Pacing is Madness

> | He puts the ship through paces > | And paces the halls, pacing is madness > | Patience is virtuous, patient of these observations > | It was all a dream > > Clipping - "All Black" Ah, pacing. Bloody pacing. We all talk about stories being slow reads, or whip-quick and page-turning. We speak of sections that drag, or happen too fast. Everyone seems to have a speedometer as part of their reading comprehension --- except me. I don't have an intuitive sense of story pace, and rarely talk about how fast or slow stories are, except in that awkward Chinese room way where I shuffle around the symbols and associations, carried on by a studied assumption that I'm probably pointing to the thing everyone else understands and I don't. Does pacing exist? To some, I've made a fool of myself by insisting it doesn't. It's a meme, we made it up as a joke. But I can hone the delivery. Bad pacing is oft-trotted out as a critique, yet I've long held that speaking of good or bad "pacing" is about as useful as saying a movie has good or bad "visuals". You can look at a movie and see something, and you can like what you see --- but "things you like to see" don't constitute a useful category, whether you seek to understand art or improve your craft. What defines my essays is a pursuit of specific and thoroughly worked out advice --- capturing writing process with elegant and scrutable models. Let's begin by figuring out what kinds of pacing definitely exist. With some thought, I can think of at least five things that map onto what people seem to mean: - Pacing is word choice. Fast paced stories have punchy prose that says exactly what it means with no fluff, and slow paced stories get bogged down in description and metaphor. - Pacing is plot progression. The more characters and situations change per wordcount, the faster the pacing is. - Pacing is external plot progression. The more fights and travel and visible stuff happening we see, the faster the pace. But if there's a lot of character moments and internal changes, this feels like slow pace instead. - Pacing is in-story time progression. The more time passing in-world per word count, the faster the pace. - Pacing as the delivery of information. This is a somewhat specific use, but people speak of the pacing of backstory/worldbuilding reveals. The sooner important facts are revealed, the faster the pace. If none of those seem quite it, that's because the way this rhetorical game works is that no definition I list off at the start is right, and instead serve to make me look smarter for pointing at the right one later on. Still, these five are enough to illustrate the paradox of pacing. Consider a story that dramatically, breathlessly recounts a rather uneventful week. Consider a story where a novel's worth of events happen in a single day.^Well, take it from me: [this, well, isn't exactly hypothetical.] These considerations aren't even adversarial gotchas --- just recently, I've read Six Pomegranate Seeds, and I was floored by just how relentlessly quick it proceeds, years going by in chapters, only for a fellow writer to have the exact opposite impression, dropping it for the slow pace. Quote: "you can't be fast paced if nothing is happening, even if you proceed through the nothing at a fast clip in-universe". I recently defined what prose is, and on the face of it, it's tempting to reprise that structure. There I contended that prose decomposes into twelve independent facets, and the word itself is too polysemous to be useful. Is pacing not the same? Can I speak of the N plot virtues, individual knobs that control our gestalt sense of pace? I'd like to; that last essay wound up as one of my most successful. Yet, to my great chagrin, I've found a definition that unifies all these disparate facets of pacing and indeed salvages the concept. Pacing is payoff. Why does verbosity matter? Because the more words you lavish on descriptions, the longer it takes to get to the payoff. Why does plot progression matter? Because conclusive change is what we're here to see, and transitional changes promise we're moving closer to some satisfying conclusion. Why do information reveals matter? Because answering questions you've raised is simply one form of payoff. Why does in-world time matter? This one's harder to explain. I think it's somewhat peripheral --- in order for more time to pass in fewer words, you need to skip over things. This means you only focus on the stuff that matters, things connected more directly to the payoff you're building to --- or at least you give the impression that's what you're doing. And if you don't skip over things, even if those things do matter, then that continuous accounting will feel like getting bogged down in minutia.^[This moment by moment chronicle of events is an oddly common feature of webfiction style. There's a blogpost somewhere in that observation, I think.] But I skipped over one last facet --- Why do character moments and introspection slow down the pace? Here we cut to the heart of this definition's utility. Character moments can seem slow-paced due to their subtle, dare I say, cerebral nature. It's easy to feel satisfaction at hero confronting the villain --- but a conversation with their ally, exploring the nuances of their relationship, full of subtext? You read a romance story because you want to see two people kiss. You read a detective story because you want to see a mystery unraveled. You read an action story to see some ass kicked. Different stories have different appeals, and if we boil the appeal of stories down to their payoff, then does "no payoff" look much different from "payoff I don't care for"? Or better yet, "payoff I wasn't primed for" --- so much of writing comes down to anticipation. It's suggestive to think the longer you're anticipating something, the slower the pacing feels. And if you're waiting for something the story never delivers? (In correspondence, it soon became clear that aforementioned critic of Six Pomegranate Seeds, for better or worse, came in with expectations of the story that it would not deliver.) I suspect part of why I don't sense pacing as finely (and why my writing ends up so slow-paced) is not only am I open-minded and easy to please, tending to approach stories burdened with few expectations, but I deeply enjoy writing on a line-by-line, beat-by-beat level. Slow pace doesn't bother me as long as the prose sings.^[Indeed, I'm so unconcerned with long-term payoff that reaching the end of an incomplete story doesn't even faze me --- when a dead fic ends on a cliffhanger, I don't despair, I laugh.] But back up. Pacing isn't just fast or slow, it's also good or bad. Some fics are fast-paced and it rocks; some fics are fast-paced and it feels rushed. Why's that? Aren't you already anticipating the answer? Payoff is famously only half the equation; you never speak of it without its antecedent: setup. Setup is quintessentially slow-paced. Just uttering the word conjures images of plodding stories that take forever lining up dominoes before knocking them down. It's not a new insight to say fast pace isn't an unalloyed good, but this makes it clear why. We can improve the definition, render it plain and simple: Pacing is how long it takes to get what you want. The subjectivity then becomes abundantly clear. Different readers want different things, and the same reader will want multiple things, each delivered at a different rate.^[This doesn't even dive into the pedantry of deciding what "long" or "get" means, or what the definition of "is" is.] A different faultline is possible, though --- because it is the writer's job to tell the reader what they want. No, to make them want to see what's coming next. Setup sounds boring, but why? If I tell you the bombs will drop in five minutes, are you bored as I describe the trails of smoke through the air, the metal hulls looming closer and closer, the people fleeing for their lives? A much less drudgeful word for setup is build up --- that sounds so much more promising. I wager endless setup hits different when the direction is clear. How much of "slow" pacing is the writer hyping and teasing something you either don't care about or don't follow? And it goes with but a cursory mention (heh) that "rushed" pacing is payoff you weren't adequately primed for, that didn't linger long enough to be satisfying. - - - I could end this essay here --- this is a fairly cogent exposition on pacing, but the essay doesn't feel finished. Part of that is the (admittedly fitting) anticlimax of this dashed-off final assertion, and I suppose part of it is I have a history of longwinded blather I want to maintain even when I've run out of things to say. But have I run out of things to say? Suppose your story is slow paced, and you want to make it faster. Suppose it's rushed, and you want to make it slower. How do you do that? What are the actual knobs we can turn to manipulate pacing? I recently watched a video: "The Arc that broke MHA" by Oceaniz. I recommend it, with a caveat: it is difficult to follow if you aren't familiar with My Hero Academia. I wasn't, so I struggled. But Oceaniz's skill as a video essayist, and his genuine insight, kept me watching. It's easy to find people talking about how to write sentences and scenes, and if Thanos snapped twice there'd still be no shortage of people explaining the Hero's Journey or a dozen different three act structures. The former lets you write good chapters, and the later is fine for structuring a movie, an arc, perhaps even a novel. But for truly long-form writing? Serialized fiction, whether fanfic or web novel, can sprawl, and what structure is there, in that expansive morass? No million word saga is so single-minded that a story circle carves its joints, no matter how often writers wax theoretical about snowflakes and fractals. What I found so compelling about Oceaniz's