500 Word Limit

The way to do it, Jess, is to write an 800 or 1,000 word story - then cut out the flab that you'll inevitably have! Too many adjectives and adverbs, too many descriptive phrases, etc. With 500 words, it's got to be straight to the point. As they used to say to WW2 fighter pilots: 'Go in, punch hard, get out!' It's a good exercise in being a ruthless, but scrupulous editor. Read some 'sudden fiction' or 'flash fiction' to get the idea. Also, there are a lot of 200-word stories posted on ABC. Have a trawl through and see if you can find them. (Shameless self-promotion, this... but here's one of mine: http://www.abctales.com/story/stantheman/old-adam-200-words.)

The reverse is true if you try something like National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo - in November each year), where you have 30 days to produce a minimum 50,000 word novel. Then you can stuff in as much padding as you like! :)

Thank you Stan. :D That was very helpful. I'll take a look.

Okay... looked at your story. Here's a suggestion for the first paragraph alone, which reads:

'It's abnormally hot today; a staggering ninety-six degrees Celsius. I'm not used to this kind of weather, and living in Canada per se can vouch for that. The brutal temperature compelled me to wear nothing but cool-colored shorts out. I thought one last stroll on this beautiful beach was in order before leaving this place for God knows how long.'

How about...

'It's hot - 96 - and I can't take it. We Canadians aren't made for it. In just my shorts, I take my last stroll along the beach...'

That's 63 words reduced to 26. Give it another go and see what you get. Be ruthless, mate!! :)

How do you do that?! :O

I'll try...and I see what you're getting at. Thanks a bunch! :D

Just cut to the chase! If it's hot and it's 96, we don't need to know 'celsius'. If it's 'abnormally', we don't need to know 'I'm not used to this kind of weather' - 'abnormally' has already suggested that. We know 96 is a brutal temperature, so you don't need to say it. We don't need to know what colour your shorts are. They're shorts. They're therefore cooler than 'longs'! The 'God knows how long' can come out in some other way as the story is being told. Don't use 'clever' foreign phrases like 'per se' - they're unnecessary and they'll put readers off.

It's just about using only the words you need to get things across. It's practice, mate. Keep going with it. You'll soon get it!

PS Hemingway - a master of precision - was once asked to write a story in 6 words. His response?

'For sale. Baby shoes. Never used.'

Okay... not much of a story, perhaps. But, in 6 words, it says quite a lot.

Fabulous thread from which I have learned. Brilliant.

You made it so clear Stan, thank you. :)

Though, practice indeed. I tend to overlook things and try to make them as descriptive as possible. But what you say is true. I'll try to keep a closer eye on things of this respect.

Keep your description precise and to the point. Don't say 'Precipitous, sheer white edge of land overlooking a turbulent roar of sea'. Say 'cliff'. That one word sums it up. You can see it. It's all you need to see.

This is really interesting.

I told my class today - "good creative writing creates questions, bad creative writing gives answers".

And then went on to demand the explicit use of adjectives and adverbs etc. A contradiction if ever there was one - needless to say no-one noticed it (12/13 year olds).

I suppose that all told we have to learn the value of enhancing image through description and then understand the importance of giving just enough detail to make the reader gag for it.

That's right, scratch. Show, don't tell. That's what I love about Raymond Carver's stories. He learned from John Gardner the value of using the precise word... the crucial difference between, say, 'ground' and 'earth'.

"'Ground is ground' he'd say. 'It means 'ground', 'dirt', that kind of stuff. But if you say 'earth', that's something else. That word has other ramifications.'"

I would suggest having a look at Rob's word, rjlewellyn, he writes everything to a 200 wordcount. Every one of his stories is like one of those miniature paintings done on a pin head. The detail that he gets in there is amazing. We could all learn from him.

And of course you already have done Jess. Many times.

Mark Brown's a champ with 200-word stories, too. Check him out.
http://www.abctales.com/user/markbrown

That's why it is said the short is more difficult to write than a novel. I was going to post Hemingway's one too, but Stan beat me to it. He (Hemingway) is said to have called it his best work. It's not those few words, it's the story you make up around it, in your head. That's the skill - and what you have to get the reader to do.

Loved your précis, Stan - spot on!

http://www.ukauthors.com

Hmm, the old 'show, don't tell'. One thing I love about writing is the gift of fooling your readers (especially those who don't write themselves). It's all about the skill, isn't it. When we writers learn these techniques and apply them to our writing, we create worlds; incredible descriptions; even realistic diologue, and, therefore, fool our readers into believing it (an engrossing short piece, for example) comes absolutely naturally. And for some, it does...but it's all about the skill.

Or am I wrong?

Like, for me, as an example, I started writing at a young age (like 7 or 8 years old, I think), and amazed my teachers and classmates, believe it or not, with the quality of it. I didn't know a thing about writing then — perhaps just to capitalize the first letter of the first word in a sentence, and to eliminate run-on sentences, etc. Yet, I still managed to incorporate these skills to my writing. As I grew more, I learned new things and discovered that the way I wrote had techniques about it that I wasn't even aware of at the time (of course, as I grew, I also tried to perfect them). I suppose now that I say it this way, it seems pretty obvious.

Bottom line, this is something I'm going to have to learn. Although my writing comes naturally, it definately isn't the greatest work known to man — or remotely close. This thread is interesting because, it has taught me the importance of showing, and not telling. To me, it's this technique that we use, sometimes absentmindly. And it works like a charm.

By the way, I already read some of MarkBrown's work, and he's brilliant. In it, I see a lot of what Stan has told me somewhere above: To "[k]eep your description precise and to the point." This is something I'm going to have to learn, because I'm so used to doing the complete opposite. :P

How about...

'It's 96 - the temperature at which Canadians melt, and the beach reaches out behind me for the last time.'

'Bottom line, this is something I'm going to have to learn. Although my writing comes naturally, it definately isn't the greatest work known to man — or remotely close.'

You learn all the time in writing, Jessica. I started writing very young, too, and for years and years I felt like I was getting nowhere with it. I tried correspondence courses and evening classes, and in the end grew so disillusioned that I gave up for a long time. I think, sometimes - and it was certainly the case for me - we can just try too hard, and it begins to feel like the harder we try the worse it gets. But you have to keep at it. As you go through life, and do different things, and read whatever you can as you go, you'll find your writing evolving - if you keep doing it, keep experimenting, and work at developing the skills and talent you clearly have. You'll probably go through phases, as many writers do, of emulating your heroes - so everything you do will have, say, a Hemingway touch to it, or Tolkien, or Rowling, or Attwood - or whoever you're deeply into at the time. There's nothing wrong with that, either. It's all part of the process.

Don't strive to be the greatest writer known to man - or even remotely close! ;) Strive to be the greatest writer you can be. Don't knock what you do. It might be the best you can do at this stage - even if you feel you ought to be capable of better. Don't always set out to impress. If you've had a chance to read those books by King and Lamott, you'll see it in those: write for yourself first. Ignore the audience out there. Write what you want to write - not what you think others expect of you.

There are all kinds of writers out there (just as there are all kinds of musicians, artists, sportsmen, etc), and we always think that the published ones must therefore be the best. That isn't always the case. We've all read stuff by really popular, successful, rich writers and thought 'this isn't so special'. And for every hugely commercially successful writer, there are legions who barely make a living out of it - or who don't make a living at all. We would all like success, of course - publication, recognition, esteem, etc. What I'm saying is, I guess... don't think because you're not making any money out of it, or getting anything published, that you're not any good.

Just keep your nose to it, keep going with it, keep the faith in yourself, and the rewards will come - in one shape or another :) ...oh, and keep posting on here, too. We're all in this together, and there's a lot of comfort in numbers!

PS I know I keep coming back to Carver, but you could do a lot worse than read him - stories, poems, essays on writing, etc. He has an awful lot to teach to anyone who writes. He was quite confident of his talent, I'm sure... but he never makes a big thing of it. In his essays, he's modest and affable, and talks a lot about his early struggles, and how he learned his craft from his reading and his mentors. It's all pretty inspiring. And with the short story, he was a true craftsman.

Wow, I really like that lavadis. You got a way with words. ;)

The Hemingway story that Stan's added in his comments sticks to the bare bones with a couple of words each for a beginning, middle and end. Six words is hard going for most people. My flash fiction pieces are usually 50-100 words.

http://chroniclesoftania.wordpress.com/flash-fiction/

Flash Fiction is great discipline for a writer to not dilute the story with a lot of words. This makes it tough to write a novel with 80,000 words!

Thanks again Stan. You always know how to lift my spirits - even if they don't necessarily need lifting. :) I believe in what you're saying and am encouraged to proceed because of it. Thank you. As for King and Lamott, I seem to have lost a link you gave me to something of theirs (if you even gave me one). If you have, could you maybe send me it again? If not, lol, I'll simply search for it myself.

By the way...do you like my style of writing or is it, I don't know, childish. :P Thanks.

Stan gives fantastic advice. I'm a big Carver fan too. Small word limits are a fantastic way to learn not to waste words. I'm finding time and time again that I can edit stories I wrote a few years back, when I first started taking writing seriously, to around half their original length, without losing anything that really matters. I actually think flash fiction is closer to poetry than anything else. You don't need lots of explanation, just the bare bones, as long as they're good bones! Good luck with your writing Jessica.