My Editing List

[Ravana]

Step 3: Read your story backward, one paragraph at a time. No, I'm not kidding. It's amazing what you'll catch by not reading it forward—in particular, you're more likely to notice when something is out of sequence. But even more basic items such as grammar and spelling will pop out better if you aren't caught up in the flow of the story, and are working with a background mental picture of what you know is supposed to be there. (In fact, the best way to catch spelling is to read backward one word at a time. Well, the second best way: the best—for catching anything—is to have someone else read it.)

Another technique I've had recommended, though rarely used (some may wish it otherwise… ), is to cross out every other word, then go back and re-insert only those words needed to make what's left grammatical. It isn't the most fun thing to do, but you can learn a lot about your writing that way.

 

[Zophos]

Zophos,

I've heard it said many times that: "It's dialogue. The rules don't apply."

Dialogue is still part of your writing. You need to take into account the person speaking, but, if what you're writing is distracting and doesn't flow well, it's bad whether it's in dialogue or not.

Good point, but that's more of a POV exercise than a grammatical or structural one. Your character should say whatever it is they would say. The grammar, voice, and admonishment don't matter, so long as it's genuine to that character.

That certainly doesn't make the task any less vital or any less difficult. The hardest thing to do IMO is not let what "you" say encroach on what "they" say.

It's a funny thing. In my head I liken writing, outlining, and flow of a story to that of a piece of software. There are patterns to stories just like there are design patterns to software. There are components/procedures that take data as input, transform the data, and return it. For me the input for story is the character, the world, and the plot and the components are the scenes.

I have exactly the same experience. I've written software long enough that my methods for debugging it have trickled over to my writing. I don't know if that's good, bad or otherwise, but it's just the way I approach things. Troubleshooting logic is probably the most prominent similarity, followed by sequence and then mechanics. I definitely approach it from a "what is code/what is comment" perspective. If I can identify only the most basic, compact (or perhaps efficient) and straight-forward portions of a clause/sentence/paragraph/page/story and cut out all the comments, I find that it strengthens the writing. Kind of boils down to cutting out the fluff, but boy do I like fluff.

Edit re fluff: The most intriguing dynamic is how my professional correspondence has changed. When I write an email these days, it's a bevvy of "just the facts, Ma'am" clauses strung together because nobody really reads emails anymore, anyway.

"Task complete; system restored. Performed A and B; continuing with C. Anticipate no production impact."

 

[BWFoster78]

Zophos,

I disagree completely with your statement.

Good point, but that's more of a POV exercise than a grammatical or structural one. Your character should say whatever it is they would say. The grammar, voice, and admonishment don't matter, so long as it's genuine to that character.

I have this problem with a friend who likes using dialect, stuttering, and lisps in his dialogue. It's distracting. It takes the reader out of the story and makes them see the writing.

You definitely should tailor the dialogue to the character, and I agree that you can be more lenient when it comes to grammar, etc with people talking. To say that The grammar, voice, and admonishment don't matter, so long as it's genuine to that character doesn't make sense to me. I've worked hard throughout my entire piece to draw the reader in. Now that I'm doing dialogue, I can throw all that hard work out the window?

 

[Steerpike]

I have this problem with a friend who likes using dialect, stuttering, and lisps in his dialogue. It's distracting. It takes the reader out of the story and makes them see the writing.

It may not work for you (and use of things like dialect does tend to be disfavored these days), but this sort of thing can be used in dialogue. I wouldn't assume that it is no longer hard work. Take a look at a book like Trainspotting, for example, which makes heavy use of dialect. I think Welsh demonstrates in that book that rules regarding grammar, spelling, and the like can be discarded in dialogue. The author has to be careful in doing this, in my view, because if they don't have the skill to do it the end result can be a mess. I feel that if an author wants to go down that path, it is worth a try. If it works, great. If not, then you've got to go back and fix it.

 

[BWFoster78]

It may not work for you (and use of things like dialect does tend to be disfavored these days), but this sort of thing can be used in dialogue. I wouldn't assume that it is no longer hard work. Take a look at a book like Trainspotting, for example, which makes heavy use of dialect. I think Welsh demonstrates in that book that rules regarding grammar, spelling, and the like can be discarded in dialogue. The author has to be careful in doing this, in my view, because if they don't have the skill to do it the end result can be a mess. I feel that if an author wants to go down that path, it is worth a try. If it works, great. If not, then you've got to go back and fix it.

But the key is: they have to do it well, not throw out all the rules. If you're going to add dialect and use other potentially distracting techniques, you need to do more work to make sure you're doing it right.

 

[Steerpike]

But the key is: they have to do it well, not throw out all the rules. If you're going to add dialect and use other potentially distracting techniques, you need to do more work to make sure you're doing it right.

Yes, I think that's exactly right. Breaking the "rules" is generally going to be harder than following them, in my view. You've got to know exactly what you're doing or you'll end up with a mess on your hands. Even in Welsh's case, where I think he knew what he was doing and did it effectively, I suspect there were readers who found parts of the book impenetrable, or just simply hated it. Some readers will be more forgiving than others; some may actually like it.

I like writing that calls attention to itself if it is done very well (e.g. Lolita).

 

[BWFoster78]

I think The Help is a good example. Usually, I hate dialect with a purple passion, but the use in that book really enhanced it.

 

[Steerpike]

I think The Help is a good example. Usually, I hate dialect with a purple passion, but the use in that book really enhanced it.

That is one I haven't read. I'll have to take a look at it. I though the use of dialogue and slang was good in A Clockwork Orange.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Step 3: Read your story backward, one paragraph at a time. No, I'm not kidding. It's amazing what you'll catch by not reading it forward--in particular, you're more likely to notice when something is out of sequence. But even more basic items such as grammar and spelling will pop out better if you aren't caught up in the flow of the story, and are working with a background mental picture of what you know is supposed to be there. (In fact, the best way to catch spelling is to read backward one word at a time. Well, the second best way: the best--for catching anything--is to have someone else read it.)

Another technique I've had recommended, though rarely used (some may wish it otherwise... ), is to cross out every other word, then go back and re-insert only those words needed to make what's left grammatical. It isn't the most fun thing to do, but you can learn a lot about your writing that way.

Ravana,

I love this idea. I've never done it before but it makes a lot of sense.

Definitely going to give it a whirl!

 

[Steerpike]

Ravana,

I love this idea. I've never done it before but it makes a lot of sense.

Definitely going to give it a whirl!

Yeah, it is definitely worth trying. I've done this before as well.

 

[Zophos]

Zophos,

I disagree completely with your statement.

I have this problem with a friend who likes using dialect, stuttering, and lisps in his dialogue. It's distracting. It takes the reader out of the story and makes them see the writing.

You definitely should tailor the dialogue to the character, and I agree that you can be more lenient when it comes to grammar, etc with people talking. To say that The grammar, voice, and admonishment don't matter, so long as it's genuine to that character doesn't make sense to me. I've worked hard throughout my entire piece to draw the reader in. Now that I'm doing dialogue, I can throw all that hard work out the window?

Completely agree that your dialogue should not disengage your reader. Shakespeare, the master of dialogue, seldom stooped to tricks and stunts to pull off the most amazing prosodic verse ever written. He wrote nothing but dialogue (with the occassional enter and exeunt) and still managed to paint a clear picture of the "way" his characters said things, yet never painted himself into a corner of rules restricting the authenticity of his characters.

I'm not saying that your character's diction, stuttering, mumbling, diction, accent, speech impediment, and did I mention diction? should ever be spelled out in your work with myriad ellipses and words that slow the pace of reading through devices like eye-dialect spelling or the overuse of contractions. Thinking that an educated noble and an ignorant villein, a verbose pulpiteer and a cut-to-the-quick pragmatist, or even a northerner and a southerner would form a sentence in exactly the same fashion and follow a set of rules about adverbial clauses and prepositional phrases lacks authenticity, however.

Dialogue affords a primacy of characterization (a front row seat, if you will) that few other vehicles provide. I agree that it can be overdone, but I believe that author injects and vicariousness can sully a work just as easily by rendering it flat and colorless.


Fascinating disussion, BTW.

 

[BWFoster78]

Zophos,

I understand.

I've just had the argument, usually ending with me failing to convince anyone, too many times when someone says: you don't have to pay any attention to rules when it's dialogue.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[Zophos]

Zophos,

I understand.

I've just had the argument, usually ending with me failing to convince anyone, too many times when someone says: you don't have to pay any attention to rules when it's dialogue.

Thanks for the comments.

No worries, my friend. I completely understand what you are saying and I hate "Me Tarzan, you Jane" dialogue.

 

[korabas]

Oooh, thanks for this, good tips!