport" the reader into your world... to make them more vividly imagine the scenes, characters, and events that you are writing down.

Is it just a line that you have to find? Or am I just old-fashioned in believing that books should be able to let the reader visualize an entire other world?

No way to really know without reading something of yours. More description is not necessarily a bad thing. Some writers can really pull it off in a compelling way, and make things rich and vivid and really put you someplace. Otherwise, it's like Fitzgerald vs. Hemingway -- it has a lot to do with style. People will say things like, "If it doesn't advance the story, take it out." That's incredibly vague -- and sometimes, it's just baloney. It all depends.

A) "A la Recherche du Temps Perdu" by Proust, a work which makes a light year seem short

B) Hemmingway's response to a bet that he couldn't write a short story in 6 words: For sale, baby shoes, never worn.

It is a broad church, there is room for all, it is the quality which matters, not the length. Ask them to be specific. If the prose is redundant, chuck it out; if it could be rewritten to make it essential, rewrite it. Nothing is wasted.

Sometimes the amount of 'wandering' a book can support is based on the genre. You wouldn't expect to find too many side trips in a detective story, or a thriller, but a romance novel, or historical fiction piece could support more. Plot driven books will tend to stay on-track more than character driven ones. These are just generalities, of course, but reader expectations are often formed by the sort of story being read. Also, those world building side trips are wonderful excursions if the writing is strong. The reader will let you take them wherever you want if you keep them interested.

Just my opinion, of course.

It's hard to determine if the fault is in your writing, or in the analysis of your writing group members, without seeing a relevant example of your writing.

Though, a safe assumption would be that if your readers are saying you could benefit from being more succint, it implies that they were not ENTHRALLED or COMPELLED. You will never see a reader complain about a story that has her at the edge of her seat, eager to find out what happens next.

So, basing on that assumption, one conclusion is that the intensity of your story is meandering to a low point during these moments when you are describing your world to the reader. This is a mistake I believe everyone makes at one time or another (I know I sure have), where we, as the writer, assume that the reader will be as fascinated with the world as we are. Not true. The reader needs a reason to be fascinated. An interesting world is often not reason enough. The reader could be playing video games, or watching movies, or other mediums of entertainment, all of which have the potential to be equally fascinating forms of escapism.

So then, how to keep the reader invested? Raising the stakes of your characters in the story, be it emotionally (in character-driven Literary fiction) or physically (in plot-driven commercial fiction).. Or somewhere in between. You can then, instead of simply desciribing the world for the sole purpose of describing the world (low intensity and reader involvement), use the momentum of the story as it propels the characters through the world, and describe the world as you go along, in pieces here and there, like pepper and salt added to soup.

So my recommendation is, see if there is movement in the story to gauge the intensity level of your worldly descriptions. Is the reader moving forward along with whatever is happening, or are you making the reader stand still and look around? Usually readers can only stand still for so long before they get impatient.

I've read two books recently that highlight the difference in quality when adding detail. 'Crime and Punishment' and 'Rivers of London' - the latter by Ben Arronovitch - both contain scenes which spend two pages explaining what the character does when they wake up one morning.

'Crime and Punishment' goes into detail about the character's mood, what he's thinking and feeling, and how these things affect his whole morning and what he decides to do. When I read this I can actually picture the character and his surroundings, I understand him and can empathise with him. I become completely absorbed in his world.

'Rivers of London' describes what the bedroom and shower look like, what kind of moisturiser the character uses and what he eats for breakfast, with not very much reasoning behind these things to keep the reader interested. I tend to lose patience reading all of this detail, which has no impact on the plot, and begin to lose my place on the page.

I agree with a couple of other posters above, that it's all about style and strength of writing.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Though, a safe assumption would be that if your readers are saying you could benefit from being more succint, it implies that they were not ENTHRALLED or COMPELLED. You will never see a reader complain about a story that has her at the edge of her seat, eager to find out what happens next.

This, this, this. The reason you don't care when a story meanders about for the sake of worldbuilding is because the author has drawn you into that world and made you want to learn more about it. If your story isn't succinct to your readers, it's only a problem because they want it to be succinct. You're providing details that they don't care about, because you haven't made the readers care about them. Find out how to drive the plot forward; if you have good characters (and a good plot, of course), that plot advancement will be enough to develop them. Or, alternatively, learn which details improve your world the most. How do you do this? By reading. A lot. Find out what makes you care about a plot, a character, or a setting, and then do the same in your own work.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

If your story isn't succinct to your readers, it's only a problem because they want it to be succinct. You're providing details that they don't care about, because you haven't made the readers care about them.

This is a fair point, but there are some details that readers won't care about, regardless of how well they know the character or how good the writing is. I couldn't care less whether a character prefers Cornflakes to Special K. In fact, I'm not really bothered about whether friends of mine prefer Cornflakes to Special K, so why would I care which of these a fictional character in a book prefers?

Originally Posted by yingguoren

This is a fair point, but there are some details that readers won't care about, regardless of how well they know the character or how good the writing is. I couldn't care less whether a character prefers Cornflakes to Special K. In fact, I'm not really bothered about whether friends of mine prefer Cornflakes to Special K, so why would I care which of these a fictional character in a book prefers?

You might not, but in some instances (such as short stories), that sort of thing can bring a character to life better than any backstory would.