Sentences flowing together

I'd say "flowing together" is 1 of about 1,000 ways for sentences to evidence "good writing." Others include fighting with each other, overlapping each other, hating each other, competing with each other, shouting at each other, chopping each other apart, etc.

IMO, trying to pace an entire novel (or even story) so the whole thing was in one even flow would get tedious for the reader pretty quick.

Will to Make said:

I understand that sentences flowing together is a sign of good writing. I do have a couple of questions about it.
One: should sentences flowing extend between narration paragraphs?
Two: does it or should it extend to character dialog?

Click to expand...

1. Depends. Does it read better?

2. Depends. Does your character talk like that?

When you read, try to stay cognizant of how other authors do it. Novels I read typically have pretty good flow throughout. But the story's got to be directed.

If by "sentences flowing together" you mean a fluid stream of imagery, description, word choice, rhythm, causality, dialog, story beats--did I leave anything out?--then, yes, flow begins at word one and ends at the end, encompassing everything in between.

Since I was the one (I believe) who first mentioned flow to you, I owe you a definition of what I meant.

In general terms, it's a matter of writing the story--and the story is made up of single sentences, all strung together--so that the reading is experience is smooth and connected. This takes practice, sharp editing, and a good ear.

When writing is said to have "good flow," it means that it's all connected: sentences to sentences, paragraphs to paragraphs, scenes to scenes. Reading the story is like following a road that has no potholes, no gaps, no rough pavement. It may twist and turn and climb and dip, but it's like driving on fresh pavement all the way. A novel that has really excellent flow is one that is so tightly joined at the seams that you could scarcely remove a sentence without creating a gap, because that sentence is the bridge between the one that came before and the one that comes after. And every sentence is like that.

Sentences that flow are easy to parse, easy on the ear, and move smoothly and logically each one to the next.

Every sentence should function to compel a reader to read the following sentence. Beyond that, I don't quite understand the question.

caw

I'd say generally every sentence should flow smoothly from one to the next, unless you want to set one off for some reason. As for dialogue, that can be choppy or however your characters talk.

I think the idea is to make you, as the author, disappear. You don't want your reader to remember that, hey, someone wrote this. You want them to be paying attention to what your words say. When sentences "flow", it gives this impression.

Now, occasionally, this may necessitate a quick, blunt transition that emphasizes the action. But as long as it facilitates the story and doesn't bring your reader out of the story, even that swift change in direction can aid the "flow". Think of it is a bend in a stream, taking you to ever-more-interesting places. A lack of good "flow" is like washing your reader up on the banks and leaving them high and dry. Do it well, and they glide on effortlessly.

blacbird said:

Every sentence should function to compel a reader to read the following sentence. Beyond that, I don't quite understand the question.

caw

Click to expand...

That would be my definition of sentence flow.

Yes, all sentences should flow together, even in dialogue. Flow is crucial to good writing. I'd add "rhythm" to the mix. Rhythm and flow aren't the same thing, but I don't think you can have one without the other.

Flow is easier to understand if you look at it's opposite, which is choppy writing. There's a range, but writing with really good rhythm and flow is atone end, and choppy writing is at the other.

Think of good rhythm and flow as a long, straight stretch of perfectly paved interstate highway. Choppy writing is a bunch of city streets, all filled with potholes. When you aren't hitting potholes, you're coming up on stop signs.

There's a lot more to it than just making a reader want to read the next sentence. It's about how easy you make moving from one sentence to the next, from one paragraph to the next, Not only do the sentences themselves have good rhythm and flow, but so do the transitions. There are no potholes and no stop signs to break the reader's concentration. The reader moves effortless from one sentence to the next, from one paragraph to the next, and the miles glide past.

Until and unless you have a good reason to intentionally interrupt that flow by throwing in a pothole or a stop sign.

Jamesaritchie said:

Flow is easier to understand if you look at it's opposite, which is choppy writing. There's a range, but writing with really good rhythm and flow is atone end, and choppy writing is at the other.

Think of good rhythm and flow as a long, straight stretch of perfectly paved interstate highway. Choppy writing is a bunch of city streets, all filled with potholes. When you aren't hitting potholes, you're coming up on stop signs.

Click to expand...

This. If the reader doesn't notice the writing, then the piece flows well.

Chekurtab said:

This. If the reader doesn't notice the writing, then the piece flows well.

Click to expand...

Somebody really needs to explain this to Tom Robbins and Thomas Pynchon, who are to fiction writing what Jerry Lewis is to comedy: "Look at me, look at me, I'm really funny, really I am!"

caw

blacbird said:

Somebody really needs to explain this to Tom Robbins and Thomas Pynchon, who are to fiction writing what Jerry Lewis is to comedy: "Look at me, look at me, I'm really funny, really I am!"

caw

Click to expand...

But they accomplish this by what they say, not by the writing. It isn't the writing I see with these writers, it's what the writing has to say, and that's as it should be.

I will add that you picked two writers of very weird stories, and a highly unusual thinking process, but I tink both do the job very well.

Chekurtab said:

This. If the reader doesn't notice the writing, then the piece flows well.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Good writing is invisible. The reader pays attention to what the writing says, rather than to the writing itself. The reader forgets that what he's really seeing is ink on a page, or pixels on a screen. Instead of words on a page, he sees a movie that floats over the book, a 3-D hologram with full color and stereophonic sound.

Jamesaritchie said:

Good writing is invisible.

Click to expand...

It's not invisible to me, and never has been. I sometimes linger over particularly well-written or lyrical passages, just for the pleasure of it. Doesn't mean the story suffers.

BethS said:

It's not invisible to me, and never has been. I sometimes linger over particularly well-written or lyrical passages, just for the pleasure of it. Doesn't mean the story suffers.

Click to expand...

I agree with Beth. How often do we acknowledge writers' greatness due to their skill with such things as metaphors, similes, turn of phrase, etc.? If the writing was invisible, we wouldn't notice those things.

BethS said:

It's not invisible to me, and never has been. I sometimes linger over particularly well-written or lyrical passages, just for the pleasure of it. Doesn't mean the story suffers.

Click to expand...

guttersquid said:

I agree with Beth. How often do we acknowledge writers' greatness due to their skill with such things as metaphors, similes, turn of phrase, etc.? If the writing was invisible, we wouldn't notice those things.

Click to expand...

I also analyze sentences and passages. We do it because we are writers. I doubt a casual reader does it. Of course, there are all the quotations from the great works of literature, similes and metaphors that stay with us for centuries. Some readers enjoy a certain style of writing or genre over the other, but even the most sophisticated of the reader doesn't wait for the next simile. He/she reads because the story compels her/him. The writing is not 100% invisible, it may be only 99% percent invisible. Or whatever percentage pleases you, so we don't drown in semantics.

Chekurtab said:

I also analyze sentences and passages. We do it because we are writers. I doubt a casual reader does it.

Click to expand...

Maybe not. All I know is that I've always done it, even as a child. I didn't analyze the writing back then; all I knew was that certain passages that were clever or beautiful arrested my attention, and I would stop to savor them, purely because I loved the sound and look of them. It was a matter of some astonishment to learn that not everyone does this.

BethS said:

Maybe not. All I know is that I've always done it, even as a child. I didn't analyze the writing back then; all I knew was that certain passages that were clever or beautiful arrested my attention, and I would stop to savor them, purely because I loved the sound and look of them. It was a matter of some astonishment to learn that not everyone does this.

Click to expand...

I don't think the idea is that the writing per se disappears--it's that the writer's part disappears from it, as in you aren't suddenly thinking about the fact that someone is trying to get your attention. You might be captured by some lovely passages (which seems to be more of a literary fiction thing), but those lovely passages can still fit seamlessly with what's around them so that they become part of the story instead of jumping out at you. This can go too far, of course, where you have pretty passages that do little more than scream, "Look at me! Look how wonderful this sentence is!"

BethS said:

Maybe not. All I know is that I've always done it, even as a child. I didn't analyze the writing back then; all I knew was that certain passages that were clever or beautiful arrested my attention, and I would stop to savor them, purely because I loved the sound and look of them. It was a matter of some astonishment to learn that not everyone does this.

Click to expand...

Good for you, Beth. I think I know what you mean. That's why I love poetry. The imagery, the rhythm, the beauty of the language. But even poetry is so much more than a linguistic exercise. I wouldn't try to put the numbers on a poem though.

BethS said:

Maybe not. All I know is that I've always done it, even as a child. I didn't analyze the writing back then; all I knew was that certain passages that were clever or beautiful arrested my attention, and I would stop to savor them, purely because I loved the sound and look of them. It was a matter of some astonishment to learn that not everyone does this.

Click to expand...

I always have too. The language, especially imagery and voice, is what usually draws me into a story. At least my favorite ones do. Admiring the language doesn't take me out of a story any more than admiring song lyrics takes me out of the enjoyment of a song. After all, it's how a story is put together that's the art and skill of writing.

The same story can be told by different writers and be completely different. Hollywood is filled with remakes that pale in comparison with the originals. Same thing with songs.

guttersquid said:

I agree with Beth. How often do we acknowledge writers' greatness due to their skill with such things as metaphors, similes, turn of phrase, etc.? If the writing was invisible, we wouldn't notice those things.

Click to expand...

No, these things work well only if the writing is invisible. Metaphors, similes, and a turn of phrase work well because of the content and the meaning, not because we see teh writing. If you see the writing, these things fail. It's what they have to say that makes us gasp.

BethS said:

It's not invisible to me, and never has been. I sometimes linger over particularly well-written or lyrical passages, just for the pleasure of it. Doesn't mean the story suffers.

Click to expand...

Of course it means the story suffers. Anything that pulls a reader out of the story is bad. The moment a reader stops living the story, and starts admiring a sentence, I think you have a failed writer.

Unless, maybe, that reader is a writer who worries more about his or her own writing than about the story at hand.