Stage Directions vs Clarity

I've struggled with understanding this. I've come to the conclusion that movement is only important when movement is important. Meaning, something happens, or there's something telling and on-point about the movement that you should draw attention to. Otherwise, I think, Jim left, jim walked to the store at the end of the block, Jim lit a cigarette suffice. I think Bukowski handled this very well.

From my critting experience I'd say the stage direction (and facial expression, and excessive dialogue tags, and -ly adverbs...) are far more often overdone than underdone. It easily starts to sound like explaining to us each time a character breathes in, then breathes out. It is not interesting. Of course some of it is needed though, and learning where to put it in and where to leave it out is touchy-feely, as opposed to it being anything to be "for" or "against." So when articles talk about it, I'm sure they are assuming people are using it intelligently. It should be applied where it adds something of necessary info. or interest or pacing to the story as opposed to being globbed on thick everywhere without that discernment, which is the common newbie problem.

A few ideas for getting better at it, for anyone who needs help with it:

- Have someone read the story to you while you listen. It often stands out as boring, obvious, or unnecessary when you hear it.

- Try taking all of it out. Delete it. Then only add something back in where it seems like something is missing.

- Consider limiting yourself with it. One movement, not three. "He opened the door," not "He stood, turned, walked across the room, and opened the door." And not every time someone speaks.

- Consider if it's what we'd expect in that situation anyway. For example, I'd expect someone to smile when greeting someone so it's really boring to have stuff like that spelled out for me over and over again. Now if the person's facial expression did not match their words of greeting, that would be unexpected and worth noting. I get it that people's eyes will be focused on whatever is of interest at the moment, so please get rid of constantly telling us that someone looked at something or someone. Etc.

- Watch the ping pong thing (aka "St. Vitus Dance") where each time a character speaks, a small motion or facial expression is included. One funny way to check for this is to read your story out loud to someone and have them act out each small motion described. People don't normally writhe about, pop up and down, and so on with each line of dialogue, yet I see this a lot in beginner writing. Don't be afraid to use less of it. Just let them speak sometimes, trust the dialogue and the thoughts to do their job more.

- End a scene, then begin with another, rather than explain in excruciating, uninteresting detail exactly how the character locomoted from one scene to the next.

- Critique widely. After you do a couple hundred critiques, you will see the top several dozen usual newbie clunks so often that they'll stand out to you in neon colors. It stuns me how often I've seen that same, easily recognizable stuff from writers who have been around the writer forums for years. I think there is a whole lot to be gained from doing a ton of critiques that is often otherwise missed.

- Don't worry about it in the first draft. Catch it later. Post your work for critique and let others weigh in on if and where it's overdone.

- Try flash fiction. In tiny stories, clutter stands out hugely. It's more noticeable, so your writing gets tighter.

That's all I can think of right now.

I have struggled with this same thing recently. My MC is cleaning several hand guns, some early on to get them clean for storage. I went to 'some' detail for readers that might not be familiar with the activity and to establish her routine for the activity. But, later she does it again to check for evidence of recent use. I might go overboard on the detail, but it 'seems' important to me. So, I'm just going with it till one of my betas points it out as a problem.

I agree that at times too much showing can be too much, that we need to let the reader fill in some spaces…but…
I also hate the…John said, Anna said, John said…which so many writers use liberally. I know, it’s supposed to be neutral, but after a while it’s not.
Personally I prefer to show the character, especially if it’s pertinent to what he’s saying. The guy who pulls at his earlobe when faced with a dilemma, the old man stocking his goatee when thinking, the woman staring at her hands when nervous. If it’s a major character, after explaining the first time why he/she does that, on subsequent situation the act itself tells the reader what the character’s going through. Trying to keep a balance is important. After a short round of he said, she said, I’ll identify the speaker by some action, while still trying not to overdo it.

I'll echo what Maryn and Fruitbat, in particular, have said and said well. In addition to which, regarding the dichotomy (stage-direction v. clarity) posed in the thread title: Too much stage-direction is commonly the enemy of clarity in narrative. It bogs things down, can make things unnecessarily complicated, and gums up the flow of prose for the reader. For inexperienced writers, much such stage-direction seems to take the form of "transitions" from scene to scene, which would be much better left as simple scene-breaks.

caw

My tactic is to put in every detail that seems important while I'm writing. If that includes lots of detailed choreography, or detailed anything, fine. It helps me make sure everything is consistent and realistic.

But then on rewrite I reevaluate those details. What can I get rid of which leaves only the crucial and the vivid details which will help my readers fill in all the other details I leave open?

I get the impression you think a writer has to get everything right the first time. News flash: even the most brilliant and skilled of us need to rewrite, though our approaching to rewriting differs. Some do it mostly after the whole thing is done. Others rewrite after each chapter or scene is done.

From Strangers, by Dean Koontz

Dom Corvaisis did not worry about his affliction, though he was discomfited and somewhat embarrassed by it. As a novelist, he was intrigued by these new nocturnal ramblings, for he viewed all new experiences as material for his fiction.
Nevertheless, though he might eventually profit from creative use of his own somnambulism, it was an affliction. He crawled out of the closet, wincing as the pain in his neck spread up across his scalp and down into his shoulders. He had difficulty getting to his feet because his legs were cramped.

As always, he felt sheepish. He now knew that somnambulism was a condition to which adults were vulnerable, but he still considered it a childish problem. Like bed-wetting.

Wearing blue pajama bottoms, bare-chested, slipperless, he shuffled across the living room, down the short hall, into the master bedroom, and into the bath. In the mirror, he looked dissipated, a libertine surfacing from a week of shameless indulgence in a wide variety of sins.

In fact, he was a man of remarkably few vices. He did not smoke, overeat, or take drugs. He drank little. He liked women, but he was not promiscuous; he believed in commitment in a relationship. Indeed, he had not slept with anyone in - what was it now?-almost four months.

He only looked this bad - dissipated, wrung-out - when he woke and discovered that he had taken one of his unscheduled nocturnal trips to a makeshift bed. Each time he had been exhausted. Though asleep, he got no rest on the nights he walked.

He sat down on the edge of the bathtub, bent his leg up to look at the bottom of his left foot, then checked the bottom of his right foot. Neither was cut, scratched, or particularly dirty, so he had not left the house while sleepwalking. He had awakened in closets twice before, once last week and once twelve days prior to that, and he had not had dirty feet on those occasions, either. As before, he felt as if he had traveled miles while unconscious, but if he actually had gone that far, he had done it by making countless circuits of his own small house.

Click to expand...

Many people would try to cut the quoted bit by a third or by half because Hemingway and Elmore and Twitter diva editors and stuff.
This would destroy the style. Some stories need to be written this way and in no other way.

Reviews of book include:

I've just finished reading STRANGERS for the fourth time. And, undoubtedly, I'll read it again and again. When I checked out some of the other reviews I was astounded that some readers didn't like this story. They thought it was too long! Good Lord, it wasn't long enough!

Click to expand...

I've tried to remember how many times I've read this book, but can't. At 587 pages (paper edition) there's always something that seems new, even after so many readings.

Click to expand...

I read this book every couple of years. The characters are like old friends to me and the plot is amazing. No supernatural stuff here, just sci fi. I've gone through several copies of the book. I keep lending it out and it is never returned! Now that it's digital don't have to worry about that!

Click to expand...

Rereading Strangers was like running into old friends at a bar and spending the night talking and reliving the past. All of the characters and development are perfect and you will finish the book wanting to go back to the bar the next night hoping your friends will be there again.

Click to expand...

There are, of course, negative reviews too, but it's one thing when they are competing with positive reviews which are the usual banalities about page turning and roller-coaster rides and rip-roar yarns and caring about characters and waiting for the next book of the author, quite another if they are competing with people saying
a) this is my favorite book, or
b) I have reread this book many times, or
c) this book changed my life.
If a book generates reviews in any of these three categories this means it's a book with a capital B and is fine the way it is. Is indeed as 'objectively' good as a book can be, in this business.
Therefore Strangers is written exactly the way it should have been written, therefore stage direction avalanches are not an 'objective evil' in all possible scenarios.

The general rule that covers this is, "Don't tell the reader something they already know."

He twisted the knob counterclockwise and pulled back, swinging the door through a quarter circle.

We all know how a door works. Just say He went in. Of course rules have exceptions. You might want to write the above to slow the pace to a crawl, for example to show that the narrator dreads what's behind the door.

I think beginning writers do this because they know they're supposed to have a lot of detail, and they fill up the required space with stage direction. What you should actually do is populate your world with unexpected elements, and describe those, not painstakingly describe typical things that are exactly as the reader had already imagined them.

Another issue with descriptive detail is one of POV. It's easy to get so wrapped up in describing details that you lose track of what would actually be noticed by the characters. I caught an example of this in Stieg Larsson's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, just a little thing, but it bothered me as a reader, and triggered me into seeing and being annoyed by other similar things as I read. Given that Larsson's books have been criticized by some as being overly long, I suspect this to be one reason.

The scene involved the girl of the title being shadowed by a couple of obvious thugs. She contrives to observe them as they eat lunch in a café, watching surreptitiously through a window some distance from their table. One of the men lights up a Marlboro cigarette. I instantly wondered, How does she know it's a Marlboro? From where she was, all she would know is that he's lighting a cigarette. Further, why would she even care what brand it was? It was a mass-market American cigarette brand, anyway.

Details need to be meaningful, at least for my reading experience. If the guy had pulled out a gold-colored metal cigarette case, and extracted a cigarette from it, that might say something intriguing about his character, but as it stood, it was not only meaningless, but, to me, incongruous.

caw

About that Dean Koontz example- Every time clunky writing comes up, someone seems to post an example about how such and such rich and famous author did it, so there. The problem I have with that is it gives new writers the idea that learning the craft is not necessary since it is all merely a matter of opinion (which it's not just because it's somewhat subjective).

Clunky is clunky and pretty easily recognized, regardless of who may have gotten away with it. Similarly, "style" and "voice" are no magical words that make any writing above reproach. I think that passage by Dean Koontz shown below is clunky and lacks polish. Just because he's a very popular commercial success anyway doesn't mean it's not. That is like saying that the commercial success of McDonald's proves that there's no actual quality difference between restaurant food ingredients.

There's nothing "banal," diva-ish" etc. about recognizing what is and is not basic good craftsmanship.

For me, stage directions are a lot like dialogue tags in the first draft. I use more than I need because I know I can cut them down during revisions.

Fruitbat said:

About that Dean Koontz example- Every time clunky writing comes up, someone seems to post an example about how such and such rich and famous author did it, so there. The problem I have with that is it gives new writers the idea that learning the craft is not necessary since it is all merely a matter of opinion (which it's not just because it's somewhat subjective).

Clunky is clunky and pretty easily recognized, regardless of who may have gotten away with it. Similarly, "style" and "voice" are no magical words that make any writing above reproach. I think that passage by Dean Koontz shown below is clunky and lacks polish. Just because he's a very popular commercial success anyway doesn't mean it's not. That is like saying that the commercial success of McDonald's proves that there's no actual quality difference between restaurant food ingredients.

There's nothing "banal," diva-ish" etc. about recognizing what is and is not basic good craftsmanship.

Click to expand...

1. McDonalds writers do not have people rereading their books all their lives; I tried to point out the difference between disposable books and a book with a capital B. Apparently to deaf ears.

2. This was not clunky writing. This is highly competent writing. Vastly more so then any random contemporary thriller or paranormal or sci-fi writer you care to quote.

3. To you the example meant 'there's no need to try harder'; to me it meant 'stop following fads, go where your book takes you.'

4. As a reader I don't want all the stories available to me to be identical as writing style. To the contrary, I want every writer to offer something different.

5. Koontz...not good basic craftsmanship? Sorry, not buying it. He has the best basic craftsmanship on the market. He is not 'getting away' with anything. Almost everyone else is getting away with something.

6. Anyone can cackle how Koontz or Patterson are 'getting away' with stuff and this is why they sold more books than there are people in North America. How about studying and analyzing how they achieve what they achieve? Vastly harder than self-congratulatory seething, granted, and may take years, but some people actually turned the perception of Stephen King as a lucky hack, after much study, so it can be done, it's not impossible.

7. Even a popular sitcom offers things for productive analysis of structure and style in storytelling. Failing to recognize this will leave one to wallow in bitter provincialism on the sidelines, trying to keep warm with the mantra "at least I have taste". There's nothing wrong with being on the sidelines if that's personal choice. But spinning it as a question of morality and objective quality is loserdom.

8. Of course there are ways to measure objectively if a book is good or not, aside from sales:
a. It receives respectable awards
b. It is remembered for more than a few years
c. It defines an age and/or adds new words to the language
d. It has characters which enter the popular imagination and do not leave
e. A lot of people say 'this book inspired me to become a writer'
f. A lot of people say 'this is my favorite book'
g. A lot of people say 'I reread this book every few years'
h. A lot of people say 'this book changed me'
i. A lot of people gift this book to people they love and respect.
...It's not some unfathomable philosophical question. The more of these points are covered by a book, the better it is. But conforming to some writing fad as a measure of quality? Of course not. Never. Following direct or indirect peer pressure is only a route to quality if a butterfly flaps its wings correctly on Mars. The other times it's a route to other things.

9. Every town has musicians who are 'vastly better' than all them pop and rock stars. These musicians either have the honesty to be jealous of the special quality of the pop and rock stars and either make their peace with their status or try to develop in themselves this special quality, or are losers who are completely blind to what makes the stars stars and instead spend their times telling people how they are vastly better musicians with much more polished style and it's all luck and connections that make or break a career.

10. Polished style is great. But to me, Lovecraft also offers a polished style--just his own style. Not some objective THE style. Because there's no such thing outside certain imaginations. Learning to evaluate and enjoy a work of art on its own terms, instead of through some fad filter takes some work, but it's far from impossible, and the rewards can be endless.

11. When someone becomes a legend at what they do, this doesn't mean everyone else must forevermore try to do it the same way. It really doesn't. Sure, whole business will arise around convincing people that's the only way to do it and this is how, careers and names will be made, but that's just how the market works. Getting caught up in all that is no badge of smartness.

OK, that was it. Sorry if I sounded angry--I woke up angry. Now I'll get back to work.

Recent events have convinced me that story is everything, craft (beyond a certain basic level of competence in sentence construction) is useless crap.

caw

@Re-Modernist- You're still denigrating the idea of basic good craft? No, that's not a "fad," and it's nothing like advocating "all one style" like something out of a paint by number kit. Not even close. If you can't tell the difference, I'd advise you to keep learning. Sorry, but you are simply wrong. I really can't even debate that as if it's a serious position.

Fruitbat said:

@Re-Modernist- You're still denigrating the idea of basic good craft? No, that's not a "fad," and it's nothing like advocating "all one style" like something out of a paint by number kit. Not even close. If you can't tell the difference, I'd advise you to keep learning. Sorry, but you are simply wrong. I really can't even debate that as if it's a serious position.

Click to expand...

Either quote a single post in the history of Re-modernist where the idea of basic good craft is denigrated or take that back

I'm enjoying this, but this thread would be taken over. If you're in the mood, how about a thread for basic good craft debate? There we can maybe fashion a few competing explanations with examples and stuff... I myself have gotten a much clearer idea of vague thoughts I have, through such discussions. AW is gold for this.

However, prerequisite for a proper debate which would be useful for participants and viewers is the making of the effort to read through the other person's posts. Not skim until one finds something which confirms a bias and call it a day.

I'm exciting the thread with friendly grins to everyone, anyone at all is welcome to PM me so that we can start a specific "argument thread" for this sort of discussions.

There are times when detail might seem unnecessary at first but turn out later to have had a purpose.

For example, we might read that Jim got a can opener from the kitchen drawer and used it open a can of soup. Why do we need to know that Jim got the can opener from a kitchen drawer? In fact, why do we need to know about the can opener at all? Can't we just read that Jim opened a can of soup, or simply that he cooked himself some soup?

But maybe later, when the zombies are trying to get into the house and Jim needs to get into the locked gun cabinet, he remembers he saw a set of keys in the kitchen drawer while he was getting the can opener.

So context should be considered when judging detail, which at first might seem unnecessary but later prove to have been important. So I guess what I'm saying is, don't through the book across the room for excessive detail until you find out whether or not the detail had a purpose.

Re the Koontz sample: Koontz is a very accomplished writer, and I'm not talking successful here. He knows what he's doing. If the passage seems excessively detailed, there's a darn good chance there's a reason for it.

The Dean Koontz example is one where describing a character's precise movements is used to good effect - it helps get across the sense of disorientation of the POV character upon waking up in the wrong place after an episode of sleepwalking. It also emphasises the difficulty of the movements for him. He's cramped, in pain, disorientated and going to the bathroom is more like a trek and not like waking up on a normal morning. It's not like the writer's describing every movement of something that's completely normal and ordinary, like describing all the steps in going to the kitchen and making a cup of tea rather than just saying "he went to the kitchen and made a cup of tea". The character's in a very unusual and surprising situation and in a state of mind where he will be focusing on every small movement rather than just purposefully getting on with his day.

In some cases, even describing how someone makes tea - or at least certain specific details of it - can be used to good effect. For example, if they make it in a teapot rather than a mug, or if (horror upon horrors) they put the milk in first. The fact that they even care about the specifics of how to make tea is probably a massive clue that they're British. How they make tea and which details of tea making they care about tells you their social class and family background.

Point being that it's all about what details to include and why, which is the same as most people on the thread are saying already. Describing banal character movements in detail when they add nothing and have no relevance bogs the story down and it gets very boring and clunky. Detailed descriptions of characters' movements, (like so many things in writing that get frowned upon because they tend to be misused or overused), used well can convey character, add suspense, show a character's state of mind and many other things, as the Koontz example shows. It's all about how and why you do it.

I think these kinds of details can be useful for integrating environmental or world building cues into dialog or action. This can be important in fantasy or SF, or in any story that's not taking place in a setting that's intuitively familiar to most people. Showing a character getting a pot of porridge off the ledge in the fireplace and dishing it into wooden bowls with a ladle can show the reader what kind of setting we're talking about in a way that saying, "She served everyone some porridge" doesn't. Incorporating setting into actions is often recommended as an alternative to starting with loads of static description at the beginning of a scene.

It can also contribute to emotional tension or characterization. A character who is fiddling with a lock of hair tells the reader that they're nervous, and it also tells them that the person has long hair that's worn in a style that makes it accessible to his or her fingers.

I tend to prefer a light touch with those kinds of "stage directions," but too little, and a scene can feel like it's taking place in a swirling, gray fog, or the reader can get the wrong idea about the setting and be surprised later.

I also have found that readers differ in the amount they prefer. To me, it's somewhat situational, but it's also a style thing. Some writers can make the mundane details of brewing coffee interesting, but most of the time, I think it's just fine to tell the reader that a character went to the kitchen to make coffee without showing all the steps.

One place I've found some writers go overboard with stage directions is during fight scenes. Some feel a need to provide all the details in a step by step way that actually takes me out of the story, because it makes me want to compulsively block out what's happening instead of feeling the urgency of the situaiton.

Surely "stage direction" (or action, or whatever) is the exact sort of thing that is suited to the style of the piece and the intentions of the author? That is to say, no hard and fast rules? (Or the answer that applies to 99% of questions about writing: "it depends").

I would think the best (and probably only way) for a writer to learn how to write good direction is to read as many books as possible and see what works where. It's the exact sort of thing that wouldn't work as a rule because it's so closely linked to style.