I almost
went with “Cheaper By The Dozen” for the title, but I figured there was no
reason to make you all remember that little piece of pop culture.
I’ve been
watching people talk about editing lately in a few different online
groups. More to the point, about the
need for more of it in certain corners of the industry. A side-thread in one of those conversations
was about one fellow determined to get his book edited by Thursday so he could
get it up on Amazon by Friday.
Anyway,
that got me thinking about easy edits.
The type of stuff that we all let slip though while we’re writing and
the experienced folks know to then get rid of in their first round of
revisions. I’ve mentioned some of them
before in a broad strokes sort of way, but it struck me that maybe I could even
boil this down further.
So here are
a dozen specific words I can cut from my manuscript. Not all the time, but a fair amount of
it. A lot of them lead to other words,
too—they’re indicating a larger problem—so once I get rid of these it’ll
probably mean a few words on either side of them go away, too. Which means I’ll end up with a leaner,
stronger story.
Yes, you've probably seen me mention lots of these before. I even linked to some of the other posts in case anyone might want more explanation.
Yes, you've probably seen me mention lots of these before. I even linked to some of the other posts in case anyone might want more explanation.
Ready?
That—I’ve mentioned that a few times here, so I won’t bore you by explaining it yet again. Needless to say, I always do a that
pass while I’m editing and end up removing about 80-90% of them. While I was revising Ex-Purgatory,
I cut over 130 thats—more than half a page of them!
Decided—This word is almost always filler. Maybe not conscious filler, but it’s almost
always filler that can be cut. If Yakko
decides to do something and then he does it, I’m just eating up words again. We all make hundreds of decisions
and choices every day, but most readers want to hear about the action,
not the decision to take an action. The
action itself implies the decision was made.
Listen/ Look—If I start a line of dialogue with look or listen, I’d bet that three out of four times that line either states something plainly apparent or it’s an infodump. Which means either these lines aren’t adding anything to the
story or they’re adding something I could express better through subtext or actions.
Obvious—If something isn’t obvious, it comes
across as arrogant to say it is. So I
shouldn’t use the word obvious, because the character (or writer) in
question is going to look like a jerk.
On the
flipside, if something is obvious, they I still don’t need the
word. Things that are obvious are...
well, obvious, so it’s just wasted words for a writer to tell us so.
Appeared/ Seemed/Looked – These three words show up
in phrases like “appeared to be” or “seemed to be” or “looked like.” Not always, but quite often. The thing
is, appeared
to be and its siblings don’t get used alone. They’re part of a literary construction where
the second half of that structure is either an implied or actual contradiction
to the appearance. So when I’m saying “Yakko
seemed like the kind of man you didn’t want to mess with,” what I’m really
saying is “Yakko seemed like the kind of man you didn’t want to mess with but really he was a pushover who fainted at
the sight of blood.” And what I meant to say all along was just “Yakko was the kind of man you
didn’t want to mess with.”
If I’m not
trying to establish a contradiction, using appeared
to be and the others isn't just wasted words-- it's wrong. So cut them
Was – I always search for was, because it tends to
point at weak verb structures. It’s when
I’ve got “Wakko was running” instead of just “Wakko ran.” It’s a small tweak, but it’s one that gives
my writing punch because it makes all my actions read just a bit faster.
Also, this
can save me from the awkward problem of simultaneous actions, when my chosen
verb form ends up creating a chain of things happening at the same time rather
than a sequence of events.
As you know—I’ve talked about these three words a few times before. They’re awful. Just awful.
I won’t say this is the worst way to get the facts out to my readers—I
have full confidence there’s a writer out there now working on a worse way—but
I’d put this in the 99-out-of-100 category.
If I’m
saying “as you know” to you, it means you already know what I’m telling you...
so why am I saying it? Why waste words
blatantly lecturing about something that you and I both know? Yeah, you might have amnesia, but if you do
then you don’t know... so why am I saying “as you know” to you?
If these
three words pop up together more than once in my manuscript, odds are I’m doing
something horribly wrong.
And there
you have it. A dozen words you can
search for and slice away. Editing made
simple. Well, some of the editing. I didn’t even mention my more common somewhat syndrome words.
Next time,
it’ll almost be Valentine’s Day, so I guess I should talk about love and all
that stuff.
Until then,
go write.
i've started noticing i overuse "of". Like "all of them" is pretty much the same as "they all", "one of those guys there" could be "that guy there", "the top of the mountain" is "the mountaintop". So i usually do a search for extraneous ofs as well. :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think I mentioned "of" once before. I should've added it here and had a baker's dozen. Thanks for reminding me (and everyone else). :)
ReplyDelete