Writing Book Review: The Artful Edit by Susan Bell

The Artful Edit: On the practice of editing yourself ©2007 by Susan Bell

To date, the best book on editing, and maybe the art and craft of writing, I’ve read.

Strengths:

• Not pedantic – stresses that each writer will need to find what works for her
• Lays out techniques, provides examples and studies
• Discusses general editing concepts (macro vs micro editing) and offers a “Diagnostic Checklist” for each

Weaknesses:

• Some writers will find Bell’s discussion too vague desiring more tips, tricks, and secrets than this generalized discussion of what one should be thinking about when self-editing (or even editing another’s work)
• The final two (of five) chapters are interesting though the least useful

Bottom Line:

• Absolutely worth checking out from your local library
• Consider purchasing a copy, new for under $15 or used for under $5

Reaction: 
Bell’s style is approachable and relatable: it’s easy for a writer/reader to say, “Okay, this is what I need to be doing when I’m editing my own work.” She also goes a step farther and suggests that if one method isn’t working, here are (about) eleven others to try. And while the final two chapters provided less ‘usable’ insight for me, others will find value in a look at how a sound editor or other writers work through the editing process.

The most important take away is writers need a systematic approach to viewing their work and engaging in the editing process. Unless one is willing to pay for extensive editing – almost wrote expensive editing, a useful Freudian slip – authors must edit their own work well. There is too much competition for space for that short story and novel. Even if the publisher is still paying for editorial services, it is likely that much less attention will be given your piece than in the past. [Interesting note: this is the gist of the final chapter, so maybe it’s more ‘useful’ than I’ve lead you to believe.] Simply put: if they like your work but it needs extensive editing before publication it’s just that much easier to give it a pass. Learning how to self-edit is as crucial as knowing when to show and when to tell.

So what’s the difference between a macro and micro edit you asked? A macro-edit is the big picture. In Bell’s words: “Intention, Character, Structure, Foreshadowing, Theme, and Continuity of tone. A micro-edit looks at the detail: “Language, Repetition, Redundancy, Clarity, Authenticity, Continuity, Show and tell, Beginnings/endings/transitions”. That’s an outline of the meaty middle of her text. Her first chapter, “Gaining Perspective” offers eleven methods one can use – mix and match to suit your needs and tastes.

Writing Book Review: Immediate Fiction by Jerry Cleaver

Immediate Fiction: A Complete Writing Course
by Jerry Cleaver

Strengths:

• Offers a complete, easy-to-follow methodology for writing a story that will probably sell – from first page to publication.
• Offers a plan for fitting writing into your busy lifestyle (Ch 12)
• Examines why writers get blocked and what to do about it (Ch 15)
• Includes plenty of exercises to get you writing and thinking about how to write

Weaknesses:

• Some will find the author’s style objectionable for whatever personal reason – too this, not enough of that, whatever
• He may say your sacred writing ritual is bunk – though he regularly says something to the effect, but if it works for you, keep doing it
• An over-emphasis on amping up the drama creates fiction I find uninteresting

Bottom Line:

• Check this one out from your library and see if it/he speaks to you
• Buy a used copy online if you don’t have access to a good used bookstore
• I’d pay no more than $5.00 for a copy

Reaction:
Overall I thought this was a worthwhile read (from the library). Will see if I say, “Gosh, really need a copy to go through the chapter on overcoming writer’s block.” Or maybe something else. I did write down his basic formula (get the book if you want to know what it is) to keep what I’d call his Five Elements of a Successful Story (again, read the book, it applies to everything: short story, novella, novel, play, screenplay, graphic novel, etc) front and center and made some notes – other titles and a couple websites. So that was useful.

Okay, so one of the elements is conflict, but you already guessed that. Here’s my take, my words, of what he’s telling us to do: Don’t just have your character lose his job. Have his boss fire him. And while you’re at it, don’t just have the boss say, “Joe, we need to make some cutbacks. Sorry to see you go…” NO! We need to really pile it on. So not only does Joe’s boss get all nasty, “I’m firing your worthless butt and reporting you to the state regulator for gross misconduct so you’ll never work again.” THEN the mean old boss will conspire with another employee to file a sexual harassment suit against poor Joe AND, just in case that isn’t quite enough drama and conflict for Joe to overcome, let’s go ahead and fill his computer with child porn and call the cops.

Poor Joe!

UGH! Poor reader. When I see this sort of stuff – in print, online, on TV, at the movies – I lose interest and quick. It goes beyond realistic and believable. Maybe that’s enjoyable for others – it clearly sells – maybe you like a movie where A-list stars are dealing with this kind of stuff, but my eyes glaze over and I’m glad I got the DVD from library.

If nothing else, after reading Immediate Fiction I knew what I hate about modern entertainment and what I want to do different. Sure, we still need to connect with characters through showing and emotion. Stories still need conflict and the characters taking action to deal with the conflict – protagonists will fight to overcome; you know what antagonists will be doing. But I yearn for believable characters facing real-life situations. No, not the babysitter bailing at the last minute before the best friend’s wedding – wait, that’s not entirely a bad premise – but definitely not catching the spouse in bed with the babysitter, going medieval on everyone in the county, and then eating the bride for dinner. That’s a bit much.

Unless horror’s your genre.

Showing

Every writer has loathed the phrase "show don't tell" at some point in developing the craft. It can be one of the harder skills to master - but it takes so long to show something when I can just tell the reader what's happening. True.

Writers need to balance many things, and yes, moving the story along is one of those things. Just don't do it at the expense of your reader's connection with the story nor insult their intelligence. Show them the world and what's happening in it. Let them decide what it means. That's the way I like to think about showing instead of telling.

I really like this quote from Immediate Fiction: A Complete Writing Course by Jerry Cleaver:

Showing: Are the characters acting and talking as much as possible? Are you creating a moment-by-moment, word-for-word experience that's happening right before our eyes with no general statements or summaries? Showing means we always have something we can picture in our mind. It's visual and almost always scene with dialogue.

What can be simpler than that? I mean, in terms of understanding what we need to be doing in our fiction.

Writing assists

Over at Westside Writers I've added a couple posts of interest to fellow writers:

Trying to find the right word for a sound?

All About Verb Tenses

Punctuation. Rules. Creativity.

As a member of a writing critique group for three years, we often find ourselves, both as a group and as individuals, wrestling with the rules of writing: syntax, construction, and especially punctuation. When does it make sense to follow a given set of rules? Which rule set? Is English grammar really that fixed? And aren't these rules the very things sheltering real writers from the barbarians at the gate - u no wut i meen HMU l8tr

One of the many things I'm 'currently reading' (see my Goodreads page) is Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf. Imagine my inward chuckle when I thought about the group critiquing this passage from Mrs. Dalloway:

“Fear no more,” said Clarissa. Fear no more the heat o’ the sun; for the shock of Lady Bruton asking Richard to lunch without her made the moment in which she had stood shiver, as a plant on the river-bed feels the shock of a passing oar and shivers: so she rocked: so she shivered.

First off, I was simply struck by the imagery used in the language. It is clear, easy to understand and visualize, vibrant. But look at how the paragraph is punctuated, with semi-colons and colons, and, more importantly to one engaged in editing, a single sentence with not just one but TWO colons! Oh my. Oh my my. Where is my red pen?

Does it not work? Is it simply old-fashioned (now)? Or did Virginia Woolf understand the use of a colon and use it masterfully? And what about "made the moment...shiver"? Moments can shiver? Oh, and there is that use of 'her': while we understand it to refer to Clarissa, the object of the clause, the only female proper name used in the sentence is "Lady Bruton."

Hmm. Hmmmmm. What comments would I write on Virginia's submission if she were a member of our little critique circle and she was working on Mrs. Dalloway? What suggestions would you make? And no, you can't say "I'd make no comments since the paragraph is simply perfect as it is," since 'no one' writes like this today. [Just an aside - ran across this blog post a couple days ago and have never really thought about cubism's influence on literature.]

Get your own copy of Mrs. Dalloway at Amazon. Or you can read it online or download a free copy of the ebook from ebooks@Adelaide.

Punctuating Cumulative and Compound Adjective Phrases

Or: Do I really need that sodding benighted comma?

Many writers have stressed over how many commas are needed in something like the following from this week's episode of Perfect (which I will publish shortly):

She opened the thick, dark brown, recycled plastic frames and placed them on top of her head.

My critique partner Vanessa, shared a link from Grammar Girl with me since she felt I should/could punctuate that sentence differently. If she was punctuating the sentence, she might do it differently. However I chose to leave it as you see it.

Why?

Because what I'm really trying to say is:

She opened the recycled plastic frames that were also thick and dark brown...

So why not use "thick, dark brown, recycled, plastic frames"?

Much like dark is meant to tell us about the shade of brown (not dark frames), recycled tells us about the kind of plastic. These frames were not actually reused, but made from recycled plastic. Wow! So much information can be understood by simply using a piece of punctuation. Isn't grammar fun?!?

Here's an excerpt from my email to Vanessa on the subject of punctuating Cumulative and Compound Adjectives

I had started removing them [commas] figuring they were yet another thing to go out of favor in the recent past (like the sodding adverb), so I started pulling them out just for fun and since I hate any extra commas! I ... However, I tend to prefer Truss' explanation from Eats, Shoots & Leaves (pp 86-7 in my copy)

In a list of adjectives, again the rule is that you use a comma where an and would be appropriate - where the modifying words are all modifying the same thing to the same degree:

    It was a dark, stormy night.    (The night was dark and stormy)    [clipping second example] 

But you do NOT use a comma for:

    It was an endangered white rhino.
    [clipping again]    

This is because ... the adjectives do their jobs in joyful combination; they are not intended as a list. The rhino isn't endangered and white.

[My apologies to my readers and beloved Ms Truss for the improper indentation and spacing in the above examples, but wysiNOTwyg editors are a pain in my arse and I'm tired of fighting with Blogger's code! You probably get the idea though.]

And clearly, at some point, we as writers have to decide what the group of words mean. I often use the independence test.

    It was a dark night.
    It was a stormy night.

But while
    It was an endangered rhino.
    It was a white rhino.

both work as independent sentences, they tell more as a single whole. However, this isn't the best example since there are actually no white rhinos, no off-white rhinos, no eggshell rhinos. (And yes, I can tell you the derivation of the misnomer 'white rhino' if you are really interested.) White rhino is actually the common name of the animal, like Thomson's gazelle or Asian elephant or great white shark. But if I write, "the great, white whale," you'll probably think "Hey, that's Moby Dick" even though "it was white and great whale" doesn't make quite as much sense. However:

    It was a white whale.
    It was a great whale.

Makes sense just fine, right?

Happy punctuating!

A little more about Episode Fourteen ♦ Discomfort

All writers, all artists, like to experiment with their craft. I am no exception. However, when we drift into new or unknown territory, we may often be left with feelings of uncertainty or even displeasure.

Such was my experience with this episode. While I liked the general idea enough to write it, I wasn't quite sure it worked. I had a range of reactions from my critique partners. Some really didn't like it at all, others clearly got it and had fun with the new characters. What do you think of this episode?

While I don't usually comment on an episode, especially when it's first published, this time is different. The preference is to the let the work stand (or not) on it's own merits. I'm reluctant to tamper with that, but readers need to feel certain that, like all my writing, I'm careful in my choices and there are reasons behind everything in my work. This episode is no exception.

It was fun to play with the concept of having a single character talk through an entire episode. But more than talk, this is no lecture. He just goes on and on and on and on. We've all met people like him and while no single individual in my world has been Matt -- other than maybe the author -- we've all had encounters like this where strangers just keep talking. And then there's the TMI...

The other thing I find quite interesting is readers' reaction to the idea that George might be flirting with Matt in front of Anita and Parker. This online lookup of the verb "flirt" in the Oxford Dictionary of American English reveals the following:

flirtverb1 [no object] behave as though attracted to or trying to attract someone, but for amusement rather than with serious intentions:it amused him to flirt with her

• (flirt with) experiment with or show a superficial interest in (an idea, activity, or movement) without committing oneself to it seriously:  a painter who had flirted briefly with Cubism

• (flirt with) deliberately expose oneself to (danger or difficulty): the need of some individuals to flirt with death

Maybe in my world, flirting with someone isn't quite the same as coming on to someone. And yes, I know that for many couples, even looking at another will be the cause of long, protracted argument. But it's still fun to see the strong emotions this one word (out of almost 1900) elicits from readers.

Is George a bad person? Is Anita overreacting to George's apparent interest in Matt? Is George simply excited to be around a couple of gay guys? Really, that's for you to decide because once George left my mind and entered the ether, he lives and acts in your mind as much as anyone else's. Including mine. But I get to enjoy deciding what happens to him next!

Cue wicked laugh and video of author rubbing his hands together.