[stylist] Comments on Eve's sharing lesson post

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

What Eve demonstrates is an example of the author having credibility,
but you also have to consider if knowing certain information is
pertinent to the story.

What Vonnegut is saying is that each sentence, each piece of dialogue,
each description should drive the story forward or reveal something
about a character. If you're describing Yellowstone in great detail just
to describe it but it has nothing to do with the plot, it's unnecessary
information, according to Vonnegut. If, however, the geography is
important to the story and/or character development, then you will want
in-depth details of setting.

This is not to say you don't describe setting at all, but each word must
be present only to further the plot or develop characters.

This is extremely important with dialogue. Dialogue is only used to move
the plot along or for character development. Anything else is just
fluff. In Eve's example, if knowing something about Burger King is
important to the plot or the development of a character, then it can be
left alone. If it has nothing to do with either plot of character
development, it's text that can be cut. Though info as displayed by Eve
may show the author knows about the place or subject, lending them
credibility, if it has nothing to do with plot or characters, it doesn't
matter.

This contemporary standard of fiction writing takes a minimalist
approach to writing. You still want to retain great, detailed sensory
descriptions but only if pertinent to the story at hand. You want
readers invested in the main arc and not extra material that may be nice
in description and show the author has knowledge of the subject, but
have nothing to do with the over-all story.

Though I agree with this concept of writing, it's not my original
opinion. I'm simply discussing what writers like Vonnegut have already
put in motion in terms of contemporary writing. This is what he means
when stating, "Every sentence must do one of two things-reveal character
or advance the action."

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter, editor, Slate & Style
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
 
"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:56:26 -0800
From: Eve Sanchez <3rdeyeonly at gmail.com>
To: "Writer's Division Mailing List" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] sharing lesson and Chris Kuell
Message-ID:
	
<CACdbYKXtf7Z-9MHRN_id+R4exGr3_ZxHv644JTceoNM1C9CiPg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

And okay, I am going to be the first contributor to the list.
* Know your details. Let's say you are writing a story, totally
fictional, about a family trip. The family goes to Yellowstone National
Park and in one chapter you have them stop in West Yellowstone, Montana
for lunch. West Yellowstone is where the West entrance of the park is
located so this would happen. You put a small comment that does not seem
important to the story like 'Dad ate three Whoppers and both french
fries and onion rings.' Seemingly innocent line right? Well, as I am
sure we all know, Whoppers are from Burger King. What we may not all
know is that there is no Burger King in West Yellowstone. Little things
like this show that the author takes time to know what they are writing.
Once an issue is found, the whole story may become less credible to the
reader. So, my advice is to remember the details. What's your advice? :)