Write To Write » style

The wonderful wizard of was

neil — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:47:38 +0000

There are a multitude of texts covering self editing, but few extend their landing struts and come right down to earth with simple, practical techniques. Here is one very simple technique to give your writing more punch.

I regularly read about the danger of too frequent use of passive language in writing. We use passive language extensively in everyday speech as it dampens the danger of sounding aggressive. In dramatic prose, this style is fatal.

During those moments of full flow, instinctive writing, I tend to get overly passive, even in the heat of the action. That is just fine, as the writing is in the editing. Returning to the text months later, I discovered a copious splattering of passive verbs; time to dust off the scythe and and scrub the text into

Some examples

Spotting active and passive verbs is relatively straightforward. Here is an couple of examples:

Brian was offering his hand in greeting. [passive]
Brian offered his hand in greeting. [active]

The key to spotting the passive verb is, in most cases, the use of “was”. This led me to a straightforward method of activating my passive texts.

Kill the was

I searched for every instance of “was” throughout my text, each time reworking the sentence to remove it. Sometimes a simple matter of removing the “was” and changing its associated verb, other times a more colourful word replaced it.

Is it really that simple? Yes. Though some sentences will be tougher than others to adjust, I managed to remove the majority of “wases” which resulted in a far snappier and active form of writing.

Here are some genuine examples from my texts (I really don’t need to tell you which are passive, do I?):

The opportunity to move was approaching
The opportunity to move approached

The sound was echoing as though behind it there was a vast, empty cavern
The sound echoed as though behind it stretched a vast, empty cavern

Jack was beaming from ear to ear
Jack beamed from ear to ear

It seems obvious, doesn’t it? But when wrapped up in the editing process, trying to remember all the advice on what one should and should not do, simple, straightforward techniques such as this cut through the waffle and achieve marked improvements.

On writing style and the troubling flourish

neil — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:48:29 +0000

One of my major stumbling blocks in quenching my creative writing thirst has been style. Not only has it taken years to come to terms with my personal style, it has also been a journey to understanding how style can affect the worlds we create in words. But a deliberate choice of style has its pitfalls.

TableRappers is set in the Edwardian period, starting in 1903. Even during early development I found adding a little Edwardian flourish to the text helped the general ambiance of the story. My confidence in this grew after reading G.W. Dahlquist’s The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters – a novel set in a pseudo-Victorian age, with a narrative very much styled in the colourful language of the time. When reading that book, I realised writing style and setting can be made to enhance one another.

After over 80,000 words of my first novel now complete, this colourful, style has become almost second nature and has made the process of writing the story much easier. Long, run-on sentences, indulgent metaphors, and often less than concise descriptions help to solidify the setting, while sending the more modern, tightened rules of concise writing off on a long deserved holiday in the sun. It is a fun way to write and offers a playground with few boundaries.

Here comes the ‘but’… I am far too accustomed to it.

I have other books I want to write that are most certainly not set in the same period. The available time aside, the one psychological obstacle I have in preventing me making a solid start on one of those projects is the difficulty in switching to a more modern and concise writing style. I’ve tried it, and it’s downright painful.

Here’s hoping I can un-learn the Edwardian flourish so I’ll not have to set everything in 1903!

Tags: edwardian, style, TableRappers, Writing

Two ambitious writers, two different products

neil — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:30:22 +0000

There are two ambitious, inexperienced, but capable writers under this roof. Each has their own projects, and each project is so very different in style, scope, and planned result.

Traveling in the car a few weeks ago, jEN and I got talking about our individual writing projects. The discussion mainly centred about how different our methodologies, motivation, and plans are for the end results of our labours.

TableRappers was created from the start to have a very broad appeal. The word ‘romp’ is often used to describe its pace and there is little about that one might get away with describing as ‘literary’. The story is an adventure, designed – and written – to entertain. It is the kind of book you can pick up a dip into when you have time, on your commute into work, whatever. It does not command masses of attention and will never win literary prizes. It is specifically designed to tick off all of the above boxes.

The model for the whole TableRappers series is, you may be surprised to learn, based on Bernard Cornwell’s Sharp books – an extremely popular series of novels based in the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th Century (several were made into a television series starring Sean Bean). Although I enjoy the stories (more through the television series than the books, I have to admit to only having read one), I am not a Cornwell fan – merely an admirer inspired by how he created the Sharp series (I suppose one might say franchise).

My writing style is, of course, very different, but it is the way in which these books follow a continuing story that appealed to me as inspiration on how to handle TableRappers. I am about half way through the second draft of book one right now, book two is planned (and the prelude written, as is books three. How many books in total? As many as I can write for as long as people want to read them. There is an almost endless stream of ideas ready and waiting and the toughest part will be finding the time to write them all.

Could this be quantity over quality?

In a way, perhaps yes. I have no real urge to write the next great literary classic. What I am trying to do is entertain and create something people will grow fond of and look forward to the next installment.

I feel there are only two measures of success for a book: does the finished result achieve the aims of the author; and does the book appeal to a larger percentage of its target audience. Success is not in absolute numbers of sales, or the money earned from them, but in the achievement of the goal in creating the right product for the right market.

The other side of the fence

I suspect there will be some who believe writing should be a purely creative exercise and feel strategic creation of a product dilutes the end result.

It is true, ultimately, we must write for the greater part for ourselves. Writing is a painful and laborious pursuit. Can you imagine the added pain to spend those hundreds of writing hours in a setting, with characters, in a style you simply loathe? That is creative suicide. From the beginning I set out under the notion that to spend this much time over multiple stories with the same settings and characters, I better create something I would be interested in reading. I do not believe a writer can fool their reader into believing they have a passion for something they do not. Read any of the Cornwell books and you will understand immediately his passion for the big battles of the era.

I doubt very much I will ever write a book – for there are more than the TableRappers up my sleeve – that will be considered literary, and I am very comfortable with it.