cattywampus said:
I don't know what you mean by "filler," but, like many writers, you seem to be writing the story for your own satisfaction. That is fine, assuming you don't plan to be pubished - or paid.
If you do want to be published, however, at some point you must stop thinking about what you want, and start thinking about what the reader wants.
My college writing instructor put it this way: When a writer writes a book (story, whatever), s/he enters into an unspoken contract with the reader. The reader promises to buy, pay for, your book, out of thousands and thousands of other books s/he might choose. In turn, the writer promises to take the reader on an interesting, satisfying journey through the story. S/he promises to lead on a straight, smooth path, free of obstacles or stumbling points - anything that might annoy or discourage the reader and cause them to return the book for a refund.
You must remember all readers are flighty; that many other things demand their attention throughout the day that are vastly more important than reading your book. They have TV, newspapers, iPods and Blackberries, families and careers demanding their attention every waking moment. If the path is full of boulders that cause them to stop reading and say "Huh?" - and it may only take one - they may abandon the book. Reading such a work feels like walking along with a noose around your neck, and the person behind giving the rope a jerk every 10 minutes. Time jumps are certainly one of those boulders.
REMEMBER THE READER!
A time jump isn't a boulder. Not putting in a time jump when one is called for is a boulder. I've heard your advice before, and it never did make sense to me. It assumes the writer isn't also a reader, and it says you should write for some nebulous group of readers "out there," readers you don't know, readers who come with more stripes than a hundred zebras. Readers who are not one group.
My bond with the reader is to write a story I like, in the way I most like it. Not much different than a joke, really. I tell someone a joke because
I find that joke hilarious. If I don't laugh at it, I don't pass it along on the assumption that someone else will find it funny.
Time jumps in novels and movies are common, very often needed, and when done well, work well.
Never add filler. That's a real boulder in the reader's path. If the time between two periods isn't relevant, or if it's boring, get rid of it.
I know myself better than I know anyone else alive, and I know exactly what I do and don't like in a story. The safest thing I can do is assume that if I like the way I write, the way I tell a story, so will many others.
If you want paid, you'd darned well better write a story that pleases you, rather than some reader you've never met.
Very few stories happen in a way that allows continuous telling. Most novels take place over weeks, months, or years. Sometimes over decades and centuries.
And even with short time spans, time jumps save the reader a lot of boredom. If event one happens at eight in the morning, and the next important event happens at midnight, there's no reason at all not to jump to midnight. If event one happens in 1986, and the next important event happens in 2006, spare your reader and get in your time machine.
And if your protagonist must travel from New York to Seattle, there's no reason at all to take the reader along for the trip.
A high percentage of transitions are all about jumping forward in time. Lawrence Block calls taking the reader everywhere "Taking the D train."
If your protagonist has to see someone across town, you do not have to take the reader down the elevator, out the door, across the street, into the subway, and on the D train with you. If you do, be sure to wake the reader up when you get where you're going.
Easier and better just to write something like, "I took a final drink of coffee, and an hour later I was in Greenwich Village, knocking on Sinclair's door."
