Which Is It?
I have the greatest best friend in the world. She's the one to call me out on my delusions. You know, the one to poke through my closet, pull out the jacket with enormous shoulder pads from the 1980s and say, "You're never going to wear this again," and have me pack it up for the nearest clothing drop box.
I wonder about people who don't have that kind of person in their life. The one to tell them, "Hey . . . you have something caught in your teeth."
While merrily blog hopping this morning, I landed on a page where someone had posted an excerpt of a new release, an e-book. Let's say it was two pages. In those two pages, I found annoying word repetition in the first three paragraphs, clunky internal dialogue, and already a plot device that could NEVER happen in a million years. And I wondered . . . doesn't this person have anyone in their life, any critique partner, any beta reader to TELL THEM?!?!?
I was telling Monkey Boy how grateful I am for his being my critique partner. I mean, really . . . he is not letting me get away with anything. Occasionally, I panic. What if his next book gets a huge deal and he goes all Hollywood on me and decides he won't be my critique partner anymore? Then I take a deep breath and talk myself in from the ledge. One, him go all Hollywood? HI-LAR-I-OUS. And two? Even if he did, I would kidnap him and lock him in a room and force him to remain my critique partner for bread and water.
Then I wonder . . . maybe that person who posted DOES have a critique partner who tells them those things, and maybe they stubbornly refuse to listen. There are a whole lot of writers who just don't "hear." I mean, a process is going on in which words are entering their ear canal and being heard, but somewhere in the brain, it's actually construed as, "This person doesn't understand my work. God, did Steinbeck have to put up with this?"
And so, for not the first, or even the thousandth time, I realize that when writers blog about this whole "which is more important, talent or perseverence" thing . . . or when people (and I am pretty sure I've done it) say to carve up into percentages what are the most important qualities to make a successful writer, that the whole humility thing gets ignored. As does the idea that finding Monkeys really ISN'T that easy. They don't grow on trees. They LIVE in trees, but no, they don't grow on them.
So do you have that you've-got-something-caught-in-your-teeth person? And how important do you rate the way in which a writer absorbs trusted critiques? And as an aside surely to irritate a few folks . . . this is why I am completely certain that the proliferation of e-pubbing and self-pubbing will simply mean readers finding a few e-pubbed houses or writers who are up to a certain standard. Sooner or later, the same sorts of things we look for in print work will occur. You can give it to me for FREE even, but if it's crap, I wouldn't want it taking up space on my Kindle or e-reader.
64 comments:
I will skim a crap e-book if it is free. But I won't pay print book prices for e-books. Of course, that is not what you're asking, but it's what came to mind.
FF:
I think you're right. You know, it was really just . . . to me amateurish (the excerpt). And I do think sooner or later, when the novelty has worn off e-books (and it largely has now) . . . the same sort of competition and so on will make the better stuff rise, while still, perhaps, lowering barriers to entry. I think it will also help niche fiction. I have a friend who writes WILDLY hilarious books that just are SO well-written . . . but do off-beat. He e-pubs them, and it's a great thing for him, I think.
I found annoying word repetition in the first three paragraphs, clunky internal dialogue, and already a plot device that could NEVER happen in a million years. And I wondered . . . doesn't this person have anyone in their life, any critique partner, any beta reader to TELL THEM?!?!?
I see similar things online sometimes, and it's easy to shrug them off as self-pubbed ebooks or whatever, but what gets me is how much mind-numbingly bad prose makes it into print with major publishers, and even onto the NYT bestseller list. It makes me wonder if those writers even know how bad it is. Apparently not.
Jude:
I think that points back to mark's post of the other day. Sometimes, it's just a really good story and I think writers sometimes just can't enjoy sotry for story's sake. And while it would be great to think you can have a talented wordsmith AND great storytelling, sometimes it just doesn't happen. Or it's in the eye of the beholder.
E
That's why I basically disagree with this, from Mark's blog:
But the fact is, technique can be secondary to a story well told. And that's a different skill. Creating tension, freshness, controlling pace, teasing and intriguing the reader, having a commercial hook, etc., those are very, VERY difficult things to learn. In fact, I think that compared to learning to be a better "writer" in the words, sentences, paragraph sense, is a lot easier than all that other stuff.
If it's so easy to be "a better 'writer' in the words, sentences, paragraph sense," then why does so much drivel get cranked out of New York? I'm not buying it. Seems to me any old hack can learn the commercial formulae for thrillers, romances, mysteries, etc., but it's only the rare and talented wordsmith who can combine those elements with rock-solid prose that sings.
Wow, I'm late to the party and everybody stops talking when I enter the room.
The answer to the do I have somebody who tells me my butt looks big (or the reverse, in my case, my wife, "You have no ass."), for personal things, obviously my wife; for writing, not so much, although my agent tends not to worry about my feelings and will say, "I hate it," or "It's been done already, can't sell it," without in anyway mincing words.
And Jude,
I think you already proved my point. New York IS the arbiter of what gets published (NY being mainstream publishing, anyway), and whether or not you think it's drivel, apparently mainstream publishing is looking for whatever it is that they're publishing.
Although I have some qualms about some of what mainstream publishing publishes--they can certainly chase the easy money with self-help and celebrity memoirs--in general, I think mainstream publishing does many things right and although the bar for beautiful writing may not be set as high as you or your typical academic might think it should be set, the bar for effective storytelling is very damned high.
[And as a chastising aside--and hey, I've been there, we all have; if you honestly think the poobahs of NY publishing are ignoramuses who don't know what they're doing, why would you want to be part of that industry? I mean, it drives ME crazy, but I still want to be part of it]
Jude:
I have the opposite opinion. I can think of dozens and dozens of writers who can craft truly beautiful words. It's why I said it's crazy to critique just an excerpt yesterday or the day before. The big picture is a LOT harder, stringing it all together with pacing, tension, and so on. And in the end, I think an average reader--versus writers themselves AS readers--wants to CARE about characters, feel tension, and be carried away. And if there are truly pretty words crafted lovely, then fine. But make 'em care.
Mark:
I 1000% (WAY more than 100%) agree with you.
You know, I can point it back to Dan Brown, or let's just, because I like him, Mike Lawson. I could go through and analyze this or that and find a flaw if I search, sure. But man, do I like his characters. He tells a good yarn.
I have a sister-friend who would yank spinach out of my teeth and is the one who points out things I don't/can't/won't see.
In my writing I yearn for that - and have it with a CP but sometimes I crave even more. I think it's crucial for a writer to be able to see his or her work through someone else's eyes -- to step away and see the weaknesses.
I remember the first time anything I'd written - and it was simply a blog post on my first blog - had been edited by a professional editor. My friend worked as a columnist and reporter for 25 years and I wanted to post a very important essay/story so I wanted her to look at it. I was not taken aback at her comments and suggestions - I was amazed at them. And I have had fabulous (and awful) editors since then.
All of this is the reason I don't fuss about the current publishing system - because while crap gets published - so does some really great stuff - and I think without the agent/editor/publisher gatekeepers the lines will continue to blur, the piles will be bigger and I wonder if we'll have the time, energy and resources to wade through it all to find what we're looking for.
OK, not sure any of that is coherent. Am still on cuppa coffee #1.
:)
Mark:
Pressed "publish" by accident. I think New York sets a certain standard . . . and you need only read a lot of self-pubbed out there to realize it, or spend some time going through slush. Do they miss a few things that I would love to see published? Sure. But on the whole, they can see pacing and what the public will buy.
Amy:
I agree, pointing then to the concept that eventually, the bar for e-pubbed is going to rise and people will gravitate to the places with professional editors (the pay model has to change) and gatekeepers who are finding the gems.
Erica,
I'm reading Mike Lawson's "House Rules" now and I marvel at his characterizations and voice.
Mark:
You know, I think as a writer, my guess is he spends a LOT of time on his characters' back stories before he writes. Not positive, but I sense it. They are that developed and rich,
E
If you honestly think the poobahs of NY publishing are ignoramuses who don't know what they're doing, why would you want to be part of that industry?
Never said that. All I'm saying is that the way commercial novels are constructed can be learned, while the writing of great prose cannot. I'm no literary snob (I'm a Stephen King fan, for fux sake), but I still maintain that life's too short for the excruciatingly bad prose you see in some bestsellers. I would agree, though, that most readers probably don't know the difference, and if they do know the difference they probably don't care. Still, this blog caters mostly to writers, and it seems to me as writers we should know the difference and should care. But maybe I'm wrong.
I think you have to be a special person to be a critter. It isn't as easy as reading stuff and telling your friend it sucks.
Critting people have to have a talent for knowing the art of writing, even if they can't write a lick.
We've all gotten crits from people and wondered if they actually spoke English. Finding that one person willing to read and crit, has talent at knowing what is good and what isn't, and willing to say so is like finding a chocolate cake dispenser next to your desk at work.
Jude:
Of course I CARE (well, not REALLY since it doesn't impact me--I read what I LOVE/LIKE--and hence so does everyone else). I think it boils down to recognizing that some people just write a story, a really good, solid story, that the book-buying public loves. I mean, let's take Clive Cussler. Do I think the guy is a good writer? Um. Not really. Do I think his character is kind of ridiculous? Um. Yeah. BUT . . . does he research and come up with a good adventure that keeps the public turning pages? Yeah. He DELIVERS on what his back cover copy and blurbs promise. I recognize that there is SURE a place for that.
Just as I recognize Ha Jin writes lovely prose, but the average book reader isn't going to flip through those pages with lightning speed. It's just not that kind of book.
One time I was in a critique group and this woman comes in proudly announcing her book is published! She waves it to everyone in the room and sets it on the table in front of her. I pick it up, read the back cover, and then open it to read the first page. She snatches it out of my hand, "you have to buy it to read it."
Needless to say I didn't buy it. I don't think anyone else in the room did either.
I laughed at this sentence: Occasionally, I panic. What if his next book gets a huge deal and he goes all Hollywood on me and decides he won't be my critique partner anymore?
Me too! I worry about the same thing!
As for the rest of it, I'll just say it (and sorry, Jude): I get a little exhausted by the "but look at how much crap New York publishes" meme. First off, I'm a very heavy reader of mainstream books, AND I'm an proofer for the biggest self-publisher in the world. I've read dozens and dozens and dozens (no exaggeration) of self-pubbed novels. And in all those dozens, I can think of TWO that compared to books that were published by mainstream publishers with real-live developmental editors. Even "bad" NY books are worlds better than most of this stuff. Now, anyone is free to disagree with me and I'll be happy to concede I'm totally wrong—but only AFTER they've read as many self-pubbed novels as I have.
It's my experience there is a reason most NY-published books make it through the gauntlet. Perhaps the story-telling is wonderful. Or the world-building is unique. Or the main character is such an awesome person, you have to read it. But there's something there ... something beyond a formula. Because, c'mon, there really isn't a "formula." There are only story-telling elements, most of which have been known for thousands of years.
Different readers look for different things -- ask any Twilight fan. By any standard, the writing in those books is not up to par. But the character of Bella Swan (as much as I can barely stand her) has stuck in my head like few literary characters.
I think it boils down to recognizing that some people just write a story, a really good, solid story, that the book-buying public loves.
No argument there at all. My stance is that it's possible to teach someone the basic construction for, say, a thriller, but that it's not possible to teach someone to write great prose. And that's the opposite of what Mark was saying.
I believe there is such a thing as talent. Some people have an ear for language, the same way some have an ear for music. To me, it doesn't matter how great the symphony is if the orchestra's out of tune.
I've had plenty of people point out the spinach in my teeth, and then I tell them I'm saving it for later. :-)
I feel like I'm going off topic, but my feeling is if, as a writer, you solicit advice from another writer, you must keep in mind that they'll possibly point out what isn't working. On the other hand, those soliciting for beta readers need to prepare themselves for all kinds of feedback, and not take any of it personally. (Been there. Gave feedback. Door slammed in my face.)
One more thing. As a writer you can chose whether to use solicited feedback, and/or, how to use it.
Getting back to topic (I think), putting out a story excerpt is like tossing chum out to sea. You'll always attract more than just the big fish.
Even "bad" NY books are worlds better than most of this stuff.
Absolutely. Ten minutes on the Authonomy site will bring you to the same conclusion.
You guys, I happen to love much of what comes out of New York; I buy bestsellers all the time. But I also recognize crappy prose when I see it. It's my personal policy not to bash other writers in public, so I won't name any names, but I still maintain, contrary to what Mark stated, that you can't teach someone to write good prose. Better, yes, but some folks just have a better knack than others at stringing words, sentences, and paragraphs together, and that's a talent that can't be taught.
That's all I'm saying.
Hi Erica! I came here by way of Mark Terry, who wrote about you on Jessica Faust's blog, to which I linked in a post today both her and you on my own blog.
This is a great post. We DO need people like this! Not just to get us up and off the ground, but when we're all hollywood and no one else will tell us.
I have a great writing group that is encouraging, but very honest. It's sometimes hard to hear (and hard to dole out when necessary), but it's important to learn to suck it up and really listen and evaluate the critique impersonally.
Allen:
Your comment made me laugh out loud. Chocolate cake indeed,
E
Richmond:
LOL! That is so ridiculous.
E
Lurker:
Agreed.
Couldn't add a thing.
E
Jude:
But think of . . . well . . . think of any writer with a blog, who slaps up a really good paragraph. Give a person 300 pages and they can create a perfectly crafted, beautiful one. But then step back and did they do the storytelling and characterization and pacing and tension well? It depends.
We've tried out, in our critique group, a few writers. Some have come and we can spot in their prose some GORGEOUS imagery. I can think of a descriptive pararaph that was lovely . . . I mean truly wonderful. But there was no storytelling craft. A pile of I-don't-care.
E
kath:
HUGE difference beta readers to CPs. Definitely. Only court betas and . . . .
E
Hi Heidi:
Thanks for visiting! Love how blog-hopping works. :-)
I've worked as a freelance book editor and ghostwriter (in addition to writing novels) for 20 years. I am always amused to no end when a writer contacts me and says, "I just need a good, solid proof for typos. I have all the other stuff nailed." And often I'll ask if they have CPs. "Nope. I read a lot . . ." or "I've been writing for eight years now" or . . . . And without a doubt, they are the worst books I come across. There is great value in honest feedback.
E
Well, my argument was actually that the nuts-&-bolts of writing--lose your repetitions, active verbs, kill the passive tense, paragraph structure, etc., is teachable and relatively straightforward.
Story structure, pace, tension is a lot harder.
Then there's characterization, freshness, hook, etc., which is even harder still, and may not be teachable.
Can we go then from Mark Terry Has A Smooth & Efficient Writing Style to F. Scott Fitzgerald Writes Like He's Channeling God?
Yes, I accept the difference has to do with talent and although I'm confident I could NEVER, EVER match Fitzgerald's STYLE and ELEGANCE, I also believe that what FSF put on the page also had a lot to do with WHO he was and what his goals were. I ain't him (for which I'm thankful, actually) and my goals are somewhat different (although he went to Hollywood for the money, too, so go figure).
Now, dammit, Jude, we're supposed to have alcoholic beverages in front of us when we have discussions like this. C'mon, Erica, you're skimping on your hosting responsibilities!
Yeah, Erica! Where's the booze?
Wow. All the comment tangents that I've read I totally forgot what the main blog topic was all about!
Therefore, random thoughts leaping from my fingers. . .
I've gotten to the point that I won't waste my time reading anything if the writer doesn't do his/her job of sucking me into their world--even books I've spent good money on.
--Sorry, I just can't do it any more.
It could be because I judge quite a few RWA contests during the year--and you can stab an ice pick into your brain only so many times before you do serious damage! Oh, I've read some truly fantastic stuff, but the craft wasn't there yet, and I've read so many well written stories that had no life to them.
--next tangent . . .
I have a beta reader (she's a writer, but has no intention of publishing) that is better than any CP I EVER had. I seem to attract CP's who want to 'fix' my sentences when I need to know if my character's developement is consistant throughout the story. And, YES, I did request they look at the big picture stuff, but they ignored my request, 'since they can't critique that way'.
--I don't belong to that group any longer.
Next tangent . . .
Yes, I want to know if I have spinach in my teeth, but don't wait until after I took my publicity photo to tell me.
I'm the friend that tells people they have spinach in their teeth. Every time. Even if you're not my friend.
That said, I have a couple friends who do that for me and I hate that I don't get to see them more than once a year. One I haven't seen since I've moved.
I've really lucked out with critique partners. A couple filled my head with pretty compliments (and I knew that's what they were doing -- I KNEW it wasn't THAT good) but the majority told it like it was. And I'm even still friends with them.
Umm, can I have a chocolate cake dispenser?
Gentlemen:
The Goose is chilling.
E
magolla:
I have blogged before about the special torture that is contest judging.
E
Melanie:
It's next to the chilled Goose.
E
Holy cow, Erica, so many threads, I'm not sure which one to jump on first :-)
Okay, I agree with you about the future of e-pub. I've heard all the table pounding (mostly by self-pub'd or soon to be self-pub'd authors) about how unfair NY is, they're keeping us out and soon with the new technology, agents and editors will be obsolete.
Sorry, that's crap. In most cases, writers who can't get through the traditional way haven't been able to for a reason. Sometimes they're just not there yet, sometimes their writing's great but they haven't hit a great, marketable story yet... there are variables, but I don't think it ever comes down to NY being a mean-spirited bully.
And, the people who say that always underestimate the level of professionalism and talent involved on the other side of the desk. It comes back to humility - when it's missing from a writer's tool box they're doing a disservice to their work as well as any poor sap who has to deal with them personally.
Beta Readers, crit partners, oh my. I have to go back to the old saying, "If you make one true friend in your life, you're blessed." It's not easy to find a good match with Crit Partners and beta readers.
I've worked in crit groups, online groups, and with individual writers. And for the most part, they've been good experiences. But not every writer, even if they're fantastic, is going to 'get' your work, or you as a person. Someone mentioned that they had beta's who wouldn't look at the whole picture or what they wanted feedback on - and that's hard, but the truth is, every writer has their own set of strengths and weaknesses. Some are better at spotting character problems, or overall plot holes or large scale issues, and that's what they zone in on. Some are much better at the sentence by sentence nitpickiness. Sometimes it depends on where they are in their own learning process, so for me the best method is to try to find a few readers to look over the same work - that way you get a wide variety of feedback.
Now, I have a few that I will ask to read my wip when it's done, but I don't have a group like you do, Erica. We don't check in weekly, or even monthly when we're not actively reading and I generally don't ask for feedback until a work is finished and revised a few times... I'm just odd that way, but largely it's because I don't want to bore the hell out of my beta's with twenty versions of the novel :-)
Merry:
You know, I think you succinctly said something I have never seen articulated quite right. Sometimes a writer might be GREAT, but they just haven't hit on the "right" story for mainstream publishing yet.
E
See, this is why I only feel relief when I'm lucky enough to get a critique. And thankfulness. I'm just glad my underwear isn't showing, or my butt crack, or something, LOL.
As far as other writers, I don't know. It does break my heart when a story is just so darn close, so wonderful, and I'm crazy about it, but... it's missing one thing that the writer isn't quite ready to do. No, what breaks my heart more is all the books that are amazing, but don't get published.
Opps, the lady that snatched the book out of my hand was self-published. I forgot the self part.
Monkey, did you know that Tolkien and Rowling did a whole lot of correcting bad college papers? Personally I think working through all that bad writing teaches you what is good writing. So maybe Erica is right. You're going to Hollywood. You've already been on TV!
Oh boy, did we just get sidetracked into contest judging? I was a judge for ITW's Thriller last year. I wouldn't describe it as an icepick to the ear (close sometimes), but it wasn't the bad writing that got to me, it was the repetitive nature of the stories, that even in the successful published books it was all starting to taste like the same meal.
Natasha:
Well . . . it can be heartbreaking, but the hard work of getting there as a writer isn't something you learn in six months or a year or even ten years. It's a lifetime thing, and hopefully the ones who are passionate will keep doing it.
E
Mark:
My experiences were unpubbed manuscripts. What shocked me was some of it was just plain old awful. Not "this is subjective and it's not my kind of story," but "grammatically and everything else, this just is not even CORRECT." And the cliches! "Icewater in the veins" and a "lump in throat" and so on. ACK!
And when I was doing more genre reading of pubbed books (detective phase, law thriller phase) . . . like you it was how many times am I going to read a detective whose wife was murdered who drinks too much because the crime is unsolved? I mean . . . come on. The estranged daughter thing . . . also overdone. After a while, you do long for something very fresh. And the ones that do it . . . they are exciting or at least a fun change. I think that's why I liked the Butch Karp series. He was a bit different. No vice other than softball.
My husband will tell me about something in my teeth, but as for my girlfriends that are there for me, all of them are at least 2,000 miles away.
In regards to writing critiques, I love them, especially the tough ones. When I give something to a beta, I want them to tear it apart. Give me their honest thoughts and don't hold back. If they just say "It was good. I liked it." I cross them off the beta list.
The self pub push from Harlequin and other's scares me for just this fact. There's going to be a lot of crap out there floating around and some peeps aren't going to realize its self published when they buy it. Sad. Critique partners, agents and editors are priceless.
I have a guy in my critique group who won't listen to anyone's suggestion. Sometimes it makes me sad and sometimes I just want to bang my head against the wall when he bemoans his rejection letters. But what can you do?
...it was the repetitive nature of the stories, that even in the successful published books it was all starting to taste like the same meal.
And when I was doing more genre reading of pubbed books (detective phase, law thriller phase) . . . like you it was how many times am I going to read a detective whose wife was murdered who drinks too much because the crime is unsolved? I mean . . . come on. The estranged daughter thing . . . also overdone.
Those statements kind of seal my argument that a lot of commercial fiction is rather formulaic, constructed in a certain way with similar characters and situations, something that can easily be dissected and learned. Unlike, say, the actual composition of great prose. :)
Richmond,
Your comment made me laugh ... I swear, sometimes I think my eyeballs are going to pop right out of my head with some of these books. But if they're making me a better writer, well then, it makes it easier to stomach.
Jude ...
I still disagree with the idea you can "easily learn" a formula that somehow makes it easier to get published. I think you're talking about root stories, about archetypes. I once read this pretty popular story in which a guy sacrifices himself for the greater good, but the very act of his sacrifice ennobles him and he rises beyond the initial pain of his act to become a greater person. His name was ... not Luke Skywalker, not Harry Potter, not even Frodo Baggins. It was, um, oh yeah. Jesus Christ.
If by formula you mean universal, archetypical stories, then sure. But isn't that formula just called being human? We share a common heritage and we speak in a story-telling language that resonates across our culture and our world. We operate in a world of emotionally significant archetypes and relevant symbols that evoke an instant reaction. But how does that apply to the aspiring writer? When you sit down, do you say, "Hmm. How can I combine the Christ story with fantasy and throw in a dash of British boarding school?" (Which, incidentally, is another archetype.)
I don't think so, and in fact, I think there's a tremendous danger in approaching a story this way. It's cynical, and I don't believe it will ever operate at a resonant level, and it doesn't have anything to do with the prose.
Nadine:
I have the same reaction. It's why my significant other never reads a word of what I write.
E
Aimless:
And I think that's a personality type that truly never will learn.
E
Today this blog isn't coffee on Erica's sunporch--it's shots in the neighborhood pub. I'm thinking that there are some elements of writing that you just can't teach. Like you can't teach someone to have an imagination. I think voice and plot go along with that.
And I love my crit partner. Love him. Better than a chocolate cake machine.
Jude:
If that's the case, why aren't you published? Why have some things I've written not sold? Why hasn't everyone on this blog sold everything we think we've written to the "formula" of commerical fiction? I'm being facetious, of course. But I think it can LOOK really "easy," and formulaic, but like Jon said, there's still a danger to thinking "read a lot of detective books and voila" or "read a lot of romances and voila." I mean the book I cited today . . . it's got the requisite drama, the this, the that . . . but it's just so cheesy. A lot of romance readers will cite Susan Elizabeth Phillips, for example, as being very good at what she does. Or Jennifer Cruisie. I don't read romance, but the ones of theirs I have picked up and read a few pages of, gosh, darn . . . I can "see" as a writer them set up the characters and the situation, but it's funny and snappy and somehow fresh nonetheless. If I read five in a row, it would be wearying . . . but I can see they somehow take the "formula" that this other writer is using. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl through misunderstanding . . . and yet the characters somehow pop.
I wish there was an easy secret, then I wouldn't bang my head against a desk so much. Some of it is organic writing. Some of it is putting in the hours to learn craft, some of it is year after year returning week after week to be criticized and to learn what I do well and where my failings are and to learn from them.
Do I think most people can learn to write a "meh"? Yeah, if they put the time in. But I still stand by Mark's opinion that true storytelling that has pacing and tension and characters that are fresh is not so easily "taught."
Lurker:
LOL! Yes. Jesus. And if you are familiar with Odin and the Well of Wisdom . . . how is that so different from the Tree of Knowledge . . . or Harry's Mirror where he can see his parents? The idea of knowledge opening a path to sorrow! Archetype and myth . . . storytelling . . . all fascinating.
Lurker,
You have to go back further than Jesus. There's a book out now that argues the archetype is Moses (baby foundling, which actually is brought up in a lot of religions, not just Judaism and Christianity, or, er, Harry Potter), and I think if you go back to Gilgamesh (also caught in a huge flood) you're talking very similar archetypes.
And Jude, part of what makes books formulaic, or seem formulaic, is that the best-functioning books follow the standard 3-part (or occasionally 5-part) story structure. I think you can mess with those structures a little, but they work for a reason. (And that might be: beginning (development); middle (complication); end (resolution). The book I mentioned to Erica, "House Rules" had this great plot-twist, I mean, TOTALLY unexpected, and I held up the book and thought, Man, that's almost EXACTLY at the 2/3 mark at the end of the 2nd act. But I didn't see it coming, although I should have.
So it's one thing to say, yeah, 100-150 pages, then a twist or reversal, then another 100-150 pages of development and complications, then a twist or reversal, then you wrap it all up in another 100-150 pages, tie up all the loose ends, have another surprise or reversal at the end (last page, if you're Harlan Coben) that makes you question everything that happened, and the main character lives happily-ever-after. And keep the reader satisfied.
Hell, there's you're formula right there. Go for it. It should be easy.
I still disagree with the idea you can "easily learn" a formula that somehow makes it easier to get published.
I never said it would make it easier to get published. A lot of factors have to come into play for that to happen. But the fact is a lot of commercial novels are constructed in a similar fashion, thus Mark's statement that after reading a hundred thrillers they all started tasting the same. You know, inciting incident...investigation...love interest...major plot point at around page 100...etc...all the way to the end where there's a climax and resolution. It's not archetypes, really, it's just the way these types of books have been slung together since Six Days of the Condor or whatever. There's a basic formula for thrillers. I'm not bashing it. Everyone uses it. I'm just saying it's not that hard to dissect and learn, whereas the composition of
good prose take some sort of actual "ear" for language.
...and it doesn't have anything to do with the prose.
Never said that either. Mark's argument was that it's easier to learn the nuts and bolts writing part (i.e. the construction of the prose itself) than all the "other stuff," i.e. creating tension, controlling pace, freshness, teasing the reader, etc., and I argued the opposite--that all that can be learned fairly easily but that it takes some sort of innate ability, some sort of talent with language, to write great prose.
Oh man, Jude, I think we're going to HAVE to have a few drinks soon. Where the hell's Parrish when we need him?
So if I understand you right, you're saying that it's easier to learn "formulaic" story-telling than it is to write "great" prose? Then I'm assuming you believe the converse is also true: it's easier to learn "formulaic" prose than it is to tell a "great" story.
All you need to learn to write formulaic prose is a dictionary and a copy of Strunk & White, while all you need to write a great story is deep insight into human nature and a powerful understanding of how we are shaped by events.
But why the supremacy of prose? Why is "great" prose somehow more important than a great story, so much so that story-telling is reduced to something that "any old hack" can learn "easily"? Wouldn't the prevalence of "mind-numbingly bad prose" on the NYT best-seller list argue that people care much more about story-telling than prose anyway?
And gentlemen . . . I go back to . . . post a pretty paragraph. Doesn't mean you can string it into a page turner. At all. In fact, I think the page turner is trickier in some regards.
Think of all the angst-ridden writers in high schools and colleges . . . I KNOW for sure that I wrote some very poetic and indeed pretty prose back then--got me noticed by my professors. But in the end, I was producing reams of pretty prose without it meaning there was tension, honesty, pain, redemption . . . page turning pacing.
If that's the case, why aren't you published? Why have some things I've written not sold? Why hasn't everyone on this blog sold everything we think we've written to the "formula" of commerical fiction?
I understand that "formula" is a dirty word to most writers of commercial fiction (myself included!). We don't want the world to think that our craft boils down to paint-by-the-numbers. And it doesn't. There are a slew of factors that make every book unique. However, there is a basic construction that most have in common, and it's that basic construction that I'm saying can be easily learned.
What do you think made The Da Vinci Code such a huge success? It's construction isn't any different than hundreds of other thrillers released that year. The concept itself had been explored by another author back in the 80s. The prose...I'm going to be generous and call it lackluster, rather than the string of expletives I actually had in mind. So what made it so popular?
Heavy promotion, The Vatican, and luck. There's nothing unique about DVC. It's a formulaic thriller, pure and simple, and the writing is just plain old bad (I've broken my rule about bashing another author in public, but I felt the need for the sake of argument. Sorry Dan!).
Wouldn't the prevalence of "mind-numbingly bad prose" on the NYT best-seller list argue that people care much more about story-telling than prose anyway?
Yes! Never said they didn't. I'm just saying it's possible to learn the basic construction of commercial fiction, and that it's not possible to learn to be a great wordsmith. Simple. Learning one of Motzart's compositions on the violin ain't gonna make you Isaac Perlman. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
And yeah, Mark, where the hell is Parrish (whose prose I admire a great deal, btw).
And gentlemen . . . I go back to . . . post a pretty paragraph. Doesn't mean you can string it into a page turner.
Very true. But I can tell right away if someone can write or not. You can too (admit it!). It's the reason most manuscripts are rejected based on the first few pages.
Jude:
I have read some GREAT stories that WORK even though, in a lot of ways, by your reckoning, they shouldn't. And with lousy prose. But grudgingly, perhaps, I can admit . . . they can't write really, but there is something "there."
And I have read some very pretty prose, elegant. But the books went totally nowhere. I might have cgalked it up to "they can't write." (See? I admit it.) But what I REALLY meant . . . in the God's honest truth . . . is they can't tell a story.
E
P.S. And Stephen is sleeping about now.
But isn't it nice when a compelling story is coupled with stellar prose? Those are the authors I dig.
What most makes me annoyed with the publishing world is the tendency to cater to the general public instead of publishing books that please me! LOL For example, Judy Tarr writes great historical fantasy with sweeping backstory and historical accuracy. She can't get that kind of book published any more. Even her LUNA series got canceled because she had the heroine make an historically accurate choice to not go with her soulmate and make a politically astute marriage and the readers didn't like that! I loved it!
Jude:
Definitely.
E
FF:
That's a shame (about her series). I know whenever I see a movie that does that (historical movies) . . . I am wlays disappointed--but UNDERSTAND that reality means sometimes not a HEA (such as Shakespeare in Love).
Post a Comment