if three words are good, two are better. maybe.

I give my files quirky names.

I could be (should be) better organized, placing everything properly in labeled folders so that I could find things more easily, naming my files descriptively, deleting old versions, all of that.  but instead, I name files whimsically, capriciously, and suffer the consequences later.

sometimes I remember what I did, and sometimes I don’t.

what brings this to mind is that I’ve been working on a synopsis for my latest manuscript.  I hate working on synopses.  verbosity is my friend; concision isn’t.  yesterday I had to provide a 500 word synopsis for an agency:  I began with my 978-word synopsis (which was labeled synopsis attempt 17) and started whittling.  pain.  agony.  frustration.

I had to leave the table and then return.  I printed out the 978-word version (which had been culled from a 3-page, 1200-word version) and took my precise-V fine-tip pen and struck through words and lines, squiggling out half a paragraph.  then another sentence.  two words.  an “and,” the word “unbelievable.”  I ate lunch.  struck another clause.  napped.  returned, once again, to the table.

I had it down to 513 words after an hour’s diligent work had passed.  sweat gathered on my brow.  another chop, and then, who needs that sentence, voila, 497 words.  which 3 could I re-add?

I saved that version as “synopsis attempt 18.”  I may or may not remember that this is the 500-word version.  perhaps I should rename it “synopsis attempt 18: 500 words.”  that would be logical, possibly helpful in the future, definitely wise.  but wordy.    a more organized person would probably label this file “500 word synopsis” and call it good.

editing superfluousness is always a challenge.