The Physical Space of Words

[JCFarnham]

Intresting topic: The physical space of words

Once you've read the blog (it says it better than I can), let's discuss. What do you agree/disagree with? Are there any similar, but unmentioned techniques you've used in your works? Perhaps you have something to say about the general idea of push and pull between you and your reader?

To quote all good exam papers: Discuss.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I had never really thought about it explicitly before, but it makes perfect sense. The more important something is, the more time you dwell on it. A really important moment in a story--which might last only a few seconds in "real" time--could extend for pages, while something less critical (say, a long journey) can be dispensed with in a sentence.

 

[JCFarnham]

Though the blog author does go on to say (either in the text or in the comments section) that her editors frequently tell her to cut down these dwelt up sections. An example she (I think it was her anyway..) cites is a first kiss I believe. She wanted to dwell on it, becuase this was a huge point in the characters narrative. The editor on the other hand thought "kisses don't last that long, why do it?"

I suppose what I'm saying is that not only is this idea a contested one, but it can be taken different ways. The act is important so it gets more paragraphs vs. the act itself wouldn't take that long in real life it needs less space.

I see two distinct philosophies there (but if we get into the realms of long journeys.. well realism is pointless and boring.)

What ever the way it's handled the "physical space of words" is important for reader immersion. The other side of the arguement might be that it's akin to micromanagement of the experience.

 

[ShortHair]

Fiction is going to be subjective whatever you do. Maybe a kiss only lasts for a few seconds, but in your mind it may seem to go on for hours. If something is important, one way to bring it to the reader's attention is to spend more time/words on it. That seems obvious to me.

The other extreme is to report what happens as faithfully as possible. If something doesn't take long, you describe it as plainly and quickly as possible and move on. No emotion, no interpretation, no connection. I would argue that that isn't even fiction.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

"kisses don't last that long, why do it?"

... if we get into the realms of long journeys.. well realism is pointless and boring.)

This is one of the joys of writing (and reading). We've all had those moments in our lives where we wished that a moment wouldn't end. Conversely, everyone of us has said "I can't wait till this is over" at some point.

In writing we get to manage that time. We can draw out those meaningful firsts to emphasize the gravity of the moment (like a kiss) or rip through a tedious task or long journey in the blink of a sentence. As long as the reader doesn't feel manipulated, but enjoys that experience along with us then I believe that takes precedent over any idea of reality.

Those moments that take our breath away are often fleeting by nature but, our ability to vary the passage of time to draw attention to them is one of the few advantages we have of visual media.

Nice post JC.... These are things I often forget about.