# In defence of Fluff



## Gryphos (Apr 1, 2015)

_"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." — Chekhov_

Honestly, I couldn't agree less with Mr. Chekhov, and I don't care how good he's supposed to be.

This attitude I've seen in some instances when people say that everything that isn't strictly relevant to the story should be taken out. "If it doesn't serve a purpose, what's that sentence/object/event doing there?"

And to this attitude I have one thing to say: What's wrong with fluff?

I like fluff! I like having all those extra details that don't mean shit to the story, but are nice nonetheless. Case and point, in my current WIP the protagonists are on their airship flying past another, and they notice that the captain is playing the violin, doing a duet with a cellist crewmember. This leads two of them to have a conversation about music which doesn't affect the plot in any way. But I'll tell you what it does do, it builds character. Not just of the protagonists but of the world itself. In another instance it's suggested that a supporting character has a deeply traumatic past, which is perhaps linked to why he named his hawk Zoey, but that past is never revealed, and it doesn't have any effect on anything in the story.

If you think of the story as a tunnel, then by removing all meaningless events you are blocking off the other tunnels that intersect it until all you're left with is one long tunnel. Sure, it could be a very well made tunnel, with good twists and turns and a satisfying exit, but if I was driving through it (I'm still going with this metaphor), I'd be thinking "Where are all the other tunnels? Is this it? Does nothing interesting ever happen to other people in this world?"

So when I write, I like hinting at tunnels, because I feel it makes the world more real. It becomes a living, breathing world where people hang guns on the wall which never get shot.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 1, 2015)

Fluff is probably most often done with me when it comes to dialogue. I like to let people riff a while. It's more to establish character than anything else. And little details can definitely make a story pop out more. I tend to want to limit too much random stuff if possible, but I realize due to the nature of my writing it can often become that way. But I think a little extra stuff can go a long way.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 1, 2015)

I agree pretty much. I might not call it "fluff" though...
"If it doesn't serve a purpose, what's that sentence/object/event doing there?" I agree absolutely... 
The purpose of a paragraph, phrase or word does not have to be _drive-the-plot-along-like-a-runaway-horse_.
It can be there to add colour and depth to a world. 
It can build a character. 
It can even be there to misdirect the reader. 
That is what it is doing there...
For me, the problem comes when you write 5000 words and haven't done _anything_ to your story, except make it interesting for you to write. 
Hand the gun on the wall if you want, just beat them to death with a frozen leg of Lamb...


----------



## Ireth (Apr 1, 2015)

If it builds character or enhances the world, then it serves a purpose. I wouldn't call it fluff in that instance.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 1, 2015)

I suppose I should clarify. When I say 'serves a purpose' I'm more referring to serving a story purpose. Obviously I do believe that any information that adds character to the world or its inhabitants has a valuable purpose.



			
				CupofJoe said:
			
		

> For me, the problem comes when you write 5000 words and haven't done anything to your story, except make it interesting for you to write.



I would definitely agree. The story still needs to be interesting no matter what, and it can't be interesting if it doesn't move.


----------



## Devor (Apr 1, 2015)

After a great deal of soul searching on the subject, I've come to a reversal of heart and have decided that I don't like fluff.  It's just not hard to make "fluff" that's relevant for building up the story.

@Steerpike, if your fluff can be defended as "character development," it's not fluff.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 1, 2015)

I actually agree with Chekov, in a sense. My favored approach is to make the reader think something is fluff, only for it to become a plot point later on. Doesn't matter how much later. It could be later on in the book or it could be three sequels down the road, but my plan is for everything to come back. _EVERYTHING._ This is ambitious, to be sure, but it makes me feel clever, so I love it. Plus I'm the kind of person who hates loose ends. So while I can understand where Gryphos is coming from, I don't think eliminating "fluff" necessitates making your story linear, or denying depth to your world and characters. If played right, you can still have all those benefits of "fluff" while simultaneously enriching your plot and giving the reader the satisfying feeling that comes when a small detail you'd nearly forgotten transforms into something important. It makes the reader feel clever too. Things like that are fun for the writer and the reader. It's a win-win situation. Why would anyone ever _not_ do this?


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 1, 2015)

Devor said:


> After a great deal of soul searching on the subject, I've come to a reversal of heart and have decided that I don't like fluff.  It's just not hard to make "fluff" that's relevant for building up the story.
> 
> @Steerpike, if your fluff can be defended as "character development," it's not fluff.



Sometimes people may interpret it as such though if the dialogue goes on for a bit longer. They may see it as padding when it's actually a way to try to make the characters' personalities shine.


----------



## Devor (Apr 1, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Sometimes people may interpret it as such though if the dialogue goes on for a bit longer. They may see it as padding when it's actually a way to try to make the characters' personalities shine.



Fair enough.  But as an author you need to control how your reader interprets your scene.  If your story is written in a way that these scenes feel "fluffy" to many of your readers, then I think it's easy enough to go back, as an author, _and make them relevant_.

If your story has even a modicum of depth and complexity, that shouldn't be too much to ask.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 1, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> ...you can still have all those benefits of "fluff" while simultaneously enriching your plot and giving the reader the satisfying feeling that comes when a small detail you'd nearly forgotten transforms into something important. It makes the reader feel clever too. Things like that are fun for the writer and the reader. It's a win-win situation. Why would anyone ever not do this?


I agree with this.

In my view, everything in your story should serve a purpose to either plot, character, or setting. Dialogue, specifically, should either move plot or develop character. 
Anything not serving one of the functions above pulls the reader away from the story. Too many non-pertinent details add up to a confusing experience for the reader, but if you can cleverly disguise something of importance as fluff, that enhances the reader's enjoyment.

Like good foreshadowing, for example. Often good foreshadowing is disguised as fluff when it's extremely relevant.


----------



## Russ (Apr 1, 2015)

I prefer lean writing.  Everything, or almost everything should serve the purpose of the story.

Even setting should be subordinate to the larger issues.

But in the OP's example, if it builds character in a useful way, it is not fluff.

However I think one should keep it lean and keep it moving.

Death to Fluff!!!


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I suppose I should clarify. When I say 'serves a purpose' I'm more referring to serving a story purpose. Obviously I do believe that any information that adds character to the world or its inhabitants has a valuable purpose.



I think how you're interpreting what Chekov said isn't what he meant. Fleshing out characters serves a story purpose. Fleshing out the world serves a story purpose. These things create understanding in the story, which is extremely important.

For myself, how I determine what's fluff and what isn't is simple. If you remove that element from the story, does it diminish the reader's understanding, of character, of world, or of plot? If it does, then it's not fluff.

Knowing a character was bullied in school could be significant in understanding why they became a cop and why they're so tough on those who prey on the weak. But if they're a well adjusted accountant that barely even thinks about being bullied, then it's probably fluff. If they're not haunted by it or driven by it, and it's nothing more than an anecdote, then it's probably fluff.

I look at anything extraneous as a pebble. Every time something extraneous gets added to a story, a pebble gets dropped into the reader's pocket. Drop a handful of pebbles into a reader's pocket, they probably won't notice. Drop a thousand in and they won't be able to walk.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 1, 2015)

Penpilot said:
			
		

> For myself, how I determine what's fluff and what isn't is simple. If you remove that element from the story, does it diminish the reader's understanding, of character, of world, or of plot? If it does, then it's not fluff.
> 
> Knowing a character was bullied in school could be significant in understanding why they became a cop and why they're so tough on those who prey on the weak. But if they're a well adjusted accountant that barely even thinks about being bullied, then it's probably fluff. If they're not haunted by it or driven by it, and it's nothing more than an anecdote, then it's probably fluff.



Okay, this definition of fluff I can agree with.

Say in a story the MC finds a room at an inn called 'Onion-brother's Wrath', and the author spends a few sentences describing the unusual sign outside the pub which depicts an onion-headed warrior leaping off a cliff with a greatsword. And then the MC wonders whether there's a story behind it, but it doesn't ever come up again in the plot, or really illustrate anything about the world, and doesn't even motivate or affect the MC in any way. Is that fluff?

Perhaps. But if it is, I like it. This is definitely personal taste, but if I were reading something like this I would smile, because it hints at another story, and hence makes the world seem just a little bit more real. This is one of those branching tunnels I talked about in the OP.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Say in a story the MC finds a room at an inn called 'Onion-brother's Wrath', and the author spends a few sentences describing the unusual sign outside the pub which depicts an onion-headed warrior leaping off a cliff with a greatsword. And then the MC wonders whether there's a story behind it, but it doesn't ever come up again in the plot, or really illustrate anything about the world, and doesn't even motivate or affect the MC in any way. Is that fluff?


That depends. Does the character's musings give the reader any indication on the way he thinks, where he comes from, anything like that?

If yes, then it's not fluff.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 1, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That depends. Does the character's musings give the reader any indication on the way he thinks, where he comes from, anything like that?
> 
> If yes, then it's not fluff.



Let's say for the sake of argument that it doesn't. It's literally just a single sentence saying something like "I wondered if there was a story behind it."


----------



## Conan (Apr 1, 2015)

Russ said:


> Death to Fluff!!!



Crom approves!


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Let's say for the sake of argument that it doesn't. It's literally just a single sentence saying something like "I wondered if there was a story behind it."



I think there's a fine line here. The logo description invokes a feel for the inn to go along with what ever else they see when they go inside. It's an expansion of the world. In this instance, anything beyond a brief description IMHO treads into extraneous territory.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Apr 1, 2015)

LOL- yes! 

I really enjoy Victorian literature. I tend to be lean on dialogue but thick with the setting & everything else. I've been working on making everything more direct and less wordy but (to some extent) I like a certain amount of fluff in my books (in both reading and writing). I also prefer a passive voice and an abundance of exposition (since this trio are now on the list of no-no's for modern authors, it's difficult for me to find contemporary Lit that I enjoy). 

I wonder what Charles Dickens would say about that quote... probably something wordy 

If you only keep the essentials you have little more than an outline. 

I think the trick is finding the delicate balance and sticking to it.  

Long live the fluff!


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 1, 2015)

I enjoy teh Fluff.

Part of my motivation for writing is to provide _a pleasant escapist reading experience._ I want to create a rich and believable world that the reader would wish they could come visit. To achieve this I'll have to add quite a bit of fluff. However, I also have to be careful not to overdo it or the reader will lose their sense of purpose with the story. The story is what keeps the reader reading, but the setting and the characters are what they'll remember once they're done reading.

So I try not to add too much explanations about things that aren't relevant to the story. Those things just happen like they're natural occurrences. When fluff related things come up in conversation, the characters will for the most part not _explain_ them to the reader, but instead just talk about them as if they're everyday things everyone knows about. 
The reader may pick up on what it's about, or they may not. If it's not relevant to the story I won't spend time explaining what it is. Some readers may piece together some sort of explanation, while others may not. It's not going to matter for their understanding of the story, but it'll give the world a sense of mystery and life that a detailed explanation of some alien concept won't.


----------



## acapes (Apr 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> _"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." — Chekhov_.



Chapter 2 or 3 seems a bit prescriptive - give me until chapter 10 at least will you, Chekhov? Geez.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 1, 2015)

acapes said:


> Chapter 2 or 3 seems a bit prescriptive - give me until chapter 10 at least will you, Chekhov? Geez.



I've got three guns in the second or third chapter. One of them gets taken down in the 11th chapter, and the remaining two are left hanging.

Edit: this is one of the things I'm considering changing for the next draft, but I'm waiting on reader feedback for it.


----------



## acapes (Apr 1, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> I've got three guns in the second or third chapter. One of them gets taken down in the 11th chapter, and the remaining two are left hanging.
> 
> Edit: this is one of the things I'm considering changing for the next draft, but I'm waiting on reader feedback for it.



I reckon you'd be fine  For me, chapter 2 or 3 feels quite arbitrary - even hyperbolic in order to make his point, you know?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 1, 2015)

Yeah, I don't remember which of the chapters the "guns" are in. In the original version I didn't have any guns at all and the end result was that the test readers didn't have a clue what the story would be about until they'd gone very far into it. I don't think most casual readers would have gotten that far without me asking for feedback.
There are a few less obvious guns in the first chapter - more like hunting trophies than actual guns really.


----------



## Devor (Apr 1, 2015)

acapes said:


> I reckon you'd be fine  For me, chapter 2 or 3 feels quite arbitrary - even hyperbolic in order to make his point, you know?



It is.  Chekhov's original quote refers to acts in a play.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 1, 2015)

I'm working on hanging a "gun" in chapter 4 of a fanfic I'm working on. ^^ It's going to be fired a fair few times before the end of the story.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 1, 2015)

acapes said:


> I reckon you'd be fine  For me, chapter 2 or 3 feels quite arbitrary - even hyperbolic in order to make his point, you know?



Yes and no. To me it's just about if you introduce an element as important by spending significant story time one it, then it should prove significant later on in the story.

But I also think that there's another point to be made, sometimes authors introduce a mystery early on in the story, and they keep that mystery for a big reveal that they keep delaying until really late in the book. They think it's going to be this hug bomb dropped into the story, but it turns out to be a firecracker.

You could take the chapter 2 or 3 detail as knowing when to pay off something, and knowing the story should be paying things off on a regular basis. Keeping all the mysteries till the end results in a readers giving up and readers being disappointed because the reveal wasn't worth the wait. It's one of the reasons I gave up on the TV show Lost.


----------



## cupiscent (Apr 1, 2015)

There's nothing wrong with fluff. It can be fun. But I'm of the belief that the writing is stronger if every scene - even every word - adds to the piece, whether by furthering plot, character, world or theme. Even stronger still if it builds more than one element. Discussions about music that show character are great. Discussions about music that show character and are later revealed to have plot-critical information? Even better! The more you layer into your scenes, the better, imho.

I'm also a big believer in the inversion of Chekov's gun: if a gun goes off in act 3, we'd better have seen it in act 1! (For fluid values of "gun" - sometimes the important thing is not the weapon itself, but the capacity for violence within the character who fires it.)


----------



## skip.knox (Apr 1, 2015)

This feels like a non-issue to me. One man's fluff is another man's colorful background. I can barely make it through Dickens, yet I enjoy Thomas Mann. Go figure. Or, to take another example, few would accuse Ian Fleming of writing fluff, but some of his books have whole pages of meaningless technical background or side-tracks. Some of them are quite revealing (James Bond contemplating how precarious is an airplane ride) while others are just irksome. For a third example, how about our revered JRRT and his poems? My brain glazes over and my eyes slide right down the page. If it's important, the next lines of dialog will pick it up. Fluff? Or brilliance? Potato, potato.

The only time I'll object is if someone comes along claiming there's such a thing as Universal Fluff. Nope.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 2, 2015)

> This feels like a non-issue to me. One man's fluff is another man's colorful background. I can barely make it through Dickens, yet I enjoy Thomas Mann. Go figure. Or, to take another example, few would accuse Ian Fleming of writing fluff, but some of his books have whole pages of meaningless technical background or side-tracks. Some of them are quite revealing (James Bond contemplating how precarious is an airplane ride) while others are just irksome. For a third example, how about our revered JRRT and his poems? My brain glazes over and my eyes slide right down the page. If it's important, the next lines of dialog will pick it up. Fluff? Or brilliance? Potato, potato.



I too thought of Tolkien and LOTR when reading this thread.  Foundational fantasy work, introducing more than a few themes now considered 'stock,' yet by modern standards, lots of 'fluff' as well.  

What I have to watch in my own writing is the wide blurry line between necessary and unnecessary world building.  The more worldbuilding I include, the fluffier it gets and the more obscured the story becomes.


----------



## Hainted (Apr 2, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> _"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." — Chekhov_



First off, Mister Chekhov needs to concentrate on his duties as navigator and leave the writing to professionals.

Secondly, I like the loose ends and fluff as it adds a certain unpredictability to the story. Isn't that better than reaching the climax of the book and having the readers think "Why doesn't he check the phone he found on page 2? I'm sure it not only has the nuclear launch codes on it, but it's also conveniently open to a webpage that will walk him through every step of the launch sequence."


----------



## ChasingSuns (Apr 2, 2015)

Personally I don't mind fluff when building character, driving the plot, or even building the setting. Some fluff when describing a particular setting can (at times) help paint a beautiful picture. But yeah, as long as it serves some sort of purpose, then it's awesome. If not, then it should probably be cut out. At least, that's how I personally see it


----------



## acapes (Apr 3, 2015)

Devor said:


> It is.  Chekhov's original quote refers to acts in a play.



Exactly! Which is why we have to be careful, as writers, to be critical of the advice we find. I do personally like the general thought behind it though


----------



## acapes (Apr 3, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Yes and no. To me it's just about if you introduce an element as important by spending significant story time one it, then it should prove significant later on in the story.
> 
> But I also think that there's another point to be made, sometimes authors introduce a mystery early on in the story, and they keep that mystery for a big reveal that they keep delaying until really late in the book. They think it's going to be this hug bomb dropped into the story, but it turns out to be a firecracker.
> 
> You could take the chapter 2 or 3 detail as knowing when to pay off something, and knowing the story should be paying things off on a regular basis. Keeping all the mysteries till the end results in a readers giving up and readers being disappointed because the reveal wasn't worth the wait. It's one of the reasons I gave up on the TV show Lost.



Good point, and I agree re: _Lost_ for me, it's easily up there with some of the worst writing I've ever seen on TV - so much potential squandered. Production pressures perhaps?


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 3, 2015)

acapes said:


> Good point, and I agree re: _Lost_ for me, it's easily up there with some of the worst writing I've ever seen on TV - so much potential squandered. Production pressures perhaps?



My impression was the show hit big and the writers hadn't plan ahead, so they really didn't know how to pay things off. They just kept introducing more mysteries. Now, I've only watch about a season and a bit, so my opinion only applies to that.


----------



## Hainted (Apr 3, 2015)

Some of the writers have admitted to having no plans for Lost. Others say there was a plan and they followed it. To me the most telling quote came from Lindelhof in an Entertainment Weekly article about the shows biggest moments. Talking about the pilot scene of Jack standing up and asking "Where are we?" he said:

"I panicked, because I suddenly realized we were going to have to answer that question one day."


----------



## spectre (Apr 4, 2015)

I agree with you, I have yet to read a story where there isn't a decent amount of fluff and info dump. I thoroughly enjoy it, and when it get's old I've trained my brain to read it at the speed of light and move on to the next point in the plot. I'm not going to cut out the fluff because it helps show the environment, simple objects create sensational cues, and it's a way of making readers feel as though they are in a real place as real as their kitchen.


----------



## acapes (Apr 4, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> My impression was the show hit big and the writers hadn't plan ahead, so they really didn't know how to pay things off. They just kept introducing more mysteries. Now, I've only watch about a season and a bit, so my opinion only applies to that.



That sounds right to me yeah - and I know I gave up around s3 due to that very issue.




Hainted said:


> Some of the writers have admitted to having no plans for Lost. Others say there was a plan and they followed it. To me the most telling quote came from Lindelhof in an Entertainment Weekly article about the shows biggest moments. Talking about the pilot scene of Jack standing up and asking "Where are we?" he said:
> 
> "I panicked, because I suddenly realized we were going to have to answer that question one day."




Wow, that certainly puts it into perspective, thanks Hainted 

I don't mind a show or film that makes things up as they go - sometimes - _Casablanca_ worked well


----------

