What you leave out

[CTRandall]

I was watching part 2 of Peter Jackson's version of The Hobbit this evening and, comparing the film with the book, it struck me how many possible story lines and how much of his world=building Tolkein leaves out. He doesn't go into detail about why Gandalf leaves the party when they get to the Mirkwood, nor does he say much about what happens to Gandalf while he's gone. We get very little information about what the dwarves have been doing in the years since they lost their kingdom to Smaug and he isn't worried about giving us any of Elrond's hugely rich backstory. Even with Gandalf, we get little more than a physical description and the label of "wizard". Tolkein doesn't need to tell us the ins and outs of his magic system or the history and politics of Middle Earth. He just plops us down in the middle of it and gets on with a story about a hobbit on an adventure. Tolkein doesn't muddle it up with all sorts of deviations and explanations. (He saves that for the Silmarilion.)

Very edifying, that, especially for those of us who spend time on world-building and character development and then want to share all of it with the reader, usually in the first chapter.

 

[Biskit]

I can't remember the quote or detail, but there was an interview as part of the special features on one of the Star Wars box-sets where George Lucas talked about all the detail and set-building for scenes in the film that would be show in long and loving detail in "traditional" scifi movies, but his approach was to just use it as background, a few brief glimpses and get on with the action.
As writers, I think we ought to follow that lead (although, you could argue that Lucas followed the lead of the likes of Tolkien) and get on with the story rather than showing how clever we are at world-building. Unless the built world is akin to a major character, it ought to be there as background scenery, so perfect that the reader barely notices it, except when we draw the readers attention to it because it's actually important at some particular point in the story.

 

[-K2-]

It was suggested to me once, if I left out all the written parts, my stories would be considerably better.

So, yeah...I get what you're suggesting (and past joking I agree with you). Although, with the 'instant gratification--lay it out for me in exacting detail--briefly' mindset with so many folks today, it does make me wonder if they're using their imagination as much as you are?

K2

 

[Biskit]

Treat it like healthy eating - this is healthy writing, with no unnecessary additives, designed to help readers rediscover their imagination.

 

[AlexH]

I always try and think of worldbuilding as "how does this impact the main character?" That impact could be physical or mental (e.g. the way they describe something helps show their mood at the time).

 

[Ashleyne]

If I remember, I edited out about 8,000 words from my second book, half of them from a single chapter. I mostly edited the beginning of chapters that started too early, or the end of chapters that finished too late. One chapter had 4,000 words of walking through a castle and riding across the local town, to a secret garden. I deleted it because it was filler, slowing the story down.

The second part of editing was making sure my characters are acting consistent. I wrote out character sheets, separated the three main characters and focused on their dialogue, the way they interact and their sensibilities. Anything that didn’t fit the character was altered/edited. An example would be one of my characters swearing a lot. The swearing needed to be constant and not just for effect when I felt like it. Another character was described as thinking about her daddy every day, so most her chapters have a paragraph of internal dialogue about her daddy.

The final part was filling in plot holes. I have a secret agency that none of my main characters are a part of. This made things difficult, as the reader isn’t allowed to know anything outside the characters’ POVs. I left clues to fill in some of these plot holes, but they may be difficult to figure out. The characters never find out the full extent of The Agency’s involvement, so it’s fitting for the reader not to. I know who founded The Agency, their methods, their goals and a lot of things that I didn’t put in the book because the main characters were never made aware.

 

[Biskit]

I have a secret agency that none of my main characters are a part of. This made things difficult, as the reader isn’t allowed to know anything outside the characters’ POVs.

I think that is an important aspect of things to leave out. I write in 1st POV a lot, so the only things the reader can be told are things my narrator knows. I have to know everything that happens off-screen, but the reader isn't allowed to see that.
In my first book, an undead body turns up at my MC's shop, delivers a cryptic message and turns into a completely dead body. If I was writing third or omni, maybe I would have told the reader who sent the messenger and why. As it is, all I give the reader is my MC's best guess, and his certainty that karmic inevitability will mean an imminent visit from the police on an unrelated matter, although they are then bound to ask about the corpse. I don't recall really explaining anywhere in the book exactly who sent the messenger or why, but I don't think it matters and there are enough stray factions to blame.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Jackson left virtually no stone unturned and ended up with a story that spanned 3 movies and almost 9 hours; yet felt nowhere near as satisfying as the book.

Gandalf disappears; is he on an urgent errand? Does he have a number of important things to attend to? Perhaps he is leading several expeditions on their adventures? Or maybe he wants to see how well they will get on without him being there, or because he knows/hopes that Bilbo will turn out to be the Hobbit he thinks he is. Certainly it's a good story plot as it makes the group more vulnerable and enables Bilbo to become the true hero of the party. It also quite nicely mirrors LOTR when once again Gandalf (this time unwillingly) leaves the group and makes them stand on their own feet.

By missing out certain aspects our own minds fill in the gaps; by Gandalf hurrying off we see that Middle Earth is a big place with lots of difefrent things going on and one Hobbit and a few dwarves is just a tiny cog in the machinery. Also what adventures did the dwarves get up to since they were forced to flee? Again we have to imagine the hardhips and the adventures that they may have gotten up to. It's unecessary to add them to this story which - we have to remember is a story written by a Hobbit from the perspective of a Hobbit; the doings of wizards and dwarves in other adventures is of no concern.

 

[sknox]

>no unnecessary additives
And that's the challenge, isn't it? Several challenges, really. One, for the author even to recognize something as unnecessary. Two, for the author and reader to agree about what is necessary and what isn't. Three, for the author to know how to perform the surgery without leaving scars. All that requires experience, and even then it's difficult, which is why this question comes up so regularly.

 

[CTRandall]

@sknox Fair point. If it were easy, no one would worry about it.

To contrast Tolkein with another giant (at least in sales figures) of fantasy, GRR Martin does exactly the opposite and tells us almost everything. I think this is the main reason that I have a hard time with the Game of Thrones series. There are a lot of great characters but there is a lack of mystery and, as a corollary, a lack of wonder. (There are a few exceptions--notably the faceless assassins, who are one of my favourite bits of the books.)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Read King’s two versions of The Stand and it can be interesting what got added back in. I leave out scenes I don’t think move the story on enough.

 

[sknox]

>I leave out scenes I don’t think move the story on enough.
Do you have a method for this? When I do it, it's mostly instinctive and I doubt I could make much of a case for the removal.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

>I leave out scenes I don’t think move the story on enough.
Do you have a method for this? When I do it, it's mostly instinctive and I doubt I could make much of a case for the removal.

Mostly it’s in the editing stage where I just look at each chapter and ask myself if the info in it is covered elsewhere, or if there is character stuff that’s needed. Sometimes I do a little chapter list to check what’s there and the logical order etc and that’s when it throws up how strong each one is

 

[AlexH]

>I leave out scenes I don’t think move the story on enough.
Do you have a method for this? When I do it, it's mostly instinctive and I doubt I could make much of a case for the removal.

I was given a good tip recently: if a scene doesn't serve at least two purposes, cut or rework it. Purposes can include advancing character, plot or theme, or developing a setting that will be returned to.

 

[-K2-]

I was given a good tip recently: if a scene doesn't serve at least two purposes, cut or rework it. Purposes can include advancing character, plot or theme, or developing a setting that will be returned to.

Are smut-breaks exempt from that, or do I need to show two different 'aspects' in those too?



K2

 

[sknox]

Good tip, AlexH. And no, K2, smut-breaks are not exempt.