• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

What are you writing about now?

Folks, a wee bit of writing just unavoidably leapt in front of me, I thought I'd spread it out before you as an 'example and discussion' piece.
Hopefully after pondering, we'll have extracted both some counsel, and some encouragement.

"A mile or so away, the woods yielded to a broad field, yellow and scaly with snow. At one end of it the earth mounted into a wall, and at the other, the nearer, a concrete walkway lay and a few huts huddled in the trees."

The questions:
1. Do you think this is well written?
2. If so Why? If not, why not?
3. Is there any adjustment you might make to improve it?​
4. What do you particularly notice about it useful to your own work (if anything)?​

Obviously participation is not required here. There is no midnight visitation from the Balrog should you choose to refrain.
Soon, I'll shovel out my musings on the questions too.
 
There is no midnight visitation from the Balrog should you choose to refrain.
I'll chase him away if need be. *Coughs*

To answer the question, I find the syntax is a bit disjointed and somewhat wordy, but I like the details. When I write, I tend to spill out a lot of descriptions; my style is fairly wordy as well. I think if I were writing this I would re-frame the quote a bit.
I would say something along the lines of "In the distance stretched the woods, which yielded to a broad field covered in scales of snow. Yellow earth mounted as a wall on the far end, and up close a concrete walkway led to several small huts amidst the trees."
 
I wrote 700 words in my book today! That's not a lot by my standards; at the height of my power I used to write 2,000+ words every day. But it was an important 700 words because it covered a difficult transition I've been stuck on for a while. I had to wrap up the army vs army conflict of the climactic battle and transition it to the point where my villain unleashes his magical creatures to wreak destruction. My mind is much more naturally inclined towards interpersonal conflicts, romance, and politics than it is towards battles, so this climax has been really difficult for me.
Conversely, I like writing action scenes, since I can make a nearly direct description of what I see in my head. Dialogue gives me problems (depending on situation), and there is a reason why romance is vanishingly rare!

This is why most of my stories are comic strips, actually. I don't write prose that often.

When I do write, I describe broadly what I 'see', then keep changing the sentence bit by bit until I suddenly see it's right, then stop at once and move on to the next. It's like I punch it into shape lol. Nope. *whack* Definitely not. *whack* Not there yet. *whack* Just a little off. *whack* A little off but the other way now. *whack* !!!! There it is! Don't move!
I wouldn't be a good writing teacher, since I couldn't say why things are right or wrong, I just know when what I've written suits me. People do ask me to proofread their stuff though.

"A mile or so away, the woods yielded to a broad field, yellow and scaly with snow. At one end of it the earth mounted into a wall, and at the other, the nearer, a concrete walkway lay and a few huts huddled in the trees."
"A mile or so away, the woods yielded to a broad yellow field, scaly with snow. At its far end, the earth mounted into a wall. On the near side lay a concrete walkway, along with a few huts huddled in the trees."

In isolation, I'd rewrite it like this. If it were part of a larger text, I might divide the sentences differently and/or rearrange them, depending on how it looks and feels all together.
 
I got baffled at "scaly snow"
I saw it as snow that used to be a blanket, but is now partially melted so there are 'cracks' between the snow islands and you can see the ground and dead vegetation beneath. Like cracked earth in a dry desert, but with wider gaps in between.

1700011877504.png
 
I saw it as snow that used to be a blanket,
Yeah, similar. Given the 'yellow', I had a bit more of the field itself showing in the 'cracks'... a somewhat light covering of snow, melting in many spots, with the 'patches' remaining a bit lighter at the edges as the snow continued to melt. Perhaps rather large patches or 'trails' of the yellow field showing through. With no mention of snow on the 'concrete walkway' apparently visible, its retention of heat would have helped clear it quicker than the light covering of melting snow in the field.

I'll leave this just a bit more, then come back to my thoughts on the Questions above.
 
I'll preface my comments by noting that they are just my opinion based upon my taste. Tastes differ and I don't claim mine are the "one true" taste that all should emulate!

I tried to read the sentence aloud and, golly, that wasn't easy. Much too convoluted for my taste. If the author's taste likes their prose this way, I recommend the collected works of Bulwer-Lytton, such as the novel Paul Clifford, as some of the best examples to emulate.

I didn't read it as a yellow field with scaly ? snow, I read it as a field with yellow scaly snow. That set my mind on that kid's joke about not eating the yellow snow, and I doubt that was the author's intention. Unless yellow is absolutely essential to the plot, I suggest a different colour for the dirt or plant life (whichever it was).

I could see earth mounting itself into a wall if we're talking about mud or lava flows. An absolutely awesome description for that! But for an everyday earthen wall that someone created by mounding earth, nope. Very weird way to say it.

Earth mounted, concrete lay, and huts huddling is a lot of inanimate action for one sentence. It doesn't work for me. The imagery - other than the huts - seems forced rather than appropriate.
 
I didn't read it as a yellow field with scaly ? snow, I read it as a field with yellow scaly snow.
That's why I rewrote it as "a broad yellow field, scaly with snow", since I think it makes for a clearer picture in the mind's eye.

Actually, now that you mention it, I realise that's what bothered me about the piece of writing. It gave me a fuzzy mind's eye picture, where the different features described either blended together indistinctly, or stood out starkly, not entirely attached to the rest of the scene. I saw all the individual elements correctly (so the field was yellow, and the snow looked like scales on it), but all together it looked like an AI artwork, lol. The 'poetry' of the prose was off, so it didn't flow quickly enough for my mind to make one uniform picture of it. My mind was 'halted' slightly several times, so I ended up with about three pictures mashed together into one.
 
Last edited:
There is great encouragement for me in all the responses given above.
I posted this particular event mostly because I think it's good for us to step back from time to time and critically review 'someone else's work.'
I suspect often we get too focused on our own, and a close and intentional review of others' work, both at a general level and a specific one, feeds directly back into our own performance.

I'll share a few of my own thoughts now, reinforcing as David did, these are just my opinions of the work. We'll walk it point by point.
"A mile or so away, the woods yielded to a broad field, yellow and scaly with snow. At one end of it the earth mounted into a wall, and at the other, the nearer, a concrete walkway lay and a few huts huddled in the trees."

The questions:
1. Do you think this is well written?
In general, it's not bad. The author makes an attempt at employing 'unusual descriptive' language, 'yielded', 'scaly', 'mounted', 'lay', 'huddled'.​
This is a good thing, and gives us hope. It's far from the 'droll, standard language' we find in many attempts at description. Its use actually drew me forward to see where else the author would take me.​
​
However, it's 'overdone,' with so many 'efforts' packed into so few words it feels 'forced' as one of you shared. Too many commas are used unnecessarily especially in the first sentence. A couple of you have made nice adjustments to the sentence providing better 'flow'.​
​
Also, if one is reading quickly (as I was), an immediate question thunders into the mind. (Or should). ow does all this get seen 'a mile or so away?' The distance is a bit far to actually see this level of detail. Does it make sense?​
​
Well yes, 'in context' it does, but I needed to re-read to figure it out. There was a far better phrase to use in context.​
(I didn't give you the context, so this point may be a little unfair. That said, in critical reading, perhaps the question should still come to our minds, especially without the context. Did it occur to anyone other than me?)​
​
In a nutshell then, for me there are some nice aspects to it but it needs a little work.​

2. If so Why? If not, why not?
See the comments above.​

3. Is there any adjustment you might make to improve it?
Probably very similar to the adjustments others made above. Not considering the helpful improvements needed to clarify from context, I might write it siomething like this for example: (there are many alternative ways.)​
​
"About a mile away the woods yielded to a broad, yellow field patched with snow. At its farther end the earth rose quickly into a wall. At the nearer were a concrete walkway and a few huts huddled in the trees."​
​
4. What do you particularly notice about it useful to your own work (if anything)?
I really can't help but think of Tolkien's remark about 'laboring over every word.' This to me is a good example of why.​
When he spoke of it, his reference wasn't just to 'the individual word' I'm sure...but to its syntax, phrase, clause, sentence and paragraph.​
Too close a focus on 'the word' alone can lead to excess, as it does in this case. It puts too much effort into 'not being standard,' so turns out to be 'overly flowery.'​
​
I'm also reminded of many works I've encountered, where things said just do not make sense at face value, as this one wouldn't if the intent were to speak to such a level of detail at 'a mile or so away.'​
​
Here's another example from a work edited a little while back,, just to help make the point. (If I've shared it before, I apologize in advance.)​
​
The setting: a large clearing in the woods with a large, blazing fire in the center so all the people gathered could see the speaker standing in the center near it as well.​
​
Huge trees surround the setting, with little almost hidden buildings built into their branches where those gathered can stay the night after the meeting. The light from the fire dances off the branches nearest the clearing, and upward toward the tops of the trees.​
​
The event: the participant the author is writing about looks "directly across the (large) clearing and sees a knee and toes of a foot poking out from the door." Being of a very distinguishable species, the participant immediately recognizes the species of the owner of the knee and toes.​
​
Now... with the hidden buildings in the trees, the large clearing, the glare of the fire between the participant and the edge of the forest (to say nothing of the hidden building in the trees), does the scene make any sense? Would it be possible to see a knee-cap and toes poking out of a door in the dark of night within the shadows of the trees, even without the glare of the fire?​
​
Here's another, then I'll shut up:​
The Scene: A fellow is in a large central tent rummaging through stuff to find something. The central tent is surrounded out on the edges of this particular clearing with several individual tents. The fellow sees another fellow ducking into a lady's tent.​
​
The event: He 'leaves the tent' and heads toward the lady's tent. (He feels the other gent has unseemly intentions.)​
In the next scene he 'turns back to rummaging among the goods' looking for whatever it was he was looking for.​
​
Is that possible? Not in the least. Not until he 'goes back into the tent.'​
​
A third (and final):​
The scene: An elf, son of the other elf (his father) present, comes to have a serious chat with his dad. They are a little bit 'at odds', and some space separate them there in the forest clearing. (Gotta love clearings..!!) There's a large log present.​
​
His dad tells his son "have a seat." And the son dutifully sits down. They chat.​
Three paragraphs of discussion later, "(His son) put his hand on (his father's) shoulder."​
Huh? Wait a minute. The son is sitting on the log and there's space between them. The scene is impossible.​
So a fix was made.​
​
I could share several more, but refrain. The point: if we're tryting to draw specific scenes and scene sequences, the steps within them must make sense.​
​
This (and more) is Tolkien's 'laboring over every word.' From particular word choice to its fit within the entire work, is an author's domain.​
​
This is the realm you've all chosen to dapple in, and I herald you all for it. It's a massive undertaking... frankly, one too daunting for most to even consider.​
​
(And it's an editor's life work to make sure an author looks good, helping the author fix such things. So, if and as you work, do make sure, if you engage editors, to choose good ones with more than their own pocketbook in mind..!)​
​
THE REALLY GOOD NEWS:​
The author of the work in the original post above wrote the sentence in his very first published book, some 43 years ago. He went on to write many, many books and has had an illustrious career.​
​
Overall, in spite of a few issues within his first work, I'm intrigued to move forward in his career and watch him as he grows.​
​
Sorry for this epistle... just a few thoughts I extracted from reading those two sentences, but I wanted to get them out there for your consideration.​
 
Last edited:
I tried to read the sentence aloud and, golly, that wasn't easy.
My wife suggested that authors should always consider what it would be like to read their own work aloud at a book signing. That's very good advice!
Lord Dunsany, Tolkien and Ursula LeGuin are very good examples of works that scan well when read aloud. Le Guin has written a number of essays on the art of writing in which she discusses this, amongst other useful things to consider.
 
It gave me a fuzzy mind's eye picture
In addition to my notes above, some day soon, no one minding, I'll write about this 'fuzzy mind' syndrome, its sources, and its disastrous impact on readers.

It will be a brief bit of writing, but everyone should know, and I fear few do. If you all are acquainted with why readers 'get fuzzy,' 'start to yawn,' 'lose interest for unknown reasons,' etc. let me know and I won't bother.

The science regarding it has revealed some amazing things.
 
@Ent , you'll be amused (or possibly disappointed in humanity). I have weekly tutoring sessions at the writing lab at school, where the same person looks at my progress on my 20 page group paper and gives me feedback. Last night the tutor told me to add some Useless That's! Twice!!
How dare the tutor! Did you explain? 🧠
 
I just said okay and will not actually be incorporating the change into my paper.
Are the papers being 'graded' or any such thing?
If so, be 'absolutely sure' the additions recommended truly are "useless thats'.
If the ones suggested for addition have a 'proper target to which they refer, preceding or following the 'that', I would recommend adding them.

If however it's just a paid tutor, I wouldn't hesitate to instruct them in the finer points of 'that'.

Many highly paid authors and most 'teachers' of writing (and some good amount of editors) are so ingrained in seeing 'that' they just don't even recognize its valuelessness.
 
you'll be amused (or possibly disappointed in humanity
As to this part, I confess I am amused by humanity regularly, and on rare occassion disappointed.
HOWEVER:

All disappointments come from an unfulfilled 'hope.' To avoid disappointments, we watch our 'hopes' carefully and hold them loosely.
All frustrations come from unfulfilled 'expectations.' To avoid frustrations, we watch our 'expectations' carefully, and hold them loosely.

In the end, I find the best course of action to be to have absolutely no expectations, or hopes, for humanity. Then I'm free from frustrations and disappointments.

(And to be sure, humanity has done little to indicate one should have expectations or hopes from them, either. History stands against them at every turn.)
 
Are the papers being 'graded' or any such thing?
They're being graded by my professor, but not the writing tutor. These writing tutors are fellow grad students, and they are business students like us, not English majors or anything like that. I'm not sure what the qualifications are to become a tutor at the writing lab. But the purpose of these weekly sessions is, from my understanding, to get a second pair of eyes looking at the paper and helping us write more cleanly and concisely.

This particular tutor has given me some helpful suggestions and helped me clean up some clunky sentences. However, I don't think she's perfect. There are a few times where her suggested changes sounded really unnatural or changed the meaning of my sentence. I guess it may be relevant to mention English is not her first language. I don't mean that as any sort of judgment, and her English is obviously very good, but it is a relevant fact to consider.

I'm not required to accept all her suggested changes, as far as I'm aware. It is valuable to me, though, to have the same person looking at my paper regularly. And getting an outside perspective also helps me identify the areas where I've written something confusing.
 
In the end, I find the best course of action to be to have absolutely no expectations, or hopes, for humanity. Then I'm free from frustrations and disappointments
Amen to this!

Introvert minds:
Heh, my extrovert mind instantly saw a gentle opportunity to tutor the tutor! 😂
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top