One of the peculiar things about working as I do, posting as I write, is that I have to name a book before I write it. This is one of the most difficult things about it, actually. It's like naming a band. When you form a band you have to pick a name, though you have no idea what type of band it might turn into.
That being said, I have decided that the novel will be titled "Throwing Stones." Which is not any sort of reference to glass houses.
I've been working on the first chapter of Throwing Stones, and I think it's getting there, nearly ready for the nice folks who have volunteered to be readers. I'm just going to go ahead and write the beginning of chapter two, just in case this reveals an obvious flaw in chapter one. As I was explaining recently, I see each chapter as a brick, and if a chapter has a flaw, every chapter you place on top of it will be unsteady.
There have been quite a few interesting blog posts this week, ones that have led to some good discussions.
1) Kristan Hoffman wrote a short post, in which she linked to this wonderful drawing (scroll down a bit).
2) Laura Stanfill talked about "Using the Exclamation Point in Fiction." Nothing gets word people going than talking about their most (and least) liked punctuation, and words, and other pet peeves.
3) Jo Eberhardt wrote an excellent post called "Girls Can Roll Dice Too".
4) Both Emerald Barnes and Jo Eberhardt (yeah, her again) wrote posts about problems with writing (you know, passive voice and things like that) and they both talked about "filter words." This is the first (and second) time I've ever heard about "filter words," and I must say I'm dubious about the concept.
To be clear, I have no doubt that filter words exist, and that they have, in general terms, the effects described. What I have doubts about is the idea that they words are "insidious" (to quote the blog post that Emerald links to). Are all scenes better if they are more immediate, more gripping, stronger? Do filter words actually "weaken" fiction?
This seems as silly as telling a painter that bright colors are more vibrant and exciting than pastel colors, so paintings are better if they use brighter colors. To me, what matters is what the scene is supposed to accomplish. And, frankly, making all of your scenes as strong and immediate as possible sounds like a sure route to overkill, especially in longer fiction. Variety is important. With bands, for example, one of the most obvious differences between professionals and amateurs is that professional bands have control of dynamics and tempo.
It is significant I think that all the examples I've seen on different blogs (where a scene is described with and without using filter words) are paragraphs where something immediate and exciting is happening. So, either your fiction is more full of incident than a Hardy Boys mystery, or these are not typical paragraphs. (Also, at least in the blog post Emerald links to, the second paragraph is definitely more exciting than the first, but neither is particularly well written.)
Also, I did a quick scan through Inherent Vice. Thomas Pynchon is a better writer than I will ever be, and I'm seeing a bunch of filter words in here. Doc thought, Doc tried not to think, Doc guessed, Doc wondered, Doc was beginning to feel, Doc gave it some thought, Doc ran through things he might have asked, Doc knew the likely reply. In fact, Pynchon sometimes utilizes a double level of filtering ("Doc thought he remembered," "Doc seemed to recall"), where there is not only Doc remembering something, but also the second filter of the fact that he's usually so stoned that what he's remembering may bear little direct relationship to reality.
So, I'm not seeing this as a problem. It's a tool, and like all tools it should be used when appropriate and not otherwise, and, like all tools, we need to know when we're using it and when we're not, but like all tools it has its uses.
5) Though I'm not worried about flter words I'm not entirely without care, since I am quite zealous about infodumping (as Tiyana talked about in "Infodumping: It’s A Multi-Genre Issue"). The first chapter of Throwing Stones is (at the moment) 3,404 words, and I feel like I've removed another 2,000 words of info dump. So, I will not be boasting about how many words I've been writing. Maybe I should keep track of how many I remove and boast about that instead.
Uh-oh, my protag is doing an awful lot of thinking and remembering and wondering. That’s kind of the point of this book. On the other hand, I have also wondered (filter!) if the book is too boring. Well, I’ll find out soon enough.
I’m excited that it’s nearly time to start reading Throwing Stones. Yay!
And thanks for the shout-out. 🙂
As a note, I don’t disagree with you re: filter words. Removing all of them from writing would be akin to removing all adjectives, all adverbs, all exclamation marks, all sentence fragments, all non-said dialogue tags, all passive voice, etc etc etc. Soon you’d be left with a a very boring piece of writing. In many cases, I think people who read and write a lot actually use filter words appropriately. (It’s a practice thing.) But if a section just isn’t working, or readers keep saying that they didn’t feel the tension was really there, then it helps to know what to look for in order to make it stronger.
I just wrote like a 600 word response to this, lol. Though, I will say I agree with you on the whole concept of “filter words” (new term for me, as well). Also, it would have been nice if those sites that were discussing this gave good examples of when it’s okay to use filter words and why you would want to use them.
Idk, maybe I’ll blog my full response on Wednesday. I have a habit of getting long-er-winded on blog discussion sometimes and I’m not sure how that’s always received…lol.
(Oh, and btw, thanks for the mention!)
Sonje: My question, since I’m dealing with this myself now, is whether the books in your series are designed to be read in any order (as with most detective series) or if they’re designed to be read in sequence (as with most fantasy & scifi series, for example). If the former, then that may be more of a concern. If the latter, then by the time you’ve got the readers to the third book you’ve probably hooked them good and you can safely risk boring them a bit. 🙂
Jo: I agree, it is something to be aware of. As you’ll see, the first words in Throwing Stones are:
Fuck. What the fuck had happened?
(With no filtering. 🙂 )
Tiyana: This is a good point, positive examples would have been great. As for your lack of concision, I know exactly what you mean. I thought of mentioning Henry James in the post above (because in his writing pretty much everything is filtered through somebody”s perception, including his and the readers, and nothing exciting gripping ever happens), but I was trying to keep the post from going completely out of control.
I look forward to reading your post on the subject (if you post it, and I hope you do).
I agree with Jo. Not all filter words are bad. I haven’t edited all of mine out. I just try not to distance readers from tense situations by using them.
When my college professor told me I was using them, my entire work was full of filter words. Now, I try and tone that down.
But, I do agree. They’re like a tool. 🙂
Also, I am in complete agreement with you about the title of a book. I usually wait until the very last minute to title my work. For a long time, my current WIP was simply titled “The Article” as just a way to save it as something on my computer. The title is better now, thankfully!
Also, thanks for the mention. 🙂 Glad my blog provoked an interesting discussion.
Filter words are sort of like exclamation points. They have their place–but it’s important to be aware of when you’re using them, and whether the effect is distancing. I definitely am using them more often in my omniscient historical novel, whereas I went on a pretty ruthless campaign to get rid of them in my close-in first person novel.
On titles of books: I have files called “novel attempts” and “new novel,” among others. Luckily I haven’t had any pressure in naming them early. Titles are so hard.
The four books in my series are definitely meant to be read in order. The four of them together have a specific, thematic arc and build on themselves. So no, it’s not like Sue Grafton’s Kinsey Millhone series that just goes on and on forever (although I guess that series is theoretically going to be capped at 26) or any other series like that.
I read an article about Sue Grafton when she had just written the first one, and they asked her what she would go when she got to the end.
She said, “Keep going. Z will be ‘Z is for Zero’ and then I’ll start doing numbers.”
I liked the first bunch (anybody who’s that influenced by Ross MacDonald is okay with me), but then I fell away from it.
Naming novels is a tricky one for me. I have a difficult time with it, and usually leave it until I absolutely have to, which is usually not until the book is done (by then I should know what the book’s about), but that doesn’t really work when you’re posting as you write.
I think filter words are a lot like adverbs. There are times when they’re necessary, and others not. I dislike general writing advice that says ‘never’ do this or that.
A Sane Woman was called that from the beginning. Before I even wrote a word. A quote from Jill Johnston caught my attention: “A sane woman is a crazy person.”
And I just realized that the quote is not anywhere on the ASW website (ooops), so I’ll have to do something about that.
Laura: Good point about different types of narration leading to different use of filter words.
Emerald: That’s what catches us, when we have a crutch that we’re not aware of and we lean on it too much. Then you have to be pretty ruthless.
Sonje: Well, then by the third book you’ll have them (us) hooked and you can do whatever you want. You’ll have to make sure it’s clear that they need to be read in order, though, because a lot of people expect mystery series to work the other way.
T.S.: I agree. And, of all things, so does the Chicago Manual of Style. In the Q&A section of their website they often make it clear that there are exceptions to most rules.
Filter words create narrative distance. In general, I think narrative distance is good for bringing attention to the big picture of what’s happening. It’s the difference, to use movie terminology, between a close-up and a wide shot. Most movies use both for best effect.
Tamara, that’s an excellent comparison, which had not occured to me. Interesting, especially since I’ve been watching some directors recently who were very sparing with the closeups: John Ford and Howard Hawks.
Tamara, I quoted your response over at Tiyana White’s blog. I intend to quote it in the future if this question comes up again.