Do you ever...

[Twook00]

... catch yourself adding words to a sentence simply because they sound like they should go there? As if without them, the rhythm will be off and the sentence won't read right?

I do this a lot in my writing. I'll add an adverb or noun not because it enhances the story, but because I don't like the way the sentence sounds without it. It usually comes across as redundant to other readers though so I know it shouldn't go there.

Does that make sense?

 

[BWFoster78]

Mainly, I vary sentence structure if the rhythm seems off.

It seems to me, though, that rhythm is highly subjective. Something that sounds off to me one day can seem perfectly fine the next. I prefer keeping my writing tight to bowing to the dictates of rhythm.

 

[CupofJoe]

Yes it does makes sense if not something I do myself, not often do I add words to make a sentence feel right, weighed in the mouth for the number of beats or some inner pulse; my failure is that I do like a good run on sentence and will sometimes find that I have written half a page without a full-stop; not that that is a bad thing in it's self but it can seem remarkable opaque to readers and makes almost anything read like it was written in the early part of the nineteenth century as by an Austin or Thackeray or still further back to Swift, yet still I find myself adding sub-clause after semicolon to get to the end of what I want to say without a break as if there is some internal narrative being spewed out in a single breath, that if not completed, will lead to the ultimate demise of my musings.
Then I go back.
And chop the hell out of it.

 

[MadMadys]

I can't say that I have, at least in the manner which you described.

I typically write everything I can then trim what I can until what is left is simply what's needed.

Now I will say I have a very well conceived (at least in my own mind) way in which dialogue flows. I aim to create conversations that feel natural, have a flow, a beat, that sort of thing. Some words or phrases can cause unintended breaks or rapids that come off shaky or clunky. In that sense, I do try to work sentences just the write way so they 'work'.

 

[Twook00]

Interesting. Rhythm plays a huge role in my writing, although it's rarely helpful. In fact it makes things very time consuming for me as I get stuck searching for words with a certain sound to them. It's not intentional and I usually don't know I'm doing it.

 

[BWFoster78]

Interesting. Rhythm plays a huge role in my writing, although it's rarely helpful. In fact it makes things very time consuming for me as I get stuck searching for words with a certain sound to them. It's not intentional and I usually don't know I'm doing it.

To each his own, but, to me, the meaning, connotation, and emotional tone the word sets is so much more important than its "rhythm."

 

[Twook00]

To each his own, but, to me, the meaning, connotation, and emotional tone the word sets is so much more important than its "rhythm."

Exactly. Which is why I need to break this habit.

 

[MadMadys]

To each his own, but, to me, the meaning, connotation, and emotional tone the word sets is so much more important than its "rhythm."

Not trying to argue- I agree that to every writer their own style- but "rhythm" in storytelling, good storytelling, happens without you even knowing it. You can have meaning in your words, properly framed and described, but if it reads like a clunky, pieced together hodge-podge then all those words don't really mean a thing.

For me, the rhythm refers to the whole being greater than the parts. If something reads well then I'll get all the meaning, connotation and emotion the author intended. Having chunks of well written text that don't sew together is just as bad as using the wrong words. Like I'm reading a screenplay rather than a novel.

 

[BWFoster78]

Not trying to argue

Not a problem. I actually enjoy arguing

You can have meaning in your words, properly framed and described, but if it reads like a clunky, pieced together hodge-podge then all those words don't really mean a thing.

It seems to come down to a personal preference, doesn't it? Which is more important to you: how the words are put together or what the words mean?

For me, rhythm is subjective, and stressing over it isn't efficient use of your time. I read all my stuff out loud. If I feel something sounds off, I tweak it until it works, but I'm unlikely to change a particular word because of how it sounds in the sentence if I like its meaning and emotional tone.

In your style of writing, rhythm may be of vital importance. In mine, it's a minor consideration. If it's not going to pull a reader out of the story, I simply don't care.

To each his own.

 

[MadMadys]

To each his own.

That's where we'll always end up!

I suppose I have just read enough works that could be broken down as such: description, description, dialogue, dialogue, action, dialogue, description, and so on. Piece meal writing where you could probably turn it all into a giant Madlib and write all sorts of stories.

I feel as if this occurs when people focus on checking all the boxes of "writing a novel" with no concern of how it looks when you take a step back. Sure, it all "works" and someone reading it wouldn't say it was bad but it hardly ever inspires, either.

I'm speaking generally, of course, and with a bit of whimsy. It's just a personal view that too many stories are just feel mechanical rather than organic. Rhythm helps a story feel more natural, relatable, and just just to read. Again, just my opinion on the matter.

 

[BWFoster78]

That's where we'll always end up!

I suppose I have just read enough works that could be broken down as such: description, description, dialogue, dialogue, action, dialogue, description, and so on. Piece meal writing where you could probably turn it all into a giant Madlib and write all sorts of stories.

I feel as if this occurs when people focus on checking all the boxes of "writing a novel" with no concern of how it looks when you take a step back. Sure, it all "works" and someone reading it wouldn't say it was bad but it hardly ever inspires, either.

I'm speaking generally, of course, and with a bit of whimsy. It's just a personal view that too many stories are just feel mechanical rather than organic. Rhythm helps a story feel more natural, relatable, and just just to read. Again, just my opinion on the matter.

It sounds like you have a radically different idea of what makes a story good than I do.

"Organic" construction? The order of of dialogue, action, and description?

I don't really care. To me, the important thing is that the scene is clear and presents the information in a logical manner.

The emotion and the characters are far more important to me than the construction of the scenes.

 

[MadMadys]

I don't really care. To me, the important thing is that the scene is clear and presents the information in a logical manner.

Not so radically different as you may assume.

I think we like the same things just the delivery system might vary. Thinking that I don't care about the emotion or clarity of a scene is reaching a bit. I concern myself with all the same things you do and I also think about how it is given to the reader. Just another step in writing rather than a totally different way of doing things, may be another way of looking at it.

The emotion and the characters are far more important to me than the construction of the scenes.

Well my view of it says they're one and the same. If a dialogue is poorly strung together then you aren't getting emotions across to the reader anyway.

All and all though, enjoying the discussion!

 

[Twook00]

Rhythm, when done intentionally, can be very effective. I read a lot of short fiction that make good use of it but I feel it's something few people can do well. In my case, my own internal rhythm is involuntary and happens to be working against me.

I think I'll go re-read Elements of Style now...

 

[BWFoster78]

Not so radically different as you may assume.

Probably not. Whenever I hear the word "organic," I kinda cringe.

Thinking that I don't care about the emotion or clarity of a scene is reaching a bit. I concern myself with all the same things you do and I also think about how it is given to the reader. Just another step in writing rather than a totally different way of doing things, may be another way of looking at it.

I think I meant to imply that, and this is the way I took your comments, you place rhythm above clarity, not that you don't care about it at all.

For me, there are just so many things to consider in writing, and, beyond making sure your text isn't so clunky that it's a distraction, I'm not sure trying to attain some kind of rhythm is worth the effort. Finding the correct word is already extremely difficult. Ideally, you want it to:

convey the exact connotation required
present the action of the story clearly
set the right emotional tone

Considering, on top of all that, how it fits into some kind of sentence rhythm makes my head hurt.

Well my view of it says they're one and the same. If a dialogue is poorly strung together then you aren't getting emotions across to the reader anyway.

Maybe we're discussing degree, here. If the writing is so clunky that it distracts, I agree. You can pretty much achieve that by getting rid of the clutter and varying your sentence structure. After that, I don't think that the vast majority of readers are going to notice your efforts.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I'm a fan of rhythm. I think it sets a great writer apart from a good one.

Anyone can write a sort of screenplay novel, "And then this happens, and then he responds, and he sees THIS, and says THIS..."

When you can vary your writing style, it's just another tool in the toolbox of great writers. Remember also, that rhythm is not only for poetic descriptions and detailing emotions... It also is used to heighten the reader's experience in tense scenes. If you want to show a character taking time to answer an uncomfortable question, by writing a little more into the next sentence rather than simply blurting his response, it allows the reader that moment to see his hesitation. I'm a big old fan of this sort of pacing, and I do it a lot in my novels. By that same token, rapid-fire dialogue creates a different feel, and it's important to do both. The way you structure your sentences, is like how you hold a paint brush or how you strum guitar strings. It reads (sometimes imperceptibly) better to the reader, because you are making a conscious decision to pace in real time. At least, that's what I do. Hope that sheds a little more light on the positives of occasional rhythm selectiveness.

 

[BWFoster78]

When you can vary your writing style, it's just another tool in the toolbox of great writers. Remember also, that rhythm is not only for poetic descriptions and detailing emotions... It also is used to heighten the reader's experience in tense scenes. If you want to show a character taking time to answer an uncomfortable question, by writing a little more into the next sentence rather than simply blurting his response, it allows the reader that moment to see his hesitation. I'm a big old fan of this sort of pacing, and I do it a lot in my novels. By that same token, rapid-fire dialogue creates a different feel, and it's important to do both. The way you structure your sentences, is like how you hold a paint brush or how you strum guitar strings. It reads (sometimes imperceptibly) better to the reader, because you are making a conscious decision to pace in real time. At least, that's what I do. Hope that sheds a little more light on the positives of occasional rhythm selectiveness.

What you're describing here, I would define mostly as pacing, which I agree is an important consideration.

I understood the topic at hand to be about varying specific words based on how they fit the "rhythm" of the sentence.

 

[MadMadys]

I think I meant to imply that, and this is the way I took your comments, you place rhythm above clarity, not that you don't care about it at all.

As I said, we're really not all that different at this. We're just approaching it from different angles. You assume I think of things like an order of operations, a sort of PEMDAS of writing, where you move along from point to point. I'm sure there are those, going by how you look at it that you are one, that do this. This isn't a wrong way to do things at all. But what I have been saying is that the downside of focusing on all the construction is you make a story that is serviceable if nothing else. Not saying it happens all the time, but it is a fault of that way of approaching things.

Likewise, a pitfall of making things just "sound good" is that's all they are; easy reading tripe. The ideal thing if, of course, a combination of the two.

Going back to my order of operations point, I think clarity and rhythm are basically the same thing. You may see them as two completely different attributes but I wouldn't agree. You leave rhythm (starting to get annoyed by that word, heh) out and you get what I referred to before as a Madlib novel. Swap dragons for elves, mystical key for mystical doodad, or quirky, pixie-like female lead for quirky, brooding female and you've got yourself a story. You read it. You finish it. That's that. Nothing special and nothin too bad. Like the uncanny valley of writing. It looks right, for the most part, but it's just missing something.

This leads well into...

After that, I don't think that the vast majority of readers are going to notice your efforts.

If it is done properly, they won't notice it. It isn't something you quantify like, "Well, I have 15 descriptions of character's eyes in here. That'll do for characterization today" but more like something you feel when you get to the end of a really good book. You can't put your finger on it but you just read the thing in one night because you couldn't put it down. One chapter flowed to another and by the time you were done it's 5 AM. That is what I'm talking about.

It's the difference, on a more general scale, between reading a good novel and an encyclopedia. A book should have me entertained and hooked whereas the latter should never have me clamoring to know what comes after "Alexander Graham Bell."

 

[BWFoster78]

You assume I think of things like an order of operations

Truthfully, at this point, I beginning to think that I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You lost me.

I think clarity and rhythm are basically the same thing.

I define clarity as: the reader easily being able to figure out what is happening in the story. The author is getting the point across. How do you define it?

It's the difference, on a more general scale, between reading a good novel and an encyclopedia.

I think that, if I at all understand what you're talking about, we disagree greatly about the importance.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Back to the OP. Yes I do this. But I do it because it feels right, sounds right to me. And I've been accused of having long, run on sentences. But at the end of the day you've got to figure out who you're writing for.

For my stuff my sister (would be editor) is constantly telling me to cut sentences. She wants the action to flow more quickly, and I understand that. But while I do sometimes listen, I don't always because often I wrote a sentence a certain way simply because it sounded right to me. And I actually like that longer paced much more descriptive narrative. And I enjoy playing around with language to, reversing word orders etc.

So do I? - Yes. Should I? - I'm not sure. It's all part of a writer finding his voice.

My thought is write it how it feels / sounds best to you first. Then edit, and see if you can stomach all the changes simply so others will find the book more accessible. Editing is a compromise, but writing should never be. Besides, unless you're completely individualistic some will recognise and welcome what you write.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Twook00]

I love a good debate.