To carry on about editing "Snaked," and to procrastinate a little more from real writing, Dave said this:
Narrative writing is so not like programming.
Clever = convoluted.
Obscure = confusing.
Nuanced = vague and misleading.
All things you do not want your code to be, which in general is: drop-dead-obvious.
I'm not sure you give enough credit to the analogy, especially in genre, plot-heavy fiction. In other words, you can be both, I think. Streamlining, removing redundancy, condensing, etc. All that helps a book. I think the structure needs to be thought out, even if in a intuitive way.
With your speed of production I wonder if more time spent designing,
rough outlining, sampling the story in a broad context might not be a
way to test a story before it's written.
With every book, I try. Nowadays, I do tend to have an overall story-arc in mind, a theme, a cast of characters and a locale.
But I seem to find my story by writing it. I can't seem to find it from the outside, as it were. I learn by doing. So for instance with "Deadfall Ridge" I realized that I waited too long to get to the action, that the action must be immediate and never let up. Of course, this is true of all genre fiction, but in thrillers it becomes much more noticeable.
But yeah, "designing, rough outlining" would be a huge help, if I could do it. I try a little harder each time. More thought before I start a book, more thought before each chapter.
I heard someone use the phrase, in describing a book that had a thin plot, "not enough paint to cover the walls."
Nowadays, I try to make sure I have enough paint.
1 day ago