Comments on: Craft–Nitty Gritty

By: Jorrie Spencer » Tuesday links: Deep Genre

Jorrie Spencer » Tuesday links: Deep Genre — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:31:54 +0000

[...] Sherwood Smith talks craft here and here. These are various ways we accidentally smear the picture weâ€™re trying to build, or blip the reader out of the story while she tries to figure out what we meant. [...]

By: Sherwood Smith

Sherwood Smith — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:57:50 +0000

But it’s not poetic. It was indeed many years ago when it wa s first used, and it was effective then. But it’s been overused now for so many decades–at least a century–that it’s just a cliche.

Of course there is no harm in cliches. like I said, they serve as quick signposts, but I still believe that to be memorable and effective, your prose needs to be fresh. And that takes some work.

YMMV, of course.

By: Douglas Blaine

Douglas Blaine — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:51:16 +0000

Smiles do not play about lips (what, pinochle? Badminton, maybe?)

Cliche aside, isn’t something like this just poetic prose meant to characterize the tone or the emotion of a scene? And shouldn’t that be allowed?

What’s the revision for that, “Her lips formed a 27% complete smile.”?

By: Sherwood Smith

Sherwood Smith — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:05:11 +0000

Precise, yes. Even if it isn’t always wildly original–if everything is alien so the reader has no touchstones from which to derive meaning, you might be voted the most original writer, but I suspect you lessen your readership.

Being precise, though, is a great goal. And it’s hard work!

By: Harry Connolly

Harry Connolly — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:27:47 +0000

Great post. I think descriptions that are used over and over by different people lose their precision. They don’t work as well for this particular character in this situation because the reader has seen the phrase in so many places.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that revision is about being as precise and original as possible.

By: Kate Elliott

Kate Elliott — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:46:48 +0000

I hope that you will devote a post to repeated parallel actions that should be subsequent.

By: RedMolly

RedMolly — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:39:50 +0000

Wonderful insight and advice–thanks, Sherwood!

By: Carol Berg

Carol Berg — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:29:46 +0000

…but I keep using that stupid subordinate clause that is a trap for the unwary.

Expecially the unwary who are striving for variety in sentence structure and a harmonious flow!

One important reminder about revision, especially for those who see “revision” as a dirty word. Revision does not dilute or dull what passion and vision have laid down, but rather enhances, clarifies, and reveals the writer’s art.

Carol

By: Sherwood Smith

Sherwood Smith — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:26:01 +0000

Yep. Sigh. I’m going over a piece right now that I’d thought reasonably shipshape, and I’m finding godawful errors and bad prose choices all over the place.

The worst so far is repeated parallel actions that should be subsequent, but I keep using that stupid subordinate clause that is a trap for the unwary. ARGH!

By: Carol Berg

Carol Berg — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:05:32 +0000

I have a critique partner who was convinced that I disagreed with her comments, because she kept finding the same things in my early drafts. I tell her that I have certain blind spots, and though I CAN learn, I DO keep making some of the same mistakes over and over and over again. And I DO appreciate her pointing them out.

Carol