A writer I know said that, and I agreed.
Thoughts?
Depends on the story and the voice and it depends on the reader. Entirely.
I think you can have both. If you've got good voice, why not make every word count?
I agree with the sentiment, but especially with what Cove said. If fifty words count, don't parse it down for word economy. Never limit yourself to anything, it'll kill your writing.
"Word economy" is simply a goal, the goal of not wasting words. If you're building voice, you're not wasting words. (Unless, perhaps, the voice has been so well-established that you needn't continue to build it up. That might be a waste.) In other words, I think your approach to, or sense of, "word economy" will be part of what defines the voice. In other words, I think the idea that one would or could trump the other is faulty.
Disagree.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything, but Matt, I''m wondering what you disagree with.
If word economy means having every word contribute, then I think voice and word economy go hand in hand. If you have needless words they won't add to your voice anyway because they are needless.
Amy Hempel trumps all.
@Moony, sorry! Was out and about. No, word economy is something with structure, which is important. I'm just not a fan of writers who don't eventually get to the point. I feel it would go along with voice. Carry on!
In my opinion, whether "voice trumps economy" can't be answered without reading the specific story.
Is the writing rich, nuanced, meaning-packed, elegant, unique to that character? Or, is it full of small redundancies, blow-by-blows of every small motion and facial expression, explanations of what obvious dialogue means, backstory and info-dump, the typical beginningish writer stuff that just needs more skill applied to it to be very good?
If you know someone in real life who prattles on, using a hundred words to say what could easily be said in ten without loss of needed information or anything interesting, would you care if she called that her voice (or her style) or would you just want her to consider you, the listener, and cut that shit back?
If your spouse only answers you in one and two word sentences and never shares their outlook, personality, or life with you, would you care if they called that their voice or style or just want more from them?
Thems my two cops. Hope it helps.
I agree with what has been said by a few before me-- word economy means needless words are omitted, if the words define the voice, enrich the reading, etc. those words are not needless and shouldn't be affected by " word economy".
I think the two questions in Carly's second paragraph, and the way the two lists describing the qualitative from good to poor writing in the way they oppose each other pin the difference. There are times we'd probably all like to occur less rarely when it seems the writing has its heartbeat right there in the scene, and then the characters are interacting in a recognizable environment, and feel like they have a life of their own inside the environment. And then the opposite of good can happen, often to the same writer: some stupid thought project that could double for Sominex, a bunch of ideas gumming up the spaces between dialog and movement killing the chance for an effective scene, or worse a desultory informationfest that might bore his or her own mother to the point she never wants to read them again. Or at least not for a few months.
In this course I just took the difference between authorial objectives and character objectives was an important topic. When I'm too much with the first, except for maybe a good idea or two buried in a billion words my writing can really suck. So I'm at the point I always gotta stay conscious it's the story and characters running the show, not some megalomaniac sure he knows shit from shinola about everything.
It seems great writing knows how to intrude. Even if a great writer goes off like a firework, the authorial intrusions really aren't. It's the opposite. Thanks for intruding, like the crazy-poetic "Tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow" monolog coming up right after Lady Macbeth takes her leap, and then Macbeth says to the one who informed him some kind of "Oh, that's too bad," kind of a thing. So these intrusions have been earned, are somehow righter than right thematically, and so right there with the plot it's a beautiful thing, consummation devoutly to be wished, etc.
@Matt I've had stories where the point was that the characters can't get to the point because either they don't want to admit it (story about an abused woman) or they're terrified of the answer (our first Thunderdome battle where the character was scared of his own reasoning) and shit like that; I think that definitely trumps word economy.
I'd disagree. Too many words drowns out the voice you are trying to have.
@Court - But isn't word economy in a story like that showing they can't get to the point as efficently as possible?
+
Let's agree some more.
I love Hemingway's writing.
@J.Y. - Had to happen sooner or later right?
@Kward - How exactly is that relevant to topic at hand?
@Dwayne I think there are a lot of occasions where I get drunk and post something and you reply with, "But (insert what I actually meant here)?" This is one of them. Your post clarified what I meant. Thank you.
@Dwayne and Kward I think she was saying that Hemingway is the embodiment of word economy being the voice. Or at least, that's what I think of everytime I think of Hemingway in relation to this.
My voice rules.
+
Let's agree some more."
+2
I feel strongly about things.
I've had stories where the point was that the characters can't get to the point because either they don't want to admit it (story about an abused woman) or they're terrified of the answer (our first Thunderdome battle where the character was scared of his own reasoning) and shit like that; I think that definitely trumps word economy.
I disagree. Because their inability to get to the point is important to the characterization and the story, right? So it's not about word economy, those words serve a purpose. Word economy is about making each word serve a purpose--not just using as few words as possible to tell a story. Otherwise The Old Man and the Sea would read: "An old man went fishing and had a tough day."
I feel strongly about things.
Ways about stuff.
Ways about stuff."
Wurd
Anybody can feel strongly about things, you know you are doing something write when things feel strongly about you. Right now Word Economy is posting about me.
@Court - But I've seen other authors who used word economy in about the same way, but had a very different voice.
I believe word economy should be the lens through which voice is heard.
Or, to use an editors trimming the fat analogy - Voice, like flavour in cooking, lives in the fat in writing. Adverbs etc. You need some, but 90% of the time we leave too much in one descriptive chunk, or cut too much in another place and we make the dish sloppy.
Voice is learning to measure out the dose of descriptive largesse with regularity, consistency and personality, applying discipline to our emotional output.
I dont think voice exists exclusively in the fat, just mostly, and it's there we learn to control it.
Voice trumps word economy...
David Foster Wallace trumps David Foster Wallace imitating Raymond Carver?
Agreed.
But does Raymond Carver trump Raymond Carver imitating Gordon Lish?
The Carver-loving minimalist's dilemma...
Raymond Carver imitated someone called Gordon Lish?
"Raymond Carver" = Raymond Carver + Gordon Lish
Lish was editor at Esquire (and other places) and championed some great writers including Carver, Hempel, and DeLillo.
Carver said of Lish: “If I have any standing or reputation or credibility in the world, I owe it to you.”
It is widely regarded that what we refer to as "Carver's seminal minimalistic voice" is actually Carver's work with about half the words cut out by Lish in the editing process.
Wow. I fucking love this site.
XyZy: Carver said this "to" Lish, not "of" Lish--the context probably matters here.
