Succinctness vs "Atmosphere/Mood"

[5tein]

I try to write my fiction as concisely as possible, but I often wonder where one draws the line between tiresome verbosity and "atmosphere" or characterization (particularly with description and sometimes with dialog)?

I want the environment to contribute to the mood and texture of the story, and I want characters to be believable, not merely props. Yet I don't want to bore anyone. I can think of a dozen examples, but here are a few I recently used:

1. describe lighting and some antiques inside a haunted house to assist the mood
2. two minor characters banter inconsequentially to increase the believability of their friendship
3. reference a classic movie by title, even though the movie itself is unimportant to the plot (though the movie-going is)

Any published or professional writers have some tips on balancing the two? Do you give yourself additional leeway in mysteries (possible distractions or red herrings)?

[TokeBernbole]

I also struggle with this concept. We all want to create likeable and relatable characters. For me this is the hardest part. I have no trouble describing scenery and actions, but fleshing out the characters can be difficult. I find I try to think of how real people act and relate to one another. We do things that are illogical and sometimes self desctructive. So in answer, if it's irrelevant to the story, then it shouldn't be there. If it's showing your characters personalities, then it must be relevant. However, you should avoid conversations and situations that don't progress the story. If the characters are bantering in the process of looking for clues (in the case of a mystery) that's fine. But if your describing banter during a possibly irrelevant car ride to said spooky mansion, then perhaps you should reconsider. Well I'm far from professional at the moment but that's my take on it. Perhaps my opinion will change as time goes on. Keep on writing!

[Nohbody]

Show, don't tell. You can create atmosphere in the midst of action or a conversation, and the integration will prevent the reader from finding a paragraph that is easy to skip.

[Mikes]

Personally, I go for brevity above mood. Give your reader some credit and let them fill in the gaps. If you're not sure about a word of a passage, cut it. Cut, cut, cut, cut. Then ask youself of waht's left; is it really necessary? I mean, really? Really, really?

Try reading some Cormal McArthy. The guy does so much with so little. Characters are solidified and moods set with the extreme minimum number of words required.

[Cecily]

I don't think there is a single answer.

It depends entirely on what you are writing and for what sort of audience. In a short story, there may be less space for explicit atmosphere, but poetry can be almost nothing else.

Whilst I have enjoyed Cormac McCarthy's sparse style, I also enjoy novels written in far more flowery terms. However, I think McCarthy's style is probably harder to do effectively (he sometimes omits apostrophes and much other punctuation, for example), i.e. without looking as if you've made lots of mistakes.

I suggest you do lots of reading, analyse what style you want to emulate and go from there.

[Maeve]

I don't think there is a single answer.

It depends entirely on what you are writing and for what sort of audience. In a short story, there may be less space for explicit atmosphere, but poetry can be almost nothing else.

Whilst I have enjoyed Cormac McCarthy's sparse style, I also enjoy novels written in far more flowery terms. However, I think McCarthy's style is probably harder to do effectively (he sometimes omits apostrophes and much other punctuation, for example), i.e. without looking as if you've made lots of mistakes.

I suggest you do lots of reading, analyse what style you want to emulate and go from there.

Excellent reply, Cecily. I've been reading a lot of mysteries lately (I cancelled my cable TV!) and I'm struck at how different they are. Some I've barely been able to get through; others I can't put down. And some of the books that I think are tedious are in series that include 20+ volumes. Other readers don't find them tedious. As you say, it all depends on the author's purpose and target audience.

Btw- For me, reading a novel by Cormac McCarthy is a punishment.

[Mikes]

Cecily and meave both make some good points, and Cecily in particular expanded on my own reply fantastically.

I shoudl say I probably just had coffee when I wrote my reply above and was stuck in a pool of my own magnificance.

As has been said - it really comes down to the story and the writer's style. I'll given an example of neil Gaiman (whom I use often). Love or hate him, Gaiman's use of language is experty applied. He's good enoug that when he writes a 'Neil Gaiman' story you barely notice the words, he lets the story do the work. but when he writes one of his short stories in the vain of another writer, if that writer used more flowery language well then so does he, and to great effect.

Point in fact, try reading A Study in Emerald by Gainman - it's available as a free PDF download from his site. He re-writes Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes 'A Study in Scarlet' story perfectly, excess words and all.