editing

Glengarry Glenn Editor

If you’re a cinema person, or if you’ve ever worked in or near a sales office, you’ve seen the Glengarry Glenn Ross speech. You know the one I mean. This one. (Warning: NSFW / language)

I once worked with a sales team that could recite this speech from memory. One guy told me, voice swollen with pride, that his four-year-old walked into the kitchen while he was pouring coffee one morning, glared at him, and said: “Daddy, coffee is for closers!”

Mamet wrote this speech for the film adaption of GGR—but it proved so popular he grafted it back onto the stage show, even though it’s a pain to stage, since you have to cast a whole actor for one scene. Common reactions on first exposure to the scene include rage, horror, frustration, scorn, all the emotions we read from Baldwin’s audience of broken-down real estate salesmen. But the speech is also, and it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize this, selling something; Baldwin’s character wants to sell these salesmen on being a salesman of a particular sort. He grabs attention with rhetoric, bluster, and status. (“This watch cost more than your car.”) He promises them, implicitly, that good salesmen get rich, that good salesmen get respect, that good salesmen get that greatest (macho) privilege, the right to shout at people and know they have to listen. It’s effective as it is gross. By the end of that scene, every man in that room wants to murder Baldwin—but since that’s not legal, they’ll settle for beating him at his own game. He’s sold them through their anger. They want to win, or at least to defend themselves. Attention. Interest. Decision. Action.

Last night, as the Attorney and I chatted about the differences between legal writing and fiction, I found myself thinking about this scene in a new light. Writers—writers of fiction especially—always have to be closing.

People are busy, and they live in a world filled with art. (I mean, in its loosest sense: any intentional work that captures the mind. Games obviously qualify, as do sports, either the kind you watch or the kind you play. So does the social web—Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. etc. etc., are all built to make you pay attention.) Writers come to people saying, “read this story!” And the people answer: why? I mean, really, why?

Readers do want to engage with stories—they want to be swept away, they want to be enlightened, they want to forget their lives or have their mind blown, they want to escape either in the flighty sense or the LeGuinian sense of liberation from a prison camp. But readers also want, or need, to (watch the latest episode of $Cool_TV_Show_All_Their_Friends_Watch | finish their essay | go to the gym | cook dinner | pick up the kids | answer email | plan their wedding | do $pressing_chore | play a Batman video game). Time is real estate. No one’s making any more of it. A storyteller has to convince readers that her story is worth the time it takes to hear.

And by “convince,” I mean “sell.”

This is where AIDA comes in—the Attention, Interest, Decision, Action cycle, it seems to me, holds for reader and character alike. We’re used to thinking about character motivation on a beat-by-beat level. Attention: how did the character get to this scene? Interest: why does the character care about these events? Decision: what decision does she make? Action: how does she carry out that decision? So far, so good—we’re solidly in Robert McKee territory.

But the reader goes through a similar cycle. So, when editing or breaking story, seems to me we can ask ourselves a similar list of questions about the reader. Attention: why would a reader pay attention to this? (Possible answers: because the book’s funny; because it scared the crap out of her; because it’s wise; because she wants to puzzle out some tangled prose; because the book offers an escape; because she’s angry; because she’s bemused.) Interest: why would a reader continue? (Will the villain get a comeuppance? Will Our Heroine’s scheme collapse around her? Does the reader see an echo of her own struggle? Are you fulfilling wishes, realizing nightmares, offering a laugh or a shoulder to cry on? Is your writing just that good on a line by line level?) Decision: will the reader keep going? (Yes; no; yes, but the next time you fuck up, she’s gone; yes, ecstatically; yes, but she’ll skim through each scene of endless clunky unrealistic politicical argument; yes, but only so she can rant about the book afterward) And action: the page turn. The closing book. The book, hurled with great force over Niagra Falls. The book, in a blender.

This would be a dangerous way for, e.g., me to think during composition, since my first drafts involve a lot of telling the story to myself, complete with false starts and stops, tics, and coffee breaks. First drafts are that night before a speech, pacing in my hotel room, stammering through the roughest shape of what I mean to say. Composition is about selling myself on the story. (If I worked more to Hollywood spec, I’d do this at the breaking / pitch stage.)

But once composition’s done, and I’m editing a draft—well. Time to sell the reader. Time to be the best kind of scum: fearless and inventive. Time to go through the manuscript and ask, at every turn: am I always closing? What does this line do for me? This word? This exchange?

The great thing about these AIDA questions, to my mind, is that there are many different good answers, especially to the first two. Often story structure advice boils down to “DO THIS OR ELSE YOUR BOOK WILL CATCH ON FIRE AND YOUR READERS DESERT YOU,” with implied scorn for hard writing, quiet scenes, or anything “literary.” (For a good example, see the Screenplay Seminar scene in Adaptation.) But different things interest different readers—hell, different things interest the same reader. I love Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, and I love Robin McKinley’s The Hero and the Crown, and I love Ryu Murakami’s Coin Locker Babies, but these are, to put it mildly, different books, deploying a broad range of techniques to hold the reader’s mind. Is the reader interested in your swordfight? In your prose? In your Kantian ruminations? In all of the above? What reason have you given her, in this beat, to turn the page?

Maybe this helps you. Maybe it doesn’t. Either way, I’m interested. I’ll use this angle as I revise the first draft I finished yesterday; you’ll see how it goes.

 

In Which I Am All Over The Internet

I have many essays for you this week!

As per usual, I am roughly speaking all over the internet writing stuff for FULL FATHOM FIVE’s launch.  I’m hearing lots of great noise about it, too—my favorites being notes from people who say the book has encouraged them to think generatively, to break out of imaginative ruts.  Little could please me more than hearing that.

After a crazy launch / convention week, I’ve finally got back into stride on Book 5.  This morning I wrote three scenes that have needed writing for a while.  Pretty soon I reach the All Hell Breaks Loose segment of our adventure, not that All Hell hasn’t been breaking loose already—but Our Heroes are in a slight calm before the storm.  Seven plot cards remain (Or six?), but that could be anywhere between 15 and 30,000 words, probably closer to the later given that one of the cards basically says “THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!”

there-was-a-firefight-2So yeah, that’s what’s up with me lately.

First order of business: I’m signing this evening at 7 PM in the Framingham, MA Barnes & Noble, so if you’re in the region get thee to the store!

Second order of business: listening to me talk about things!  What kinds of things have I been discussing around the internet?  Well, to date…

Third order of business: surprise!  I’ll be participating in an AMA on r/Fantasy Thursday afternoon / evening.  Bring your questions!  I will answer them!  My answers may be neither correct nor complete, but I’ll probably have some scotch at my side, so I’ll have that much going for me at least.

Happy reading!

ReaderCon this Weekend! Also, Books!

Brief post today as I run around trying to GTD before the world eats me.  For one thing, I’ll be at ReaderCon this weekend, not participating in programming, ut mos est mea—it’s all my fault really, I would love to be on convention programming but something had to give this fall and applying for programming was it.  Next year, in Jerusalem.  Well.  Probably not in Jerusalem, unless sales of Two Serpents Rise really spike in the Holy Land.

Speaking of which, Ofir Touche Gafla’s The World of the End launched a little while back.  If you’re looking for a book that’s weird and surprising without abandoning a strong emotional through-line, this might be what you’re looking for.  Writer husband seeks wife through an afterlife that’s somehow Kafkaesque but not in a bad way, and if you’re wondering what that means, well, just read through chapter two and you’ll see.

S.M. Wheeler’s Sea Change also came out recently; it’s a powerful and weird fractured fairy tale about gender, memory, familial cruelty, and the various ways love and ambition screw us all up, among other things.  A decent chunk of the early action is set on a beach, but I wouldn’t call this a beach read exactly—get it now, and read it in autumn or spring when the world’s shifting around you.

Oh, yes, and I’m writing this via the new Laptop of Heavenly Perfection (to steal Chaz Benchley’s term)—a 2013 MacBook Air.  Just for the sake of experiment, I’ve run all day on battery power, and those commercials talking about the battery’s twelve hour life aren’t fooling around.  Exciting upgrade, especially with travel to come and a book to edit.  I had an excellent run with my 2009 MacBook Pro, but when I put this one in my backpack I don’t even notice it’s there.  And as a one-bag traveler, that’s nothing to sneer at.

Speaking of editing, it’s funny—I’ve written a first draft of another Craft Sequence book since I finished Five Eyes Break (which I think we might be calling Full Fathom Five now, for reasons), and going back & adding scenes, I can tell the difference in my prose.  A little more immediacy, a little more comfort with diving into the abyss.  Which is funny, considering the subject matter of this book.

That joke will be funny in about a year, I swear.

Anyway, all of that’s to say that if you’re at Readercon this weekend, drop me a line!  I’ll be around Saturday and Sunday.  If you’re lucky enough to be there Friday, definitely go to the linguistics panel—John Chu is there, along with other cool folks, and whatever they come up with is sure to be interesting.

Emoticon Science and Moments of Clarity

The two subjects don’t have much to do with one another, outside of accident.  I had one of those moments this afternoon—the moments when you’ve been pouring over the manuscript of your novel, trying to nail down just what this character’s deal is anyway, yearning for those happy golden bygone days when your approach to motivation was to have a giant occasionally invisible carnivorous lizard chase the characters around through the plot, and then all of a sudden while chipping away at something else you write a sentence that, in a few words, sums up the reason you spent October through March banging your head against the wall.

Now all you need to do is edit the manuscript to reflect your new understanding!

Yay.  I mean, wait.

Anyway, on the Other Cool News front, my friend Vlad, who is among many other things a scientist who studies how ideas and other viruses propagate through networks, presented a paper he co-wrote at the recent International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, or ice-wissum.  The paper is a broad spectrum analysis of emoticons!  Smiley faces and the like.  He and his co-authors study the transmission of emoticons via Twitter, how different people get ‘infected’ by emoticons, what cultural boundaries emoticons obey, all this awesome stuff—and he won Honorable Mention: Best Paper!  So, if you’ve ever wanted to know, as in science, what emoticons were all about, who uses them, how they’re used, how they spread, check out this paper.

Words That Are My Enemy

Today, after finishing up what may be the final readthrough of Book Three pre-editor, I did my traditional search through the text for words I know I overused.  I got off easier on this book than usual, perhaps as a result of writing with focus rather than whenever I could squeeze a few hundred words in.  That said, in case you’re interested in writer process stuff, here’s today’s self-generated tasklist for ‘delete words I know I’m using too often.’

  • Purpling (I used it twice in the book, and that’s once too many.)
  • Intervening
  • Retreat (which should only be used if someone’s actually retreating, or if the notion of retreat is metaphorically valuable.  Or if someone’s being given two desserts.)
  • yawning (in the sense of distance—again, used it three times, which is two too many)
  • dark (dark dark dark dark dark!)
  • shadow (which I used much less in this book than usually)
  • sweat
  • world (you laugh, but when your characters start talking about metaphysics and global economics, this word gets worn out.)
  • froze (as in, ‘in fear’)
  • shook (especially in the context of shaking heads, but in the general oscillatory context as well)

I’m probably missing others, but that’s the immediate list.

Some more statistics for you: first draft of this book: 159,000 words give or take.  Third: 116,000.  Current (which is draft 7 or 8): 100,300.  Very pleased with what I’ve accomplished here.  And trust me, you won’t miss those extra words.  I don’t even know where they came from, and I wrote them all!

Editing. Not Much Else to Report.

Spent all day slowly re-reading my manuscript.  Language is much better than I expected, but the process is draining.

Finished Moby Dick last night.  Wonderful book.  More thoughts on it later.

Then read about a quarter of The Thin Man in one sitting.  There’s virtue in both long and short books, I think.

Do Not Invite Ghost Mark Twain to Edit Your Manuscript Unless Your Ego’s Wearing Riot Gear

I’ve recently ascended (temporarily) to the role of Editor-in-Chief at my Day Job, which means mostly that I spend a lot of time wading through business language and trying to hammer it into something like comprehensible English.  To encourage my edit-ees, I’ve been assembling a list of famous and helpful essays about good prose style.  Politics and the English Language is a good example.  One of my favorites in this genre for sheer snark and hilarity is Twain’s essay, Cooper’s Prose Style, on faults in the fiction of James Fenimore Cooper (the guy who wrote Last of the Mohicans), so, after re-reading it a couple times, I put it on the list.

Last night, though, as I edited my manuscript, at every other sentence I heard the mocking drawl of  Mark Twain’s ghost: “It is truly remarkable that Mister Gladstone’s characters can make such a deduction without any basis in logic or human reason.”   And so forth.  At least he was called me Mister Gladstone – a little respect from a restless spirit always makes one’s evening sweeter.

Vita may be brevis, but sometimes Ars feels especially Longa.

This Morning a Skeleton Asked Me if I Believed in Immortality

No posts recently – I’ve been editing, which, combined with an intense work cycle and more fencing and a general feeling of burnout, has made it harder to press non-work-or-Work-related keys than usual.  But life’s good.  I read a fascinating book on the destruction of Bear Sterns, and now I’m working through a number of shorter books before I start ReamdeThe Hunger Games at the moment, and I think Orxy and Crake and Stations of the Tide are up next.

Also, the title of the post?  That happened to me on the way to work.  I’ll let you know if this marks my entrance into a sinister world of magic and adventure where nothing is what it seems!

Rewards of Work

This weekend I had occasion to remember that the real reward which comes from finishing a long, exacting edit of a manuscript… is the chance to pour yourself a cup of tea, go back to the beginning, and, with a leisurely mind, approach the problems you can see now that you’ve cleared the old problems out of the way.

Writing and Lifting Weights

Writing is like strength training in this respect: if you’re doing it right, your personal best two years ago is considerably worse than your personal best today.

Writing is unlike strength training in this respect: even if you’re doing it right, you can’t reduce your skill to a single number.  Perhaps your sentences are stronger now than they were two years ago, perhaps your emotional through-line’s more clear.  Perhaps you’ve developed your vocabulary, or your sentence structure, or pacing.  A single glance is rarely enough to tell how you’ve changed.

Because of this, returning to an old project always makes my knees weak.  Maybe I’ve become worse in the intervening years!  For the last month or so, I’ve been re-working my thriller novel Sente, which I wrote back in 2005 or so and polished to the best of my abilities in 2007.  When I started to edit in May, I was terrified that I might find my work had fallen off since college.  After all, I remembered this book as a gem.

Three pages in, I found the first sentence I knew I could improve, and relaxed.

Then, a paragraph later, I found another two sentences to improve, and realized that this round of edits would take longer than I intended.

Two chapters in, I wanted to go back in time and kindly throttle my younger self.  “What are you doing with these weird verb tenses?  Why, oh why, did you use that word 67 times in your manuscript?  Were you even paying attention?”

I was, I know.  I paid very close attention.  I’m just paying better attention now.

join the third place

Max Gladstone Writing about Reading and Writing and Hopefully Liberation
Weekly posts directly in your inbox.

Scroll to Top