Clarity in writing

CLARITY

Lack of clarity in a submission is the number one reason why an author’s work gets rejected. Think about it. Clarity can be, and for my purposes, is found in the previous nine reasons that lead to rejection.

1.      ! The use of symbols when words are better. An exclamation point has more than one meaning.

2.      Blasting queries. Using the one size fits all approach shows the agent or editor that you either didn’t think through your submission or you didn’t care.

3.      Not reading books on writing is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Reading clarifies in the writer’s mind which of many paths to take.

4.      Not joining critique groups, going to conferences or joining genre organizations leaves the author uncertain how to proceed (and without kindred spirits).

5.      Commas are much like exclamation points regarding clarity. Using commas to show breathing, pause, surprise, confusion, stroke etc. confuses the agent or editor. Because the comma isn’t a word, it’s anybody’s guess why those extra commas are there.

6.      Overusing complicated and multi-thought sentences is like knocking out an opponent in a boxing match. Except you are the loser.

7.      If the first chapter is used to set up the story by immersing the reader in the normal life of the protagonist, the agent or editor will reject the manuscript. They don’t understand because the author’s purpose is unclear.

8.      Head hopping or omniscient narration leaves agents. editors and potential readers confused.

9.      A lack of emotion in a character leads to a lack of emotional attachment in the story by the reader. To be clear, emotion in a character, as I define it, is not all about crying, laughing, smiling, etc. It’s precisely how a character reacts, acts, thinks or talks in any given situation. Done right, the reader is hooked, because they “get” (understand) and identify with the character.

10.  Clarity.

Clarity brings a scene and book into focus. Say Moby Dick and most people will be able to speak in metaphors and about memorable characters.

Crisp dialogue gives a story a magical or charming quality. Is there anybody out there who has not a clue what movie this came from, “I’ll have what she’s having” or “Here’s looking at you, kid”? Here's a harder one, "nobody's perfect". Stilted dialogue is often bogged down and defined by clichés, unnatural usage or wordiness. Less is more and original but understood expressions are what we all want.

Although interior intimate thought can meander to show indecision, we need to keep an eye on tentative resolution in the character’s mind or, at least, some change in the arc of the character. If the character is lost for too long, often the reader will find ways to lose the book.

A character cannot remain stoic while all hell is breaking loose about him scene after scene. Why? The character shows no change, no action. A novel is all about change. Otherwise it could be called the diary of a mad author.

Degrees of odd coupleness

As a guy, one of the first things I think of when writing a character is how are they different (from others). How do they relate to the other character(s) in an aggravating (or endearing to the reader) way. Some writing books call these quirks, fatal flaws, others call them charms. There’s something to work on, fix, change or live with. Of course, fatal, it is not, at least in any literature with a happy ending.

One of my editors complained, “When are is your hero going to eat anything else but spaghetti and meatballs?” This particular hero also had a problem being seen in the buff by the heroine. Every experienced writer inserts these cute peccadillos. I especially enjoy exploring the differences between genetically identical twins and how they love each other.

Why employ odd coupleness? Throw your hero and heroine into a mess and people will want to see how they’ll clean it up or make it worse. It’s human nature to identify with the characters and want to fix things that are broken. Making it worse makes us laugh. Humans, by their nature, work and create.

HelenKay Dimon gave her former Navy Seal, claustrophobia, but the heroine nurtured him without laughing aloud. Besides, that would have likely got them killed.

Odd coupleness is found in every type of well-written literature. Susan Elizabeth Phillips is so good at this. She mismatches hero and heroine all the time and I think she has the most fun finding out how and why they could love each other.

Mention any good movie. Showgirl and the Professor, You’ve Got Mail. Remember the ending of Some Like It Hot, “nobody’s perfect.”

Today, I want to pay tribute to The Odd Couple, originally a play by Neil Simon:

On Broadway 1965 with Art Carney & Walter Matthau.
As a movie 1968 with Jack Lemon & Walter Matthau.
On TV 1970 with Tony Randall & Jack Klugman.
Made into a female version in 1985 on Broadway with Sally Struthers and Rita Moreno.
On and on, including this year when it premiered on CBS starring Matthew Perry and Thomas Lennon (8:30 PM Thursdays). If you like seeing Felix throw away hundreds of hamburger buns until he finds the right one to photograph and then having some sesames picked off, then you’ll be hooked. Please don't misunderstand the purpose of this blog. I'm not promoting shows, songs or movies. I'm casting light on writing techniques, generally from the male point of view.

Plot basics for those who have never seen the show in any of its venues—Wiki: Plot overview:

Felix Ungar, a neurotic, neat freak newswriter (a photographer in the television series), is thrown out by his wife, and moves in with his friend Oscar Madison, a slovenly sportswriter. Despite Oscar's problems – careless spending, excessive gambling, a poorly kept house filled with spoiled food – he seems to enjoy life. Felix, however, seems utterly incapable of enjoying anything and only finds purpose in pointing out his own and other people's mistakes and foibles. Even when he tries to do so in a gentle and constructive way, his corrections and suggestions prove extremely annoying to those around him. Oscar, his closest friend, feels compelled to throw him out after only a brief time together, though he quickly realizes that Felix has had a positive effect on him.

Characters:

Oscar Madison: A slovenly, recently divorced sportswriter.

• Felix Ungar: A fastidious, hypochondriac newswriter whose marriage is ending.
• Murray: An NYPD policeman, one of Oscar and Felix's poker buddies.
• Speed: One of the poker buddies. Gruff and sarcastic, often picking on Vinnie and Murray.
• Vinnie: One of the poker buddies. Vinnie is mild-mannered and henpecked, making him an easy target for Speed's verbal barbs.
• Roy: One of the poker buddies. Oscar's accountant. Roy has a dry wit but is less acerbic than Speed.
• Cecily and Gwendolyn Pigeon: Oscar and Felix's giggly upstairs neighbors, a pair of English sisters. The former is a divorcée, the latter a widow.

According to Neil Simon, the Pigeon sisters made the third act work better (credit a New England critic) and the play more successful. Naturally, along the writer’s journey one needs enduring and endearing secondary characters to interact with.

Here’s a peek at the 2015 TV version on CBS with references to earlier versions:

 

THE GUY OR GAL NOBODY WANTS

Today will be short because I wouldn’t want to procrastinate and do my taxes on the fourteenth or fifteenth. LOL

The guy or gal nobody wants (by as physically superior opposite sex)

There’s an attraction (of pen to paper or fingers to keyboard) for the gal or the guy who feels because of the way they look they’ll never find their mate (and they often want the physically gifted). NBC had a show called Average Joe a few years back and it did, well, average. Susan Elizabeth Phillips plays with physically flawed (but adorable) heroines, like the gal in the beaver suit. I tried to think of a physically flawed hero other than Quasimodo (who didn’t get the girl) of King Kong (too hairy), but couldn’t think of one.

So that’s my challenge to you. In romance novels, who out there has a hero who isn’t the pro quarterback or Navy Seal, or outrageously handsome? I know we deal in fantasy to a certain extent. Maybe I’m rushing today. Who? Aren’t there some scientists, nerds, geeks, too tall, too short heroes in books you've read? Help.

 

Some Like it Hot, Billy Wilder, 1959, Monroe, Curtis, & Lemmon ended with an insurmountable (forgive the pun) flaw.

elpHelpMNobody's pN