Insights To Make Your Writing Better

[KillerJoe]

Telling writers how to write is ludicrous. Following formulas only makes for formulaic writing. The following are simply a few insights that I've gleaned over the course of years that seem to have resulted in more of my writing getting published. They may or may not be beneficial to you. Take it as unsolicited advice. And we all know what that's worth. If you do find any of them interesting and would like to know more, let me know. I'll add context if you happen to find them potentially interesting but less than self explanatory.

1. Write what you like to read.
2. Take editors advice with the proverbial grain of salt.
3. Remember that writing is an art, not a science.
4. Make whatever you write sound true.
5. Find your own voice.
6. Write like you speak.
7. Have an attitude.
8. Learn from the dead.
9. Seek out the living.
10. Keep a well furnished mind.

[bluemel4]

All good advice. I take issue with number six. Writing like you speak does not come off very well. Spoken language and written language operate with a different set of rules and for clarity sake using your everyday common speech may lead to many misunderstands.

[KillerJoe]

Issues are the spice of life. And yours is good and tasty. These are general guidelines to be sure. The reference to writing as you speak was made primarily to influence readers who want to be writers but feel that they have to take some artificially literate tone of voice to be successful. Knowing who you are and "being yourself" is often a good thing to do both in life and in literature. But I certainly take your point.

[moderntimes]

Killer, those guidelines are great! If you're the author then you need to find an outlet for an accompanying essay and sell it. If you've borrowed the list, you need to add the source. Sorry.

Writing is both an art and a science. The "science" part is the skill and incentive to ensure that there are zero typos and other mechanical errors.

Re. editors' advice, when my 2 novels were purchased and professionally edited, I received some great feedback from the editors, and I took their advice about 2/3 of the time, the other 1/3 I stuck with what I'd previously written. And they never forced me to change anything (after all typos and other errors were fixed of course). And my magazine articles/essays and short stories the same -- my various editors (I've sold to regional mags, horror, mainstream, arts, sports, and guns would you believe) -- all these editors spotted my goofs and helped my writing improve.

I don't know what your personal experience has been with editors however, likely different from what you say -- maybe you'll share a horror story or two?

Writing how I speak? Not true if you're writing fiction. You have to create character-specific dialogue and write as that person would speak, not yourself. I've read newbie writers whose dialogues all sound the same -- the same sentence length, the same literary level, the same word choice, etc. Boooooring.

[KillerJoe]

All good points. Lists are like most things in life. You have to take what's useful to you, and jettison the rest. I do find that they often generate good conversations though, like this one.

Quick editor story. I was told by one editor that he didn't want to publish a short story I had written because it had a surprise ending. All professional short stories, said he, have an ending that is foretold. It must end a certain way based on what has come before in the tale. Another editor, the editor who published the same story, commented that one of the things he particularly liked about it was the surprise ending. To each his own.

Certainly agree with you that the voice of any character must be true to the character. My point was aimed more at getting people to trust their own instincts...but, as you rightly point out...be willing to take good advice when it's presented. Thanks for your input.

[teacher_jane1]

Robert Frost certainly agreed with #6 above--he believed that nothing should be written if it hadn't been said before. He made a few exceptions for things that could easily be said. That's why his poetry is so effortlessly readable. But he was able to use his particular voice, built on the voices of the people he'd listened to carefully, to write unparalleled American poetry. So I agree, KillerJoe!

[KillerJoe]

Frost's work is indeed a timeless reminder to make the most of one's own individuality. A valuable lesson from a vaunted teacher. Thanks for the thought.

[moderntimes]

Not because of a surprise ending? Duh. I guess the editor never heard of O Henry.

Lordy, many of my short stories (published, meaning they paid me) have surprise endings. That what most short stories are about.

[KillerJoe]

That's why I made the point about editors. Like most people. Many of them are as different as night and day. What is good to one can be bad to another. Just because they've become editors, doesn't make them infallible. Take away basic grammar and punctuation, and virtually all attitudes about writing become subjective. Actually, you can even do away with the punctuation. Cormac McCarthy did in a couple of his novels. And one would be hard pressed to say he's been less than successful. Opinions, as they say, are like certain body parts. Everyone has them. That's why helps make the world go round, I guess.

[Lilly11]

thanks

[zeldas_lullaby]

I can't write the way I speak because I have some sort of cognitive issue in which I cut the sentence off halfway through and can't remember the noun I wanted.

"Do you mind leaning over so I can get my--" and then I just stop talking, and I have to think really hard if I want to finish the sentence. Anyways, I get what you mean. I do actually write the way I speak in my head.

Learn from the dead--I love that!!

[moderntimes]

So, KillerJoe, your personal experience with editors when your stories or novels were published is interesting in the summary. And quite different from my own experience.

Would you please relate to us some of the problems that you've had with editors yourself?

Of course there are line edits, content edits, and "style" edits, all of which have their own sorts of special requirements. Did you have trouble with the line editors, such as punctuation or grammar? Or was it the content or style editors who may have complained about how your writing needed changes beyond the mechanical stuff, toward how a conversation was structured stylistically, or how a particular plot point was dealt with?

Please tell us specifically the problems (and good stuff) you've PERSONALLY experienced with editors. Thanks in advance.

For those unfamiliar with the terms, a copy edit checks for mechanical errors, such as punctuation or spelling, no evaluation for how the story is plotted or how the characters speak. It's a pure check for typos. When your book is purchased by a publisher, it first goes through the copy edit.

Next, the book is edited for content, with attention to the larger aspects. For example, did you insult a real person by name? Did you speak very harshly against a real enterprise such as a store or restaurant chain? Did you quote copyrighted material (song lyrics too)? These are legally vetted and checked. And another check might be for conflicts, such as the bad guy driving a blue Buick and in the next chapter, he's driving a red Ford.

The next content edit is critical and is usually performed by a senior editor. The book's style is reviewed, things like dialogue being coherent, descriptions that make sense, themes developed well, plot lines that don't conflict, style in general.

Most of the time, mechanical errors, legal problems, and plot conflicts are required to be changed. Killer mentions Cormac McCarthy's special typography for quotes but McCarthy uses a European style and he is consistent throughout. And let's face it -- if you're a well known author, you can get a pass on things, whereas newer and less known writers (me) are required to stick to standard rules per the Chicago Manual of Style (usually that's the standard).

Whereas, stylistic and plot themes, how characters speak, how the story itself is dealt with, those things aren't requisite. These items are usually reviewed by a senior editor, who emails you questions like "In chapter 25, you have Mickey slapping Minnie. Are you certain that you want Mickey to behave that way?" And so on. You tell why you want to do this.

When my novels were professionally edited after purchase by the publisher, mechanical errors were required to be changed. But stylistic questions, such as Mickey's behavior, are a back and forth with the editor. Most of the suggestions I received were good ones, and I ended up tweaking my story in about 2/3 of the places where the editor recommended. In about 1/3 I said "No thanks" and kept it as is. At NO TIME was I required to make these stylistic revisions -- only mechanical errors.

I've had the same experience when my short stories and magazine articles were edited prior to publication. Understand, this was for my writing that was purchased (for real money).

Myself, I've had no real problems with editors regarding my own writing that was purchased and professionally published.

I'm guessing that Killer had different experiences with his (her?) own professionally published writing, with various editors. I'm looking forward to hearing those stories. Thanks again.

[jen_the_hen]

Number six for me is a big part of my writing, I feel like without my own language usage and phrases, my writing wouldn't be nearly as realistic or relatable.

[KillerJoe]

Good thought. Often the truer we are to ourselves, the more others relate to us. Authenticity and individuality is something every writer has the opportunity to bring to the table. Don't devalue it.

[moderntimes]

Possibly a good help, jen, but you have to learn to speak in different voices and write varying dialogue for each character, rarely using your own personal narrative voice. Each principal character has his/her own vocabulary, sentence structure, and uses varied words. Some use lots of slang, some don't. Some may use obscenity occasionally. And of course different characters speak depending on their relative education, and occasionally using bad grammar.

What you must avoid however is trying to write in dialect. This simply isn't used in modern writing these days and rightly so. Dialect is hard to read and is usually presented in a very demeaning way, such as trying to make the character have a chopped and tongue-tied style that was once used to depict Chinese.

I recently reviewed a book in which one of the homicide investigators is an African-American woman, and every sentence she spoke was gutter-level "Ebonics" like "he be a bad dude" or "we be happy now" and I was highly irritated, the author implying that an experieced and likely college-educated professional would speak that way except for a joke. And yeah I said so in the review.

If your character, for example, is Irish, then just mention (if you wish) that her voice is rich with an Irish brogue and let it be. Don't try to create Irish dialect in the character's dialogue. It comes over flat and sounds contrived (which it is).

Each of your characters also thinks differently. If for example you're writing a police procedural where a group of robbery cops are discussing a case, not only does each of then speak in a unique style, using slang or not, short vs long sentences, and shows a varied level of education and mastery of English, but each THINKS differently and so one cop may focus on the "street level" clues while a more urbane cop might consider clues that are more high-level.

This is darn hard to do, believe me, but when you have this skill developed, your character dialogues will sing.