Freelance Editor for Hire

This is one of my favorite tricks, picked up from E.M. Forester and filtered through my own domestic-homebody lens.  Forester says that you should never ever tell us how a character feels; instead, show us what those emotions are doing to a character’s posture and tone and expression.  This makes “I felt sadness” into “my shoulders hunched and I sighed heavily, staring at the ground as my eyes filled with tears.”  Those emotions-as-motions are called objective correlatives.  Honestly, fic writers have gotten the memo on objective correlatives, but sometimes struggle with how to use them.

Objective correlatives can quickly become a) repetitive or b) melodramatic.  On the repetitive end, long scenes of dialogue can quickly turn into “he sighed” and “she nodded” so many times that he starts to feel like a window fan and she like a bobblehead.  On the melodramatic end, a debate about where to eat dinner can start to feel like an episode of Jerry Springer because “he shrieked” while “she clenched her fists” and they both “ground their teeth.”  If you leave the objective correlatives out entirely, then you have what’s known as “floating” dialogue — we get the words themselves but no idea how they’re being said, and feel completely disconnected from the scene.  If you try to get meaning across by telling us the characters’ thoughts instead, this quickly drifts into purple prose.

Instead, have them wash the dishes while they talk.

To be clear: it doesn’t have to be dishes.  They could be folding laundry or sweeping the floor or cooking a meal or making a bed or changing a lightbulb.  The point is to engage your characters in some meaningless, everyday household task that does not directly relate to the subject of the conversation.

This trick gives you a whole wealth of objective correlatives.  If your character is angry, then the way they scrub a bowl will be very different from how they’ll be scrubbing while happy.  If your character is taking a moment to think, then they might splash suds around for a few seconds.  A character who is not that invested in the conversation will be looking at the sink not paying much attention.  A character moderately invested will be looking at the speaker while continuing to scrub a pot.  If the character is suddenly very invested in the conversation, you can convey this by having them set the pot down entirely and give their full attention to the speaker.

A demonstration:

1

“I’m leaving,” Anastasia said.

“What?”  Drizella continued dropping forks into the dishwasher.

2

“I’m leaving,” Anastasia said.

Drizella paused midway through slotting a fork into the dishwasher.  “What?”

3

“I’m leaving,” Anastasia said.

Drizella laughed, not looking up from where she was arranging forks in the dishwasher.  “What?”

4

“I’m leaving,” Anastasia said.

The forks slipped out of Drizella’s hand and clattered onto the floor of the dishwasher.  “What?”

5

“I’m leaving,” Anastasia said.

“What?”  Drizella shoved several forks into the dishwasher with unnecessary force, not seeming to notice when several bounced back out of the silverware rack.

See how cheaply and easily we can get across Drizella’s five different emotions about Anastasia leaving, all by telling the reader how she’s doing the dishes?  And all the while no heads were nodded, no teeth were clenched.

The reason I recommend having it be one of these boring domestic chores instead of, say, scaling a building or picking a lock, is that chores add a sense of realism and are low-stakes enough not to be distracting.  If you add a concurrent task that’s high-stakes, then potentially your readers are going to be so focused on the question of whether your characters will pick the lock in time that they don’t catch the dialogue.  But no one’s going to be on the edge of their seat wondering whether Drizella’s going to have enough clean forks for tomorrow.

And chores are a cheap-n-easy way to add a lot of realism to your story.  So much of the appeal of contemporary superhero stories comes from Spider-Man having to wash his costume in a Queens laundromat or Green Arrow cheating at darts, because those details are fun and interesting and make a story feel “real.”  Actually ask the question of what dishes or clothing or furniture your character owns and how often that stuff gets washed.  That’s how you avoid reality-breaking continuity errors like stating in Chapter 3 that all of your character’s worldly possessions fit in a single backpack and in Chapter 7 having your character find a pair of pants he forgot he owns.  You don’t have to tell the reader what dishes your character owns (please don’t; it’s already bad enough when Tolkien does it) but you should ideally know for yourself.

but there are so many stories i've read over the years that could be summarized into a few sentences of bland-sounding plot, and it's the execution that matters. it's the writing. it's the writing!

a talented writer can turn a bland plot into a story you want to devour. and someone who only cares about ideas can take the most interesting idea ever conceived and make it unreadable/unwatchable.

One tool I like to use is "character observes physical object nearby and then unexpectedly dives into tangent."

So, for example, I have two knights arguing about who is their Lady's favorite. One argues that they have more tenure, the other argues they have more skill as evidenced by their many claims to fame. The first points out that paying for fame is not the same as earning it. The second protests that--

The argument goes from there, the two knights listing their own pros and brutally pointing out the other's cons. As they begin to struggle to come up with new pros ("the Lady likes red and I wear a red cape." "We both do, idiot.") the silence grows lengthier between each statement.

The older knight frowns and looks huffily at a nearby tree. After a beat they say, "I don't think that Lord Minnegan's impenetrable fortress is impenetrable."

And the second knight goes, "our Lady released the informant yesterday."

By having the knight look at the tree, I've effectively created space between the dying argument and this new line of conversation. Is it because both are tired of the conversation? Probably. Is it because they are professionals who should've been discussing the mission from the get go rather than childishly arguing about favorites? Undoubtedly.

But I didn't need a line of dialogue like "we shouldn't be arguing like this. It doesn't matter. We should talk about the mission" to get there. I just went there and hoped the audience would be able to understand the how of it. The action of looking at the tree is the only deescalation I needed to pivot in a new direction

I hope you don't mind me jumping on your post! I just love this type of roadblock because it's like a puzzle. How do you move forward? How can you make the pieces fit when writing a multifaceted story? It's super fun and frustrating in equal measure

reasons for this:

basically TvTropes breaks down stories mechanically, using a perspective that’s not…ABOUT mechanics. Another way I like to put it, is that it’s an inductive, instead of deductive, approach to analyzing storytelling.

like in a literature or writing class you’re learning the elements that are part of the basic functioning of a story, so, character, plot, setting, et cetera. You’re learning the things that make a story a story, and why. Like, you learn what setting is, what defines it, and work from there to what makes it effective, and the range of ways it can be effective.

here’s the thing, though: everyone has some intuitive understanding of how stories work. if we didn’t, we couldn’t…understand stories.

TvTropes’s approach is bottom-up instead of top-down: instead of trying to exhaustively explore the broad, general elements of story, it identifies very small, specific elements, and explores the absolute shit out of how they fit, what they do, where they go, how they work.

Every TvTropes article is basically, “Here is a piece of a story that is part of many different stories. You have probably seen it before, but if not, here is a list of stories that use it, where it is, and what it’s doing in those stories. Here are some things it does. Here is why it is functionally different than other, similar story pieces. Here is some background on its origins and how audiences respond to it.”

all of this is BRILLIANT for a lot of reasons. one of the major ones is that the site has long lists of media that utilizes any given trope, ranging from classic literature to cartoons to video games to advertisements. the Iliad and Adventure Time ARE different things, but they are MADE OF the same stuff. And being able to study dozens of examples of a trope in action teaches you to see the common thread in what the trope does and why its specific characteristics let it do that

I love TvTropes because a great, renowned work of literature and a shitty, derivative YA novel will appear on the same list, because they’re Made Of The Same Stuff. And breaking down that mental barrier between them is good on its own for developing a mechanical understanding of storytelling.

But also? I think one of the biggest blessings of TvTropes’s commitment to cataloguing examples of tropes regardless of their “merit” or literary value or whatever…is that we get to see the full range of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of storytelling tools. Like, this is how you see what makes one book good and another book crappy. Tropes are Tools, and when you observe how a master craftsman uses a tool vs. a novice, you can break down not only what the tool is most effective for but how it is best used.

In fact? There are trope pages devoted to what happens when storytelling tools just unilaterally fail. e.g. Narm is when creators intend something to be frightening, but audiences find it hilarious instead.

On that note, TvTropes is also great in that its analysis of stories is very grounded in authors, audiences, and culture; it’s not solely focused on in-story elements. A lot of the trope pages are categories for audience responses to tropes, or for real-world occurrences that affected the storytelling, or just the human failings that creep into storytelling and affect it, like Early Installment Weirdness. There are categories for censorship-driven storytelling decisions. There are “lineages” of tropes that show how storytelling has changed over time, and how audience responses change as culture changes. Tropes like Draco in Leather Pants or Narm are catalogued because the audience reaction to a story is as much a part of that story—the story of that story?—as the “canon.”

please note that yes many of these are concepts that exist elsewhere and a few are even taught in fiction writing classes but TvTropes just does an amazing job at displaying the range of things that can be done with them

legitimately so much of the terminology I use to talk about storytelling, and even think about it in my own head, i learned about from TvTropes

Willing Suspension of Disbelief

Watsonian vs. Doylist

Trope Tropes, for all the ways tropes are used, deconstructed, subverted, and played with.

The Oldest Ones in the Book, which is basically my favorite thing on the entire Internet

Punk Punk, for -punk subgenres

Sliding Scale of Silliness vs. Seriousness, Sliding Scale of Idealism vs. Cynicism

The Weird Al Effect is a fun one

Chekhov’s Gun, Chekhov’s Boomerang, Chekhov’s Skill, and further variations

Law of Conservation of Detail

Law of Conservation of Normality

Anthropic Principle

Word of God, Death of the Author

Sliding Scale of Fourth Wall Hardness

Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness

Genre Savvy

Flashbacks and Chronology breaks down all the ways you can handle chronology in storytelling

Show, Don’t Tell is a very good breakdown of what is showing, what is telling, and how both can be used effectively.

Lampshade Hanging

Noodle Incident is just fun imo

Genre Title Grab Bag

Fridge Horror

Rule of Cool, and also Cool of Rule

The Smurfette Principle

The Hays Code - not a trope but a very good breakdown of how the Hays Code affected storytelling in film

It sounds like a gimmick, but honestly, some of my best writing in that class came from hotspotting. Usually, the sentence you consider the "best" is the one that really gets to the heart of something you're trying to convey. In a rough draft, it tends to be that you're fumbling around a bit before you really hit on the heart of things. So with hotspotting, you're starting from a less fumbly place, which means you're able to dig into your subject in a much deeper and more precise way. It makes you feel like a surgeon, a little bit.

As a writer your job is not to outsmart the audience and show how smart you are, but to make the audience feel smart.

Your work being 'too predictable' and your work having a 'shock twist that came from nowhere' are two sides of the same coin, which happen when you don't trust your audience. Trust your audience will enjoy your work without over-explaining and over-foreshadowing, or, on the other extreme, disguising the plot with a million red herrings for everything to be a 'surprise twist' later on.

Write a character taking an action.

Add 1 object description

Add 1 setting description

Add internal feeling (does not need to be related to action)

Add physical manifestation of feeling (ie sweating, shaking, smiling, etc)

Add setting atmosphere (this MUST be impacted by internal feeling so if your character is scared, atmosphere must be threatening vibes)

Add internal monologue, at least one sentence

Add 1 setting or object description (your choice)

Complete with sentence fragment, ideally either the completion of initial action or a repetition of action sentence.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed as tall as her hip.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed, as tall as her hip. She felt resentful.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed, as tall as her hip. She felt resentful. She snapped her wrists hard enough the next piece of laundry - a nylon cape - sounded like a whip cracking.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed, as tall as her hip. She felt resentful. She snapped her wrists hard enough the next piece of laundry - a nylon cape - sounded like a whip cracking. The silence of the house chased the sound, smothering it (and her) with oppressive ease.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed, as tall as her hip. She felt resentful. She snapped her wrists hard enough the next piece of laundry - a nylon cape - sounded like a whip cracking. The silence of the house chased the sound, smothering it (and her) with oppressive ease. They won't mention me tonight. Not even a footnote. I bet the award ceremony is over now. If they cared even a little, they'd call.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed, as tall as her hip. She felt resentful. She snapped her wrists hard enough the next piece of laundry - a nylon cape - sounded like a whip cracking. The silence of the house chased the sound, smothering it (and her) with oppressive ease. They won't mention me tonight. Not even a footnote. I bet the award ceremony is over now. If they cared even a little, they'd call. Her phone lay next to the growing stack of folded costumes, screen like an abyss.

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat next to the bed, as tall as her hip. She felt resentful. She snapped her wrists hard enough the next piece of laundry - a nylon cape - sounded like a whip cracking. The silence of the house chased the sound, smothering it (and her) with oppressive ease. They won't mention me tonight. Not even a footnote. I bet the award ceremony is over now. If they cared even a little, they'd call. Her phone lay next to the growing stack of folded costumes, screen like an abyss. Serena folded the laundry.

Quick edited version:

Serena folded the neon spandex suit. A large pile of similarly brightly colored costume pieces sat squatly next to the bed, as tall as her hip. Resentfully, she snapped out the next piece of laundry - a nylon cape - so hard it cracked like a whip. The silence of the house chased the sound, smothering it (and her) with oppressive ease. Her lip curled as she reached for a pair of aqua leggings. They won't mention me tonight. Not even a footnote. I bet the award ceremony is over now. I asked them to call when it ended. If they cared... Her phone lay next to the growing stack of folded costumes, screen like an abyss. She felt the weight of the empty house compacting her ribs, shoving her underneath her own skin, down and down and down. As if from a distance, she saw her arm, skin still pink from healing, reach for a red undershirt. Another load sat in the dryer waiting.

e.g. I keep seeing people talk about 'purple prose' when they actually mean 'the writer uses vivid and/or metaphorical descriptive language'. I've seen people who present themselves as educators offer some of the best genre writing in western canon as examples of 'purple prose' because it engages strategically in prose-poetry to evoke mood and I guess that's sheer decadence when you could instead say "it was dark and scary outside". But that's not what purple prose means. Purple means the construction of the prose itself gets in the way of conveying meaning. mid-00s horse RPers know what I'm talking about. Cerulean orbs flash'd fire as they turn'd 'pon rollforth land, yonder horizonways. <= if I had to read this when I was 12, you don't get to call Ray Bradbury's prose 'purple'.

I griped on here recently about the prepossession with fictional characters in fictional narratives behaving 'rationally' and 'realistically' as if the sole purpose of a made-up story is to convince you it could have happened. No wonder the epistolary form is having a tumblr renaissance. One million billion arguments and thought experiments about The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas that almost all evade the point of the story: that you can't wriggle out of it. The narrator is telling you how it was, is and will be, and you must confront the dissonances it evokes and digest your discomfort. 'Realistic' begins on the author's terms, that's what gives them the power to reach into your brain and fiddle about until sparks happen. You kind of have to trust the process a little bit.

This ultra-orthodox attitude to writing shares a lot of common ground with the tight, tight commodification of art in online spaces. And I mean commodification in the truest sense - the reconstruction of the thing to maximise its capacity to interface with markets. Form and function are overwhelmingly privileged over cloudy ideas like meaning, intent and possibility, because you can apply a sliding value scale to the material aspects of a work. But you can't charge extra for 'more challenging conceptual response to the milieu' in a commission drive. So that shit becomes vestigial. It isn't valued, it isn't taught, so eventually it isn't sought out. At best it's mystified as part of a given writer/artist's 'talent', but either way it grows incumbent on the individual to care enough about that kind of skill to cultivate it.

(adding your tags since I'm addressing them)

It’s polite, for one. Professional doesn’t need to mean elaborate—in fact, most professional emails are aiming to be as clear and concise as possible. (in english at least, I know some other languages have some very complicated and elaborate email etiquette)

Greetings and signatures also don’t need to be elaborate. I feel like lots of people overthink it and assume that professional emails need the whole “dear x, my name is x and I am writing this email to inform you about [topic], sincerely [my name and all my contact info]” shebang, when really it’s as simple as adding a quick greeting/signature and avoiding super informal slang.

Here’s an comparison using art commission inquiry as the topic, written with zero extra fluff:

Hi, Are you currently open for commissions? Thanks, [my name]

If I want to add a little more fluff, maybe I write:

Hi, I love your art and wanted to ask if you're currently open for commissions. Here are details of what I'm interested in. Thanks for your time! Thanks/best/etc, [my name]

Those are very short while also being more polite than an email that just says:

are u open for comms??

with zero greeting/signature and very informal tone. 

There’s still a person on the other side reading that email, and just like how being polite with a customer service agent on the phone will get you better results than being rude with them, sending a clear and professional email will have you taken more seriously by whoever is reading it. All 3 emails get the same point across, but the last one leaves a much worse impression. You don’t speak to your close friends the same way you’d speak to strangers, and it’s the same in text form. I get so many emails that are just abrupt questions, with not even a quick "thank you" either in the initial email or as a follow-up after I respond, because they ghost me as if I'm just a chat bot answering questions.

It took me ages to figure out they were treating writing emails like they were talking to a chatbot.

Now besides the obvious issues - I cannot help you if I spend the better part of three days trying to pull basic information out of you - these messages look like spam. More importantly, they can come across as a scam, and that makes it even less likely to get the problem fixed.

To: x

From: Y

Subject: review Mr smith room 1

(Can you tell I get multiple of these a week?)

Firstly, it comes across as you not having the respect to take the time to think of a separate subject. It also comes off a bit shouty.

Secondly, it makes it harder for us to search back for it.

Thirdly, people are less likely to write more details if they are doing it in the subject field. I am sitting at my computer, feeling shouted at and disrespected, and I have zero context for why I need to see Mr Smith.

Instead:

To: X

From: Y

Subject: Mr Smith Fall Review 1/2/2024

Hi X,

Mr Smith had a fall overnight. Please review when able.

Thanks,

Y

Lower case is not just a cute stylistic choice. It is making it actively harder for your recipient to read. You may be used to deciphering unpunctuated lapselock screeds as a result of being on Tumblr. You cannot assume the same of the adult reading your email. You also cannot assume English is their first language, they do not have dyslexia, etc.

Capital letters, punctuation, paragraph breaks and so on are not just boomer shit nobody needs. They are context cues many people need in order to take in text fast and smoothly.

Separately, but related, the basic furniture of the commissions examples above (starting with a short greeting, how the question is phrased, etc) are also really important to establish tone. You know, like some kind of thing that... indicates... tone? Also an accessibility issue for people like me. If someone wrote to me like the third example, "are u open for comms??", I would actually read that as threatening! It looks like an anon ask! The double question mask reads as impatience! I might not even reply! And if I do, my anxiety has already skyrocketed, and I'm already wondering if getting the necessary info from you is going to be a problem.

Anyway. I'm not saying I'll have a low opinion of you if you type in all lower case. I am saying I'll have a low opinion of you if you think it's appropriate to send me a professional email in all lower case. Because that says you don't know how to code-switch or you are inconsiderate, and that is a problem when it comes to basic adulting.

Ever wondered how a tiny dot can make or break your writing? That's the power of the period! This punctuation mark does more than just end sentences. It adds rhythm, clarity, and even drama to your prose. Here are some tips:

 Keep It Short and Simple

Long sentences can confuse readers and water down your message. Break up complex ideas with periods for bite-sized, easy-to-digest chunks.

Example:

Before: The alchemist worked tirelessly in his dimly lit laboratory, mixing potions, consulting ancient texts, and conducting experiments late into the night.

After: The alchemist worked tirelessly in his dimly lit laboratory. He mixed potions, consulted ancient texts, and conducted experiments late into the night.

Dodge the Run-Ons

Run-on sentences happen when independent clauses are strung together without proper punctuation or conjunctions. Periods help you avoid these and keep your grammar game strong.

Example:

Before: Lady Isabella entered the room she surveyed the scene with a keen eye.

After: Lady Isabella entered the room. She surveyed the scene with a keen eye.

 Spotlight Key Points

Short sentences can emphasize important details and add a dramatic flair. Periods create natural pauses to let your key information shine.

Example:

Before: In the heart of London, amidst the chaos and noise, a secret meeting took place that would change everything.

After: In the heart of London, amidst the chaos and noise, a secret meeting took place. It would change everything.

Mix It Up for Rhythm

A blend of short and long sentences creates an engaging rhythm in your writing. Periods allow you to control this flow and keep readers hooked.

Example:

Before: Elizabeth Thorn, a skilled herbalist, used her knowledge to heal the sick during the Great Plague, her potions and remedies providing much-needed relief to those who were suffering.

The most obnoxious thing my writing teacher taught me every story needed, that I absolutely loathed studying in the moment and that only later, after months of resisting and fighting realized she was right, was something called the causal chain.

Simply put, the causal chain is the linked cause-and-effect that must logically connect every event, reaction, and beat that takes place in your story to the ones before and after.

The Causal Chain is exhausting to go through. It is infuriating when someone points out that an event or a character beat comes out of nowhere, unmoored from events around it.

It is profoundly necessary to learn and include because a cause-and-effect chain is what allows readers to follow your story logically which means they can start anticipating what happens next, which is what is required for a writer to be able to build suspense and cognitively engage the audience, to surprise them, and to not infuriate them with random coincidences that hurt or help the characters in order to clumsily advance the author's goals.