fiction files redux discussion

I recently bought this most excellent book of Elmore Leonard's, based on an article he wrote for The New Yorker (I know not when).

Please note Rule #4, in particular... :)

I'm a fan of the very last one.


1. Never open a book with weather.

If it's only to create atmosphere, and not a character's reaction to the weather, you don't want to go on too long. The reader is apt to leaf ahead looking for people. There are exceptions. If you happen to be Barry Lopez, who has more ways to describe ice and snow than an Eskimo, you can do all the weather reporting you want.

2. Avoid prologues.

They can be annoying, especially a prologue following an introduction that comes after a foreword. But these are ordinarily found in nonfiction. A prologue in a novel is backstory, and you can drop it in anywhere you want.

There is a prologue in John Steinbeck's ''Sweet Thursday,'' but it's O.K. because a character in the book makes the point of what my rules are all about. He says: ''I like a lot of talk in a book and I don't like to have nobody tell me what the guy that's talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks. . . . figure out what the guy's thinking from what he says. I like some description but not too much of that. . . . Sometimes I want a book to break loose with a bunch of hooptedoodle. . . . Spin up some pretty words maybe or sing a little song with language. That's nice. But I wish it was set aside so I don't have to read it. I don't want hooptedoodle to get mixed up with the story.''

3. Never use a verb other than ''said'' to carry dialogue.

The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with ''she asseverated,'' and had to stop reading to get the dictionary.

4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb ''said'' . . .

. . . he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances ''full of rape and adverbs.''

5. Keep your exclamation points under control.

You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. If you have the knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.

6. Never use the words ''suddenly'' or ''all hell broke loose.''

This rule doesn't require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use ''suddenly'' tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points.

7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

Once you start spelling words in dialogue phonetically and loading the page with apostrophes, you won't be able to stop. Notice the way Annie Proulx captures the flavor of Wyoming voices in her book of short stories ''Close Range.''

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

Which Steinbeck covered. In Ernest Hemingway's ''Hills Like White Elephants'' what do the ''American and the girl with him'' look like? ''She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.'' That's the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.

9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.

Unless you're Margaret Atwood and can paint scenes with language or write landscapes in the style of Jim Harrison. But even if you're good at it, you don't want descriptions that bring the action, the flow of the story, to a standstill.

And finally:

10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he's writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character's head, and the reader either knows what the guy's thinking or doesn't care. I'll bet you don't skip dialogue.

My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

Or, if proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go. I can't allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of the narrative. It's my attempt to remain invisible, not distract the reader from the story with obvious writing. (Joseph Conrad said something about words getting in the way of what you want to say.)

If I write in scenes and always from the point of view of a particular character -- the one whose view best brings the scene to life -- I'm able to concentrate on the voices of the characters telling you who they are and how they feel about what they see and what's going on, and I'm nowhere in sight.

What Steinbeck did in ''Sweet Thursday'' was title his chapters as an indication, though obscure, of what they cover. ''Whom the Gods Love They Drive Nuts'' is one, ''Lousy Wednesday'' another. The third chapter is titled ''Hooptedoodle 1'' and the 38th chapter ''Hooptedoodle 2'' as warnings to the reader, as if Steinbeck is saying: ''Here's where you'll see me taking flights of fancy with my writing, and it won't get in the way of the story. Skip them if you want.''

''Sweet Thursday'' came out in 1954, when I was just beginning to be published, and I've never forgotten that prologue.

Did I read the hooptedoodle chapters? Every word.

That's a wonderful list. #10 is a winner. The great enigma. Sounds like a comic strip ending: what the guru on the mountain says to the writer at the end of his/her pilgrimage.

I recently read "The Brief, Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao." Several people told me that they'd been stymied by the long footnotes and never finished it. It took me awhile to remember that stuff was in footnotes, and then I realized that the footnotes were what I loved the best. They explained the history of the Dominican Republic under Trujillo, information that I had no idea about, information that I found more interesting than the actual story because I preferred the "voice" they were written in. Apparently I love the hooptedoodle.

I love the hooptedoodle, too. In fact, I write mostly hooptedoodle.

Charlaralotte wrote: "I recently read "The Brief, Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao." Several people told me that they'd been stymied by the long footnotes and never finished it. It took me awhile to remember that stuff was in footnotes, and then I realized that the footnotes were what I loved the best. They explained the history of the Dominican Republic under Trujillo, information that I had no idea about, information that I found more interesting than the actual story because I preferred the "voice" they were written in. "


I recently read this too and loved the footnotes. I didn't find them to be overbearing at all. I had a harder time getting into the voice of the main story than that of the footnotes. In the end I enjoyed the book greatly as both a work of fiction and history. Sadly I was/am quite ignorant of the history of the DR (and many other places in that area).

Oh good! Glad to hear I'm not the only one who liked the footnotes more! I loved the main story when it focused on the women's lives in the DR (the aunt and mother). That felt quite true. The character of Oscar--I'm not so sure he was all that compelling, maybe because his quest to lose his virginity didn't seem enough to sustain a main character's arc. And I got the feeling the writer was/is a lot more socially sophisticated than Oscar & had a hard time keeping Oscar so inept. The history though of the Haitians living in the DR was fascinating, and the US "involvement in DR politics"--why were we spending so much time on the pilgrims in school???? All the business about social class and caste, and the extermination of the Haitians. Took me awhile to geographically remember the two countries are on the same island. Such an American. Amazing how this stuff goes on everywhere in the world--one group tries to get rid of another group based entirely on ancestry and looks. And it never seems to stop. Such a universal human failing.
Before I read this book, the only thing I knew about the DR was that the Merengue came from there--the slaves were chained at their feet so the dance had to consist of very small steps.
I'm terrible at Haitian history as well. There was an excellent movie a few years ago starring Charlotte Rampling as an English tourist who goes to a resort in Haiti that provides Haitian men as "escorts" for the wealthy women. Another eye opener.

Charlaralotte wrote: "Before I read this book, the only thing I knew about the DR was that the Merengue came from there--the slaves were chained at their feet so the dance had to consist of very small steps."

this is the kind of information i live to learn! someone should write a whole book just comprised of short life-is-insane informational bits like this...

Glad to help out. I think my favorite is still that people used to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with their hands in "Heil Hitler" position. Until Hitler came along and all of a sudden hands were moved over to the heart position.

Oh, also the slaves in South American Spanish colonies weren't allowed to have gatherings with musical instruments present. So they began to use the crates they sat on as drums. Today these have become complicated boxes called cajóns, with snare inserts and seat padding. They are very awesome to play. I almost bought one but chickened out.

at the beginning of time, god didn't allow people to have chairs, and so they invented bottoms!

Ben wrote: "at the beginning of time, god didn't allow people to have chairs, and so they invented bottoms!"

Ethan (my 6-year-old): "Or you could call them butts."

Esther wrote: "Ben wrote: "at the beginning of time, god didn't allow people to have chairs, and so they invented bottoms!"

Ethan (my 6-year-old): "Or you could call them butts.""

i love puns. my head is exploding with them right now. :)

but now that i think of it, what is the difference really between the pun and the double entendre? i'm not asking because i want a definition, what makes you groan about a pun that won't make you groan about the double entendre?

Well, because a pun is American, while the double entendre is French...from what I hear you don't groan at the French, they groan at you.

I just read a library copy of Call of the Woosters by P.G. Wodehouse and noticed a spot where a previous patron crossed out the word 'ground' and wrote above it 'floor' because the character who fell was indoors. Odd I thought, not because he thought about it but because he took the time to change it. Do you often make corrections in the books you read? Are they usually corrections in publication errors or that in what you consider to be in the writing itself?

I reserve that level of anal retentiveness for menus in Chinese restaurants and even then I do not carry a red pen for copy markup.

Wodehouse was British, right? When I lived there, the ground was called the floor. I can't remember if there was a different word for floor or not.

I wouldn't do that in a book, though. That's just kinda... I don't know. Odd.

wodehouse... this is the same guy who wrote I sank into a c. and passed and agitated h. over the b. he can pretty much say anything he wants it seems.

Brian wrote: "wodehouse... this is the same guy who wrote I sank into a c. and passed and agitated h. over the b. he can pretty much say anything he wants it seems."

that was my favorite line!

Ben wrote: "Brian wrote: "wodehouse... this is the same guy who wrote I sank into a c. and passed and agitated h. over the b. he can pretty much say anything he wants it seems."

that was my favorite line!

"

What's with you and all this favorite line business Ben?

it's not really a business... or if it is, let's just say the IRS hasn't taken an interest... i usually have a favorite line or two from every book... one that makes me laugh a lot and be sure to make note of the page number... i suppose i could just say "that is a line i also enjoyed"... and then after that i can start using the word "problematic" a lot... and the phrase "speaks to"... that speaks to the problematic nature of my utterance...

I could have sworn this was a business venture of yours. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

the thing about wodehouse's c., h., and b., sentence is the way he gently slipped into it by first talking about the turkish b. and note that the first b. is not the same as the second b. because enjoying a turkish b. would just be silly.

he prepared me for it. i think if he continued i could have read the rest of the book with just first letters and still understand him.

I thought that was brilliant by Wodehouse. So natural and in character and not overdoing it. Never seen anything like it, though someone else out there must have been doing the same.

Not sure if that was my favorite line. "Cool as some cucumbers, as Anatole would say," may be right up there with it.