Thanks for writing, Dawn. It's great to hear from you again.
It seems that most MFA students, at least those I've worked with, had been taught that dispensing with back story "tightens the story." The phrase was used so often I assumed it was one of their many common misconceptions that came from their professors. However, I've seen the same advice in on-line forums.
In this case, the manuscript was a decent story (albeit with awkward dialogue) that needed editing. It held together and made sense. I returned my sample edit and general remarks, and then I didn't hear from the writer for a month or two.
Finally, I received an email from him that was bubbling with excitement. He'd had a "breakthrough" and "seen the light." He asked if I'd take a look at his story again, since he had "tightened the narrative." I read through as much as I could take: It no longer made sense, but it was nearly 9000 words shorter. I asked him why he had sliced out every bit of back story. He was evasive, but I gathered he had talked with his former professor. Or had he fallen to the tyranny of a writer's critique group? Perhaps. (You'd be surprised how many magazine articles about writing advocate "getting rid of back story" as a first step in self-editing.) When I emailed him, I suggested he replace most of the back story and seriously tighten the dialogue (it consisted of characters telling each other things), which was something I had initially suggested. I never heard from that writer again.
Back story is often a data dump, especially with newer writers. So the recommendation should be: "Look closely at your writing and make sure that your back story is not a data dump and eliminate the data dump." However, all the eager student hears is "Get rid of back story." There is always a problem when any "rule" is taught without teaching and explaining its rationale.
Considering some of the lack of understanding of many words, I'm not actually surprised at any of this. Such as a writer I was working with not knowing the difference between "forbidding" and "foreboding". I've watched many online discussions over the years that revealed how ignorant many writers are about concepts as simple as first-person versus third-person POV. It's alarming, and rather perplexing, that so many don't know the most obvious and basic difference between those two. Throw in mention of omniscient, and the water got even muddier. Of course, add in present vs past tense and brace for a deluge of confusion.
“But I’m trying to keep my word count down.”
Just out of curiosity, Michaela, did you ask that individual WHY? If so, did he/she have an answer? I've run into that one, and so far, other than one who was targeting a specific publisher with tight word count restrictions, none of them could explain WHY they must keep their word count down, especially to the point of sacrificing good storytelling to do so. Short of meeting publication limitations/requirements for specific publishers or magazines, why worry about word count at all. Just tell the story.
Thanks for writing, Dawn. It's great to hear from you again.
It seems that most MFA students, at least those I've worked with, had been taught that dispensing with back story "tightens the story." The phrase was used so often I assumed it was one of their many common misconceptions that came from their professors. However, I've seen the same advice in on-line forums.
In this case, the manuscript was a decent story (albeit with awkward dialogue) that needed editing. It held together and made sense. I returned my sample edit and general remarks, and then I didn't hear from the writer for a month or two.
Finally, I received an email from him that was bubbling with excitement. He'd had a "breakthrough" and "seen the light." He asked if I'd take a look at his story again, since he had "tightened the narrative." I read through as much as I could take: It no longer made sense, but it was nearly 9000 words shorter. I asked him why he had sliced out every bit of back story. He was evasive, but I gathered he had talked with his former professor. Or had he fallen to the tyranny of a writer's critique group? Perhaps. (You'd be surprised how many magazine articles about writing advocate "getting rid of back story" as a first step in self-editing.) When I emailed him, I suggested he replace most of the back story and seriously tighten the dialogue (it consisted of characters telling each other things), which was something I had initially suggested. I never heard from that writer again.
Back story is often a data dump, especially with newer writers. So the recommendation should be: "Look closely at your writing and make sure that your back story is not a data dump and eliminate the data dump." However, all the eager student hears is "Get rid of back story." There is always a problem when any "rule" is taught without teaching and explaining its rationale.
Good to see you on here again, Michaele.
Considering some of the lack of understanding of many words, I'm not actually surprised at any of this. Such as a writer I was working with not knowing the difference between "forbidding" and "foreboding". I've watched many online discussions over the years that revealed how ignorant many writers are about concepts as simple as first-person versus third-person POV. It's alarming, and rather perplexing, that so many don't know the most obvious and basic difference between those two. Throw in mention of omniscient, and the water got even muddier. Of course, add in present vs past tense and brace for a deluge of confusion.
“But I’m trying to keep my word count down.”
Just out of curiosity, Michaela, did you ask that individual WHY? If so, did he/she have an answer? I've run into that one, and so far, other than one who was targeting a specific publisher with tight word count restrictions, none of them could explain WHY they must keep their word count down, especially to the point of sacrificing good storytelling to do so. Short of meeting publication limitations/requirements for specific publishers or magazines, why worry about word count at all. Just tell the story.
Thanks, Dawn. I'll pass on your comment to Michaele.