I’m doing developmental editing on my manuscript this month, with a focus on story pace. This has prompted me to think about what pacing actually is, based on my experiences sharing manuscript critiques. We non-academically trained writers talk about “fast-paced” vs. “slow-paced” as if it’s an objective property of the text. But what if it’s not? What if it’s something else altogether?
Pacing Happens in the Reader’s Head; NOT on the Page
Write a big chunk of a novel and hand it to a test reader. Chances are, unless you’re very experienced, you’ll get feedback like: “The story moved slowly here.”
So you trim that section: cut unnecessary text so the reader spends less time on it. And yes, that can work. But here’s what bothers me: the story itself isn’t moving. It stays right where it is. What moves is the reader’s attention.
I believe a passage drags when the cognitive effort required to finish it is too high for the reward the reader experiences. If that’s true, then pacing problems are really about structuring effort and reward: Does the reader run out of momentum before getting a reward that renews it?
If a scene is bad, it had better be short
The reason that cutting is a good place to start for us amateurs is that we often write scenes that don't offer much reward for the reader's effort. We write scenes that beg for mercy-killing. Cutting a great scene down might improve in some way, but it won't improve the pacing.
Your Manuscript is Easy for You, so it always feels well-paced
I think this explains why authors almost never detect pacing problems in their own work: you already know what your manuscript means, so it's easy for you to read. One of the best ways to learn about balancing effort and reward is to critique other writers’ manuscripts. Approaching someone else’s story opens your eyes to where you struggle to stay engaged, and then you can discover why.
Ultimately you will need test readers help with your manuscript, but their time is precious. Before sending a manuscript out for critique, scan your scenes for “walls of text” or info-dumps where the reader is asked to do a lot of mental work for little reward. Especially look for places where effort is demanded for no reward -- e.g. pointlessly rambling passages, or continuity errors. Your manuscript benefits the most when you make good use of the test readers’ gift of their time.
Slow = bad; Fast = good?
Finally we have to ask: is slow necessarily bad? No. Nobody complains about a slow good scene. They will complain that bad scene packed with action is "slow", because their progress through it feels like a slog. Making that bad scene better means making it easier and/or more rewarding; that sometimes results in a scene that takes up more space on the page but feels shorter to the reader.
Takeaways
- The pace is set by the reader's momentum, not your word count.
- “Pacing problems” are always a result of unbalanced effort and reward.
- Trimming isn't the only fix—improving the scene is often better than cutting it.
- Don't sacrifice delight for brevity.
- Keep reader momentum fed, no matter what speed you are aiming for.
What do you think?
So — what do you think? Is cutting always the best solution to what a reader identifies as a pacing problem? Do you have any examples of writing where you’ve improved pacing, or have pacing issues?
