Lots of interesting replies here!
Gerry and Wendy, I definitely agree with you that the verbose version of the story has a lot more charm than the first one. I wasn't actually
recommending that writing be condensed as much as citing this experience and wondering how (or if) it should reflect on fictional writing. I was also quite interested in the term "precis," which I've never heard before -- I never had to do those as a student, although it would have come in very handy a few days ago!
Obviously, as many of you have pointed out, writing should be allowed to flow naturally, without word restrictions or requirements. That's why I joked about the days when writers got paid per word - descriptions were overlong and adjectives were insufferable.
The other extreme, of course, is being asked to pare a story literally down to the bones, as I was, to fit the word requirements laid down by the paper. I believe "happy medium" might be the appropriate phrase here.
LOL at the Reader's Digest suggestion, but I was looking for something just a little bit more, er, verbose than that.
Redundancies should be reduced, but descriptive writing deserves to stay. I'd much rather read a longer, lyrical story than one with such concentrated plot that I need to dilute it to read it! (Mixing metaphors a bit, but what the hey.) At the same time, though, authors can fall into the trap of writing pages and pages of information the reader already knows -- either because the character is reflecting on events that took place on the show with excruciating detail, or perhaps thinking back on every word and gesture of the previously-written scene of the story. Either way, I know that I often tend to skim past that kind of introspection and get to what I consider the "real" part of the story.
To sum up concisely:
Write as much as you need, but not more that you must.
Hazel
