How do you justify the action in a long work of fiction? I can't remember reading a book-length story about which I couldn't argue that at least some small portion of the action was technically "unnecessary." That includes my favorite books.
There's action which involves the main plot, action which reveals character, action which perhaps does nothing but entertain or provide a lull or space between more important actions, combinations of these three and surely other types. And, of course, the specific mixture of types of action will vary by (and perhaps determine) the kind of story the book contains. There are more "exciting" globe-trotting ass-kicking stories, stories which are more concerned with character development and relationships, etc.
Should I, in attempting to write something book-length, even worry about whether an action is "necessary?" After all, the book itself is not necessary, if you want to get down to it; and if the action is entertaining or thought-provoking and keeps someone reading, it is serving a purpose regardless of the main plot.
Do considerations of pace and length outweigh my concerns for the "relevance" of the action I must include in order to achieve book-length? After all, one could argue that, once the book is complete, the only sense of relevance that matters is the reader's.
What is "the deal?"
[There's probably an essay or two on this, isn't there?]
Should I, in attempting to write something book-length, even worry about whether an action is "necessary?" After all, the book itself in not necessary, if you want to get down to it; and if the action is entertaining or thought-provoking and keeps someone reading, it is serving a purpose regardless of the main plot.
This, I feel, is the heart of the question. And I think it kind of answers the question.
But still would make a great (series) of essays....
Ha. The "heart of the question" has a typo. Hang on.
Excellent question. I personally think it's all down to your particular style. If you take someone like Elmore Leonard almost every action has a purpose and then on the other hand take Stephen King, there's a good proportion of the action could be removed and still leave the story perfectly readable to the audience. However, in the case of King (IT is a great example here) I feel that the actions sometimes have the sole purpose of revealing the characters to the audience and creating the sense of time and place. For the author in this case, the purpose is so he can enjoy himself - and often that sense of enjoyment is infectious to the reader, but other times it can come across as simply tawdry filler material.
In the end it's possible, as the author, to justify every action, but if you have an editor, they'll probably have a completely different take on this.
I've recently self-pubbed and I know that there's a few parts in my book that a professional editor (I used a few non-professional editors) would have deemed unnecessary action, which I've left in on purpose. It's not that I can't be regimented with my own work (I hope), it's just that there are aspects that I rarely see elaborated on in fiction that have always frustrated me. In my own work the central character is a Private Detective and there's one chapter where he's on a separate case. It has no bearing on the central story at all and would have been immediately binned by most editors. However, I always feel that stories that focus on professions tend to suggest that characters only have one job at a time, when the real world is nothing like that. I've had mixed comments come back from that particular section of the book - some echo my feeling, some feel that you get to see the way the character acts and therefore his style of investigation is established, others who have felt that it feels like it should have a bearing on the central story and is therefore a bit of a cheat to yet other readers who feel that it's simply a complete waste of effort to read.
I firmly beleive anything that doesn't advance plot or reveal character should be minimal. But in "advancing the plot," sometimes going down a few dead-end roads is part of that. For the characters' journey, I mean, not the author's process. To learn something there that's ultimately relevant later, or meet another character who's instrumental. And as you know, some of that action can serve to reveal character as well. This is why I like to outline first, to avoid wasting time on that stuff.
I suppose the answer to this question lies in your definition of necessary. What one writer considers necessary may be seen as unnecessary in the eyes of another writer/editor/reader. Some writers define necessary as whatever they need to not only move the plot along but also to fully characterize their characters and build their worlds as they see fit. The extent of each writer's necessary reflects in every aspect of their work, from POV to pacing and back again. Writing style is most basically defined by the elements an individual writer believes are necessary to the creation of the final product.
And since there are no industry standard guidelines for necessary and unnecessary, it's the writer's own judgment that decides whether to include the content in question (although, the general consensus of the readers will decide whether or not that writer was "right" or "wrong" in that judgment).
I think that if the material doesn't tie into the overall story, it's wasted opportunity and weakens the story. Some good examples are superhero movies. When it's the origin story, you have the build up to getting their powers or donning the cowl and cape, and then in the "weaker" entries, you have the hero-montage that has no tie-in with the rest of the movie (Superman saves Air Force One, gets a kitty out of a tree, gets a cat burglar, and gets a band of thieves, but not in that order). Spider-man gets a thug robbing a convenience story and some other completely lame hero-things that I don't even remember anymore. Now, these are still pretty good comic book movies, but they're just not as strong as they could be. Now I give Superman a pass on this because, well, it's the first modern superhero movie. But there's no excuse for this laziness in subsequent superhero movies.
Then in Batman Begins, Batman stops a shipment of drugs coming into Gotham City. This helps put away Falcone and, well, it turns out those drugs are being used by both Scarecrow and R'as al Ghul. Batman Begins has some weak moments, but everything ties in together, there's little wasted opportunity. And then the two hit it out of the park with The Dark Knight.
