Tag Archives: line edits

Fix-It Friday: Fixing overstuffed sentences

Two weeks ago, we looked at a couple overstuffed sentences—sentences where I was putting too much information in, and tripping up my readers. fifI learned my lesson about overstuffed sentences from editor & RITA-award winning author Alicia Rasley, when she line edited four sentences for me (emphasis added):

Don’t make your reader work so hard to figure out what you’re getting at. Try writing it plainly first, to make sure you’re getting it across, then embellish. But really, I think you’re trying to do too much for one paragraph. This might not have bothered me in two paragraphs or three, if you took your time and really explored what was happening . . . . If that’s too attenuated, see what’s important to keep and make sure everything is clear.

As I’ve said before, sentences should work hard for us as writers and serve several purposes. But there’s a limit to how much you can pack into a sentence or paragraph and still be intelligible to readers.

Another really important point here is that dense (= packed) writing isn’t always better. Sometimes it makes the reader feel dense (= stupid). If something is really important to the story action or the character, often that weight should be matched by the amount of real estate that event gets.

Or as Alicia put it,

If it’s worth stating, . . . it’s worth developing or exemplifying or showing. . . .

I know I’m always saying, “Take it slow.” But don’t try to compress too much.

So, how should we fix our examples from last week?

#1: blow up the emotion

How must the buildings that were so familiar she hardly noticed them look to Father O’Leary? Three years ago, she compared the Gothic chapel, its stone façade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn, to her parents’ church in city center. At the time, St. Adelaide seemed a suburban oasis; three weeks ago she was disabused of that notion.

“I’m sure it’ll get to feelin’ like home soon enough,” she murmured.

Along with other excellent feedback from editors Alicia & Theresa and other commentators, the passage in question eventually grew—the first paragraph (three sentences) expanded into three paragraphs (eight sentences):

He scanned the whole scene, as if surveying the squat brick school, the rectory, the Gothic chapel’s stone façade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn. The dismay in his expression dissolved with his satisfied nod. St. Adelaide must seem like a suburban oasis to him.

Three weeks ago, Molly had been disabused of that notion. Now the idyllic scene carried a sinister undertone so strong she couldn’t bear to look at it anymore. She hadn’t even noticed when the maples turned red.

Father O’Leary sighed and looked to her. How could she tell him the truth and shatter his illusion? “It’ll get to feelin’ like home soon enough,” she murmured.

I agreed that this event was important enough to give it more real estate in the book—but it’s not like I devoted an entire chapter to this. Just a few more sentences here made the passage clearer and gave it greater emotional impact.

Note that I decided the reference to the past (three years ago) was not actually worth including, since it distracted from the present—it wasn’t important enough to explore, and thus it probably wasn’t important enough to include.

But you don’t always have to blow it up quite that much. Sometimes, breaking up the action and simply fixing the sequencing is enough.

#2: sequencing and clarity

This is an actual sentence from the first draft of my WIP:

I slip onto the back porch, but the door latch I’m expecting to hear behind me doesn’t come by the time I reach the stairs.

My problems with this:

  • Awkward wording, especially “the door latch I’m expecting to hear behind me doesn’t come”
  • Is the door latch an object? “I’m expecting to” doesn’t tell us right away
  • Most of all, the sequencing is all over the place. She leaves, we don’t see her shutting the door, there’s a sound (or object?), she’s expecting the sound—oh, wait, there’s no sound, stairs?
  • Seriously, where did these stairs come from?

Here’s how I actually fixed it:

I slip onto the back porch, letting the door swing shut behind me. But by the time I reach the stairs down to the yard, the door still hasn’t latched.

The ideas are all still there, but now I’m explaining what happens in order, without skipping steps. She goes onto the porch and shuts the door. She reaches the stairs (which go somewhere that makes sense now) and realizes the door hasn’t latched. Voilà.

And the word count difference? Five words.

Neither of these are going to win a Pulitzer 😉 but perhaps the serviceable lines should be even more smooth to keep your reader moving on to the big stuff, right?

Onward!

#3: breathing room

Those fears and feelings, raw and vulnerable, echoing through me, must be why I finally have to pull back to wipe away my tears.

Also a line from my WIP, this is just a few paragraphs after the above. Kind of a lot to digest all at once, isn’t it?

Again, the change is really simple here, and right to the point: that’s just too much for one little sentence to handle, so we make it two. My fix:

Those fears and feelings, raw and vulnerable, echo through me. Finally I have to pull back to wipe away my tears.

Is it less powerful as two sentences? I don’t think so. In fact, there are some things I like about it better. Instead of stuffing everything into one thought (for what reason?), we give the two important thoughts there a little more room to breathe. It gives each of them a little more time to make an impact.

Oh, and the word difference? -3.

What do you think? Have you found any overstuffed sentences in your writing? How do you fix them? Come share!

Photo credits: tools—HomeSpot HQ; overstuffed beef ravioli—George Hatcher

Fix-it Friday: Overstuffed sentences

Line-editing is now part of editing my book Fix-It Fridays!

fifWay back in our Secret Sauce Series, we talked about overstuffed sentencessentences where we’re trying too hard to appear writerly, putting too much information, being entirely too clever, and just generally confounding our readers.

Once upon a time, I must have held a subconscious belief that a “real” writer made their sentences work two and three times as hard. That’s probably true in a way—each action of a story, each scene and maybe each sentence can accomplish more than one thing.

But instead, I took that to mean that the more complex a sentence, the better. But that’s simply not the case. Yes, sentences should work hard for us as writers and serve several purposes. But there’s a limit to how much you can pack into a sentence or paragraph and still be intelligible to readers.

Here are a couple such overweighted sentences from my own works:

#1 (the passage that taught me this lesson!)

How must the buildings that were so familiar she hardly noticed them look to Father O’Leary? Three years ago, she compared the Gothic chapel, its stone façade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn, to her parents’ church in city center. At the time, St. Adelaide seemed a suburban oasis; three weeks ago she was disabused of that notion.

“I’m sure it’ll get to feelin’ like home soon enough,” she murmured.

And #2

I slip onto the back porch, but the door latch I’m expecting to hear behind me doesn’t come by the time I reach the stairs.

And #3

Those fears and feelings, raw and vulnerable, echoing through me, must be why I finally have to pull back to wipe away my tears.

Next time (Sept 13 27!), I’ll share how I fixed them—but first, what would you do? Come share!

Photo by HomeSpot HQ

Julie Coulter Bellon’s Secret Sauce: The CLAW (and self-editing)

by Julie Coulter Bellon

Julie Coulter BellonMy secret sauce in making the leap to being a published author was learning how to be a better self-editor.  I think when you know the areas to look for that are your personal weaknesses as a writer, you can better learn the craft to make that your strength.

Here is my personal self-editing checklist.

First I do the CLAW  

I start with the easy stuff because it makes me feel good to check it off.

Check for basic editing errors like:

  • Page numbering and blank pages
  • Too many adjectives or adverbs:  “It was a beautiful sunny June day and the lush, emerald green grass reflected the bright yellow sunlight and hurt my eyes.  Or, “She desperately wanted to kiss him passionately.”
  • Tense consistency and subject/verb agreement:  “He couldn’t believe that his boss had fired him over a typographical error. He is a great worker and always turns in his projects on time.”  Subject/verb agreement, “He run to the store.”
  • Clichés: “She’ll come crawling back to me.”  “He couldn’t beat around the bush any longer.”
  • Repetitious descriptions:  Weave in your first descriptions and make them powerful enough that you don’t have to beat your reader over the head with more.
  • Favorite words: “really”  “just”  “some”  “that”
  • Too many dialogue tags or weird tags:   James laughed at her pain. “Don’t bother trying to get away,” he replied.  We don’t need the replied because we know it’s James talking.  And use “said,” in most instances because when you try to get fancy “he pontificated,” or “she remonstrated,” it can take the reader out of the story.
  • Chapter or POV breaks.  Double check that those are correct and done.

Let someone else read it that will give me good feedback.  Not my mother or grandma, but someone who will be honest and somewhat brutal.

Always print it out and read a hard copy.  Mistakes will jump out at me that way.  Sometimes putting it into a different font can also be helpful in spotting mistakes.

Walk-away for a few hours, days or weeks and come back with fresh eyes.  I’ve created something and I need a bit of time to enjoy that, but I keep thinking about it, and when I come back to it, I’m ready to make the changes I need to.  Anything that doesn’t advance the story must be cut out, even if it’s my favorite part.

So, now I’ve done the basic CLAW checklist, then I send it out to beta readers for some feedback.  But I don’t wait around for them to get back to me.  While they have it, I print it out myself and read it front to back for any other little changes I might want to make.  Once that’s done, I’m ready for the second round of self-editing.

My second round of self-editing is where I go through that hard copy and look for specific problem areas.  (For some reason I see mistakes better on a hard copy.  It can be done on the computer as well. Maybe I’m just getting old, or my old journalism habits are coming through!)

(Also, I know I’ve seen a lot of these areas on Jordan’s previous secret sauce blog entries and I have to say I’ve learned a lot from them and for my next book I can delve even deeper into some of these.)  Here’s my specific list for the second round.

Second Round of Self-Editing—The Editor’s Checklist

  1. Show don’t tell—show us what your character is experiencing in that moment.  What does he/she hear, feel, or smell?  Let the reader be in the moment with them.
  2. Passive voice—the lady is being kissed by a masked man.  The masked man is kissing the lady.”  Keep it active and concentrate on the action.
  3. POV shifts—usually one POV per scene
  4. Chapter hooks, beginning and end.  Make the reader want to keep on turning pages.
  5. Does each character have a motivation?
  6. Is the setting done well?  Does it contribute to the piece?
  7. Is the story timeline consistent?
  8. Does the conflict keep the tension throughout the story?
  9. Do you have a natural flow—nothing contrived?
  10. Is there a balance of narrative, action, and dialogue?

This round takes a bit more time, but it is totally worth it when I catch mistakes like my character having blue eyes in chapter one that magically change to brown eyes in chapter fifteen.  Going through the manuscript ten times looking for specific issues like the ones above has saved me so many times.  (That’s why I can never show people my first or even fifth drafts!  You would laugh.)  Also, by the time you’re done going through it so many times you’re going to hate your manuscript and that’s always a good sign that it’s close to being finished!

Which leads me to the last round of self-edits—the big picture issues.

Do You Know Your Big Picture Problem Areas? 

(If you find problems here, you will bang your head against the wall for a while trying to fix it, but make no mistake, you will be glad you fixed it at this stage instead of when a reader/editor/agent tells you.)  (See what I did there? Make no mistake? Haha)

Characterization—Are we privy to the main character’s thoughts, or do we only skim his/her surface? Is this a character we simply witness, or a character we understand deeply?

Plot—Is your plot contrived or unbelievable?  Do you know the end and work toward a satisfying conclusion with no dangling loose ends or unnecessary beats?  Are there elements of truth in it that readers can relate to?

Continuity—Are your characters consistent throughout with no name changes, eye color changes or backstory inconsistencies?  Is your timeline appropriate? Are settings and events consistent?

Details—Do you have a hard time finding balance and detail people to death?  Are you focusing on the small picture or keeping an eye on the big picture?

Once that is all done, there’s just one more step.

Now What? Change Hats Once More

Take off your editor’s hat and put on your writing hat again. Make the necessary changes from what you saw in your piece on your three editing rounds.  Drown the piece in red ink and bring it back to life with new words and ideas.  Make it flow.

I know it’s hard sometimes, but enjoy the journey of revision.  Rewriting can be rejuvenating and breathe new life into your characters.  Don’t be discouraged.  This is your opportunity to make the story shine and bring your ideas to life. One of my favorite quotes is by Arthur Polotnik.

You write to communicate to the hearts and minds of others what’s burning inside you. And we edit to let the fire show through the smoke.”  Arthur Polotnik

Let your fire show so your readers can experience your story the way you saw it in your head.

The more you learn about yourself as a writer, the better able you are to self-edit and really improve in your craft.  Of course this is one of the first steps in your journey to publishing and doesn’t substitute for a critique group and a professional edit, but once you are this far, your piece is polished enough to go on in the process.

About the Author

Julie Coulter Bellon is the mom of eight children and the author of nine books. She balances being a mom with being a writer and an avid reader. She blogs at LDS Writer Mom. Her latest release is Ashes Ashes.

Sophia Naziri is wanted for questioning in the murder of a U.S. senator. She’s worried the police will show up on her doorstep any moment, but when Detective Colby Black appears, it’s to help her put out a kitchen fire, not take her in. Yet. His easy smile and persistence in getting to know her pushes all her troubles to the back of her mind, until a hit man tracks her down. Getting arrested becomes the least of her worries and the handsome detective could be her only way out—if she tells him the truth.

Colby Black’s sniper skills have been a blessing and a curse to him. As a member of a Hostage Negotiation Team, he can use them to save people, but sometimes he can’t protect the innocent despite his best efforts. When a hostage situation goes bad, he tries to put it behind him by helping out his mysterious next-door neighbor, Sophia Naziri. But she pulls Colby into a web of lies and conspiracy that will force him to use every skill he has in order to survive. Faced with the moment of truth, can he trust anyone around him—including the woman at the center of it all?

It was really, just so—should you cut them all out?

Late last year, I was doing a quick/final once-over of a manuscript. I decided to see how many times I used “just.” The answer was around 300, or about once per page. I went through most of the manuscript and cut out about 90 of them.

Proud of myself for making that effort, I tweeted about it (naturally). An author friend responded that she had cut 242 justs from her manuscript the week before. (Granted, she was editing one of her early manuscripts, so I have no idea how many she started with.)

I had a momentary panic. Yes, this manuscript had been accepted for publication already, but did I need to delete the rest of my justs?

And justs are just one of this variety of word that pretty much everyone uses—and overuses—because it’s so common in speech. But in most writing, these words are pretty empty, almost like throat clearing. (I’ve committed a few of these “sins” in here. Catch them?) A few favorites:

  • just
  • really
  • very
  • pretty (as an adverb)
  • so
  • actually
  • finally
  • certainly
  • about
  • suddenly
  • almost
  • definitely
  • even
  • probably
  • slightly
  • sort of
  • kind of
  • around

But if they’re so awfully awful, why don’t we just cut all of them all out? It would certainly be even easier that way (though there would be a number of really odd gaps leftover). Or, conversely, do we argue that we want our writing to reflect how people really speak?

I think the answer is somewhere in between. As Arthur Plotnik says in Spunk & Bite,

Just because intensifiers course through informal speech, must we also use them in journalism and literature? Not necessarily—but we certainly can use them in situations where they feel natural, or communicate a particular tone. At the very least, we should not hamstring our writing styles trying to replace each intensifier with a more powerful locution. (123)

What does that mean? Don’t solve underwriting by overwriting every use. Because how is that any better?

So what should we do? Honestly, I’m not going to say you have to eliminate 50% of all your intensifiers (or de-intensifiers as the case may be). I do think we should be aware of how often we use them—so pull out the Find function and get a count. (In Word 2007 and up, if you Highlight All or use the Reading Highlight function, it gives you a count. Select Whole Words Only, though! Just != justice, justified, etc. etc.)

If the count is fairly high—let’s say one use for every two pages (or more frequently)—start at the beginning and check out how you used it. Take the word out of the sentence. It will probably may lose a shade of meaning—but is that meaning really necessary? Does it actually change the sense of the sentence or even the voice in a bad way? If not, finally cut it.

Editor Alicia Rasley gives more guidelines in an edittorrent post that has stuck with me for almost 3 years:

Of course, sometimes it works to over-modify (especially for comic effect). But this is something to watch for. “An inch below the bottom of her skirt” is a good description. “A little bit more than an inch” makes me envision some nun with a ruler measuring the space. Precision is actually distracting sometimes.

And especially watch out for redundancy. Mountains are high, but some are higher than others, so maybe we will allow “high mountains” (I did grow up in a valley below some not very high mountains, I guess– 3000-4000 feet, so I’d allow “high mountains” if you’re talking about the Rockies, say). But “toweringly high?” Come on.

But if the specific meaning is necessary, if the sense of the sentence is damaged or if the voice breaks because you took the word out, leave it in. If the modifier you’re checking is vital to most of the occurrences you find, use your judgment about whether you need to check the rest. Yep, you can stop. You have my permission.

What do you think? When do you take out intensifiers—and when do you leave them in?

Picture credits: Edit Ruthlessly by Dan Patterson; ruthless editing by Joanna Penn