In Today’s Journal
* More on Replacing “It”
* A New ‘Down in the Weeds’ Newsletter?
* About ‘Down in the Weeds’
* ‘Down in the Weeds’ Is Not a Done Deal.
* Of Interest
* The Numbers
More on Replacing “It”
A writer asked whether you should also guard against repetition when you replace vague pronouns (that is, pronouns whose antecedents are vague) with a noun or proper name.
The answer is Maybe. It depends. (Yes, an example is coming.)
The writer also reminded me that although I recommend AGAINST conscious-mind ‘revising,’ ‘rewriting,’ and ‘editing,’ I also hold that the writer’s job is to present the story on the page clearly, so the reader will “get” the story without experiencing any confusion.
To bring this discussion full circle, replacing pronouns whose antecedents are vague are one small part of the writer’s responsibility to present the story clearly. That is to say, it’s your responsibility to practice the craft to the best of your ability.
So both of the statements in the second paragraph above this one are true, and they are not a contradiction: You can remain true to the story AND present it clearly to the reader ONLY if you do not allow any conscious-mind intrusion.
To get back to the writer’s original question, if you believe the repetition will bog down the reading, either leave the pronoun alone or replace it in a different way.
You don’t always have to replace “it” with its direct antecedent, for example.
In my current novel, while I was cycling through what I wrote on Friday, I encountered this passage:
- I finished the preventive maintenance on the bike not quite an hour later, then rolled up the tool kit and slipped it into one of the new saddlebags I’d bought a couple of months earlier. I swung a leg over the bike, turned on the key, and kickstarted it.
Now, I believe most readers will understand that the antecedent for “it” in the last sentence is “the bike.”
But because of the proximity of “it” to “the key,” the reader MIGHT perceive “the key” as the antecedent.
And remember, I’m not talking about a reader who’s consciously looking for things to criticize.
I’m talking about a reader who’s engaged in the story and reading for pleasure. I’m talking about that reader’s subconscious perception. The same subconscious perception that hit me when I encountered the passage while cycling.
If that reader perceives “the key” as the antecedent, that will cause him or her a split-second of confusion.
It’s my responsiblity as the writer to do my best to erase even the possibility of confusion. To do that, I could recast the sentence like this:
- I swung a leg over the bike, turned on the key, and kickstarted the bike.
But the repetition of “the bike” might be just as annoying, or maybe even more so, on a subconscious level.
So instead I recast the sentence like this:
- I swung a leg over the bike, turned on the key, and hit the kickstarter.
(Note that the verb “hit” is a little ambiguous here too. It connotes using something other than a boot. But “kicked” would be too repetitive and “hit” gets the point across without confusion, so “hit” is the better choice here. Though I suppose “stomped on” would have sufficed as well.)
So now there’s no confusion, no repetition, and no vague pronouns running around causing trouble.
And for the record, that process took all of a second or two as I was cycling. Dissecting and deconstructing the sentence and writing about it here for instructional purposes is a conscious-mind effort and is taking MUCH longer. And just think: some writers actually WRITE with the conscious mind. Groan.
If You Want to Practice replacing pronouns whose antecedents are vague, I recommend cycling through your current work in progress or even an older work. If a pronoun is so vague that it will jump out at a reader, chances are it will jump out at you too.
And if you ‘feel’ that something isn’t quite right with a passage but you can’t quite ‘get it’ or figure it out while you’re silently cycling through the passage, Read the Passage Aloud.
Seriously, chances are if you read it aloud, you’ll get hear both the problem and the solution immediately.
Now, I’m Old But I’m Not Stupid. I’m absolutely certain the above stuff will seem more than nitpicky to some of you. And maybe it is.
But this is one of those ‘little, nitpicky’ things that draws the stark, bold line between a Stage 3 writer and those writers in Stages 4 or 5.
Note that this is also the level of instruction you would receive from me—albeit using examples from your own work instead-of or in-addition-to mine—in a mentorship.
Unfortunately, I’m not currently offering one-on-one mentorships. I’m an instructor at heart, and it always frustrates me that I’m passing along so much intense information to only one writer. That’s why I used to enjoy teaching live seminars so much.
But I might have come up with a way to alleviate that shortcoming and teach many writers at one time, yet for much less money than a one-on-one mentorship or even a series of live seminars would cost the mentee or the attendees. Read on:
A New ‘Down in the Weeds’ Newsletter?
I’m thinking of starting yet one more newsletter, probably on or near the beginning of 2025. I’ll probably call it ‘Down in the Weeds,’ because that’s exactly what it will be.
The segment above on replacing “it” is an example of the sort of post I’ll do in that new newsletter. So if you found that segment valuable, please let me know via email at harveystanbrough@gmail.com or via a comment on this post.
Don’t worry. The New Daily Journal (TNDJ) will continue as it has for the past ten years: an almost-daily guide filled with musings, advice, and general insights on the craft of writing fiction.
The audience for TNDJ will continue to be Stage 1, Stage 2, and early Stage 3 writers who are seeking to advance their knowledge of the craft and eventually move into advanced Stage 3.
‘Down in the Weeds’ will be much more intense, and it will require a level of understanding that most Stage 1, Stage 2, and early Stage 3 writers have not yet achieved.
If you’re a writer whose go-to phrase is “The writer will know what I mean” or if you thought the content of “More on Replacing ‘It'” was unnecessarily nitpicky, you’re solidly in that group. But you don’t have to stay there.
If that’s you, I strongly recommend you buy and study Writing Better Fiction while it’s still on sale.
By the way, “The Stages of a Fiction Writer” I refer to in this post are per my definitions as outlined HERE and HERE. I suggest you read or reread them and determine for yourself where you are on the scale.
About ‘Down in the Weeds’
The audience for ‘Down in the Weeds’ rises to the level of a valuable mentorship. As such, it will be a paid, subscription-only newsletter.
But I don’t want to double-dip here. Any current, paid TNDJ subscribers who subscribe to ‘Down in the Weeds’ will also continue to receive TNDJ.
If you’re currently a paid subscriber to TNDJ, email me at harveystanbrough@gmail.com and I’ll change your status on TNDJ to “free.” Then you can cancel that recurring paid subscription to TNDJ, whether it’s paid through Stripe or PayPal.
I’m currently thinking a subscription to ‘Down in the Weeds’ will cost $20 per month or $228 per year (a $12 discount). I welcome your suggestions, via private email please, at harveystanbrough@gmail.com.
You’ll have to subscribe to ‘Down in the Weeds’ through Stripe, which is Substack’s go-to provider.
Anyone will be able to subscribe, but the infomation in ‘Down in the Weeds’ will be intended for Stage 3 and Stage 4 writers who are looking to further hone their craft. That said, if you feel you’re still in Stage 1 or 2, ‘Down in the Weeds’ will help leap your writing ahead.
You will receive issues of ‘Down in the Weeds’ regularly. Frequency of publication is still to be determined. I suspect I’ll send it out no more than once a week, but probably two or three times per month. Finally,
‘Down in the Weeds’ Is Not a Done Deal.
This post is primarly a survey to gauge your level of interest. If more than a few writers are interested, I’ll put the effort into it.
So If you are interested in the ‘Down in the Weeds’ newsletter, again, please let me know via email at harveystanbrough@gmail.com or by commenting on this post.
Of course, you incur no obligation by expressing your interest.
Any questions, please feel free to email me or leave a comment.
Talk with you again soon.
Of Interest
Dr. Mardy’s Quotes of the Week: “Determination” Definitely something writers need to know about. Wait’ll you see tomorrow’s TNDJ. (grin)
Instant Facebook Ad Templates to Boost Your Book Sales | Content Delivery #1 I probably won’t linnk to anymore of these, so if you want in, visit the site and subscribe. These book marketing posts are free for November.
The Numbers
The Journal……………………………… 1530
Writing of Blackwell Ops 30: John Quick Returns
Day 1…… 2155 words. To date…… 2155
Day 2…… 3930 words. To date……. 6085
Day 3…… 3042 words. To date……. 9127
Day 4…… 3057 words. To date……. 12184
Day 5…… 5268 words. To date……. 17452
Day 6…… 1500 words. To date……. 18952
Fiction for November…………………. 6768
Fiction for 2024……………………….. 843900
Nonfiction for November……………… 2960
Nonfiction for 2024……………………. 337380
2024 consumable words……………… 1005319
Average Fiction WPD (November)…… 3384
2024 Novels to Date……………………….. 15
2024 Novellas to Date……………………… 1
2024 Short Stories to Date………………… 18
Novels (since Oct 19, 2014)…………..……. 97
Novellas (since Nov 1, 2015)………………. 10
Short stories (since Apr 15, 2014)………..… 255
Short story collections…………………….….. 29
Disclaimer: Whatever you believe, unreasoning fear and the myths that outlining, revising, and rewriting will make your work better are lies. They will always slow your progress as a writer or stop you cold. I will never teach the myths on this blog.
Writing fiction should never be something that stresses you out. It should be fun. On this blog I teach Writing Into the Dark and adherence to Heinlein’s Rules. Because of WITD and because I endeavor to follow those Rules I am a prolific professional fiction writer. You can be too.
If you are able, please support TNDJ with a paid subscription. Thank you!