To All So-Called Authors: Stop Doing This; You Look Like Idiots

Maybe I should­n’t be giv­ing away my writ­ing secrets.

Hemingway pretending to edit a manuscript.

Maybe I should be like Ernest Hem­ing­way, who, with the excep­tion of a cou­ple of Paris Review inter­views in which he gave cryp­tic answers to ques­tions about writ­ing craft, was self­ish with his knowl­edge through­out his life and shared very lit­tle of it.

But there’s some­thing that I’m see­ing over and over and over again in so many nov­els pub­lished today that I have to say some­thing. In both genre and main­stream nov­els, whether indie- or tra­di­tion­al­ly-pub­lished, I see “very good” or even “great” mod­ern authors mak­ing the same mis­take. Incred­i­bly, one such book on Ama­zon has over 1,000 4- and 5‑star reviews.

This trend has reached a point where some­one has to say some­thing.

And as one writer who knows what he’s doing, I am hap­py to take on this cause célèbre.

Here’s the deal: When you write a sen­tence, one of the things you have to decide is which part of the sen­tence is going to get the most detail or emphasis—the sub­ject, the verb, or the object (the receiv­er of the action). Each of these units is called a syn­tac­tic slot. The sub­ject is the per­son or thing per­form­ing the action. The verb is the action. And the object is the per­son or thing receiv­ing the action. The gen­er­al rule of thumb is that you don’t pack all of your syn­tac­tic slots. Pack­ing slots cre­ates clut­tered, dis­tract­ing sen­tences with hazy images that give the read­er very lit­tle to latch onto.

(Of course the above is high­ly simplified—explained exact­ly as I did when I taught writ­ing at Baruch Col­lege, City Uni­ver­si­ty of New York. I received a Dis­tin­guished Teach­ing Award for my efforts.)

Let me give you an exam­ple of a bad sentence—one that vio­lates the above rule of “don’t pack all of your syn­tac­tic slots.” Fol­low­ing is the sort of open­ing sen­tence often found in poor­ly writ­ten fic­tion (espe­cial­ly poor­ly writ­ten genre nov­els):

A sky-blue 1963 Cadillac convertible. I didn't know there was such a thing when I wrote it down.

When the lone stop­light in Hud­sonville, Texas—a dry, dusty West Texas town, pop­u­la­tion 1,400—turned green, Blake Tan­ner, Dal­las pri­vate detec­tive, took a drag on his hand-rolled cig­a­rette, flicked the stub into the wind, glanced at his pierc­ing blue eyes and dev­il-may-care jet black hair in the rear-view mir­ror, and slammed his hand-tooled cow­boy boot on the accel­er­a­tor of his rebuilt, sky-blue 1963 Cadil­lac con­vert­ible with the 400hp V8, rev­el­ing in the kha­ki cloud of dust he left behind the car and look­ing for­ward to hunt­ing down his quar­ry, bank rob­ber Hal Dri­ver, some­where in the next lone­ly, dusty, des­per­ate town.

Now…obvi­ous­ly I’ve been hyper­bol­ic with my exam­ple; most open­ing sen­tences (even those of poor­ly writ­ten nov­els) are not that long or pon­der­ous. But even nov­els with open­ings com­posed of sev­er­al short­er sen­tences are often laden down with packed syn­tac­tic slots—attempts by authors to pile up the infor­ma­tion.

Why, oh why, do writ­ers (actu­al­ly, more often, authors) do this?

There are sev­er­al rea­sons:

1. The author isn’t a very good writer. He read some­where that good fic­tion is about detail (which is part­ly true), so he makes a point of pack­ing every sin­gle clause and syn­tac­tic slot full of detail.

2. The author is lazy, so she either does­n’t write mul­ti­ple drafts of her work, or she does­n’t take the time in lat­er drafts to edit out the unnec­es­sary details. She wants to get it “all in there,” but isn’t will­ing to do the heavy lift­ing, which is to keep in the sto­ry only those details that are tru­ly impor­tant. A sto­ry isn’t every thing that hap­pens; it’s every impor­tant thing that hap­pens.

3. The author does­n’t trust in the read­er’s intel­li­gence, prob­a­bly because he isn’t par­tic­u­lar­ly intel­li­gent him­self. He believes that he needs to spell out every sin­gle thing for the read­er because the read­er, in his opin­ion, is a dip-shit inca­pable of form­ing a men­tal pic­ture of a scene unless pro­vid­ed with ALL of the details. For exam­ple, in a recent very high­ly-rat­ed mys­tery nov­el, the author describes the counter at a DMV office as being “chest-high.” We’ve all been to DMV offices, and guess what? The coun­ters at all DMV offices are chest-high.

4. The author doesn’t trust in the reader’s patience. She doesn’t believe that the read­er will con­tin­ue to read beyond the first few sen­tences or para­graphs, so she puts in every detail that she thinks will hook the read­er and make him want to read on. What she doesn’t under­stand is this: The way to keep read­ers read­ing is by with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion, not by dish­ing it out. Put anoth­er way, don’t take the read­er where he wants to go.

Whether you’re a rel­a­tive­ly new writer try­ing to fin­ish your first nov­el, or you’re a sea­soned author putting the fin­ish­ing touch­es on your lat­est work, I hope you’ll take into account what I’ve writ­ten here. Noth­ing makes a poten­tial­ly good sto­ry look more ama­teur­ish than packed syn­tac­tic slots or clut­tered sen­tences, so no mat­ter what stage you’re at, I strong­ly rec­om­mend you go back to the writ­ing table and address this aspect of your work.

By Chris Orcutt

CHRIS ORCUTT is an American novelist and fiction writer with over 30 years' writing experience and more than a dozen books in his oeuvre. Since 2015, Chris been working exclusively on his magnum opus. Bodaciously True & Totally Awesome: The Legendary Adventures of Avery “Ace” Craig is a 9-episode novel about teens in the 1980s. It’s about ’80s teens, but for adults (in other words, it’s decidedly not YA literature), and he’s applied this epic storytelling approach to the least examined, most misunderstood, most marginalized narrative space in American literature: the lives and inner worlds of teenagers.

Comments (2)