Into the Fire

This is the debate. While it sounds like a typical political argument, in this case it’s not. We’re talking economy versus extravagance in regard to the use of words in stories.

Since I’ve been visiting various blogs written by writers, editors, agents, and the occasional publishers, the consistent message has been “Less is more”, encouraging the use of economy in words. To some writers 100,000 words sounds like a huge sum, verbose even, but to others of us, it sounds like too few, not near enough in fact.

I find it bizarre that fantasy or speculative fiction along with the occasional historical novel and some thrillers turn out these large—or long if you prefer—novels and get away with it. Epic tales or sagas appear to be common when it involves establishing the identity of otherworldly beings, locations, and action-packed adventures. In historicals the scope of a story can pass through generations of families or allude to the past while giving painstaking detail of whatever the present time claims to be.

No doubt we see more sagas from the general market than we do from the Christian publishing industry. Not sure why that is exactly.

However, you’ll get no argument from me that a skilled writer can elicit complicated depth from an economy of words. But who’s to say that same economical writer couldn’t do just as much with more words added to his stories since he’s so good at illustrating with them. No matter. Any author should write his story the way he sees fit, and if he’s good with it after the editor’s suggestions and corrections, more power to him as he waits for the pages to become bound in book form.

Extravagance in writing can be done equally well. Stories don’t have to be lean to be good. The writing doesn’t have to be stark to be considered well done. It always comes back to the subjectivity thing. Some publishers look for short novels, others not so much. You will no doubt write what you favor.

I’m a stickler for details. Expressions, descriptions, the use of the senses—I love it all. Inner dialogue, different points of view, stylistic efforts, unique voices. Bring it on. Formulaic is the bane of writing for me.

You’ll know who you are as a writer by what you enjoy. If Hemingway rocks your world, then you’ll probably write with next to no adjectives and lean to the point of starvation. (Can you tell I’m not a fan of Hemingway’s writing?)

Perhaps most readers fall somewhere in the middle with their preferences. Let’s face it, there’s nothing worse than plowing through a poorly written saga. At least if the story chooses an economical word count and it stinks—well, at least it takes less time to either finish the darn thing or abandon it.

As a writer, you might aim to write economically and wind up being extravagant. Maybe it depends on how a story develops. Or if you’re an outline-r, perhaps as you’re setting up the story, it becomes more complex than you initially figured. Perhaps the opposite is true: you planned extravagance and wound up with economy. Whatever your desire, either way is meaningful. Different readers appreciate different styles. One size fits all rarely works.

Father, you design with both economy and extravagance. You make it all work. Thank you for the beautiful differences. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.