Is fast pacing a bad thing?

[azbikergirl]

I've been told the pacing of my novel is too fast. "Pedal to the metal the whole way," a critiquer said of my first three chapters, advising me to slow it down some. I thought fast-paced = good, exciting, can't put it down. What am I missing?

[Zane Curtis]

I don't know, I always thought that a reasonably brisk pace was a good thing. You might allow yourself a few quieter, more contemplative moments for the sake of contrast and variety, but in general, you want to leave your readers wanting more, rather than wishing you'd shut up and get to the point.

[pianoman5]

Pacing is usually somewhat genre defined. Action adventures often sustain a cracking pace that never lets up. One good example I can think of is Matthew Reilly (a near neighbour of mine in Sydney). His trademark is a quick fire pace with something happening on every page, which keeps his readers shrieking for more.

On screen, I can think of the Die Hard movies, or the show 24 where you barely get a chance to draw breath before some new terrible thing is happening.

[oswann]

Sometimes, even in a genre traditionally fast paced, this can be annoying. James Ellroy's short sentences leave me physically tired after about five hundred pages. It's like being sucker punched on every page. I understand this may be the point, just saying it annoys me sometimes.



Os.

[Trapped in amber]

I think pace needs to vary, even if overall you are aiming for a relatively fast or slow paced work. The reader needs time to absorb, to connect and to think. The books I haven't been able to put down aren't necessarily fast paced, and those that were tended to vary enough to give me breathing time.

[zornhau]

Funnily enough, I got this back from my critique group. It turned out that I needed more description, and rippling sub-conflicts to provide some depth.

[Berlovska]

Fast pace - usually it's my problem. I guess it happens because the author thinks far for ahead. And gives a reader the result of his(her) thinking process. But in most cases the readers (me including as a reader) enjoy the process of living in the space and time of certain event. Therefore all senses must be included - all these tints and hues of smelling, seeing, happening... Not just the event by itself but what happens between. So, the pace will be like - up and down, up and down, sort of a making a music.

It's really tough to write not for yourself but for others. But I think more rewarding...

[brinkett]

Maybe there's not enough character development? Hard for anyone to say without actually reading it.

[azbikergirl]

So how do you determine pacing for your own writing? I reserve shorter sentences for fight scenes. In the first six chapters (~10000 words), sentences average 10 words in length and 3 sentences per paragraph (including dialog, of course). Too short? Is it not possible to tell pacing from statistics like this?

[brinkett]

Just my opinion, but I don't think it's possible to tell pacing from statistics like that. When I'm writing, I don't look at pacing in mechanical terms, nor do I plan pacing. I try to write scenes that engage the reader so they'll want to read the next one, that's all. However, I write character-driven stories. For a novel more focussed on action, my approach might not be the best to take.

Have you gone back to the reader and asked him/her why they felt out of breath after reading your chapters? Also keep in mind that it's only one opinion. What you should do is look for patterns in the comments. If a few people say the same thing, then you need to take the comment seriously. If only one person says it, perhaps not. You'll never please everybody.

[NeuroFizz]

Pacing is a tough one--some writers just have a feel for it without any kind of plan or organizational technique. Maybe it comes from reading a lot of good stories. Most books on writing address pacing, so that's a place to start. Personally, I'd rely on your critique group--I learn about a problem by reading the books. I learn more about how to DEAL with a problem by having someone show me where I'm screwing up, or where I'm coming up short. Think of all-out action like this: Even something that feels really, really good is going to lose some of its magic if it is done twenty-four hours a day. What makes all of those brief, really good feeling moments so special is the wait for the next session--all of the anticipation, all of the games that are played to get back to it. Here comes the depth....

[Liam Jackson]

Pacing is such a subjective issue. You have readers that want to flip pages at a ***-over-tea kettle rate and others whom love to take their sweet time digesting every paragraph. No matter which style you shoot for, you'll find proponents and opponents.

Personally, I like rollercoaster novels that supply slow climbs, sharp curves, the occassional "where did the botton go???" dips, and a finale filled with fireworks.


Tall order? Not at all. I've found any number of writers who employee this style- if you can call it a "style". I don't think it's a issue of style at all. I think it's an issue of storytelling.

[azbikergirl]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Have you gone back to the reader and asked him/her why they felt out of breath after reading your chapters? Also keep in mind that it's only one opinion. What you should do is look for patterns in the comments. If a few people say the same thing, then you need to take the comment seriously. If only one person says it, perhaps not. You'll never please everybody.

OK, I guess maybe I'm overreacting. Only one person complained that it was too fast. The pace has been brought up before, but not as a complaint. There are lulls and chances to catch one's breath, but the story starts off at a good clip with the intent of engaging the reader right away.

[maestrowork]

Ask your beta readers exactly where it's too fast, and where it's too slow. Statistics means nothing when you don't have specifics. Usually if you have a lot of dialogue, the pace might be too fast. If you have paragraphs after paragraphs of descriptions, the pace might be too slow. Everything else... that's what your betas are for!

[zeprosnepsid]

When I think fast pacing, to me it usually means lack of description. Like LOTR can be really slow paced at times, even though so much happens in the books, because of voluminous description.

But it depends on your readers and your intent. I actually skip description in books a lot of the time. And there are plenty of works and genres that are fast paced. Chinese wu xia novels (like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) have almost no description (Except for the fighting). And they are very fast paced. But it works well.

So if your book is plot-based than why not. But I always associate pacing with description, I don't know if that's always true.

[LightShadow]

It depends on the novel. Some require strong character development, some require a fast pace, some are leisurely. Thing is, a reader doesn't want something that is so bogged down with description that it slows the story down (just give them enough for them to use their imagination), yet don't go so fast that the reader forms no picture and feels the story blew through their ears. Moderation is the key, unless the genre calls for you to be stronger on something in particular. I tend to use a brisk pace, yet I try not to break any speed records. Characterization is plot.

[Kallahan]

Pacing is a delicate art, even action novels should slow it down some time, if only to build tension. I personally prefer break neck pacing as I have the attention span of ohh whats that?

[maestrowork]

It really depends on what you write. Obviously, someone who has the attention span of oh-what's-that? is not going to sit down with a literary novel or a 1000-page fantasy (or maybe he will, but then his expectations would be different...) And someone who picks up a mystery or a suspense would probably expect a break-neck pace -- a swift entertainment worthy for a short flight or a two-day cruise. You need to know what genre you're writing, and for what kind of readers.

[Anatole Ghio]

If only one person made the comment the pace was too fast, I would chalk it up to a unique reader response. When I get three or more comments of the same criticism from different readers, I then know the flaw is in the writing.

Pacing can mean several things, in terms of what a beta reader might really be reacting to. Many times, this criticism really means a scene has been passed over and needs to be developed more. These are scenes with a major conflict or revelation which can be exploited for more effect, but the writer left this potential untapped by telling instead of showing.

Also, somtimes slowing down the pace will build tension, instead of relaxing it. Whenever Hitchcock wanted to amplify tension, he would do it by detailing every little event in a scene, while suspending the danger to the main character.

So even though the films would slow down in these scenes (Spoiler: think of how long Cary Grant waited by the road for his secret meeting in North by Northwest, before being attacked by the plane... the pace was exceedingly slow)... the tension was never higher.

[zornhau]

So if your book is plot-based than why not. But I always associate pacing with description, I don't know if that's always true.

I think it's also to do with varying the kind of conflict. If the protags just fought an epic battle, drop back and give them a respite at the Grove of the Kindly Elves, but use it to have them sort out their own subplot romance conflict, or else argue about what to do next.

If the braid of conflict stops, so may the readers.

[azbikergirl]

I have a phobia against Telling, so perhaps my book seems "too" fast-paced (to some) because I Show the great majority and Tell very, very little. I tend to have a lot of dialog, which also seems to speed up the pace.

[zornhau]

I have a phobia against Telling, so perhaps my book seems "too" fast-paced (to some) because I Show the great majority and Tell very, very little. I tend to have a lot of dialog, which also seems to speed up the pace.

How so? Telling normally speeds things up:
It's the difference between:
Jasmine parried a bill and lunged home. She kicked the corpse free.

and

A spearman stepped in and thrusted at Jasmine's stomach. She dashed the shaft aside with her rifle-stock, jammed her bayonet into his throat and twisted. He dropped his spear and clutched futily at the gaping wound. She kicked the dying man's legs from under him. Stepping over the body, she advanced another pace into the temple.

[maestrowork]

I think what azbikergirl means is that there are a lot of action, dialogue, external stuff going on (all showing). Not enough introspection, internal thoughts or descriptions (more telling). That could, certainly, make the story faster paced.

[Hummingbird]

I'm guilty of skipping over descriptions when I'm reading. Some times I don't even notice until someone in the story says something about something I skipped over. So, if you think you have enough descriptions for your story, the beta reader could've just skipped it or something and complained about it being too fast.
I've actually done that before, but I read it over and the pace in the story was fine. It was just my eyes. :D

[azbikergirl]

Yeah, Maestrowork. That's what I mean. An example off the top of my head:

Telling:
Joe didn't eat enough, always in a hurry. Efficiency was crucial for a man like him. He filled his sock drawer with the same style of white socks so he didn't have to hunt for a matching pair in the dark. His closet was full of black and navy slacks, white dress shirts, and solid colored ties. Joe had enough problems to deal with at work, and a wife who found fault with everything he did.

Showing:
He smoothed the navy tie across his chest with one bony hand, and poured himself a cup of black coffee with the other, careful not to splash it on his white shirt. "I'm going to be late again."

"Where'd you put the damned sugar," his wife snapped, slamming one cupboard after another. "Why can't you just leave it on the counter until I've had my third cup?"

Close to the same word count, but the Showing seems faster to me.

[maestrowork]

I think showing is great. I prefer the second version much better. However, you could slow down the pace (at the right moments) by going internal. Or describe the world a bit more. It's nice to slow down once in a while. It's like a roller coaster ride, once in a while you want to slow the ride a bit, so when the next drop and turn come, it will be MORE exhilirating.

[Jamesaritchie]

How so? Telling normally speeds things up:
It's the difference between:


and

Telling takes fewer words than showing, but in most cases, it still reads much slower. Showing uses active verbs, action verbs, and if not broken up with description, introspection, dialogue, etc., can come at the reader with a pace that never lets him catch his breath, won't let him pause to think about what has happened and will happen.

Tell can be used to slow down the action, to calm the waters.

[zornhau]

Yeah, Maestrowork. That's what I mean. An example off the top of my head:

Telling:
Joe didn't eat enough, always in a hurry. Efficiency was crucial for a man like him. He filled his sock drawer with the same style of white socks so he didn't have to hunt for a matching pair in the dark. His closet was full of black and navy slacks, white dress shirts, and solid colored ties. Joe had enough problems to deal with at work, and a wife who found fault with everything he did.

Showing:
He smoothed the navy tie across his chest with one bony hand, and poured himself a cup of black coffee with the other, careful not to splash it on his white shirt. "I'm going to be late again."

"Where'd you put the damned sugar," his wife snapped, slamming one cupboard after another. "Why can't you just leave it on the counter until I've had my third cup?"

Close to the same word count, but the Showing seems faster to me.

That's not a pacing issue, that's the difference between cr#p writing and good writing. (The first example is unreadible by anybody whose had two cups of cofee.)

[azbikergirl]

That's not a pacing issue, that's the difference between cr#p writing and good writing. (The first example is unreadible by anybody whose had two cups of cofee.)
:ROFL:
I guess I equate Telling with cr#p writing, then!

OK, so my example sucked. I was trying to pound out an illustration of Telling vs. Showing where the word count was approximately the same. I don't see summarizing (in the right places) as Telling, necessarily. Some things are just not worth Showing ("He put a glob of toothpaste on the moist white bristles of his toothbrush, and with short, quick movements..." vs. "He got ready for work.").

[Anatole Ghio]

:ROFL:
I guess I equate Telling with cr#p writing, then!

OK, so my example sucked. I was trying to pound out an illustration of Telling vs. Showing where the word count was approximately the same. I don't see summarizing (in the right places) as Telling, necessarily. Some things are just not worth Showing ("He put a glob of toothpaste on the moist white bristles of his toothbrush, and with short, quick movements..." vs. "He got ready for work.").

Hmm... to my mind, summerizing is a form of telling. The old rule, show don't tell is useful for begining writers, but telling has it's place, when used at the right moment. A great example is in relating an event that occured to a non-POV character... or in compressing time for the purpose of speeding up the narative.

James Ritchies advice about telling slowing down a narrative is valid when it takes a reader out of the story. Telling can both slow down the narrative and speed it up.

I think the big thing is to pay attention to the reaction of the beta readers. If they say the narrative is going too fast or too slow, it means either to adjust the amount of time spent in a scene, or to change from one form of description to another.

For the life of me, though, if you follow the rule that every sentence must somehow contribute to the plot or develop character in a way that pays off in the story, I don't see how telling will do anything but speed up the story. In the example before, most of those little bits could be taken out and not effect the story.

[zornhau]

For the life of me, though, if you follow the rule that every sentence must somehow contribute to the plot or develop character in a way that pays off in the story, I don't see how telling will do anything but speed up the story. In the example before, most of those little bits could be taken out and not effect the story.


The things they describe contribute to the plot, the issue is really: how much do you compress the description and narrative? The answer is usually, less than you think.

[Anatole Ghio]

The things they describe contribute to the plot, the issue is really: how much do you compress the description and narrative? The answer is usually, less than you think.

I agree with the caveat the thread was about having too quick a pace, which I believe most writers do not suffer from as a whole. They may skip over scenes that need more exposition (a begining writing error), but very rarely do they make the error of moving the whole story along too quickly.

However, if the matter at hand is simply the ways in which a narrative can move too quickly, then compression is indeed one of the ways it can happen.

So the real issue isn't whether one compresses less than one believes, but whether one compresses appropriately and to the proper measure.

[zornhau]

Agreed! Control. It's all about control.

However, if you're a plot-orientated pulp-influenced writer such as myself, then actually it is typical error to move things along too fast.

I still maintain that the best way to slow the pacing is to have more sub-plots, with less pressing physical or emotional jeopordy.

[skylarburris]

I've been told the pacing of my novel is too fast. "Pedal to the metal the whole way," a critiquer said of my first three chapters, advising me to slow it down some. I thought fast-paced = good, exciting, can't put it down. What am I missing?

Fast pacing is good, in my opinion, unless the pace prevents your from developing the characters and prevents the readers from developing an attachment to the characters. As long as you take time to develop your characters, I think its fine. If things are just happening to your characters without us ever getting to know them, however, we may not care what happens to them.

[maestrowork]

There's nothing wrong with telling. Pro writers use "telling" to great effect. However, the problem with telling, especially in the hands of novice writers, is that it is flat compared to showing. We've all read summaries, and while they tell you the story, you're not "in" it. The thing about "showing" is that we are trying to put the readers right inside to the story, have them experience the story instead of us "telling" them what happened. Telling does move the story along, but it's like you're telling the readers to "hurry up and move along, there's not much to see here." You're telling them the scenery is beautiful and the action is exciting, without having them actually experiencing any of them.

I use telling to summarize events that already happened earlier in the story. I also use telling to skip unnecessary details to speed up the pace. The key is "unnecessary" -- anything that would bog down the action and keep the readers from experiencing the story. I strive to create that dream state for the readers, and both telling and showing, if used right, can help achieve that.

[Anatole Ghio]

We've all read summaries, and while they tell you the story, you're not "in" it. The thing about "showing" is that we are trying to put the readers right inside to the story, have them experience the story instead of us "telling" them what happened.

Agree 100 %.

One trick I use to bring tension into a compressed section, is to somehow reflect it through the perspective of a character. If it's a dialogue section, the telling not only relates events necessary to move the plot ahead, but it also reveals something about the character. When done right, the reader will pay more attention to how the telling relates to the character, than the actual details being presented. In this manner of misdirection, an author may hide many necessay evils.

If the section is in an authorial voice, I will tell it through the perspective of a character, again to introduce tension into an inherently distancing technique.

[zornhau]

If the section is in an authorial voice, I will tell it through the perspective of a character, again to introduce tension into an inherently distancing technique.


Good ol' tight 3rd person!

[Woozle]

The problem with hurried action scenes is that they flicker through the reader's mind without registering, or leaving any emotions: there's just no time for them to sink in.

"Torture your reader" is a good piece of advice I've once seen (maybe here, on absolute write), draw the tension out, make the reader squirm alongside the protagonist.

Or, if you don't like torturing readers, begin with a foreplay, start slow, and build up gradually to a screaming climax (obscene, obscene, I know, but reading on a fundamental level isn't all that different from sex: the reader needs to be warmed up, too)

Don't let the protagonist get into a fight right away. Begin with a chase, a terse conversation, a few false moves. Make the fighters stand under the scorching sun, swords (guns) ready, the sweat glistening, the lips trembling.

Slowing down does not mean AVOIDING action in lieu of some flowery descriptions of surroundings. It means EXTENDING action. From the first tingle of anxiety to the full blown rage of a cornered rat. In the end, it's all about emotions.

[EminemsRevenge]

The problem with hurried action scenes is that they flicker through the reader's mind without registering, or leaving any emotions: there's just no time for them to sink in.

"Torture your reader" is a good piece of advice I've once seen (maybe here, on absolute write), draw the tension out, make the reader squirm alongside the protagonist.

Or, if you don't like torturing readers, begin with a foreplay, start slow, and build up gradually to a screaming climax (obscene, obscene, I know, but reading on a fundamental level isn't all that different from sex: the reader needs to be warmed up, too)

Don't let the protagonist get into a fight right away. Begin with a chase, a terse conversation, a few false moves. Make the fighters stand under the scorching sun, swords (guns) ready, the sweat glistening, the lips trembling.

Slowing down does not mean AVOIDING action in lieu of some flowery descriptions of surroundings. It means EXTENDING action. From the first tingle of anxiety to the full blown rage of a cornered rat. In the end, it's all about emotions.

Woozle makes some excellent points, but you should be more attuned your own personal style:)

The Da Vinci Code works because the author is used to the fast, MTV-type style of presenting a story, and being fast paced does not always mean you detract from the suspense...i am now completing a novel that is travelling at warp 9, yet the kabbalistic subtext has your mind snailing it at a school zone speed limit if you're attuned to the finer points of the narrative:idea:

What i have learnt from studying James Joyce is that pace does not matter, enjoyment counts...although if you write like Salman Rushdie, all you can hope for is that your work will achieve enough noteriety to have a hit out on you, otherwise no one will even try to read it since it's so tedious:mad:

[Anatole Ghio]

...although if you write like Salman Rushdie, all you can hope for is that your work will achieve enough noteriety to have a hit out on you, otherwise no one will even try to read it since it's so tedious:mad:

lol!

The Moors Last Sigh is one of my favorite books of all time.

Get past the first third, and it's hard to put the book down.

But then again, maybe I just don't know what tedious really is!

[Mistook]

Read it aloud.

The term "pacing" refers both to the plot and to the word-by-word meter of the prose. You're probably blowing through individual paragraphs without leaving the reader enough time to absorb the information.

[Cathy C]

Our editor complains that our books are too-fast paced, also, so I know just how you feel! Generally, when someone says that what I've found it means is that there's not enough down time for real life to intrude. Yes, the crisis of the moment is the crux of the book, but the middle of the story should include the characters trying to fit the crisis into their real lives.

I don't think it's a question of the sentence structure or length, but what you might try to do is go back to an exciting chapter and try to figure out the TRUE timeline in there, as if YOU were part of the action. Do your people eat? Do they use the bathroom? How about brush their hair and teeth? Do they water their plants or feed the dog, or have any sort of work that pays the rent? Do they sit down to pay the bills or collect the mail?

Even when you're in a crisis, these things matter, because otherwise, it's both exhausting and unrealistic. In Chapter 5, after they've been on the go with adventures that realistically would take the equivalent of twelve hours and haven't eaten, but inexplicably, aren't tired or cranky, then it's a problem.

Does that make sense?