The Problem of Pacing

No, I don't mean the act of walking back and forth. (That's more of a solution than a problem, actually.) I'm talking about an important element of fiction: pacing. That is, how fast your novel is going and how you're propelling it.

Books like Andrew Klavan's "The Last Thing I Remember" have fast pacing. The Lord of the Rings is an example of slow pacing. (Lots of twentieth and nineteenth-century books are slow-paced, actually.) Determining the pace of your novel is a crucial element to keeping your readers interested.

Recently, though, I've been hearing more and more that books need to be fast-paced in order to be good. Today's reader is a busy person, so you NEED to catch their attention with something like a sudden murder or death by grizzly or some other plot device. (Daniel Schwabauer, in his One Year Adventure Novel curriculum, suggests dropping a body out of the ceiling when the goings get tough.)

At first glance, that seems true. If your novel isn't moving, people will get bored, right? Books like the popular Hunger Games are very fast-paced and thus lend to this myth.

Thing is, you sacrifice certain things when you focus on fast pacing. Here's a couple of examples.

1) Character-Building

Now, this isn't to say that you can't have good, round characters and a fast plot. But when your plot is going at the speed of sound, it's a LOT harder to build strong, believable characters. Some of the greatest character-building moments are when two characters are sitting around the fire and talking. And they're really not doing much at all during that time, are they?

Is that boring? No, if you do it right. In fact, a conversation that's essential to the plot and the characters at the same time is MORE interesting than running for dear life through some random forest. We want to unravel each character's secrets and discover what they're really like behind their masks. But it's hard to have a meaningful conversation when you're running around all the time.

2) Description

One thing that the Christian fantasy author Bryan Davis noted about the Hunger Games was that there wasn't much description. That's very true: because in order to have a fast-paced scene, you have to have minimal description. Description slows things down. (I've especially encountered this in my revisions of The War Horn. It's HARD to balance the pacing of crucial scenes and the description needed.)

So what about this? Is description boring? I think it's a necessary element. (Some might say "necessary evil".) There's such a thing as over-describing, but I think far too many books UNDER-describe. Without description, the reader loses the beauty of immersing themselves in a new world, and it makes things harder to imagine. Sometimes we must sacrifice pacing in order to describe, and that's okay.

3) Theme

Things are going, going, going—there's a murder here, death attempt there, and pretty soon you're flying to the end of the book. You turn the last page, take a breath, and what happens? Not too much.

You can balance meaning and pacing. But it's hard. A truly beautiful theme may come out of a book that took the time (and cut the pacing) to expand that theme. The White Lion Chronicles comes to mind. Many readers may complain that the beginning of the series was painfully slow, but that background was essential to building the theme and the characters before diving into the fast-paced stuff.

Of course, it also depends on the novel. Lord of the Rings is an epic—the very word conjures images of thick, heavy books. Thrillers, however, are supposed to have fast pacing. Still, whatever kind of novel you're writing, you need to determine the balance of power between pacing and the other elements of story.

So here's my advice. If you've made a scene slow on purpose, then stick to it, even when someone criticizes it. Just say, "Psh tosh." (That's my favorite phrase right now. Does anyone else use favorite phrases?) Fast pacing is good, but NOT at the expense of the theme, the characters, and the description.

What do you think? What do you say about the problem of pacing?

Until another day.

Purple Prose

This post is inspired by Squeaks' Purple Prose post at Hidden Doorways, just so you know. Squeaks wrote an intriguing post on it and inspired me to do the same. :)

So, what is purple prose? From what I hear, the definition goes something like this;

"1) Prose that is overly descriptive or flowery, and useless or, 2) Prose that describes things uniquely."

But is it good to use? Does it matter to the reader?

Sometimes purple prose is useless to those who don't enjoy description at all. Most people view it as useless to the plot. Why take the time to describe all of this useless stuff?

On the other hand, some people are enchanted by 'purple prose'.

Here's the 'Purple Prose is Useless' argument.

1. Purple prose is agonizing to get through.
2. It is useless to the plot.
3. It is unneeded.

And the Purple Prose-er's reply?

1. REAL purple prose, written right, flies right by.
2. Useless? Just put it in the right places and enhance the plot.
3. Unneeded? Quite the contrary. If you have the right amounts in the right places, it gives imagery to the story.


But what is an example of purple prose? Squeaks gives this, from Paul Clifford, a novel written by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (though I have never read it myself), as an example.

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."


Who does not find this beautiful?? What did the author do right to immerse you in his Purple Prose?

1) He used Personification. Description (especially purple prose) is not all adjectives, adverbs, etc. Personification does a better job. "...by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets...rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness." [Emphasis added] Do you see the personification? Personificationi is where you put human characteristics to inanimate things.

2) He mixed in information. From this one sentence, you gain that 1. the lamps are flickering, 2. There is a violent storm going on, and 3. this takes place in London.

3) He added depth to the description. Not only is this a storm, this is a violent and gusty storm.

4) He showed. He told you that it it was a violent and gusty storm--and then showed it. The prose said, "...a violent gust of wind.." This is where many writers would stop in terms of description. But the author shows just how violent the wind is. "...which swept up the streets...rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."


So, is purple prose good? Is it bad? You decide. But purple prose is only good when done skilfully.

Tip for April 6, 2010; Description and Emotion

Sometimes, description heightens emotion in a reader.

Imagine, in this sample paragraph, that this is at the end of a novel;

As Jack glanced behind him, he saw the area had been badly burned. After a moment more, he and his companions strode on across the plain.

A terrible paragraph. It might be grammatically correct, but definitely not good for the ending of a book. As I said before, good description will add emotion. Here's a modified version of the paragraph;

As Jack glanced behind him, he saw the wide, blackened expanse where the forest had been. It had been completely incinerated. Finally, the black evil that had resided in this valley for centuries had been vanquished, not by a strike of lightning from the heavens, or by an army led by a king, but by a thirteen year old boy.

As all of this ran through Jack's mind, he marveled at the power and wisdom of the Maker. Truly, He used the weak to bring down the strong.

Better, yes? As you can see, the addition of description made the paragraph better and most likely would cause more emotion in a reader.

Tip for March 15, 2010; Description with Action

Description and action. They go together.


You see, when I have action, I need description. My reader needs to know how hard my character is trying.


This is a paragraph with a minimum amount of description:


He swung his stick at the man that was attacking. It was dark, so he couldn't see. He heard the stick hit the man. The man's attack stopped, and he [the character] ran away.


Not the best thing I've ever written. Now, I need to revise it, putting in more description.


First; the stick. It isn't a very descriptive term, so let's try stave instead, which also makes more sense in the context.


Second; the man. It's kind of awkward at times, and since the man is attacking, we'll call him mostly the attacker, or in other places, the unseen attacker.


Another thing; the sentence 'It was dark, so he couldn't see'. It is rather off the subject, so instead, I'll imply that it was dark by putting in the word 'blindly' where the character is swinging his stave, and unseen before the word 'attacker'.


Next, I'll replace the words hit and ran with the words strike and scrambled. Before scrambled, I'll use the word quickly. I'll also replace the word swung, from the first sentence, and replace it with lashed out with.


The sentence 'He heard the stick [now stave] hit [now strike] the man [now attacker].', needs to be revised further. I'll do this by adding 'and he was rewarded with a grunt of pain.' to the end, and 'with a smack' after the word attacker.


I'll replace stopped [third sentence] with slacked off.


And the final paragraph now looks like this;


He blindly lashed out with his stave at the unseen attacker. He heard the stave strike the attacker with a smack, and he was rewarded with a grunt of pain. The man's attack slacked off, and he [the character] quickly scrambled away.