What kind of writer are you?

I recently joined a fantasy writing group on facebook, and I'm already seeing a lot of good questions posted on there, with lots of good responses. This particular question struck me as interesting. The original poster phrased it in the following way:

What kind of writer are you? Are you the type who goes back and adds in more detail, or do you find you usually have to edit and cut things out to get less?

I paraphrased slightly, but that's about it. Personally I think this is more of a "what kind of editor are you?" but that wouldn't make as catchy a title. It's an interesting question though. Do you work towards MORE or LESS overall content?

My answer, being me, is both.

I decided to make it a poll just for fun, but what I'm really hoping for is some discussion. Don't be shy about sharing your process!

My first drafts are settingless skeletons. I usually am the kind of editor who goes back to add more xD

Sometimes I have to go back and add less too. Usually in formal documents that are too wordy. I remember being really upset a long time ago because one paper was allowed a maximum 200 words. It was painful going back and chopping off the much higher word count I had.

Lately less, because I can create imagery using dialogue and character interaction without having to hammerblow people with excessive setting. That said, as I'm sure some of you will remember not so fondly, this wasn't always the case. Looking back at my earlier content on Althanas I have to baulk a little at the amount of weighty description I used to think was the bread and butter of 'quality writing'. It took a lot of reading of young adult fantasy and comparing it in terms of enjoyment and readability to writers like Scott Lynch and Kevin J Anderson to find a balance between the two that made me comfortable. Most importantly, it made me want to keep writing.

I don't think either approach is more or less better than the other. It's about how it makes you feel and wherever or not your approach is sustainable. Some of the writers that've come and gone over the years can write reams of quality text that doesn't leave you reaching for dictionary (George RR Martin on the other hand, cannot). I don't think the play by post format really helps either, because on the one hand you want to tell your story, but on the other you have to match the pace and style of the people you're collaborating with otherwise you're left with a disjointed mess.

I always find myself doing a bit of both. I hate editing in the first place, but when I go back and give it a once-over for pacing and mechanics and what not, I find myself occasionally adding or subtracting just a sentence here and there. I've never really overhauled complete posts, or chapters, or what have you. If it's not working, it gets scrapped entirely and I'll start from scratch until I feel like I've gotten it right.

Also, screw excessive setting and description. Trust your reader's imagination.

I... Am the hated other. Because I very very infrequently go back and add in more detail, or edit out detail, unless for some reason or another I feel like I need to change up something I wrote. I almost never edit - I'm a one and done.

Buy when I do feel a need to edit, like when I write something I intend to get feedback on, that's when I'll go in and both add stuff, and delete other stuff. I definitely need to work on adding in more setting - I usually rely heavily on character dialog and introspection to carry what I write, especially with Nevin. With Erik and Hunter I'm leaning more onto action stuff which I hope is helping.

both, when I am writing more for fun I am less likely to be super stringent with details and adding things and taking things out and brevity (much like this run-on sentence!)


But when I am writing for critique or feedback, or for a quest or something I really want to work on I find myself constantly editing and changing things up and around. Sometimes removing an entire post altogether

Quote:

---

Lately less, because I can create imagery using dialogue and character interaction without having to hammerblow people with excessive setting.

---

Quote:

---

Also, screw excessive setting and description. Trust your reader's imagination.

---

Interesting points raised here. I used to write pretty thick setting descriptions, but lately I've been erring much more on the side of only giving details of what my character immediately notices and does. It seems I've yet to find the right balance, because I have recently been criticized for not having enough setting description in my work. I wonder if it's possible that Althanas as a whole has a bit too much love for lengthy setting descriptions. More and more, I feel like big chunks of setting are just big chunks of time in which the plot isn't advancing and nothing interesting is happening.

Quote:

---

I always find myself doing a bit of both. I hate editing in the first place, but when I go back and give it a once-over for pacing and mechanics and what not, I find myself occasionally adding or subtracting just a sentence here and there.

---

This basically describes my process as well, but I think it's worth mentioning that it hasn't always been that way. I had to spend hours and hours practicing editing to get to the point where I can catch all (or most) errors with a quick once-over. For more experienced writers/editors I think this can be enough, especially if you have someone else proofing your work, but I also think that for greener writers there is a ton to be learned by actively re-reading and editing content. IMHO putting a little extra effort into re-reading and editing is one of the best ways to find flaws and improve upon them.

Always more for me. I'm almost always too concise and have to breathe some life into a post to add any level of depth to it.

Quote:

---

I wonder if it's possible that Althanas as a whole has a bit too much love for lengthy setting descriptions. More and more, I feel like big chunks of setting are just big chunks of time in which the plot isn't advancing and nothing interesting is happening.

---

I feel like Althanas's big problem is that the rubric is forcing us to write these big, sweeping paragraphs about what kind of lighting and wall decorations are in this new tavern our characters have stepped foot in, just so we can bump our Setting up from a 6 to a 7 at the expense of the story's flow. With how much we pride ourselves on the stupid thing and how much focus we put on it, it hinders our development as writers and prevents us from finding and honing our individual, unique writing voices.

I tend to write too much detail the first time, so I end up cutting things to keep the pacing smooth. Like Breaker mentioned, blocks of setting are usually just roadbumps for pacing. I think the way description is included is more important than what description is included, or what amount of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My Kingdom For An Adjective

I feel like Althanas's big problem is that the rubric is forcing us to write these big, sweeping paragraphs about what kind of lighting and wall decorations are in this new tavern our characters have stepped foot in, just so we can bump our Setting up from a 6 to a 7 at the expense of the story's flow.

---

I don't know if I'd agree with the 'forcing' part, but you're not wrong that it incentivizes that. I think that's because most people seem to take 'Setting' as literal, and only applying to environments. At least, that's usually what criticism in that category is limited to. It might not hurt to change the name of that category to 'Description,' to more obviously include character descriptions as well.

Quote:

---

...it hinders our development as writers and prevents us from finding and honing our individual, unique writing voices.

---

Description is part of the process. Just because some styles work better with less description doesn't mean the category itself is a hinderance, just that criticism of it needs to take style into account.

Whenever I write I always end up finding it difficult to get the correct balance. Some parts seem too threadbare, so I spruce them up when required. Then, on second readthrough, I'll notice that I'm boring myself into a coma on a certain paragraph, so then i'll trim down until I can read my work and not want to be sick into my mouth. Four or five edits later, I'm there.

I think there was maybe one thread in my whole time here that I was happy with on my first try.

Honestly i tend to write then rewrite and rewrite, details goes in as i better my description or realise it can be wrote better.
But definitely more of an adder than a takeaway guy.

Am I the only one who gets really pumped about writing setting? Especially characters interacting with their environment. Chekov's tree -- if it's there, your char's gotta climb it, admire it, or smack right the fuck into it. Setting's probably the easiest bit for me, but I sometimes forget it in my excitement. Whoops.

Editing usually means "simplify/shave off chunks of clunky dialogue" (look, there's a reason why Fenn's not much of a conversationalist), and "pour on more of that delicious descriptionary/setting syrup". I really like increasing wordcount and adding more to scenes I didn't give enough attention the first time around, but inevitable I also have to rip out sections that turn out to be less relevant/engaging than I past thought. Repetition is where I fuck up the most.

But now that I've discovered the MAGIC OF OUTLINES, I don't think I'll have to rip so much out anymore.

*Increases wordcount to infinity and beyond*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Briarheart

I feel like Althanas's big problem is that the rubric is forcing us to write these big, sweeping paragraphs about what kind of lighting and wall decorations are in this new tavern our characters have stepped foot in, just so we can bump our Setting up from a 6 to a 7 at the expense of the story's flow. With how much we pride ourselves on the stupid thing and how much focus we put on it, it hinders our development as writers and prevents us from finding and honing our individual, unique writing voices.

---

It sounds like you're misinterpreting the rubric. Here's what it actually says about setting:

Quote:

---

Every story has a setting, and Althanas has many unique realms to work in. This category includes faithfulness to the region's canon, and the writer's description of their characters movement through those environments. To score high in setting, a writer must go beyond painting backdrops. Setting is not just to look at. It exists to be experienced by the characters, and through them, by the readers. For instance, if you describe a chair, did your character sit in it or pick it up to smash in an enemy's face? Is it hot or cold, sunny or rainy, and are its effects on the character described? In short, a good setting does not just describe place; it makes it smell, move, hear, and breathe. It makes the setting a character all of its own.

---

If we boil it down, there's essentially three elements to scoring setting; description, which is mostly what the character perceives and includes things like time and location, interaction, which includes what the character does with the setting and how they influence or change it, and inclusion/development of canon, which is pretty self explanatory. While it's possible that individual judges may focus too much on description at times, that's not a built in function of our rubric, and if you ever find that the commentary you receive only addresses description, a quick PM to the judge would probably get you some notes on interaction and use of canon as well. Sometimes it's just difficult to fit everything in, especially in the case of condensed rubrics.