Content

I believe in density, not paucity, when it comes to content, not words. So my goal becomes: the greatest content using the fewest words.

This is because, as an Elmore Leonard fan, I prefer lean writing; too many words, too flowery, too many descriptions of things I don't care about: that type of writing drives me crazy and makes me put a book down never to retrieve it. That's just me. I don't want to "see" the writing. To paraphrase Leonard, "If it looks/sounds like writing: cut it." Again, just me.

I suppose there are times to be pedantic (though I'm not sure on that point). Even academic articles can be so polluted with big words and hyper-modifiers that the point is lost to all but the most diehard didacticians. I have given up on articles I really wanted to read, on subjects I really wanted to know more about, not because I had to stop and look up words (a little of that is fine, of course); but rather because I knew all the words but had to keep reminding myself of what they meant when strung together in a line of twenty. Again: just me.

But I also dislike empty prose - simplistic stories with one-dimensional characters who go through, well, not much, and with very little complication. A read can be too simple (and will get similarly put down for non-retrieval). Not a fan of fluff, in movies or books. But that's just me!

It's a big world out there, with all kinds of readers and tastes. I couldn't read a vampire story if you paid me; but Anne Rice can write up a storm. I have only finished two Steven King books that I can recall, but I think he is one of the best American writers alive. I just don't spook easily. So why bother? Again: just me.

We all, writers that is, need to find what it is we do best, and do it! For me, the challenge is writing a different book every time. Each time, I want it to be new and different than the last. That alone, is a challenge. But I also want each book or story to be as dense as possible in terms of context and content, while being as readable as possible. In my definition, that is using as few words as possible - and cramming those few words as full of story, character, subplots, humor, (true) terror, emotion, side-thoughts (background), and complex interactions as is possible. Throw in a few great (less-used) words, a few "poetic" sentences, and of course in my case, a few alliterations. (I know, but I like them!) Make it all as real as possible within the rules of that fictional world, then grind it down to its essence.

I guess that's why I enjoy Hunter S. Thompson at his edgiest best. He keeps it real (in more ways than one), literary and irreverent, funny and in-your-face, smart and tough. He was a genius at times and reading him makes me giggle and get angry at the same time - just as, I suppose, he intended.

So it is that I try to meld Thompson, Leonard, Vonnegut, Hammett, Steinbeck, Heller, Dideon, Camus and Voltaire (with a nod to Hiaasen). But that's just me.