Less is more…
As I work on one of my projects, the sequel to Rembrandt’s Angel, I’m fighting the content editing. For those not accustomed to writer’s jargon, there are three kinds of editing: content, copy, and proofreading. I do the first as I go, and it’s mostly cut-and-paste, and often just cut. Someone else or I do the second after the manuscript is done, and the third kicks in when we have to make final checks on the product (this used to be done with galley proofs, and still is, in some cases).
Seat-of-the-pants writing, that is, not using a rigid outline, leads to content editing as you go. I find that to be more efficient. I’m not good at following an outline even if I create it, finding outlines too restrictive with negative repercussions for flow and spontaneity. That’s a personal choice, of course. At any rate, I’m having trouble doing the content editing for the sequel.
The novel will be another mystery/thriller but also more historical than Rembrandt’s Angel. For any historical fiction, there’s always a lot of background material. Usually I have no problem pruning my prose, but there’s so much good material in this case that it pains me to delete it.
In other words, I’m suffering from the opposite of writer’s block. Esther Brookstone and Bastiann van Coevorden, the two main characters from Rembrandt’s Angel, are such great characters that it’s tempting to surround them with all the good material available and not delete it. I suppose this conundrum is better than not knowing what to write. I wonder if it’s a characteristic of historical fiction.
I’m a writer who believes in the Goldilocks Principle, a minimalist writer looking for just enough description and narrative, not too much or too little, especially in my mysteries and thrillers. In storytelling, less is more. If writers have a story to write, they shouldn’t be verbose and just tell the story succinctly. (This is probably why I’m a fan of short stories. My collaborator, A. B. Carolan, offers a new one this week, by the way.)
But there’s nothing minimalist about history, especially in this new sequel that will cover more than two millennia. I know I can resolve my conundrum if I work at it, so I’ll keep struggling. I don’t want to take the easy way out, i.e. leave all that prose in the story just because it’s great material.
Two examples illustrate the dangers in not doing this. J. K. Rowling became more verbose as the Harry Potter series progressed, and my enjoyment of it diminished. And I enjoyed Ken Follett’s Eye of the Needle more than his later historical novels. These are my perceptions, of course. Other readers might like verbosity. And, is it verbosity if it’s great prose? That’s a delicate question.
I’ve never suffered from writer’s block. My muses, really banshees with Tasers, know this; they and some characters like Esther and Bastiann, push me to write the next story. I’ve never asked them if they want me to stop cutting out material. They’d probably just answer, “Use it in another story.”
Sometimes authors just have to be brutal with their prose. Sure, save those beautiful or deep prose passages; they might be useful at a later date. But always keep in the back of your mind the following mantra: Less is more. Many readers don’t want to get bogged down in superfluous narrative.
***
Prepare for the sequel by reading Rembrandt’s Angel. This mystery/thriller about a Scotland Yard’s obsession to recover a missing Rembrandt is available on Amazon and Smashwords and its affiliates (iBooks, B&N, Kobo, etc). Or ask for it at your favorite bookstore (if they don’t have it, ask them to order it).
In libris libertas…
