Don't understand "eschew surplusage"...any examples out there?

jsh · Dec 20, 2006

Howdy!

While the idea that one should eschew surplusage appears intuitively sensible, my own failure to understand what it really implies for actual writing makes it seem like the advice given in "The Gambler": yeah, one needs to know when to fold 'em, that much seems obvious, but the Gambler never tells us when we need to actually fold 'em.

My problem seems to be that of the classical logical paradox of sorites: how many grains of sand make a heap of sand? If I have one grain, it isn't a heap; adding one makes it a pair, not a heap; adding another makes it three; and so on. At no point can we demarcate heap from non-heap. It works in reverse, too. If I have a heap, and if I take away one grain, it's still a heap. I can take away single grains and never cross the line between heap and non-heap, thus ending up with a single grain of sand that is also a heap of sand.

We can intuitively tell the difference between a heap and a non-heap of sand, and although we may disagree on fine points, we've all got a pretty good idea of what a heap of sand is. Unlike heaps of sand, piles of dirt, or bald heads, I have no real understanding of what is or is not surplusage in writing.

I am asking for help in understanding this, and because this may be obvious to many here, I am asking you to dumb it way down and be obvious to the point where you feel you are being insulting. Seriously.

My first thought is that there may be good examples out there of texts before and after the pruning knife has been applied. For all I know, there may be whole sites devoted to this, and I just don't know where they are.

My second thought is that you likely have a very good way of explaining it so that I understand, or at least come closer to understanding. Remember, don't just dumb it down, moron it down. ^_^

Regardless, any help in understanding this issue will be very helpful.

Thanks!

PeeDee · Dec 20, 2006

The sheer length of your post made me think you were joking. I really did. But on the off-chance that you're seriously asking.

Eschewing surplusage is a Mark Twain quote which I use frequently around the forums. I imagine toher people use it too. What it means is, "speak plainly." Mark Twain being a master of irony used complicated words to explain that you should speak plainly.

There were some sci-fi writers I remember reading (and although I can think of a few, I'm thinking specifically of Michael Jan Friedman at the moment) who will use massive thick words that are just unnecessary to telling the story. It's raiding the goddamn thesaurus instead of just getting on with the storytelling.

It means speak plainly. It means, cut the crap and get to the point. You don't need fifteen pages of byzantine purple prose when you can convey the same point, quick and effective, in two paragraphs. It means making every word of what you're writing really count, really pull its weight.

jsh · Dec 20, 2006

PeeDee said:
The sheer length of your post made me think you were joking.

Nope. Serious. (Is my reference to the sorites problem surplusage? If so, why is a technically precise statement of my problem extra, purple junk?)

Eschewing surplusage is a Mark Twain quote which I use frequently around the forums. I imagine toher people use it too. What it means is, "speak plainly." Mark Twain being a master of irony used complicated words to explain that you should speak plainly.

Hrm...I always thought eschew obsfucation was the ironic call for plain speak. Which is a bummer, because I was thinking about the advice to remove unnecessary words & stuff. Or is that what you're saying:

It means making every word of what you're writing really count, really pull its weight.

Which is what I don't understand. I can take all the excess words out of "The Hobbit" and end up with "short guy helps dwarves get their house back". What words can I cut? What words can't I cut? I assume there isn't a formula; however, I need help getting an understanding of what is excess and what isn't.

Consider Orwell's famous example, where he started with

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

and to turn it into something unreadable, he reproduced it as

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

Yet this example, while useful perhaps to postmoderist academics, is useless to me, because the transformation is too obvious to be meaningful. Indeed, why is the original hailed as an example of good English? It could be restated more clearly and parsimoniously as

Success is due to luck, not skill.

I hope I'm making my problem clear; I worry that I am not.

UrsusMinor · Dec 20, 2006

Wow, Pee Dee!

Hey, that was way more than five sentences, all related; had some three-syllable words, no emoticons, no real idiomatic expressions...it's frightening to think what may be forthcoming before your pledge expires tomorrow.

I agree "speak plainly" was what Twain had in mind, in line with his, "I never write 'metropolis' for seven cents because I can get the same price for 'city'." (Which suggests Twain was getting a better price-per-word than most of his modern counterparts.)

I think the original poster may have intended to pose a more general question, though. More apropos than 'surplusage' might be Elmore Leonard's "I try to leave out the parts people skip." I think the poster is asking, "How do we know which parts those are?"

To which I answer, with great certainty, I dunno.

Later edit: Oops, jsh has come back before I even finished my post. And it looks like I was right--he IS asking that bigger question.

PeeDee · Dec 20, 2006

You didn't write excess purple junk, jsh. It's just that it was a thread on eschewing surplusage, and your post was lengthy and complicated. That's all. Maybe I have an overworked sense of irony. there's nothing wrong with your post. I just couldn't differentiate between it and dry humor. Forgive me.

Using the Hobbit as an example of what to leave out doesn't work, because the bad bits were already left out. What you're reading is the final version, and I don't see a lot of surplusage in there to eschew. By breaking it down to "short guy helps dwarves," you're not leaving out the excess, you're leaving out everything necessary.

The George Orwell example is a good one, and if it seems too obvious, well, it should. It is that obvious. If you're writing prose that is thick and unweildy for no reason other than making fancy prose, then it needs to be thinned out.

It doesn't mean cut your story, and it doesn't mean water down your text, or dumb it down. All it means is, if you mean "take a shit" then you have no need to say "he preformed an act of excretion." You don't have to swear, but you don't have to write fancy.

See what I mean? I hope?

edited to add: A wonderful quote on something related to this subject is Stephen King saying "The reader may be floundering in the swamp, and by all means throw him a rope if he is. There is no need to knock him unconscious with ninety feet of steel cable."

UrsusMinor · Dec 20, 2006

jsh said:
Yet this example, while useful perhaps to postmoderist academics, is useless to me, because the transformation is too obvious to be meaningful. Indeed, why is the original hailed as an example of good English? It could be restated more clearly and parsimoniously as

"Success is due to luck, not skill."

I hope I'm making my problem clear; I worry that I am not.

Quite clear. But you're off into matters of prosody, there. Economy of words isn't everything.

Not only is the Biblical verse poetic, it also hammers home its point with examples that resonate. "Success is due to luck, not skill" is the kind of statement it is easy to argue with. The verse, on the other hand, which was put into that form when English was at its most vital and vibrant, is like a body blow to those who would argue the point.

In other words, the point argued by the Biblical verse may not be be true, but it sure rings true. And anybody who argues back by saying (preferably in a whiny accountant voice), "Well, actually, I have some statistics right here that contradict you..." is going to lose the debate.

Bayou Bill · Dec 20, 2006

jsh said:
Hrm...I always thought eschew obsfucation was the ironic call for plain speak. Which is a bummer, because I was thinking about the advice to remove unnecessary words & stuff. Or is that what you're saying:

Surplusage and obfuscation are both things writers should eschew:

SURPLUSAGE:: something, including writing, that is surplus; an excess amount.

OBFUSCATION: concealing meaning by making writing more confusing and harder to interpret than needed for comprehension.

Bayou Bill

janetbellinger · Dec 20, 2006

I'm sorry I can't help it because every time I see the word "eschew," I can't help thinking about somebody chewing on the letter "S." Weird, I know.

PeeDee · Dec 20, 2006

I was using the definitions more or less interchangably in my above posts. They're both as important, and I wanted to talk about both. Thanks for clarifying, though, Bill. It was great. Says me.

Bayou Bill · Dec 20, 2006

PeeDee said:
I was using the definitions more or less interchangably in my above posts. They're both as important, and I wanted to talk about both. Thanks for clarifying, though, Bill. It was great. Says me.

You're more than welcome, PeeDee. Believe me, I needed to double-check the differences.

Janet, you're not weird--at least not for a writer.

Bayou Bill

J.S Greer · Dec 20, 2006

The sheer length of your post made me think you were joking. I really did.

Same here, and Im still not so sure.

Eschewing surplusage is a Mark Twain quote which I use frequently around the forums. I imagine toher people use it too. What it means is, "speak plainly." Mark Twain being a master of irony used complicated words to explain that you should speak plainly.

Kind of like the original post here.

It means speak plainly. It means, cut the crap and get to the point. You don't need fifteen pages of byzantine purple prose when you can convey the same point, quick and effective, in two paragraphs. It means making every word of what you're writing really count, really pull its weight.

The only time I like purple is when the topic is Prince. Did I just say that out loud?

blacbird · Dec 20, 2006

Twain's famous quote is a blood-brother to Harlan Ellison's equally famous: "Stop writing crap."

caw

Birol · Dec 20, 2006

Your original post after a quick edit:

Howdy!

The idea to eschew surplusage appears intuitive, but my own failure to understand what it implies makes it seem like the advice in "The Gambler": yeah, one needs to know when to fold 'em, but the Gambler never tells us when we need to fold 'em.

My problem is of the classical logical paradox of sorites: how many grains of sand make a heap of sand? If I have one grain, it isn't a heap; adding one makes it a pair, not a heap; adding another makes it three; and so on. It works in reverse, too. If I have a heap, and if I take away one grain, it's still a heap. I can take away single grains and never cross the line between heap and non-heap, ending with a single grain of sand that is a heap.

We can tell the difference between a heap and a non-heap of sand, although we may disagree on fine points. Unlike heaps of sand, I have no real understanding of what is or is not surplusage in writing.

Because this may be obvious to many here, please dumb it way down. Be obvious. Be insulting.

There may be good before and after examples out there; I just don't know where they are.

I hope you have a good way of explaining it so that I understand. Remember, don't just dumb it down, moron it down. ^_^

Thanks!

Nyna · Dec 20, 2006

You leave out the bits of the story that have nothing to do with the story -- scenes that advance nothing, explain nothing, do nothing for the theme and, though they may be lovely, leave the reader wondering fifty pages later where that dropped subplot was heading, and why we needed to watch your main character get a haircut.

You leave out the bits of the sentence that are more comlicated than they need to be -- which is not to say dumb everything down to monosyllables. As Twain also said, the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. Use the word that fits your meaning, and if your sentence calls for the word city then use the word city, and if it calls for the word metropolis use the word metropolis, but if you need the word city don't use the word metropolis just to prove that you're a writer and know long words like that.

In the end it's a judgement call. As far as prose goes, writers have done brilliant things with very spare styles and brilliant things with very complicated ones, and you need to figure out for yourself what sounds right to you. Your style will probably be more ornate than Hemingway's and less ornate than Proust's, and if you manage with half the talent of either you'll be set for life.

Clear as mud?

Inkdaub · Dec 21, 2006

Back to the issue at hand.

A heap of sand would begin at no fewer than four grains. A stack could have fewer grains, but a heap implies disorder and therefore requires a bit more grainage.

MMcC · Dec 21, 2006

I'd be psyched just to get the punctuation inside the quotes.

NeuroFizz · Dec 21, 2006

I posted this in the poetry forum some time ago, but it may be appropriate here:

In the darkness, not one day past
blunt end to me, serendipitous cast
an oak did lie full grooved and etched
impacted sinew thusly stretched
a trestle, hissed in cadence force
the act without, but delayed remorse

Or, put in non-Gongorian roe
I just stubbed my f***ing toe

NOTE: Gongorism, or gongorismo is considered a deliberately obscure, meaningless and affected ornamental style (from Rhetorosaurus). It is reported to originate from the works of the Spanish poet Luis de Gongora y Argote (1561-1627), however, the exaggerations of his imitators (evidently) contributed more to the hits on his reputation than did his own work.

Jamesaritchie · Dec 21, 2006

Eschew

Don't know about a heap, but if they're needed, a million words are fine. If it isn't needed, one word is too many.

smiley10000 · Dec 21, 2006

Strunk and White have a few examples that may make it clearer (these all come from Chapter II Elementary Principles of Composition):

Use: Dead leaves covered the ground.
Instead of: There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground.

Use: forgot
Instead of: did not remember

Use: he
Instead of: he is a man who

Use: His cousin, a member of the same firm.
Instead of: His cousin, who is a member of the same firm.

Cutting out the excess brings the writing to life. That is what is meant by "make every word count". Find the words that will best convey what you want to say with out being bogged down...

good luck in your 'S'chewing
:roll:

10000

jsh · Dec 21, 2006

NeuroFizz said:
...Rhetorosaurus.

What? A dinosaur in bell bottom jeans?

janetbellinger said:
I'm sorry I can't help it because every time I see the word "eschew," I can't help thinking about somebody chewing on the letter "S."

One would probably need to floss after that.

Nyna said:
Use the word that fits your meaning, and if your sentence calls for the word city then use the word city, and if it calls for the word metropolis use the word metropolis....

Okay, so I need not eschew wanting to use the right word? I'm not forced to use confident when what I mean is aplomb? I confess that S.J. Perelman might have the style I would most wish to emulate, and I was particularly moved by his statement that there are no real synonyms.

SJ Perelman said:
The other night a forty-five-year-old friend of mine, after ingesting equal portions of Greek fire and artillery punch, set out to prove that he could walk across a parquet flooring on his hands while balancing a vase on his head. As a consequence, about eleven o'clock the following morning he was being trepanned at the Harkness Pavilion and I was purchasing a bottle of Major's Cement.

or

It was, of course, the utter nonchalance of the phrase "who sent his laundry to Paris" that knocked me galley-west. Obviously, Trumbull wasn't referring ot one isolated occasion; he meant that the Pandit made a practice of consigning his laundry to the post, the way one used to under the academic elms. But this was no callow sophomore shipping his wash home to save money. A man willful and wealthy enough to have it shuttled from one hemisphere to another could hardly have been prompted by considerations of thrift. He must have been a consummate perfectionist, a fussbudget who wanted every last pleat in order, and, remembering my own Homeric wrangles with laundrymen just around the corner, I blenched at the complications his overseas dispatch must have entailed.

PeeDee said:
Using the Hobbit as an example of what to leave out doesn't work, because the bad bits were already left out.

I chose The Hobbit because I've heard complaints that Tolkien's is too wordy. Maybe the complaints were lodged against LoTR proper. Regardless, it would still be helpful to see more before-and-after examples in order to get a feel for the subject.

MMcC said:
I'd be psyched just to get the punctuation inside the quotes.

Baby steps.

Prawn · Dec 21, 2006

Let me second this post in my own way. In a novel of three or four hundred pages, it is necessary to have some review in places so people remember what was going on, sort of like they used to do in comic books

"when we last left out hero, he was..."

So I insert gentle reminders. The question is, how gentle do they need to be.

The same thing works with dialogue tags. It is an art to put just enough reminders in of who is speaking, identifying them with they way they talk or with beats. But how much is too much and how much is too little?

That's the trick, I said.

Did I need that last tag?

greglondon · Dec 21, 2006

jsh said:
Howdy!

While the idea that one should eschew surplusage appears intuitively sensible, my own failure to understand what it really implies for actual writing makes it seem like the advice given in "The Gambler": yeah, one needs to know when to fold 'em, that much seems obvious, but the Gambler never tells us when we need to actually fold 'em.

My problem seems to be that of the classical logical paradox of sorites: how many grains of sand make a heap of sand? If I have one grain, it isn't a heap; adding one makes it a pair, not a heap; adding another makes it three; and so on. At no point can we demarcate heap from non-heap. It works in reverse, too. If I have a heap, and if I take away one grain, it's still a heap. I can take away single grains and never cross the line between heap and non-heap, thus ending up with a single grain of sand that is also a heap of sand.

We can intuitively tell the difference between a heap and a non-heap of sand, and although we may disagree on fine points, we've all got a pretty good idea of what a heap of sand is. Unlike heaps of sand, piles of dirt, or bald heads, I have no real understanding of what is or is not surplusage in writing.

I am asking for help in understanding this, and because this may be obvious to many here, I am asking you to dumb it way down and be obvious to the point where you feel you are being insulting. Seriously.

My first thought is that there may be good examples out there of texts before and after the pruning knife has been applied. For all I know, there may be whole sites devoted to this, and I just don't know where they are.

My second thought is that you likely have a very good way of explaining it so that I understand, or at least come closer to understanding. Remember, don't just dumb it down, moron it down. ^_^

Regardless, any help in understanding this issue will be very helpful.

Thanks!

Eschew surpluses means get rid of any excess. For example, your entire first post could have been boiled down to this:

What does "one should eschew surplusage" mean?

I would suggest you try changing your posting behaviour for a few days so that you can't post more than, say, three sentences in a post, just to get a feel for it. There are some things you can read about and learn, but if you want to write fiction and eschew surplusages, you should practice writing everything and eschewing surplusages while doing it.

Roger J Carlson · Dec 21, 2006

Four grains of sand is the smallest heap. The definition of a heap is: ":a group of things placed, thrown, or lying one on another; pile: a heap of stones." The smallest number that grains can be layered with any stablity is four: three on the bottom and one on top. However, four grains laying on the flat would not be a heap. You're welcome.

engmajor2005 · Dec 21, 2006

How do you know what words are surplus that should be eschewed?

Find a savvy, honest beta. Give them your MS and a red pen. Tell them to make notes.

If they write "This bores me" in the margin. It's surplus. Eschew it.

One can be extra sure of this by finding several savvy, honest betas and giving all of them your MS and red pens. If more than 50% of them think that something is boring, eschew it.

I eschew liberally if I think something is unnecessary. I have eschewed entire passages before, at one time eschewing an entire WIP and just starting over.

(Eschew is a fun word to use. I must use it as liberally as possible.)

engmajor2005 · Dec 21, 2006

Heh heh...

I have a passage in my head.

The professor sat with his student at the desk. They were looking over the rough draft of the student's final paper, and as usual the professor was making liberal suggestions for how it could be improved. He underlined several sentences and said aloud "Eschew."

The student replied "God bless you."

Don't understand "eschew surplusage"...any examples out there?

jsh

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

jsh

UrsusMinor

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

UrsusMinor

Bayou Bill

AW Ne'er-Do-Well

janetbellinger

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

Bayou Bill

AW Ne'er-Do-Well

J.S Greer

Feel the power!

blacbird

Birol

Around and About

Nyna

Inkdaub

wrapped in plastic

MMcC

NeuroFizz

The grad students did it

Jamesaritchie

smiley10000

What do we do? We write...

jsh

Prawn

Writing is finite,revising infinite

greglondon

Planet Wookie techno geek

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only

engmajor2005

engmajor2005