Blogger: Rachel Kent
I read at least three proposals from potential clients every week, sometimes more. In many of these proposals, I notice common writing errors, and I’d like to point these out so you can check for them before submitting your work to editors and agents.
One mistake is overwriting. Many authors believe their writing style is what makes their project appeal to readers. This is the case within certain limits. Finding your “voice” and using it effectively is a learned skill. Below are some overwriting examples.
1) The Thesaurus: It’s a really good idea to have a thesaurus on your desk while you’re writing, but don’t overdo it.
“The whyfor for a thesaurus is to ameliorate a skald’s word stock rather than to regurgitate the same jargon.” (Or: A thesaurus is to help you come up with new words rather than using the same words over again.)
If your reader has to pull out a dictionary to figure out what you’re talking about, you’re doing it wrong. 🙂 Unusual or little-known words should be relatively discernible from the context. Plus, while readers want to understand the subject matter and to read beautiful words and phrases, if reading the book is too difficult, they’ll quit. We all want to be challenged, but we need to be built up at the same time. We want to know that we’re smart enough to read the book in our hands, or we’ll find something else that entertains and encourages us. This applies to nonfiction too. Be careful that your writing doesn’t become too technical if you are trying to write to readers who aren’t experts in the subject matter.
2) Dialect: When you use dialect in your fiction or your illustrations in your nonfiction, be careful not to overdo it. People who aren’t familiar with dialect will have a hard time understanding dialogue and the important plot elements that are revealed through the dialogue. Common dialect is okay, like ‘y’all’, as long as the use of these common words isn’t overdone. Many of us use dialect in one way or another. I know that I do; I’m a California-girl all the way. But when you’re writing, be sure that the characters are speaking clearly because there’s no way to interrupt them to ask them to repeat what they said or to explain it to us.
3) Making Things Up: Be careful of overwriting by making up words. This can be very distracting and can leave the reader with no idea what you’re trying to convey. Fantasy and sci-fi writers have to be the most careful with this because those genres give the author permission to “play” with the rules of the world. A published book that comes to mind is A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. If this book wasn’t assigned reading, very few people would ever go past the first page or two. Should a work of such genius, with similar first pages be submitted to me, I’m sorry to say that I most likely wouldn’t be the one representing it because the beginning is too confusing.
4) An Old-Fashioned Style: Writing with “old-fashioned” words and grammar can drive a reader crazy. Here’s an exaggerated example:
A young chit of one and twenty became lost on her way to the market. Her beau arrived to sup with her, but upon learning of her absence, he, distraught, sought her through the night. As dawn broke, the two were reunited in love’s true embrace.
Just tell us the story in contemporary language.
5) Overkill on the Dramatic: Don’t over-dramatize the story. You don’t have to throw every known plot device or overdone writing style into your story. Short sentences can and do create tension, but you really can have too many.
“Out the window. Black. Darkness everywhere. Lightning flashed. Blinding. Spots float. In her eyes.”
This is also a problem in nonfiction in a slightly different way. Nonfiction is often written with an agenda, to prove a point, or to promote a cause, and at times a nonfiction author can get so caught up in the cause that she overwrites. It becomes “drama” instead of a sound argument for the point he or she is trying to make.
I hope this list helps as you move forward with establishing your tone and voice.
What are some other ways projects can be overwritten? I’m sure I didn’t cover them all, and I’d love to fill out the list!
And please take a moment to try your hand out at writing a sentence like the one in the Thesaurus paragraph, the dramatic paragraph, and/or the “old-fashioned” example. It is fun!
Remembering 9/11 today!
Rachel, I’m really glad you selected this blog topic. Your point about dialect raises a question about best practice when the time and location of a novel makes the use of some non-English words very appropriate. I’ve seen the problem addressed in different ways by award-winning, top-selling authors. I’ve been wondering which approach is better in the current market since readers of historical fiction are often history buffs who are disappointed if there isn’t an accurate and detailed presentation of the period.
In Francine River’s Mark of the Lion series, many Latin terms are used and defined in a many-page glossary. More recently, Lynn Austin in her Restoration Chronicles has a short (2-page) glossary of Hebrew terms, but Tracy Higley uses only a few non-English words and leaves the reader to understand them by their context rather than providing a glossary. I’m writing historical/ historical romance set in the Roman Empire, so there are many specific and well-known (to history buffs) Latin and Hebrew terms that I could use. I can use proper terms and include a glossary for non-buffs, I can use some terms and hope they will be clear from context, or I can translate into more contemporary but less accurate English words. I’ve done a combo of the latter two, but I can change that if it would be more appropriate for the genre.
Which do you think is the better approach to appeal to the current historical or historical romance market? Would the answer be different for a historical novel and a historical romance? These novels really sit at the interface between the two genres with major plot elements not dependent on the love stories while the conclusions all show true love conquering all. Thanks for sharing your insight!
Robert Ruark used a lot of Swahili in “Something of Value”, and I don’t believe he included a glossary. He was a master of illustration through context.
* For example, a Masai named Lathela is enlisted in the campaign against the Mau Mau, who were mostly Kikuyu and a hereditary enemy of the Masai.
* In one scene, Lathela returns to camp after a raid, joyously shouting, “Mimi nataka headpiece!”, and is told by a British officer, “Put that disgusting thing down at ONCE!”
* It leaves one with no doubt of the meaning, allows one to move ahead without pause, and maintains the authenticity of tone which is one of the book’s great strengths.
I think hinting at dialect is fine. Using a couple Latin or Greek words or throwing in a y’all or some Old English. It the dialect becomes distracting for the reader, you have gone too far.
That’s why I always abbreve – its a hab – thanks RK. Now how do I simplify, Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Reminds me of a student who summarized, then summarized his summaries, until all his study notes compressed to a single long mnemonic, a word he recited ad nauseam, only to forget what it was in the heat of his exam.
~ Somewhere in my journey I used a style checking tool and it roasted me for over-complexity. I learnt to use elegance, elegantly, where a great word simply expresses it better, but as far as possible I have tried hard to simplify i.e. to say great, not astonishing, if I mean great. The checking tool tested for syllable density, length of sentences, use of the subjective tense, etc. It was a big learning. Lately I also waded through my writing to break paragraphs into shorter, more punchy content.
~ That all said, I think one of the big struggles of my life was about simplifying. I just came from a meeting that painfully reminded me that a secret of achievers in our business is simplicity – I guess that is why God sent me down this road – painful, but hopefully helpful.
~ Einstein rightly said, “Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”.
But was it not Einstein, who, with his air of debauched dishevelment and caddishly mismatched socks, foisted upon us the odious twins of Special Relativity, made evilly manifest in Time Dilation, whereby the hours spent in an in-law’s company stretches from infinite regress to a morrow whose end we shall never ken, and Length Contraction, of which, O Brother, I shall forbear to say more?
Andrew, you just need to move slower or have the in-laws lose weight.
Einstein’s law of general relativity explains how time goes slower when you move faster or when you are experiencing greater gravity by being closer to something more massive. That’s why the GPS satellites have to do relativistic time corrections every time your GPS receiver pings them. Time goes slower at the satellite than on Earth’s surface because of its high velocity and faster because gravity is less that far from the planet’s core. Net effect is +38 microseconds a day. That doesn’t sound like much, but the reading would be off by 10 kilometers a day without the correction for relativistic time dilation. That time dilation also explains why six 24-hour days can be exactly equivalent to 13.7 billion years, depending on the position of the observer with respect to the universe.
I guess if you can’t convince the in-laws to diet, you could just move farther away from them. That lowers the gravity, too. Doing it faster might even be a good thing, despite the relativistic effect.
That’s fascinating, Carol – I didn’t know the correction was so large.
* I say to one of my in-laws once…”Dude, you need to diet!” and I tapped him on the stomach. He looked down and said. “Good idea! What colour?”.
What relative are you referring to brother? Dost thou bend the bow of time and space to fit the moment when Ken, who emceed his daughter’s wedding, squared off events with a noble toast to his forebears: a lengthy tribute that was too general to be special, yet so requisite to the nucleus of the family? I know only this that any dilation was of eyes widened by the feigned attempt to stay sober and awake long enough for the said speaker to finish his speech, before both in-law and outlaw, yawned, contracted said eyes and nodded off in soft surrender to his mono tome? The emcee, though square, was by then equally at ease. (Whatever, just had to be part of the fun).
Methinks we may have attended the same wedding.
… and both still recovering … but fun had by all, relatively speaking.
🙂 Love them!
A colleague and I rewrote our hospital’s patient handbook–larger font, shorter sentences, simple words. Granted, the plot isn’t much. The highlight is the list of TV channels.
Writing it was hard work.
So…the plot sickens? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
**giggle**
I’m sure many people appreciate your efforts.
Rachel, Great topic. I love it when an author provides a glossary. I often wish pronunciation was provided for the names of important characters, especially if there are several. Lisa T Bergren’s,The Begotten series, comes to mind. It’s a pet peeve of mine to read an entire book not knowing how to truly pronounce a name.
P.S. Is there a way to access your post from last Friday?
It isn’t showing up if you scroll down? Let me see if I can find the link.
https://booksandsuch.com/blog/impress-by-doing-your-proposal-right/
Behold! A hissing Niagara of rising foam and roiling steam, dark gryes and roils, Scylla and Charybdis once more summoned forth to lay waste to this peaceful bourn, calling to mind the screams and prayers, still audible down time’s twisting and labyrinthine corridors, of the innocents who met apotheosis in the Johnstown Flood. Yes. Bubba has spilled the espresso again.
Suitably vague
Obfuscation is my forte.
🙂 This is funny! “Bubba” was perfect. But your vocabulary is just … huge. Without trying. How on earth? You always send me to the dictionary. 🙂 But I like it. 🙂
It’s one of the side-benefits of a classical education. I read a lot of Shakespeare and a lot of the great poets (which definition does NOT stretch to include Ginsberg, or any other Beat poet).
* it’s a blessing and a curse, because my fiction voice is decidedly archaic. I’ve been criticized for using language that’s technically correct but not in line with common usage…and while one is tempted to self-justification, the truth is that writing exists to serve, and a lyrically correct style may not be what’s currently wanted within a certain genre.
Should I disquiet m’self that this’n peruses right fine fer an erudite litterateur such as I?
It is actually pretty poetic!
This is a really fun post, Rachel; after a somewhat inharmonious interlude ‘twixt dusk and dawn, it challenges me to some interesting – and fun – exercise.
* The question of dialect is actually one I’m dealing with now, in my WIP “Travels With The Dude”. Being set in Viet Nam, there is a lot of ‘dialect’ that was very specific to that conflict (and a lot that’s specifically military).
* The problem as I see it is that you can neither dispose of the dialect while maintaining fidelity, nor explain it while retaining pace.
* “His DEROS was mid-February, but if the rumoured Christmas drop was real, he was really short…almost a single-digit midget, and he could almost hear the freedom bird singing.”
* I would imagine that to the casual reader this makes virtually no sense. Translated, it means “He was scheduled to leave Viet Nam in mid-February, but if the rumoured plan to send home all those with a departure date in January and February home in time for Christmas was true, then he was almost within ten days of departure, and he could almost hear the engines of the airplane that would bear him away.”
* Both say the same thing, but there’s no real way to bridge that gap, except for making the context clear.
* And then there’s the inclusion of French and Vietnamese words (in case jargon wasn’t enough). “I got eyes on beaucoup charlies didi’ing out of that ville we just zippoed!” means “I see many Viet Cong running out of the village we just set alight.”
* And then there’s radio protocol. For example, if one mishears a transmission, it’s always “Say again”, rather than “repeat”. The reason is that ‘repeat’ has a specific meaning in the control of artillery, and means ‘keep firing on the current target until we tell you to stop’. You NEVER want to make a mistake with that one. If you’re controlling the fall of shot and a marking round is short, impacting near your own position (it happens), and another transmission cuts in using ‘repeat’ rather than ‘say again’, you may shortly be in for a world of hurt.
OK, just for the fun of it, a true story…and one I’ve never shared. Consider yourselves honoured. Or something.
* When I was a teenager I could get pretentious about word use. One day I asked my first (and last) high school girlfriend if she would care to osculate, she broke my nose…hardly the expected response when one is asking for a kiss.
Pretentious … okay. That explains it all. 🙂 Did she really break your nose? I have never heard the word “osculate” … that poor girl. 🙂 You scared her.
Yep…she broke it! When one of her friends told her what the word meant, later, she tried to apologise, but couldn’t get the words out. She was laughing too hard.
* ‘Osculate’ is actually used quite a bit in science and engineering. Where two curved objects touch – say two croquet balls, touching – they form what’s called an osculating plane, the geometric ‘flat surface’ defined by their point of contact.
You meant to close her eyes and she closed yours.
True love is blindsided.
Ha ha! Love that, Peter! 🙂
My one comment about evading an old fashioned voice is to go TOO contemporary when writing historical fiction. I read a book this year called the Accidental Empress about Sisi of Austria—but the anachronistic tone of the book really set me off. I think, for historical writers, one of the added layers is trying to infuse a realistic narrative that is believable of the time period in which they write. To capture the essence of that time period. Obviously, we need not lap into “thees” and thous”, etc., but reading in the time period of which you write can help you pick up the cadence of it.
This is so true! And sometimes it can leave one with hard choices…vocabulary was very different in, say the 1940s.
* Case in point, you’d never hear “African-American” back then, and to see it in a historical instantly introduces an instant anachronism.
* It can make one feel that the writer’s really telling the story from a 21st century perspective, and that the characters are really just contemporaries introduced into a period setting.
* And this may be totally wrong; race is a hot-button, and using the words that were common currency at the time, like negro or coloured, is absolutely proscribed by the current world. And that’s where we’re selling our books, so…
I ran into this same scenario when I wrote my book review this week for the memoir “Brother to an Dragonfly,” the setting is in the South and the author, Will D. Campbell confronts the reader with the burden of race in the South in the 50s and 60s and its impact on the marginalized, the people of color. I didn’t know whether to write “black,” or people of color, like in the book (he also uses negro) or African American, using today’s language. I didn’t want to offend anyone or be inappropriate yet I wanted to be true to the book’s tone and time period. I ended up choosing “black” thinking it was more representative of the book. What would you have done?
Norma, I don’t know if this will help you, but for what it’s worth…
When we adopted our son 22 years ago, I asked a good friend at church, who is black herself, whether we should use “black” or “African-American.” She told me she liked black and her sister liked African-American. Her next comment was the most useful. “Whatever you pick, you’re going to offend someone, so just pick the one you like better and use it.” If I were in your position, I’d poll some black friends and find out what works best right now.
Andrew, My inclination would be to use the term that was of the time period but considered the least disrespectful at that time. I’d check what I used with friends of that ethnicity. If I didn’t have such a friend, I’d contact the pastor of a church with members of that ethnicity and check to see if I was making the right choice.
Norma, it’s a hard choice; in a review I think I would have done exactly what you did. ‘Black’ started to become current around WW2, though it was used less than ‘Negro’, and keeping the review in the spirit of the book, I think it’s the best choice.
* Carol, what you say makes sense; choosing the word that was in use atthe time but is the least disrespectful will hopefully offend the fewest people, but no matter what…someone’s going to take exception.
* It became relevant for me in writing a WW2 historical (thus far unpublished); the story’s about a German POW who gives his parole for the opportunity to work as a mechanic on the Navajo ‘Biz Rez’ in New Mexico. He’s escorted from the POW camp to the location by a black MP, and the choice had to reflect both American culture at the time, and the way the German would see his escort. ‘Black’ was a bit of a stretch for the German, but it’s at least plausible; in truth, he would have seen his escort as a Negro. (For what it’s worth, the plot centers around the POW having a gift for healing and raising the dead, and the problems this causes for all concerned.)
* The working title is “The last Indian War”, which raises yet another thorny question! I used the tribal name wherever possible (there are both Navajo and Apache characters), but in dialogue, particularly that spoken by a rather unpleasant redneck, I had to use both “Indian” and, unfortunately, “Injun”, because that’s how these people talked.
* One way to limit the necessary use of a ‘bad’ word is to let description and context speak wherever possible, without resorting to descriptive stereotypes. It’s quite a challenge.
* For what it may be worth, the latter method is a good way to avoid the use of profanity, even where it may be part of the expected colloquial language. Describing a character’s physical reaction to an event (to which he would have ordinarily responded with colourfully imaginative profanity) can be used as a sort of shield. If the action’s intense enough, the reader can infer the cursing that is taking place ‘off-mike’.
Yes, I agree with you! And great point.
I have a question that may pertain to overwriting the endings of novels; would love your take on this. Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of historical fiction (some based on real people), written from the first-person POV of the protagonist. The stories revolve around a critical juncture in the protagonist’s life.
I reach the end, which is usually satisfying, but then there’s an epilogue tacked on that neatly wraps up everything that happened in the lives of all the key characters. Often, these epilogues are written in an almost list-like fashion… “And eventually Daddy died. And crochety Aunt Edith died. And my younger brother died before his time…” You get my drift. These epilogues sadden me, because all the characters who played such a key role in the book are suddenly dead, and I feel as if I’ve wasted my time reading about them.
Do you consider these “telling” (as opposed to “showing”) epilogues overwriting? Are editors pressuring authors to tack them on? Or are epilogues considered a must-include aspect of a historical?
I’d be interested in Rachel’s take on this as well. I also don’t like it; it seems like ‘faux history’, a kind of pretension that’s unneeded.
* It’s done in nonfiction, of course, and has a place there in some contexts…but I’m always saddened to hear that a real ‘character’ had a less than happy life after the events described. It’s paying due respect to the reality of life, but sometimes it seems better to just let the nonfiction narrative stop when the story’s over. Nonfiction narrative is still a ‘story’; the readers’ emotional responses to the people involved are analogous to fictional characters.
Andrew,
In response to your comment about handling profanity, I remember the KJV of the Bible, where it describes when Peter realized he denied Jesus, it simply says, “He cursed”. Without going into word-by-word detail, the text gets the message across. I understand Peter’s profound passion and remorse from those two words. I don’t need to know the exact words Peter said.
Peggy, you just made me laugh out loud! I never considered Peter using language that “would make a sailor blush”, but on reflection…that’s the kind of person he was. Thank you for this!
This is an interesting question, Laura. I enjoy the “what happened to them” info at the end of movies based on real people, even though it might be sad. I haven’t run across this projecting unto death in novels yet. My suggestion would be just skip the epilogue if you don’t want to know “the rest of the story.” I don’t include such epilogues in my historical novels because the main characters are fictitious and what comes next might be the as-yet-ill-defined plot of the next novel in the series.
In my opinion, this is too much for the end of a book. I think the author should include a reader letter with a link to learn more about the historical story behind the story on the author’s website.
Love your examples, Rachel, especially the short sentences. But most of all I appreciate the reminder (in your fifth graph) of why I write: to entertain and encourage. (Which, when changed to their noun counterparts, are also good reasons for reading this blog.)
Thank you! 🙂
What a fun discussion!
I have a question: what do you think about having one character make a racist comment if another character tells him or her that’s wrong?
I’m certainly not a professional, but for what my opinion is worth, here are some thoughts. I ran into the issue in writing “The last Indian War” (unpublished atthe present time).
* I found it more useful to ‘paint the picture’ using action; my unpleasantly racist character acts in a way that shows his contempt for the Navajo, and he was countered by the protagonist. It happened thus – the acist is a white policeman, and he dismisses the testimony of the Navajo out of hand. The protagonist, though not a cop, stepped in and directly asked the Navajo witnesses to the event what had happened. The racist, being a bully, backed down at being directly contradicted.
* I originally wrote in a verbal declamation, but it felt too much like a bit of sermonizing.
* It was really a matter of context. It wouldn’t have been in keeping with the flow of the scene, and the high tensions inherent thereto, by stopping for a dialogue on the subject.
* In the most recent “Rambo” movie, which is quite good, a similar situation arises. Rambo’s boat is hired by a group of mercs to go from Thailand into Burma, to extract some captive missionaries. The head merc tells Rambo to stay with the boat, with his indigenous crewmen, saying he wants a white man there. Rambo objects to this, saying “These are my men.” The implication is that he trusts them and sees them every bit as competent as he is.
* The beauty of that scene is that it shows Rambo’s dislike of racism, and illustrates the wrongness of the concept that only a white man can be trusted, without putting in dialogue that would have been unrealistic both for the characters and the integrity of the scene’s arc.
* Another illustration can be found in Herman Wou’s “The Winds of War”. An American diplomat interred with consular staff in Italy,Leslie Slote, is told to identify the Jews in his party. His reply – “We’re all Jews here.” – shows his position within the scene’s flow.
* Hope this helped, Jan.
Guess I just renamed a prominent writer…Herman WOU? Sheesh. Obviously, it’s Wouk.
Thanks, Andrew.
Mrs. Rachel Kent,
I’ve been thinking about your article for the last few hours. As one whose work would probably be considered over-written by your standards, at least when it comes to an abundance of uncommon words, I would like to offer another perspective. I love to encounter new words and well-written, yet complex, sentences. Even as a child I found new words fascinating. I still remember the glorious day I encountered Jane Austen’s use of “supercilious”, though the literary moment occurred over 30 years ago. My enthusiasm for such encounters has never waned. If I read a sentence that requires a reach for my dictionary, my day is richer for it. Put a word in front of me that I do not know and I will obviate every impediment to discovering its meaning. While it is certainly true that my literary taste is not shared by most readers, I believe that such writing has not only merit, but a market. Fictional works by Umberto Eco and John Updike are nice examples. I recall an opening chapter in which Updike used the theological term “supralapsarianism”. (Yes, that is the correct spelling a real word! I think it was in “The Beauty of the Lilies.”). Both writers won the highest level of literary awards and their books sold in impressive numbers. I will never be an Updike or Eco or Zusak, but I do aspire to write fiction which will one day cause readers who love words to reach for a dictionary with anticipation.
My purpose in responding is that I would encourage you to be open to future authors who, for lack of a better description, “write smart.” The issue is whether the writer can be found by the right publisher and introduced to the right market of readers, which is precisely what an agent is for. I would love to see you blog someday about how one of your clients (undoubtedly not me!) is up for a National Book Award. It would be a shame for you to pass on their work as unmarketable due to a conviction that if a “reader has to pull out a dictionary to figure out what you’re talking about, you’re doing it wrong.”
The danger, of course, is that such writing can feel contrived and pretentious. As a bookseller, I’ve encountered many such books and it is distasteful and quickly discernible. It’s rather like a preacher who tries so hard to be cool and relevant that he comes off looking silly. While I’m sure you had such writing in mind when you wrote your article, I am concerned your comments reflect a predisposition to dismiss a worthy work merely because it wasn’t written for those who desire simplicity of style and substance in their fictional reading.
Finally, since I seldom offer replies to blogs I follow, let me take this moment to thank you and all the agents at Books and Such for your work. You have an important role to play in the kingdom of Jesus. May God’s peace and wisdom be with you all.
Respectfully,
D. Holcombe