|
Curious post, Wallace. I can't say that I've ever had cutting feel "nasty" - maybe that's why I can't relate to the "darlings" description. Yes, I do get attached to some of my writing - probably more than I should - but cutting would not be a problem if I could easily identify that they were causing problems. Sometimes it is obvious, you can feel yourself dropping off during the 100th time reading through, but that still leaves you trying to work out how much has to go.
And, to me, that's really the point. I have no disagreement that cutting often helps, but it doesn't always help. It's a fallacy to suggest that shorter is always better. I watched some shorts on you-tube showing Lord of the Rings (and various other stories) cut down to 30 seconds or something (can't remember the details). It was cute, but it missed the point. The very best books are those in which the reader enjoys the ride - and, so long as the reader is enjoying the ride, length isn't really an issue. Like everything else in life, it's a matter of getting the balance right, and that's more art than science.
But you are correct, different writers are in it for different reasons. ... And I think it's important to distinguish between two distinct phases: there is the writing itself. You can do this for fun and self-entertainment and it need not go further. And then there is publication, which (for me, anyway) is work. The two get linked only after you've been through the publication process (and treated it seriously, not as a simple upload). Only then do you (or me, anyway) realise how much difference that second phase has made to the result - and it's this, more than anything else, which has pushed me to try and do better.
Oh, and I definitely agree that most bad novels would be improved by cutting. When something is bad, shorter is always better. This in and of itself tells you something about the nature of cutting material from your own work.
|