Filtering is a craft issue. No more, no less.

You don't like the examples used? Fine. Write different ones, but the examples are only the examples to show the before and after. Just because someone could write a better example doesn't make the craft issue any more or less relevant.

If you already knew about filtering verbs before this post, then terrific. If you didn't, then maybe you learned something new about craft.

Sorry... the instant appearance of naysayers is just soooo boring... and so predictable. As if the anti-rules crowd has nothing better to do than linger around waiting for the next opportunity to shout their anthem.

It's not as if I am innocent of filtering.

In Chapter 2 of Extractions, at the end of the thirteenth paragraph I currently have the following sentence:

--- Hassan gazed at Galbraith, searching for a distinguishing mark or mannerism. ---

"Gazed" is a filtering verb. The POV Character is Hassan and the scene would be more immediate if I eliminated that filtering verb. Could I leave it? Sure. Do I want to? No. I will eventually rewrite it. Why? Because I know the reader will feel more tuned to the POV Character if I eliminate the filtering. It's as simple as that.

I am more concerned about the reader being emotionally engaged with my story than whether or not I can ignore the use of filtering verbs. The more you eliminate filtering from your writing, the closer the reader will feel to your POV Character.

My rewrite of that sentence, eliminating the filtering, will be...

--- Hassan searched Galbraith's appearance for a distinguishing mark or mannerism. ---

Over the course of many rewrites of my novels, I make it my practice to find and eliminate as many instances of filtering as I can. I think my writing is stronger without filtering.

If another writer believes their writing is stronger by using filtering verbs, then hey, go for it. Craft is craft. You can chose to use it or not.

Last edited by Felix Urick (06-07-2012 20:27:16)

Well... I needed help with filtering.   Overusing words like "gazed," "searched," "wondered," "realized," "heard," etc. DID make my chapters rougher and more amateurish. SO Felix's advice helped me.

But then again, I don't know what the hell I'm doing - I'm a musician who reads music, but also figures songs out without the sheet. A half-assed combination of natural ability, technical inadequacy, and frequent dependency.  And when it comes to this writing gig, I'm in far worse shape!

Jeni, I could NEVER create anything like the brilliant chapters 6 and 10 of Moby. (I know, I'm so behind, it's pathetic.) JEliz, Siobhan is absolutely iconic. 

For normal people who are not on top of the food chain like you guys, Felix's point is well-taken, albeit not to an extreme (just like anything else). I feel very responsible if he's feeling defensive. He seems like a nice guy, he gave ME great advice, and I suggested he share it here. 

For you, his advice may seem like Salisbury steak, but for me, it was lobster. 

Well, I didn't mean to come off as rude, so I do apologize if Felix thought I was. His post to me sounded as if he were pontificating, and I really hate that. Of course a community of writers, who are by nature defensive of their work, will criticize blanket advice of this kind. Like Jeni, my editor has never told me to cut the filtering. I suppose the value of such advice is in the eye of the beholder! More power to you if it is. I will continue filtering heavily. but I'm a stubborn brat.

I'll look at Fool, for sure, Jeni. 

I don't think you came off as rude at all, JE.

(Repugnant, repulsive, where are youuuu, lol!!)

I agree, Felix's post seemed a bit heavy-handed, but what the hell, I'm heavy-footed so to speak, so I do feel kinda responsible.

I just edited my filters massively, so they're largely absent from the first 12 chapters - except where I CONSCIOUSLY want 'em.  I think that may be the real crux of the matter: overusing those filter words because I couldn't figure out that they weren't always necessary.  Now, I'm making a conscious decision to use them so they help instead of hinder.

Make sense?  (Please say yes!) 

JElizabeth wrote:

Hahaha, Jeni. <333 guess what I'm doing right now? JK.

Filtering is when you use words to "filter" the narrator's experience to the reader. Sorry, I know I just defined a word with the word. My 5th grade teacher would not approve. But basically, if I write, "I gazed into her eyes, wide with worry" that's "wrong." What non-filtering advocates would want me to write is, "Her eyes were wide with worry" because, they argue, it's implicit that the narrator is looking at her friend. To me, the sentences are dramatically different and the first one is "better." "Gazing," to me, implies a certain amount of deliberation and longing. Without it, we know the narrator is looking at her friend's face, but we don't know HOW. And that's why non-filtered sentences sound so empty to me. She could be staring. She could be glaring. She could still be gazing. We simply don't know. There's a separation there, a severing of narrator and reader, that I dislike because I find it stifling. The narrator's intentions get lost.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Hahaha, Jeni. <333 guess what I'm doing right now? JK.

Mobying? LOL (Doug came up with that one. He said he almost "Mobyied" while reading a certain scene.

Okay, that explanation makes sense. I think, then, it's a matter of picking the BEST verb that can convey the proper intent. You're exactly right about how gazing implies something different than, say, looking, staring, glaring, oogling, leering, etc.

Is it the second scene with Moby and Olivia, on the couch? Because... yeah. LOL.

I think a "case by case" basis is the best way to accomplish anything writing-related. No rule fits every sentence all the time. Even if my favorite authors are the ones who take it upon themselves to bend or break the rules, in the end, we all have to do what works for us.

It’s a craft issue. No more, no less. And, at times, it is a very subtle craft issue.

The ‘there are no rules’ gang can put their guns away. There’s nothing to shoot at. As with anything related to craft, the writer has the final decision in whether or not to use a particular craft technique or not.

The OP (original post) did not mention the word ‘rule’, yet the following discussion quickly tried to label it as such. The leaders of the Spanish Inquisition used the word ‘heretic’ in much the same way. You may not have been a heretic, but as soon as the Inquisitors called you one, the label had a way of sticking. Hopefully you guys have a well-enough developed sense of humor to laugh at the comparison – recognizing that it is a rather good one. “That’s a rule!'  “He’s a heretic!'  “Burn them at the stake.'  I, at least, find it humorous, which is also why I am continually bored by the “there are no rules'  crowd. In my way of thinking, they seem to come off as much more pompous than anyone talking about a craft issue.

In 1pov, there is only one voice per scene: the POV Character’s voice… the ‘I’ and ‘me’. There is no other narrator in a 1pov scene other than the POV Character. So then we read something like the following:

I saw the man hide behind a tree.

Hmmm. Seems okay. The “me'  is telling us that the “I'  saw something. But wait… that’s two voices and 1pov is only supposed to have one voice. No it isn’t, you say, you’re incorrect, it’s the same voice… the “me'  and the “I’ are the same person. Yes, that’s correct, the “me'  and the “I'  are the same person, but in this sentence they are acting as two voices. Which gets right back to the point being made in the OP: “filtering is the failure to run straight at an image; that is, the needless filtering of the image through some observing consciousness. Filtering is not grammatically wrong, but it does distance the reader from the POV character.'

In the above example, the "me" is narrating for the "I."

And I could provide a very strong argument that filtering in 1pov would qualify as a pov violation. Whereas, in 3pov, filtering would not be a pov violation.

I’ve had only three professional editors look at my writing. They all work in New York and one of them has a resume which looks like the who’s who of best selling novelists. All three of them have talked to me about 'filtering'.  I've been told that it's not a new concept... that it has been around for a long time.

If a particular writer chooses to use filtering, then that’s their decision. This is not a rules issue. Use it or don't use it.

Last edited by Felix Urick (06-10-2012 07:18:59)

Dear JE

You and I have a much different definition of pontificating. There is nothing dogmatic in anything I have said. I accept that you do not like the way I express my viewpoint on the issue.

And to answer your question, no, the discussion of filtering I had with those editors had nothing to do with my writing.

I think I answered your question before you asked it. From my 12:17:04 post: "If a particular writer chooses to use filtering, then that’s their decision. This is not a rules issue. Use it or don't use it."

I would assume both you and I have been around long enough to know that finding an exception to almost every craft technique is as easy as picking up one or two novels.

I honestly don't know what you're arguing about. My OP was merely a sharing of a craft technique. Why you would be so offended about such is quite beyond my understanding. You seemed to have accurately stated your position when you said in your "06-06-2012 18:45:13 post, "I love filtering." I didn't call you wrong or stupid, did I? It appears to me you are the one off on an emotional crusade... that I, in my forum post, have offended your sense of the world. And, if my memory is correct, you were the one who first brought in the "rules" word into the discussion. "Heretic," she said.

Maybe you have some image here on TNBW that you need to defend and/or reinforce, but I find this discussion to be much less volatile than you seem to be trying to make it. If you need for me to declare you the winner of the discussion, then so be it, "JE is the winner of this discussion," said Felix Urick.

Ummmmm. Felix, I need to jump in here. I'm doing this on the forum, rather than privately, so other newbies can get a sense of forum decorum (which had been breached many a time, often upsetting and antagonizing many a member, btw, including me).

You posted here, at my suggestion, an expansion of really excellent feedback that you gave me to chapter 1 of my book.  Now, your initial post was a bit overbearing in its style for a public forum, IMO. I was somewhat startled that you adopted a somewhat lecturing tone, not knowing that some writers here, such as Q, Jeni Decker, and Jeliz, are among the best around, and should be treated with the utmost respect. .

Still, I think you made a really great point, as discussed in my prior posts here. Your comments have been invaluable, and I continue to keep them in my mind as I revise Client Relations. So many thanks once again!

However. The aforementioned, more sophisticated members of this site took varying degrees of umbrage with what appeared to be a rather hard-line, dogmatic-sounding lecture, whether you intended your initial post to sound that way or not.  I believe you intended nothing but the best, and that you are only trying to be helpful. I interjected as this thread continued, and tried to put your initial post into context, based on how I'm applying your feedback.

Others disagree with using the filtering concept as a universally correct paradigm, which is fine. We all employ different craft "rules," or whatever we all want to call them, picking and choosing to employ them, and seeing what happens. That's what we do, as writers, yes?  (As an example, one long-time member here absolutely loves to use cliches, convinced that's one of the things that makes his work strong. I disagree, he's disagreed with my feedback. That's his choice. I don't tell him he's a dummy.)

But now, as this thread continues, you accuse JE of being "emotional" and of possibly needing to defend or reinforce "some image here on TNBW" - not the best choice, I'm afraid.

As to the "emotional" comment: She IS passionate about many things, like all excellent writers.  Attacking a woman for being "emotional" does have sexist overtones which I suspect you didn't intend.  JE didn't say anything about it, but I kinda cringe at it. Must be from coming of age in the '70's or something, but I HATE being called "emotional" on many levels.  Again, I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, Felix, but you know that words on cyberspace aren't shaded (filtered, ha!) like they are in face-to-face conversation...

As to her image on TNBW? Yes, Jeliz has a rep here. Not for being an "I'm always right" or "top dog." But for being a superlative writer.  Not just better than most of the rest of us. But superlative, as in, objectively outstanding. 

Her professional writing career is off to a great start (she's younger than many of us). Her work has been published in some great places, she has a publishing contract, she has editors, she's submitted an awesome piece to Faulkners (I'm rooting for her to win!), etc. Her resume is impressive already.

And her feedback, for anyone actually lucky enough to get her to pay attention to their work, is unbelievably insightful and helpful. Among the absolute BEST, I kid you not. JEliz and a handful of others here have improved my book by at least ten gazillion percent.

I do suspect she's not going to be here on this site too much longer - not because she's a burn-out, or because she's distracted or bored by it.  But because she really IS "The Next Big Writer." She'll have other things to do than spend time here...like doing book tours, interviews, etc... the things the rest of us can only fantasize about.

She's a very atypical person for an online site...

I've tried to hint that you should consider lightening up. So now I'll be more blunt: There are quite a few here who are not amateurs, and they don't take kindly to feeling patronized. (Even the rest of us, who are still wallowing in the mire, don't appreciate being trampled on. I speak for myself here, of course! )
 
These forums are tricky places. I've had my share of irritations and arguments on them, some not intentional on my part (but others? Yes, quite intentional ). You might want to choose your adversaries carefully.  JE shouldn't be on your list.  And as a total newbie, going after someone by alleging they have "an image" to protect on a site, where you've only been for a few days, is not the best choice.

Please accept my comments here in the same spirit of your original post...

Last edited by GPyrenees (06-10-2012 11:58:52)

Sorry, Felix...

Only trying to help. And as noted, I found your comments helpful, and still do.   As do the others you noted -- so I'm very glad you started this thread. 

BUT. That doesn't eliminate my suggestion to tread lightly in new neighborhoods....just sayin' ... Not a question of cliques...

No one is asking for credentials here. I mentioned some of Jeliz's, only so you'd realize she's no one who needs to worry about protecting an "image" on this site - which was your accusation. Not too many here feel "under-credited," including lovely moi.   (Although I readily admit to suffering huge insecurities as a fiction writer, lol!)

And I do think forums are tricky, regardless of one's sensitivity level.  As I said, Jeliz didn't react to the "emotional" accusation, and I only commented as an afterthought.  Pretty far from playing a gender card...Sorry you took it that way, my bad.

No, you shouldn't be driven away from TNBW because of one forum thread. Not at all!  Now, when you're up to forty or fifty????



Just kidding...

Last edited by GPyrenees (06-10-2012 13:34:27)