|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
In no particular order here are ten things writers do that cause me to sigh heavily:
1.) Use words that sound like the opposite of what they mean: Puissant doesn’t sound mighty, powerful or potent to this speaker of 21st-century Anglo-Saxon dialect and noisome immediately invokes the aural, not olfactory, sense (for me).
2.) Misuse words: Penultimate is not a synonym for “ultimate” (it means “next to last”, as in the number nine in a series counting up from zero to ten), and a semi-automatic weapon (fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled) is not identical with a fully automatic weapon; i.e., a machine gun. For that matter marines are never soldiers, troops or dog-faces (I'm looking at you Stephen King!), they’re marines, Leathernecks, Devil-dogs, jarheads or grunts. (That last word applies if your marine is also an infantryman.)
3. Write mediocre, albeit serviceable prose: Has this ever happened to you? You pick up a book and begin to speed-read through it only to realize almost immediately that there’s no there there; the writer’s voice is as homogenized and ennui-inducing as vanilla-on-cardboard masticated by a muppet. For god’s sakes stop writing in a defensive crouch! Get out there and say something on the page with all those words you’re time-sharing with the rest of the human race. You may fall flat on your face but I’ll respect you for trying; I truly will. Bullet-proof prose is boring prose.
4. Litter your text with un-translated foreign words and phrases: A word or two here and there is fine but entire sentences? Paragraphs? As Isaac Asimov once remarked: “I’m flattered that you think I’m fluent in every language ever spoken by humans, including the dead ones, but please—don’t flatter me that much.”
5. Characters who are forever staring off into the “middle-distance”: I swear-to-Harlan Ellison, if I ever read again of a character who “stares off into the middle distance” in order to communicate thoughtful reverie to the reader I’m going to fling the book off into the middle distance.
6. Characters who are described as looking like famous people: “She had a raspy, Kathleen Turner-like voice; he was beautiful and energized as Ernest Borgnine on a bender”. Lazy!
7. Insult your reader’s intelligence: Everyone else is smarter than you are. I thought you knew that? Never write down to your audience—despite the bad advice you may have been given by demographic-obsessed marketers, burnt-out grumpy editors and well-meaning friends and relatives urging you to “dumb it down.”
8. Stop your narrative dead in its tracks by injecting too much back-story too soon: If I want to read a history book I’ll read a history book. I bought Demon Balls & Lost Sabbaths because I thought something was going to happen here . . .
9. Over-use adverbs while under-using evocative adjectives and vivid descriptive nouns: Kill as many adverbs as you can while polishing those adjectives and vivid descriptive nouns. In the first instance, trust your reader—kill as many adverbs as you can bear to live without. If a character has just shouted or ended a sentence with an exclamation mark I probably don’t need an “angrily” speech tag to underline that fact. In the second instance give us more vivid, picturesque speech: Writing “she walked inside the house, threw her purse on the table and bent down to kiss the dog” is not a better sentence than, “she walked into the mildewed cottage, threw her satchel purse on the table and bent down to kiss her beloved beagle Bacon-barker.” Stop worshipping at the altar of minimalism—it’s a false religion with a blank-faced idiot god.
10. Then suddenly out of nowhere!: The use of the word “suddenly” always reads as the injection of cheap drama and comical, amped-up surprise to me: “She was walking along the winding cobblestone path when SUDDENLY a black-masked bear jumped out of the bushes and demanded her Odor-eater shoe inserts”; “He sat there smoking when SUDDENLY an angel of the Lord appeared and smote him about the head and shoulders with a kielbasa.”
What are the things other writers do that drive you crazy?
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
A few comments first -
1) I have a Very Large Vocabulary, and I am not afraid of using it. I bite my thumb at you! 
2) Right there with you, brother! I make mistakes now and then, but they're just that - mistakes I hope my beta readers catch me on.
6) What about in dialogue or first person description?
7) I get told that. A lot. Along with the statement that prose with 'big words' doesn't 'pop'
9) The only time I use adverbs with dialogue is when the character is delivering the line in a way that *doesn't* match the situation or dialogue. "I hate you. Die." doesn't need 'angrily', but 'calmly' might need to be pointed out, especially in a tense situation like a firefight. Heck, the only time you needs adverbs is when something *unusual* is happening. AMEN to the blank faced false god of minimalism, though.
10) and here I'll go off into my own dislikes - I feel the same way about 'truly', 'very', 'True X', or any other 'I really mean this!' words. I wince every time I see one of them. 'really' is another one. I could go on, but I've tried to purse these from my vocab. As noted, I've got enough words to avoid these.
For my own personal ones?
- Minimalist literature masquerading as 'great'. Sorry, but while minimalist *can* be great, minimalist isn't by definition great, and lush, decadent prose isn't by definition *not* great. Greatness is all about execution, not particulars of style.
- Stunt books. If an author does something really hard to do (stream of consciousness at novel length), but it's equally hard to read, I don't want to read it. The same goes for things like instant messaging novels, or any other 'gimmick' book. They're not great, and they're often not even good.
- Stock characters as protagonists, antagonists, or major supporting characters. I understand that you need to use them for some things. At least use them effectively, sparingly, and I reiterate, not as main characters. The only possible exception I see to this is an examination OF one particular type of stock character, to show how they got that way.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
Re: Stunt books: James Joyce's Ulysses—peeked into it once and I'm still shuddering. An extended literary joke that makes me wonder if the rednecks got it right after all: Burn your library, grab a case of beer and tune into a 48-hr. TV marathon of car crashes, rebel yells, buffoonish cops and big-breasted, pant-hooting girls in daisy-dukes . . . Now that's entertainment!
|
|
|
|
I just realized, Carl there are two of you in there, aren't there? Come on, admit it. You like Joyce and rebel yelling at big-breasted, pant-hooting girls in daisy-dukes.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
Heh-heh! Not telling. Not.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@ Carl - 'Ulysses' is the poster child book I think about when I'm talking about stunt books. It's not the only one, but it's the worst of the lot.
Also, if you're looking for all that and you're not into TV, just pick up a Ringo novel.
j/k, mostly.
I admit it, I LOVE Ringo, but at least part of that is the satisfying 'explosion / hot chick / dark humor' component.
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
As a purveyor of YA (I can't help myself. I am working through the unseen demons of my past), there are many tropes that make me toss aside or click delete:
1) Chatty, cliche spouting narrators. (I'd just as soon never see the acronyms OMG of LOL again, especially followed by an exclamation mark.) It has been done well, but it has also been done to death. Regrettably, it is one of those familiars that agents seem to find comforting.
2) Angst. Teens are angst-ridden, yes, but they aren't all angst all the time. And must we lead with angst? Describe your character, please. Well, she's angst ridden. Ah, good. That's all we need. Who would you like to see play her in the movie?
3) And while I'm on the subject, why must we get to know every damn personal thing about your character from the get go? Can't we get to know them gradually, like the way we do with real people? Stop confiding in me! I hardly know you! (I think this all spins from the authorial fear that they haven't given the reader a 'reason to care' about the character, so they better lard her up with a lot of sympathetic traits and vulnerabilities.
4) Present tense narrative. I know, it can be done well, but it usually isn't. James Tiptree, a terrific short story writer, wrote a couple of novels in present tense, and they were not good. Present tense can be effective is short doses, but in a novel? It's usually feels like a gimmick.
5) Keep it simple, stupid. Stupid. Young people have no attention span and they're addle-brained, so you have to dumb down the prose. Well, duh! Of course most younger people are addle-brained and have no attention span, but THEY DONT READ AT ALL so they are obviously not included in my target audience. Kids who read LIKE reading. So it follows they might actually like good writing.
Really, that's what it comes down to for me. Break any rule you want, use any form you want, but do it right. Surprise me with how good the writing is and they rest just won't matter that much. I actually, truly, sincerely believe that the writing matters way more than how fast you get the plot out front or how relatable your characters are.
Be the writer who takes chances, brings the crazy, jumps off cliffs. But also be the editor who says why take this chance? Why bring this particular crazy? Why choose this cliff?
Fun discussion. (And prose that pops is often over-inflated.)
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
I swear, if all my literature and writing classes back in college had been as entertaining as these discussion threads, I may have gone to graduate school for creative writing as opposed to geology and sci/tech communications. . .
What makes me crazy? Pretty much everything that you all have posted already. Ulysses - all I remember about that monstrosity of a book was my honors English lit prof reading a section to us with this impish grin on his face the whole time.
Some things that make me crazy:
1. Excessive world-building. I get it. You're proud of the civilization you created (and probably should be). But does every chapter of your book have to consist of 50% descriptive material of every little thing? You've taken me to 15 cities, 47 small towns, 7 major rivers, 2 seas, and at least 153 castles/keeps/fortresses. Do you really think I can keep them all straight in my head? Just tell the damn story.
2. Excessive info-dumping disguised as dialog. Sorry, people just don't talk like that. Paragraph after paragraph of one character explaining something some historical event or what happened to another character or some major plot point (because all the other characters - and the reader - apparently are too thick to understand).
3. Male and female protagonists ending up in bed together when there were no apparent sparks between them throughout the entire story. I saw "Angels and Demons" as a movie before I read the book (good story overall, lousy writing). The two main characters in the movie don't end up in bed together after saving Vatican City. But they do in the book. Come on, can't men and women work side by side to achieve an end without ending up in the sack?
4. Moody vampires.
5. Unnecessary subplots (especially in very, very, very long books). These usually pop up in best-selling, cash-cow authors' later works. Hmmm, I guess the editors at the publishing house are afraid to run their quill pens through any of their famous authors' prose. But come on, we all need editors - even famous authors. And too many subplots do nothing but bog down a work. I will skim through those sections - sometimes pages at a time.
6. Unnecessary characters. Any character who shows up for a couple of chapters and is suddenly killed off and who hasn't interacted with any of the major characters probably isn't necessary.
7. Referring to the language that all species/races in a fantasy novel can speak as the "Common Tongue." It's been used; call it something else.
8. Purely good characters and purely evil characters. We all have our light and dark sides. Some of us live more in the light; others live more in the dark. And if someone is "purely evil," chances are he or she is mentally ill. If that's the case, what's wrong with saying the character is insane? Heck, even angels have their dark side.
9. Using big words because your thesaurus software suggested them to you. Okay, maybe you really do have that large of a vocabulary (kudos to you), but the big word isn't necessarily the right word.
10. And, on the other side of that coin, using the same words over and over and over again - especially within the same sentence or paragraph. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I could probably go on, but I have to run to rehearsal. . .
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@Atthys -
4 - I'm planning on doing that for part of a novel, but there's a purpose behind it, not just 'doing it to see if I can' or any other type of stunt. I'm just *hoping* I do it well.
5 - I read (and enjoyed) the Silmarillion when I was ten. The most avid reader among my (inner city, poverty stricken, mid-teen) students *devours* Patterson books. In short (too late) preach it atthys, preach it!
And for the last, I want the *acquisitions* editor to take a chance. I then want the editor helping me prep for pub to ask me those questions on *every* chance I take.
@Angela
1&2 - People don't go to the movies to see special effects, they go to see the movie. That said, sometimes it's the actor's reaction that sells the effect. IOW, if you keep the worldbuilding really sparse, putting it in dialogue isn't a terrible way to go, *assuming* you have an ingenue to ask the questions.
4 - My favorite line from the 'Interview with a Vampire' movie was the one from Lestat about Louis' incessant whining. Yeah, that was about the only 30 seconds of book or movie I could tolerate. You're an amoral immortal bloodsucker. Grow a pair and act like one. IOW Preach it Sister Angela!
8 - What about (in fantasy, obviously) anthropomorphic personifications and such? Y'know, Gods dark and light, that kind of thing. Or (in any work) someone who *thinks* they're Pure Evil for whatever reason, and consciously decides to act like it?
Inquiring minds want to know!
But trust me about vampires needing sunscreen. 
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
I'm gonna echo Robert C. Roman here: Preach on, Sister Angela; preach on! I wish I could give you three thumbs-up for that posting, especially #1. God yes! Are you writing a novel or a D&D module for Dungeon Masters needing a wealth of background material for their own self-generated adventures? Err . . . not that I would know anything about that . . .
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
Robert. I almost included a section in present tense in one novel, then backed off. It might have worked but I, unlike you, didn't have any particular reason for doing it. I have seen it work -- though never for an entire novel. (If someone knows of a novel entirely in present tense that worked, let me know) It could certainly work for parts of a novel. I give you leave to try.
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Info-dumping in dialog can work - if it's set up as a real dialog and the tone of the exchange keeps with the personalities of the different characters participating in the dialog; that is, the dialog sounds natural. Where it irritates me is when you have a character go on for page after page spouting out very text-heavy paragraphs that don't fit the way you'd expect that character (or any person, for that matter) to speak and none of the other characters present in the scene ever ask a single question or agree or say anything. That would be fine if the character doing all the talking is giving a lecture or a speech.
Sure, gods and demons - they can be purely good, purely evil. And if someone thinks he/she is pure evil and acts that way, chances are, they're insane. I'm talking about your human or human-like (ie, elves, dwarves, misunderstood gnomes, aliens) who are portrayed by their makers as being purely evil or purely good. You know, the knight who is so honorable he bores you to tears; the warlord who is so twisted, he strangles kittens for no reason whatsoever in between his plotting to take over the world simply because he's evil.
And Lestat should have put Louis out of his misery.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
Re: Atthys: I'm going to make my mark on the literary world by writing my next novel in "Gestalt-shifting first-second-third person/past-present-future tense": ......................
I walked over to the idling yellow rambler where you sat drinking a cold warm beer with myself.
"Get out of the car," Ponty Lagoon said.
I look up at you. "Are you talking to them?"
"That's right," I said, "Put my hands on the dash where you can see them before you arrest him now."
The man went for the .45 in your waistband. I reach in and grab my arm before he can pull the gun and will growl, "I wouldn't do that if he were I tomorrow again. Gristle?"
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@Atthys - Thanks for your persimmons. Just FYI, I'm going to use the first person present for the POV a character who is dead and keeps forgetting that. The rest of the novel will be third / past.
@Carl - the awful, it burns us it does!
@Angela - I've got a character who thinks that of herself, but she's got some serious psychotic-break-causing history, and she doesn't always *act* like that, so I guess it evens out.
I've also got at least one POV evil god(dess) in Drag.Race, so... take a look and see what you think of my take on that? *grins*
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
Carl: Fabulous be! He am loved it! Non-linear Imploding Perspective Pulp-perfect Oblective!
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
Hey Atthys,
The whole trilogy of The Hunger Games is in 1st-present. I was surprised to find they were pretty damn good. Fight Club, of course (though I find Fincher's movie has made it impossible for me to reread the book ever again--just makes me want to watch the movie). Updike's Rabbit series is all 3rd-present.
I think the big problem with 1st-present is that inexperienced writers often don't realize how maddeningly difficult the POV can be to get right. They think 'cause they narrate their own lives in 1st-present that it's "easy" or that it's "the most natural POV." Nothing could be further from the truth.
And it absolutely isn't right for the vast majority of stories out there. Same applies to 1st-past--it can really hem you in at times--just not quite to the same extremity.
-Kevin
|
|
Joined: 6/28/2011
Posts: 188
|
I'm with you on pretty much your entire list, Carl, and most of the subsequent lists as well. I also sigh heavily when writers...
1) Mistake common indecency for drama. Yes, human beings are petty and ignoble. I think most of us get that by now. Please don't think that your characters' petty ignobility will move me unless you find some unusual and creative way for them to treat each other like dogs.
2) Default to tragedy because it is somehow more worthy of respect than happy endings are. When horrible things happen to undeserving people for no reason and with no deeper meaning conveyed, that's called the nightly news. Really, it is in no way remarkable or noteworthy to write a story that ends unhappily. If you choose to do it, you had best put something into your unhappy ending that I find even more satisfying than having the good guys triumph. A thoughtlessly sad ending is every bit as much hackwork as a thoughtlessly happy one.
3) Rely on mundane incompetence to drive the major conflict in a fantasy story. (I'm looking at you, AMC's "The Walking Dead!") Yes, in real life, people are frequently too dumb to think their way out of a paper bag. And yes, a fantasy novel that ignores this human tendency will lack verisimilitude. But don't make boobs of all your major protagonists just so that you'll have a steady stream of problems for them to flee/bemoan/luck their way out of. If I don't respect a character, I am not going to like that character. And if I don't like at least some of your characters, I'm not going to like your book. (Or TV show, AMC!)
I'm sure there are plenty of others, but that will do for now.
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
Kevin. Re: Hunger Games. I tried to get into it, but I have to admit, the tense put me off. I'll give it another try.
I've never even opened a page of Updike. Another hole in my education. I agree, also about first person in general. A lot of writers think its a 'license to tell' and it really isn't. You still have to keep your cards hidden, only it's harder to do that in a convincing way.
Anyhoo, thanks for the pointers.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Hello Carl,
Well, let’s see…what do I really hate.
1) Made up languages. I’m not sure how prevalent this one is any longer, but for a while it became very in to salt your story with words from a totally made up alien language (I guess this was a bleed-over from Tolkien). It was bad enough when a thoughtful author was nice enough to supply a glossary at the back of the book – I mean what better way to keep the action rolling along than suddenly (sorry Carl) require the reader to jump to the back of the book and thumb down the word list in order to find out that the ‘Glidzerp’ Lord Gleep was coming at the main character with was a “short hafted, combination battle mace and close-in dagger heavily engraved with sacred runes of the Matopitzfg Devil Cult”? Of course, those were the thoughtful ones who didn’t think that you could just divine the word’s meaning from context: “Garbadge’s headlong flight stopped suddenly (sorry Carl). There before him was a b’dklf. Slowly he picked it up, and soon sdfl;kkj was dribbling between his fingers.” Ok, question. Was the b’dklf a) magic fruit with all-healing juice, or b) an incontinent rodent? Oh, well, you get the idea.
BTW Give the poor folks who like to throw in real foreign phrases or sentences a break. They probably read all of Poe at some point and just don’t realize the fiction reading audience of today has not suffered through the early 19th Century liberal education Poe’s readers did.
2) Characters who are so stupid/do such incredibly stupid things you wonder if they’d remember to breathe if it were not an autonomic reflex. Of course, I’ve just damned every slice and dice flick where a character (usually a young woman, but not always) who has just had a couple of friends murdered, disappear leaving bloody clothes behind, or become a visual aid in a Veggematic commercial blithely walk into a pitch dark room or hallway or tunnel etc. calling out “Hello” (I assume to help the killer with his/her aim in the dark). Very often in these situations, you don’t have to read between the lines – you can almost hear the writer thinking “Now wouldn’t it be cool if….” Arrrgh!
Tom
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
Tom - what about made up words for made up things, defined in the text on use?
I'm afraid I'm guilty of that one in Cat's Paw - I needed to come up with a single simple word for a nanomachine infused healing gel, and I used 'feraid' (as a mashup of 'first aid'). I *think* I left enough context clues to suss it out, but...
I agree on the dimwits, though. I can't watch movies like that, for just that reason.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Hello Robert, Well, of course one or two at need are not a problem. We all do that when we need to name a currently non-existent piece of machinery or some such. It’s just that sometimes people go overboard with it. I remember a friend giving me the first chapter of a story she was working on. For some reason she decided that in her world she had to use a different word for “hill”. She came up with something like “tarb”. Then she insisted on describing her characters travels and in doing so inserted “tarb” in something like every other sentence. He went up-tarb, and over-tarb, and aound-tarb, and I was going to start screaming! Simply put, if you feel the need to spice your story with alien terms make sure they are clearly understandable and do it sparingly! BTW, I should also give Carl a big thumbs-up for #6, using famous people’s names for descriptors. It is really also self-defeating, because 90-95% of those names will be unrecognizable in 10 to 15 years. Try this: sit down with a 20-something and watch a Mystery Science Theater 3000. Odds are the older viewer (me) will be laughing hysterically at some of the quips referring to famous rock stars and other celebrities. At the same time the 20-something will be sitting stone-faced, with no clue who these people were. Think about what that does to your story over time (or possibly to the demographics of your audience). On a more classical note, consider Dante. How many people who read (or are forced to read) The Inferno get anything out of it other than a neat horror show? You need a lexicon of 13th Century Florentine politics in order to get a true sense of what the books about.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
On famous people as descriptors; I think I did that once, when writing a first-person description. It was deliberate, because the character in question was designed by a genetic engineer who was looking at some promo photographs of the actor in question at the time, but...
On reflection that's a little too deep, and a little too obscure. I do have a bit of a problem with that. Obscure references, I mean.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
One more example: back in the late 80's there was a major re-issue of all the Beatles' albums. I was listening to NPR and a reporter they had ove in England was asked about it. He told this story: "I was in a cassette shop looking through albums, and next to me were two teen-aged women. One came across all of the re-released Beatles albums and turning to her friend said, "Oh look, Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings!" Made me feel old."
As far as I could see it really just emphasized how fleeting is fame.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
Man, you all covered my list, and then some. Well done! Angela - I love that list. And Carl, the mention of misusing words makes me think of The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A lot of my pet peeves have to do with style and stuff that usually makes proofreaders cringe:
1. bad punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. : I don't really appreciate instances where the author doesn't make any effort to demonstrate that he or she has a grasp of the English language, or just doesn't think I care enough as a reader to want a well-written story. I'm sure some just don't have the skills, but some are lazy, I believe. It's not cool and edgy to break the rules if you don't know them to begin with. It's been said so many times here, but it bears repeating.
2. Favorite words on repeat: As someone else said, I don't like often-repeated words, especially if they suck in telling the story.
3. Stream-of-consciousness or dream-poetry-as-novels: I don't really enjoy works that read as though they were written while the author was embarking on a bad acid trip (no offense to those who might have done this kind of exploring back in the day) or a stint in a mental institution. If it's gibberish because you wrote it from a dream, or you like to mess with your readers' heads, I can't and won't read it.
4. Unnatural dialogue:
"How are you today?"
"I am fine, thank you for asking."
"I am going to the store."
"Oh. Will you let me come?" Poke my eyes out with my red pen! If you say it aloud and it sounds weird, people probably don't speak like that.
5. "Imperfectly beautiful" characters: Beauty is subjective, so just describe your character and let me be the judge of whether I think he or she is beautiful. I'm a little burned out on beautiful, seemingly inhuman (or literally so) men with crooked grins and messy hair. All it took, I guess, was one to spoil the rest because now everyone's writing about these people.
Sorry if my post seems like a giant complaint, but I guess I needed to get some things off my chest that weren't mentioned (and some that were that I felt like repeating).
Carl, you start great threads!
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
Hey, this one was about complaints!
I avoid 1 and 2 at all costs. I still *make* mistakes, but they're mistakes to be weeded out, not gems to be cherished.
On 3, 4, and 5, I'm guilty of all three in one series. I did 3 for part of one scene where the POV character gets a concussion, so it seemed apropos.
In that same MS, I've got a character who speaks with perfect grammar at all times, but it's an intentional quirk. The other characters comment on it, telling him he's 'longwinded' and 'has a stainless steel rod up his butt'. The deliberately specific grammar is meant to be a characterization thing, and it does slip now and again when he's injured or otherwise not in his right mind.
For number 5, the POV character runs into someone with a succubus-like ability to look more exactly like what the person she's trying to seduce wants. She's very pretty, but all of the 'unearthly' is just smoke and mirrors.
But I'm still feeling sheepish about having three of yours in one MS.
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
1.) Romance novel descriptors in a non-romance novel. "Jet black hair" "raven" "fiery red" "golden" "flaxen" "tresses" "locks" to describe hair in a SF novel, f'rinstance. "Brilliant green" "Ice blue" to describe eyes. "Flecks of gold" in the irises. "Emerald" ANYTHING. "Porcelain" "ivory" "alabaster" skin. Unless the POV is a Disney princess describing another Disney princess, please, don't.
2.) Constant story hype without a discernable story. The author is so fond of being a story teller, they take forever to get around to the actual story. Lots of set-up along the lines of "For Carmendy Krogstadt, this day began like any other..." And then we find out that it cintinued like one and finally ended like one as well. Philosophical grandstanding with the same results, "Sometimes life turns on a dime, and all the things you thought you knew about your place in the big scheme of things are turned on their heads. Rory Bardolf was about to find out just how true that truism truly was..." Ach, please. I'm begging.
3.) No POV. I can tell there's a main character from the plot, but I read 50 pages in and I still have no clue who this guy is. We've barely been to visit his mind at all, but we have a couple times, so it's not fly-on-the-wall--and who in their right mind would write a whole novel as a fly on the wall? And throughout the book, the narrator is giving me all sorts of exposition seemingly at random. Nothing too long--never an info-dump--just a sentence or two of completely off-topic world building just cuz. Just pick a strong POV and you can tell me anything. But there's nothing you can do that will distract me from a weak POV.
4.) I know minimalism has been delt with already, but the minimalism that makes me particularly "sigh heavily" is the overly self-conscious I-shall-break-no-rules-of-fiction-writing mininalism. If you think of all the most popular books in the world, every one of them has a strong, vivid, relatable POV. The writing may be crap in all kinds of ways but they have a main character that sings to the reader regardless. That main character needs some room to become beloved. Trumped up, "no-error" writing won't cut it.
5.) This may have been mentioned but if so, it bears repeating: novels that read like screenplays. A close relative of #4. No senses other than sight in the description. No metaphors or similes EVER. There's an MC but when the really "cinematic" action takes place, the narrator spends the whole scene in medium and long shots. Oh, and #4 and #5 absolutely looooove dialogue. Any excuse to get two people talking and they take it. Make it stop! Oh, god, make it stop!
-Kevin
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
@Kevin: "Unless the POV is a Disney princess describing another Disney princess, please, don't."
:::ROFL!:::
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Carl!
Do you work? Do you sleep? You're always on here.
Me, I just got off the night shift. I check in with BC before I tune into the cached Rachel Maddow show. Then I fall asleep, sleep til noon, and have the afternoon to do whatever.
I've never been on Twitter. I'm not on Facebook. I've been in a chat room (Agent Quest) once in my life. When the discussion took up, Can a werewolf fall in love?, I bugged out. I've never gone back.
I know LOL and OMG and that's about it. What the hell does ROFL mean?
Here's my best guess: Right, oh fearless leader. (I'm a Rocky and Bullwinkle fan from way back)
Those were my formative years, Mad Magazine and the Wayback Machine. Oh, yeah, and Bonanza (I adored Little Joe). No wonder I'm a nutcase.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
ROFL = Roll on floor, laughing.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
Carl and Mimi - *SMH* Sorry, couldn't resist. And Mimi, that's code for *shaking my head* - I just learned this a few months ago. And I'm not old enough to claim I just don't follow the text lingo those darn kids use. Well, maybe I am...
Anyhoo, Robert, please do not despair. There are exceptions to every rule and probably exceptions to every complaint list. Right? Kevin, I especially enjoyed your numbers 1,2 and 3. And, like Carl, the Disney princess mention. Haha!
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
Thanks, Laura. Also worth remembering that for every person who doesn't like something 'taste' oriented, there's someone who does. For example, I'm really fond of colorful descriptive text. I agree that the really 'out there' combinations have been overdone, but I prefer the occasional 'jet', 'flaxen' or 'fire' to the prosaic 'brunette / blonde / redhead'.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
Robert - Of course. That's what I was trying to get across. This is all so subjective, and opinion-rich. Like so much else in the world of writing. It's a beautiful thing. And I'm quite certain that at some point, someone's going to nicely tell me to go fly a kite.
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
Hey Robert, Laura,
I think this is connected to what makes me "sigh heavily" about the so-called rules (hey Carl, another thread for you to start!). People tend to fixate on the most literal piece of any advice, focussing on the "letter" of the advice and not its "spirit," if you know what I mean. They do it when they're "following" the rules and they do it when they want to ignore them. And they especially do it when they get into an argument with a critic. I think it's a mistake to simply sum up all advice as "so subjective," because all that does is give our rampant egos the license to opt out of any criticism or advice that makes us uncomfortable. Sometimes it's the hardest advice for us to swollow that we most need to take. When "no one is right but me," art is gonna suffer (cf.: George Lucas).
As you say, Robert, the "occasional 'jet'" is perfectly fine, and may actually be the simplest, most accurate descriptor. My larger point though was to do with fetishizing a character's looks along these cliched romantic lines in a book that doesn't call for it.
I also find that these heavily romantic descriptors often muck up the POV of a book. I just started a book where the MC is running through a war zone and the narrator chooses this moment to tell us the man has "brilliant green eyes." What pov is that? Who's noticing pretty eye color with death whizzing past their ear, smoke in their eyes and bodies all around? Nobody.
I'm not trying to start a fight or anything here, just clarifying my point. And yeah, I hope you'll both forgive me, but this whole "it's all subjective!" thing is a major pet peeve of mine. I think it's far more instructive to presume all criticisms to have some validity, some kernal of truth to learn from, than to begin at "it's all just a matter of taste." Sure, some things are indeed a matter of taste. But as genre writers, we ignore taste at our own risk.
-Kevin
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
Kevin - Thanks for clarifying!
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
And on that note, I'm off to see a man about a kite. Thanks, Kevin. I guess what I meant, and shouldn't have been so all-encompassing about it, was that my list was my opinion. I didn't want Robert to feel slighted. I should probably stop worrying so much, though.
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
Kevin. I found myself agreeing with your original point. The girl, it seems, never just brushes her hair. She must brush out her 'auburn tresses' (usually with a 'practiced flick of her bone-handled hairbrush.') I love colorful description, but it seems so prepackaged sometimes. A cliched descriptor is just a lump in the gravy.
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Hi, folks - I'm going to jump in here because, well, it's my book Kevin is reading with the character with the green eyes. The funny thing is, I hadn't mentioned the color of his eyes in an earlier draft and had a couple of reviewers comment on how they had no idea what the main character looked like.
Anyway, I used more colorful descriptors especially for eye color for two of the characters because their eyes really do stand out (they're alien) and to, I hope, make a point later in the story arc.
The interesting thing, though, is that I don't read romance novels (never had), so I'm not familiar with the language normally used in those. I do read lots of sci fi and fantasy and have come across many, many colorful descriptors for people, places, objects, and so on. Personally, I think they add to the settings in the story and make the characters seem more real - when they are done well. I paint, make jewelry, and make tiles, so I have a tendency to think visually.
But, as Kevin said, I do agree (and have mentioned this in other threads) that there are kernels of value in (most) criticisms/reviews (sorry, some are just way off the mark - makes you wonder if they read the same work!).
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
I should clarify that not all lumps are bad. Gravy that's too homogenous, that can be off-putting as well. The kind of lumps I'm talking about are the ones where there's a pellet of unmixed, dry flour still intact. Drives me crazy.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
How did I not find this thread before! My discussion scanning skills have weakened. I blame the long hours working on my novel. (I know, I'm supposed to be doing that.)
Most of what has been listed makes me sigh as well, but I have noted that most people commented concerning descriptors. I like strong words that hit the mark. If I read "jet," then I assume hair that is shiny and healthy. If I read "black," then it could be healthy, or look like a greasy birds nest. If I read "auburn," then I get the vision of hair the color of good mahogany, where as "red" evokes the vision of that brilliant orange color most people are familiar with. Same with eyes, "brilliant green" could be taken differently than "emerald" since there are so many shades of green. Are they a little bit more yellow? How about more blue? "Emerald" tells me what kind of green. Since I used to be an art major, I think of color differently, so I like to use words that capture that. I try not to get carried away though, but sometimes cerulean or vermillion or lapis lazuli might sneak in.
The thing that makes me sigh about descriptors is that people talk about hair and eye color, but what about the rest of them? How are they built? Tall and lanky, or stout with rippling muscle from throwing grain all day. What does the texture of their skin look like? Smooth as flawless glass, or rough and cracked from working fields all day in the hot sun. How does the character walk? When they talk, do they have quirks like nibbling on their lip or twisting their hair? These things can really round out characters and most writers ignore them.
Kevin is right about not fetishizing looks. I have one character I'm guilty of fetishizing her looks, but only when in a certain character's perspective. When my MC looks in the mirror she sees blonde hair that is so pale it's almost white, blue eyes like her daddy's, and white skin in some serious need of sunlight. When her friend sees her he sees hair like untainted moonlight, blue eyes like summer seas, skin so perfect and pure angels would weep to have it. See, perspective is everything.
The use of suddenly. As a general rule, I try not to use too many words ending in the suffix -ly. It can weaken writing.
Foreign words or phrases can be a huge turn off for me. I have maybe one or two, but I usually avoid them entirely. If I use them, I tell the reader what it means so as not to destroy the flow of text.
The dreaded info dump. As a stickler for pacing, this is one of the worse killers of good pacing. Characters suffering from stupid character syndrome is a close second.
Writers who don't use a dictionary or thesaurus properly should be taken out behind the shed and shot. Those are two of the most important tools a writer should have. Using them properly takes time and practice. If you can't use the word in a casual sentence when speaking with a friend or family member, don't use it.
Middle distance? Really? The first time would have got me. What in HFIL is the "middle distance?" Is it the space in between me and the staring character before I run up and poke them in their unblinking eyes?
Okay, I think this is where I should stop before I make any one who reads this sigh. Like Carl, I should probably stop monitoring BC so much. Novel, here I come!
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
Okay, I just gotta ask. Does it bother anyone else when a book's first sentence reads like this: "(Main character's full name) does (anything, but especially something indicative of the given book's genre)?" I'm sorry, but to my ear, it fairly SCREAMS amateur hour. It feels like meeting a politician, "Hi there, my name's Rodney Culpepper and I want to be your congressman!" It's no way to win me over.
Also, as I gain sophistication in the methods and the lingo of the writing game, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me that it demolishes any POV other than omni. If the book is supposed to be in close 3rd, as most genre books are, it's a total cheat.
And what's the point, anyway? Has any reader in the history of readers ever thought as they read, "Hrm, nice prose, intriguing story, but I sure wish I knew the main character's LAST NAME?"
I dunno. I find it very difficult to read past such a first sentence. Am I alone in this?
-Kevin
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
I don't find it that offputting. Its... stock. Not inspired. But it does the job.
The only time I think it's better than 'meh' is when the main character's full name is important somehow.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
Re: Kevin: Heh! You sound like C.S. Lewis in On Criticism, when he groans over (paraphrased from memory) ". . . the dullest boy in the class, who opens every essay he writes on the life of a historical figure with the sentence 'John X was born in the year ____.' " I agree with Robert above that it's a very stock way of opening a story; it certainly isn't going to set the world on fire. (But there is a reason, I think, most writers give you a first and last name ASAP: to get it out of the way so that they can spend the rest of the story referring to their character by first or last name only.)
But you've given me an idea, Kevin: Let's all have some fun with this and try our hands at crafting the worst opening sentence of a genre novel (according to your model) that we can think of. Here’s mine:
—MI-6 agent Dirk Kirkson took one last bitter drag of his acrid cigarette and flicked the smoldering stub, cart-wheeling sparks, off the hairless pot belly of the fetishistically-depilatoried obese KGB agent confronting him in thigh-high Cossack boots and a ball-hugging, black-and-red, hammer-and-sickle Speedo.
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
Hey Carl,
Isn't it odd though, that something so "stock," as you say, is nonetheless perfectly acceptable to a community otherwise so alergic to cliche? The reason you offer, that the writer wants to give you the full name asap, still doesn't make sense to me, because I really don't need to have a character's full name to enjoy a story. Do you? Do most readers? Is this something I should keep in mind? People really want the MC's name asap? I'm not trying to be rude, or push an agenda here. I really don't know. Seems to me if the name is really that important there are scores of more elegant, seamless ways to go about bringing it up.
I'm really curious about this. I mean, I got the Red Thumb of Doom just for sharing my opinion that it's a lame opening. People don't tend to drop those lightly. So I must have struck a nerve or something. And it's funny, because this formula in 1st person (i.e.: "Hi, my name is Felix Montague and I'm a astrophysicist") is kinda the laughing stock of narrative intro's (there's even a thread about it).
As for your opening, I think I read that in a John Ringo novel. )
--Colleen Fomeyer waltzed straight into her house one beautiful sunny day in the first third of September, when suddenly and without warning, in the middle of her living room, there appeared a hole. I don't mean just any kind of a hole, like a hole in the floor due to water damage, or a hole in the wall from moving that impossible sofa last spring, but a hole in the very fabric of existence, or so it seemed. A stark circle of jet black nothingness hanging at about thigh level about two feet in front of the chiffarobe.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
This one's for you, Kevin!
...........................
John Smith stalked right off the page and out of the narrative when he realized Haggerty had done it to him again: the sonofabitch had given both his Christian name and surname; his profession (clown-shoed sparkler holder at children's parties) and the dullest-of-dull police-blotter descriptions: 2' 5" tall, indigo eyes, green hair, foot-long finely-haired bat ears and bulbous blue-veined, red ginny nose. Since he knew Haggerty was a much better writer than that he understood the guy was f*#cking with him again, and that was something up with which he would not put.
............................................
You make a very good point. But think of it this way: (and this is by no means intended as an exhaustive or otherwise comprehensive, super-intelligent reply to your question; it’s three in the morning and I’m very tired) the writing of narrative comes with many built-in limitations: 1st-person POV can come across as comically narcissistic and self-dramatizing, 3rd-person omniscient can be very corny, the evocation of music is all but impossible, you can’t have two or more characters talking at the same time, etc. I think that most writers hope that the first time they give the reader their protagonist’s name that sentence flies by as quickly as, say, the word “said” does as a speech tag—all but invisible. In other words: “Hank Conroy rose and slipped on shirt, jeans and shoes and blah-blah-blah. He blah-blah-blah. The phone rang. Conroy turned . . .” You see what happened there? Instead of all pronouns, all the time: he/him, she/her, I’ve got a last (or first) name to work with now. (And the fact that the writer refers to their character by first or last name also clues you in to story tone and communicates something about how the writer hopes you’ll identify with the character.) I know you know this; you’re saying—if I understand you correctly—why does it have to be the template for so many story openings. (“Call me Ishmael.” “Samuel Spade’s jaw was long and bony . . .” “On those cloudy days, Robert Neville was never sure when sunset came, and sometimes they were in the streets before he could get back.” Bonus points if you can identify all three novels.) Short Answer: Because it works. It’s fast, efficient, all but invisible (well, not to you—heh!) and an established literary tradition. (Boy, is that last reason ever a lame excuse, eh?) Anyone else got a better answer for Kevin? I can’t defend the indefensible.
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
Hey Carl,
Well, thanks for reminding me of at least three examples of the name gambit (I was trying to think of one) in major works.
Of course, I know "Call me Ishmael," but it doesn't strictly count, a.) because Melville is a freakin' god and can do no wrong (if we mere mortals don't appreciate Moby Dick, that's on us) and b.) it's not the protagonist's actual name, so it counts as character development, and symbolism.
The opening of the Maltese Falcon surely counts, but golly, that's gotta be the most cheeseball opening in all of detective fiction with the page long description of Spade's face (and what a cooky goateed face it is! Would have been priceless to see Bogart with a little beard though).
And then there's I am Legend and I'm, eh, okay--now I'm reminded of countless Twilight Zone episodes that employ the same stratagem (when is somebody gonna do a comedy sketch with a Rod Serling impersonator trapped in a land of sparkling vampires?). Probably Harlen Ellison, too. In fact, it has a kind of journalistic ring to it. A sort of no nonsense, just the facts ma'am minimalism, that is certainly the rage these days. Thanks for giving the phenom some context. At least now I can imagine some stories for which it could work.
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 608
|
Right and right again on Melville; you're more wide-awake and functional than I am at this ungodly hour of the morning. That doesn't count. (Reminds me of that classic Richard Dawson Match-Game episode they're rebroadcasting via "teh internets" today: Dawson: "Give me a popular breed of lovable dog." Contestant: "Kitten!" Dawson: "Show me . . . 'kitten-dog'! " Board sound-effect: ANNNKK!)
Nice work on identifying all three novel opening sentences; you get the bonus points. Here they are, heh!
Thanks for the laugh there re: your last para.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@Kevin / Carl - I think you guys answered Kevin's question, but you missed it because of a mistaken assumption. Carl summed it up best when he said "Short Answer: Because it works." The reason you guys are so confused is Kevin's "a community otherwise so alergic to cliche".
Thinking that storytellers are allergic to cliche is like thinking that you're allergic to carbohydrates. They're a basic building block of story. It's not that we're allergic to them. It's that we crave skillful execution of them.
To carry the food analogy a little further, a story of nothing but mailed in cliches is like a meal made up of glucose syrup, protein powder, canola oil and vitamin tablets. Would they keep you alive? Yep. Would you be forcing yourself on every bite? Equally yep.
A good story is one where a skilled author has taken variations on those cliches (call it powdered starch, lean meat, and... we'll leave the canola oil in there) and mixed them in a pleasing combination (like sweet & sour chicken). A great story is where someone has taken those same ingredients, maybe mixed in something you wouldn't expect (tabasco? ice? abalone broth?) and formed something so fantastic you don't even notice the cliches.
Yes, there are times when an author manages to find something that isn't cliche. Usually, that's because it's incredibly difficult to make it work, but on rare occasions it's something truly new. If the author has even a whiff of greatness about them, and they're on top of their game, they can use that original ingredient in combination with other tried and true ones to make a final product that *starts* new cliches, as others try to emulate them.
Unfortunately, far too often what happens is that the author can't make the new or the difficult work, and they go down in flames. I'll salute their efforts, but I'm certainly not going to spend my free time reading.
And then, on rare occasions, an author puts together a 'stunt book', where they're using nothing but non-cliches. Even if an author is Made of Win, what comes out is something that is so outre that only a hardcore novelty addict can actually enjoy reading it.
In the end, if we're seeking publication, we have to realize that we're entertainers, and entertainment is about skillful execution of the familiar more than introduction of real novelty. As artists, we feel a vocation to bring novelty into our work, but if it's not going to be rejected, and therefore useless, it needs to be presented in a fashion that allows our audience to accept it without, to return to the food metaphor, spitting it out and asking for their money back.
Also, for what it's worth, I like Ringo. But then, it's well known I'm enamoured of the flavour of the Leonidas story.
btw - sorry if this is less than completely coherent. I'm fighting a migraine *and* watching two little kids at the moment, so holding a thought for any length of time is a challenge.
|
|
|
|
Putting a silencer on a revolver. Silencers don't work on revolvers.
Even fiction needs truth to lend an air of believability. I once saw a movie (Videodrome) that blended James Woods' psychotic images with the real scenes to the point where he could no longer tell if he was experiencing reality or just imagining something. Neither could the viewer. That made the movie memorable but the illusion would have been broken if our hero had screwed a silencer onto a revolver and silently fired it. Dream!
Common misunderstandings shared by writer & readers alike are easy to ignore, even quite useful at times. But any mistake that intrudes on the sense of believability required to carry the story is not acceptable. If the reader is snapped out of your reverie thinking the author doesn't know what they are writing about you may have ruined the story for them. (Note: that last sentence was meant to annoy POV fetishists
All I ask of any writer is to write the truth where it cannot or should not be avoided.
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
I would mention the opening paragraph of The Glass Key which gives us Ned Beaumont's name in full, mostly because there is no point in the narrative where Hammett does NOT call Ned Beaumont, Ned Beaumont. This, of course, is all part of a strategy of keeping the protagonist at arms length from the reader, refusing to give us even a glance into his psyche or motivations (even to the extent that when he futilely attempts to cut his own throat with an old razor blade, the obligatory emotional set-up for the act is simply elided.) Did it work? Hell, yes. Partly because Hammett was so consistent. With admirable discipline, he takes us through the entire novel without ever giving us more insight into the character than we can glean from his actions.
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 467
|
GD – I didn't know that. So far, no one in any of my writing has ever used a gun, but I'll keep that in mind. I remember Chandler doing a nice bit on silencers, can't remember which book off the top of my head, where Marlowe is held at gunpoint by a sadist with a silencer. He managed to make a discussion on the niceties of hand-packing a silencer into something truly chilling.
|
|
|
|