Elmore Leonard on Writing

Elmore Leonard passed away yesterday.  He was most famous for his crime fiction but he got his start writing Westerns.  His short stories are great!

An obituary in The New York Times had a link to his recommendations for writers, which was published in that newspaper in 2001.  Below is the text of the article:


July 16, 2001



WRITERS ON WRITING; Easy on the Adverbs, Exclamation Points and Especially Hooptedoodle


By ELMORE LEONARD

These are rules I've picked up along the way to help me remain invisible when I'm writing a book, to help me show rather than tell what's taking place in the story. If you have a facility for language and imagery and the sound of your voice pleases you, invisibility is not what you are after, and you can skip the rules. Still, you might look them over.

1. Never open a book with weather.

If it's only to create atmosphere, and not a character's reaction to the weather, you don't want to go on too long. The reader is apt to leaf ahead looking for people. There are exceptions. If you happen to be Barry Lopez, who has more ways to describe ice and snow than an Eskimo, you can do all the weather reporting you want.


2. Avoid prologues.

They can be annoying, especially a prologue following an introduction that comes after a foreword. But these are ordinarily found in nonfiction. A prologue in a novel is backstory, and you can drop it in anywhere you want.

There is a prologue in John Steinbeck's ''Sweet Thursday,'' but it's O.K. because a character in the book makes the point of what my rules are all about. He says: ''I like a lot of talk in a book and I don't like to have nobody tell me what the guy that's talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks. . . . figure out what the guy's thinking from what he says. I like some description but not too much of that. . . . Sometimes I want a book to break loose with a bunch of hooptedoodle. . . . Spin up some pretty words maybe or sing a little song with language. That's nice. But I wish it was set aside so I don't have to read it. I don't want hooptedoodle to get mixed up with the story.''


3. Never use a verb other than ''said'' to carry dialogue.

The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with ''she asseverated,'' and had to stop reading to get the dictionary.


4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb ''said'' . . .

. . . he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances ''full of rape and adverbs.''


5. Keep your exclamation points under control.

You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. If you have the knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.


6. Never use the words ''suddenly'' or ''all hell broke loose."

This rule doesn't require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use ''suddenly'' tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points.


7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

Once you start spelling words in dialogue phonetically and loading the page with apostrophes, you won't be able to stop. Notice the way Annie Proulx captures the flavor of Wyoming voices in her book of short stories ''Close Range.''


8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

Which Steinbeck covered. In Ernest Hemingway's ''Hills Like White Elephants'' what do the ''American and the girl with him'' look like? ''She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.'' That's the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.


9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.

Unless you're Margaret Atwood and can paint scenes with language or write landscapes in the style of Jim Harrison. But even if you're good at it, you don't want descriptions that bring the action, the flow of the story, to a standstill.


And finally:


10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he's writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character's head, and the reader either knows what the guy's thinking or doesn't care. I'll bet you don't skip dialogue.


My most important rule is one that sums up the 10. If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

Or, if proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go. I can't allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of the narrative. It's my attempt to remain invisible, not distract the reader from the story with obvious writing. (Joseph Conrad said something about words getting in the way of what you want to say.)

If I write in scenes and always from the point of view of a particular character -- the one whose view best brings the scene to life -- I'm able to concentrate on the voices of the characters telling you who they are and how they feel about what they see and what's going on, and I'm nowhere in sight.

What Steinbeck did in ''Sweet Thursday'' was title his chapters as an indication, though obscure, of what they cover. ''Whom the Gods Love They Drive Nuts'' is one, ''Lousy Wednesday'' another. The third chapter is titled ''Hooptedoodle 1'' and the 38th chapter ''Hooptedoodle 2'' as warnings to the reader, as if Steinbeck is saying: ''Here's where you'll see me taking flights of fancy with my writing, and it won't get in the way of the story. Skip them if you want.''

''Sweet Thursday'' came out in 1954, when I was just beginning to be published, and I've never forgotten that prologue.

Did I read the hooptedoodle chapters? Every word.

Writers on Writing
This article is part of a series in which writers explore literary themes. Previous contributions, including essays by John Updike, E. L. Doctorow, Ed McBain, Annie Proulx, Jamaica Kincaid, Saul Bellow and others, can be found with this article at The New York Times on the Web:

www.nytimes.com/arts

Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company

Here is the link to the obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/books/elmore-leonard-master-of-crime-fiction-dies-at-87.html?hpw&pagewanted=all

Very interesting, Ghislaine!  Thanks for sharing!

Now to comment on a few of his points...

1. Never open a book with weather.
When I read this, my mind went immediately to Nell McKeon's "Left-Handed Gun" with the storm that really was visual and set the scene well.

3. Never use a verb other than ''said'' to carry dialogue.
I can't say I agree with this one.  I like "...," he grumbled.  Tells us his mood.

4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb ''said'' . . .
Having a difficulty with this one, too.  This often shows us the character's mood, too

5. Keep your exclamation points under control.
Have to agree.  Too many is very distracting!

7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
Have to agree.  Too many apostrophes makes it difficult to read and really slows down a good read.  I know how the Kid talks - dropping the "g" from "ing" is good enough.

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
Yep, sometimes I like my mind's thoughts better than the writers.  Let me picture it, with a little help from the writer.

A very interesting read Ghislaine, thank you for posting it.

I agree with a lot of what Elmore Leonard said...except about the 'only using said' part.

I love dialogue and groan at lots of description, which is why I have never read the classics. I know in those days you had to describe things because folk didn't have TV but nowadays I know what a hill looks like.
I actually struggle to add description to my stories and often have to go back and fill it in.
Long winded descriptions are the things I skip in books. If you can read the first line of every paragraph and still know what's going on you're describing too much.

I read this early on when I first started writing and took a lot of what he said to heart. I peppered my writing with lots of he said, she said, thinking I had the upper hand on dialogue. Fortunately, several readers gently took me to task and I've since learned better ways of expressing who is speaking. He makes a lot of great points here, though, and he has definitely influenced my style.

The advice to only use the verb said seems to have ruffled many of us.  I find reading said repetitively boring.  Realizing that Elmore Leonard is far more knowledgeable than I, however, I asked myself how could you make his advice work.  If you avoided identifying the speaker and left the dialogue to stand on its own without explanation most of the time, you could use said only when identifying the speaker was necessary.  Maybe it would work if speaker identification was used sparingly.

Like Ms. Penski wrote, however, I like a verb that gives a clearer indication of the characters mood.  Verbs like groused, chirped, jeered, and snorted are fun to read and use.

I've been thinking about Mr. Leonard's writing advice.  He makes some good points, but some of those points are contradicted in books which are considered great.  For Example:

7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.  We have all read stories where the regional dialect interfered in the story for us.  However, Huckleberry Finn is considered by most critics to be Twain's greatest work, and it is written entirely in heavy dialect.    Hmm.....

9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.  I completely understand this advise, but then I think about two great books I love, Cry The Beloved Country and Dr Zhivago.  In both of these novels the descriptions of the countryside are intrinsic to the book.  In Paton's Cry the Beloved Country, the themes of the book are mirrored in his descriptions of the countryside of South Africa.    

Are there perhaps no hard and fast rules?  Maybe it's like grammar.  Authors need t understand the grammar well enough to know when to disregard the rules.  Maybe the same applies to various writing guidelines.  Just wondering.

So now I'd like to offer my comments about EL's rules, and respond to what some other people have said:

Re #1: Never open a book with weather.
Maybe this was to avoid saying things like: It was a dark and stormy night.   

Re #2: Avoid prologues.
When writing a story that follows the format of a TV show, I think a prologue is fine since it acts as the teaser.

Re #3: Never use a verb other than ''said'' to carry dialogue.
and
Re #4: Never use an adverb to modify the verb ''said'' . . .
I do this all the time but I don't like it and try to avoid it (not real successful, though).  I think it often indicates laziness or lack of imagination on the part of the writer in that s/he couldn't think of one word that encompasses the meaning of the adverb phrase; for me it does, anyway.  So in that respect, I disagree with #3, because I think that using yelled/shouted instead of said loudly or joked/laughed instead of said jokingly/laughingly is better.

Re #5: Keep your exclamation points under control.
YES!  (Keep all caps under control as well!)

Re #7: Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
I agree with this.  Most people use reduced speech when talking (e.g. I'm gonna instead of going to and Whaddaya doin'? instead of what are you doing?).  Readers understand that when they read the text, they can read it in the informal familiar form but it's not necessary to write it that way.  As for Huck Finn and other such classics, I think part of the reason those authors did that was to show readers who came from different parts of the country and from different social classes, and who may never before have encountered people like those using such speech patterns, what those people were really like.

Re #8: Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
I guess it depends on how detail is too much.  Is it necessary to provide a lengthy physical description the first time a character is introduced?  Or can the description be interwoven into the narrative?  I would opt for the latter.  But a sentence or two--or maybe three--that paints an image of a character, so the reader can visualize what the character is like, I think is useful and often necessary, as well as enjoyable, especially if writing about characters who may look different from the people most readers encounter on a daily basis.  (Do we see cowboys every day?  Not me!  So a description helps ground the story for me.)

Re #9: Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
Gosh, ya mean my lack of description actually meant I was writing well?!  Responding to Sky's comments: When the setting is intrinsic to the story such that it is a character in its own right, as in the novels you reference, then I think in that sense it becomes necessary to provide a description that evokes the place in the reader's mind.

Re #10: Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.
Er, yes.  Though often a writer may not know what is boring to others.  Dang it!

Makes me think of Garrison Keillor when he said that in the future we are expected to be doing without adverbs. "Doing without them completely." I think one needs an adverb now and then, but perhaps mine get out of hand. I will try to be more careful.

Sometimes I think the character's gestures and eyes are as important as the words. And in a visual drama like a film or TV show, gestures and looks can take over for words. What I often wish I could do is to reference a particular scene in the series so you know that I mean that gesture or that look or that tone of voice, but that's really too graceless even for me. So I try to evoke those with a bit of description. How do other folks deal with that?

HW

Further on Elmore Leonard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/books/elmore-leonard-a-man-of-few-yet-perfect-words.html?ref=todayspaper

Sheesh!   How could I forget he wrote 3:10 to Yuma, of which two great movie adaptations were made of his short story?

These rules are great. Unfortunately, I break a lot of them, so I have much to learn.

Sigh; rules 3 and 4. When I began writing I used a lot of 'said.' Then, I thought that wasn't fancy enough, so I've tried to add other responses, and, gasp, adverbs. Now, I think I won't worry about it so much, and return to writing what feels most natural.

My favorite author is Alexander Dumas. He uses said for much of his dialog, but when someone exclaims, responds, replies, continues, etc., he doesn't hesitate. Mostly, he uses nothing. Here's a conversation at random from The Three Musketeers. A guardsman and d'Artagnan are exchanging words in anticipation to dueling, so the exclamation points are in in fine form here. He does use them more than many other authors, but his writing doesn't feel saturated with them. I like how he avoids adverbs.

"Ah! Indeed! and when, pray?" said the guardsman with the same air of mockery.
"Immediately, if you please."
"Doubtless you know who I am?"
"I have not the slightest idea; and, what is more, I do not care."
"And yet you are wrong; for if you knew my name, perhaps you would be less courageous."
"Indeed! and pray what is your name?" said d'Artagnan with the utmost tranquility, "I shall await you at the gate."

Most of his dialog is like that, back and forth between speakers; the reader follows the speakers by alternating lines.

I am curious about how this bit of his style strikes you: he uses a question mark and then 'said'. I don't believe people ever 'ask' in his books. Another example at random: "A horse for your servant?" resumed the attorney's wife...

I'm not certain about rule #10. On reading Les Miserables I skipped the entire section entitled Book First in Cosette. Perhaps I am simply a lazy reader. That section would probably interest other readers.

Back to Dumas(although this could apply to Hugo as well). He was paid by the word, so he used a great deal of description, but he always made it entertaining. Maybe, the trick to breaking the rules is that if you are a great author, you can manage it, while the rest of us putter along. 

Interesting, BeeJay. I haven't read Dumas in years. I wonder how much is the style of the translator? Or did you read them in the original French? My French isn't great and is very slow, so I couldn't hope to try to read the French originals.

Helen, please forgive me, I wanted to quote your post, and hit the quote button. I know darn well I did not hit the edit button. Instead of quoting it, the darn thing must have put me in your post. I didn't mean to erase your post. Can you repost? Or send me what you posted and I'll put it back in your post.


Sheesh

What I wanted to write was that I have read several translations and even with different words the style of Dumas comes across the same. And I wish I could read the original French.

Sure, BeeJay, I'll try.

I was talking about trying to avoid repetition so as to avoid drawing attention where you don't want it. I've done that way too much. It makes me cringe now. I need to go back and edit. It's one of the dangers of writing in episodes rather than doing the whole thing at once and then publishing. I'll use a word that I think works best in that place and then see a place in a later chapter where it works even better, but repeating it takes away from the strength of both usages.

Then I was paraphrasing a book I haven't read in years, but I remember the gist well enough, the Oxford Guide to Writing. It gives rules about things that you shouldn't do because they will draw attention where you don't want it. But you can purposefully violate the rules when you want to draw attention. Like not using fragments. Unless you need to.
HW

Thanks, BeeJay. Makes me want to go back and read Dumas! I have trouble with people who just do the line alternation so much that it gets confusing, but then I am profoundly dyslexic. I think if the lines are long enough or specific enough to make it clear who is speaking, it works fine. Or if the lines are so short that it may not always matter who is saying what.


HW

I have been enjoying reading all of your posts here. I must say that compared to most of you, I am not very well read at all. The only reason I even know how to pronounce "Dumas" is because Andy Dufresne says it in "The Shawshank Redemption." It does appear to me that the "rules" of writing vary depending on who it is writing those rules. Perhaps there are as many lists of rules as there are writers? I am also curious as to whose work sells better, the work of the classic artists, or the work of the dime store trashy novelists?

I can only recall reading one book which I felt was absolutely horribly written and it happened to be a major hit with a huge section of the population. I guess I have no taste. Present tense, first person for a whole novel was just too much for me.

I have found that most people read to relax rather than to learn anything. I haven't done a study on it but I would think that the trashy 'dime novel' type stories would sell more. People buy the literary classics just to have on their shelves, but then never read them!

Writing is, in my opinion, a form of art designed to enhance human communication. Therefore, everything should have his or her own approaches to writing and his or her own taste. Thank goodness! So we can admire and enjoy, a variety, of approaches. You may love or hate said - either side is easy to support. I'm very interested to hear the ideas behind the various authors who publish here and elsewhere.

My favorite rule is the one I learned for art. If it works, do it. If it doesn't, don't.

But please, discuss on, because within those broad lines lie a vast and wonderful variety of ideas and responses. I love reading what you all have to say!
HW

Hello Sister Grace,

You wondered what type of book sells more, classics or the popular, dime-store variety.  

Much of what we today consider classic literature began life as "popular trash."  Charles Dickens novels were originally published as serial works in magazines.  They were very popular and were read and purchased by the common people of his day.

Many other classic works were scoffed at, censored, and banned when they were first published.  The writings of DH Lawerence,were not allowed publication in the UK without series editing.  Dumas' works, which were often published in serial form like Dickens, were devoured by the masses who awaited each installment as avidly as people in the 1980s waited each week to watch the next episode of Dallas.  If you have ever read an unabridged copy of The Count of Monte Cristo, Dumas' most popular work during his life time, you will soon realize why the version used in schools is highly edited.

Shakespeare's plays were immensely popular with the lower classes during his lifetime.  The nobility and landed gentry might have offered him patronage, but it was all of those people standing in "the yard"  (the cheapest part of the theater where you stood)  who made him famous.  The folks in the yard were hardly high brow.  Drinking, gambling, prostitution, and brawling all went on in the yard.  But Shakespeare's plays were so popular with this "rabble" that business men complained that Shakespeare hurt their businesses because their apprentices disappeared to the theatre when these plays were being performed.  

To bring the examples closer to the modern era, Dashielle Hammet, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Ray Bradbury all began as pulp fiction writers. Pulp fiction seems to me to be the quintessential trashy, dime novel.

I guess what I am trying to show, is that the classics are classics because they have stood the test of time.  Many of the novels taught in schools today were immensely popular when they were published. They were the trashy novel of their day.  But we are still buying them and reading them.  It seems only logical that these books have sold many more copies, just because they have been steadily being sold for many, many years.  

Wow! Very interesting facts! Thanks for sharing!