# Defining What A Professional Author's Writing Looks Like (1 Viewer)



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 2, 2022)

I spent over a year honing all the basic skills for crafting stories and now I'm doing the same for scenes ... and after that chapters. But there was always one thing that alluded me. I read books written by professional writers and 'felt' something I wasn't feeling from either my own stuff or others. It was an indefinable quality and all I could ever manage was 'It's still not there' or 'I'm still missing something'. But what was that 'something'?

If I could just define it then I could approach it in the same way I approach everything else: break it down into its constituent parts and deal with one at a time. Well, I finally have my list of pointers, most of which I've already inadvertently learned through that year of honing my craft. This just allows me to step back and look at the broader implications as a set of pointers.

It doesn't matter what you write or what you read, these elements appear in ALL stories, from flash to epic, from biography to magic realism, from general fiction to epic fantasy, with *ONE* exception. This is specifically about the prose themselves and what makes them compelling and often mesmerising:

edit: Just to be clear, those words across are alternatives. The list is actually a list of seven words.

Smooth/flow
clean/clarity
Rhythmic/musical/*poetic*
Specificity
Consistent
Authentic/honest/sincere/candid
Authoritative/confident


I'm looking forward to the year ahead and honing these elements.


----------



## KatPC (Aug 2, 2022)

Hi AZ,

I don't think you can define a professional author, everyone is different and their processes are too. I think you can safely say that professional authors share many traits but I view this as practices they all have.

To your 'something.' 

There was an interview on Radio 4 a few years back on the author Haruki Murakami, it is a great listen. He doesn't like to speak much so his 'voice' is through a translator but he says that he would write stories and then sprinkle 'magic.' I read a lot of his books and though I still cannot figure exactly how he does it, I have caught glimpses of his magic.

I think a lot of people may find his stories boring because his pacing is slow and he is very descriptive, but he is able to mix head voice to narrative, to describing the world, to dialogue at ease. It is all so effortless that you don't realise you are reading. I class this as great writing, not necessarily clean cut and specific, but the ability to mold a picture for the reader with subtly. The genius in that is that it feels organic, and isn't pressed or forced, because you will know it shows.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 2, 2022)

KatPC said:


> Hi AZ,
> 
> I don't think you can define a professional author, everyone is different and their processes are too. I think you can safely say that professional authors share many traits but I view this as practices they all have.
> 
> ...


I would bet a kidney that everything I've said there is part of his style.  I haven't seen an author yet that doesn't demonstrate those traits. I've just had a quick look at the opening page to After Dark and it has:

Smooth/clean/clear
rhythmic/musical/*poetic*
Authoritative/confident

If I continue reading I just know I'll come across the other traits:

Authentic/honest/sincere/candid
Specific


----------



## C.K.Johnson (Aug 2, 2022)

Professional simply means that’s how one earns a living. It doesn’t mean that person is good at what they do or talented or wealthy.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 2, 2022)

Kent, are you saying the one exception to consistent elements you have seen in all stories is "poetic" and stories need to include this to be "compelling and often mesmerising"?

If yes, I'm not sure why you would believe a compelling story needs to be poetic.

However, I read your recent poem and thought it was brilliant.  Are you sure you're not confusing two artforms?


----------



## angelmilk (Aug 2, 2022)

I think it's a matter of perception. We are our very worst critics and we always think there's something missing with our bodies of work that can always be found in other people's materials. I've read many books in my life from a variety of different types of writers of many different types of genres out there, and they all have their own very unique voices. Rowling's sentence structures will never be like Rimbaud's proses. Byrne writes about things that probably wouldn't concern Salinger. You get the idea.

I've yet to read your work, and I will in a minute after I post this, but I also think that while its good to expose yourself to different writing styles, to also honor your own style as well. I know I'll also feel like something is missing in MY stories that I could find in your stories, but that's the beauty of it all, I think.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 2, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> It doesn't matter what you write or what you read, these elements appear in ALL stories, from flash to epic, from biography to magic realism, from general fiction to epic fantasy, with *ONE* exception. This is specifically about the prose themselves and what makes them compelling and often mesmerising:
> 
> Smooth/clean/clear
> rhythmic/musical/*poetic*
> ...


I would venture to say that this could be whittled down to only Authentic/honest/sincere/candid. When you do that, the other four points/elements you listed spring forth naturally.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 2, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Kent, are you saying the one exception to consistent elements you have seen in all stories is "poetic" and stories need to include this to be "compelling and often mesmerising"?
> 
> If yes, I'm not sure why you would believe a compelling story needs to be poetic.
> 
> However, I read your recent poem and thought it was brilliant.  Are you sure you're not confusing two artforms?


No, with one exception being poetic. I've seen all the other elements in everything I've ever listened to or read, but poetic only appears in some.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 2, 2022)

Selorian said:


> I would venture to say that this could be whittled down to only Authentic/honest/sincere/candid. When you do that, the other four points/elements you listed spring forth naturally.


I can't agree with that at all. All other elements spring from the craft and draw the reader through, while these are what the reader feels while being drawn through. They're the shit in the sand, the sewage in the stream, the cruelty in honesty. These can't be taught because they're already inherent in every person. It's just having the guts to put them out their.


----------



## Explosia (Aug 2, 2022)

For those authors who are traditionally published and write as their profession, I wouldn't discredit the effectiveness of copy editing and proofreading. Every writer needs at least one other pair of eyes to help polish their work. And even a copy editor still needs a copy editor at times.

Apart from that, though, confidence, I think, is probably a solid common factor, and confidence comes from practice.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 2, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I can't agree with that at all. All other elements spring from the craft and draw the reader through, while these are what the reader feels while being drawn through. They're the shit in the sand, the sewage in the stream, the cruelty in honesty. These can't be taught because they're already inherent in every person. It's just having the guts to put them out their.


Then I respect that. That is the beauty of it, it can be approached from a myriad of ways to reach the same destination. I'm glad you found the path that works for you.


----------



## JBF (Aug 3, 2022)

Selorian said:


> I would venture to say that this could be whittled down to only Authentic/honest/sincere/candid. When you do that, the other four points/elements you listed spring forth naturally.



Tell a truth.  Wrap it in narrative voice.  Pretty it up if you can and the story demands it.  

But tell a truth.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

JBF said:


> Tell a truth.  Wrap it in narrative voice.  Pretty it up if you can and the story demands it.
> 
> But tell a truth.


Basically, yeah but not quite so flippantly. 

You can't get anyone to read a great story that's badly written but you can get people to read an average story written well. And that writing, that flow, can be identified. You don't just throw words down when you write and neither does bdcharles. I don't need to be told that. I can see it and feel it. Great care is taken when it comes to everything I've listed. Maybe a little alliteration, internal alliteration or assonance. Maybe a mix of Anglo Saxon and Latin is found throughout, used to great effect. Maybe an understanding of the physical and fluid nature of words is clearly on display. Whether done by instinct (subconsciously) or not, both you and bdcharles have 'got it'. I know bdcharles works extremely hard on it, and something tells me, regardless of how flippantly you often sound, you do to.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 3, 2022)

C.K.Johnson said:


> Professional simply means that’s how one earns a living. It doesn’t mean that person is good at what they do or talented or wealthy.


This. If you can make a living as a writer, you're a professional writer.

I think what you're talking about is the skill of writing, not whether or not you're a professional.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> This. If you can make a living as a writer, you're a professional writer.
> 
> I think what you're talking about is the skill of writing, not whether or not you're a professional.


What sets a professional writer from an amateur is the list I've provided. If you write with all those elements in place, you have more chance of becoming a professional writer. You're putting the cart before the horse. These people are professional writers because they showed these traits. They didn't become professional writers and then decide to incorporate all these traits. As I've said many many times on this forum, the only three readers you should be concerned about (apart from yourself) is the editor, the publisher and the agent. Keeping them reading is the most import part of become traditionally published, unless you're just happy to self publish of course. But I'm talking about professional writers here who are traditionally published.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> What sets a professional writer from an amateur is the list I've provided.


Your list is not the end all and be all. Wrangler in that ego of yours.

In fact, we have a few famous authors who's work does not align with your list or anyone's list of good writing. But, they are professionals who are well-paid and have accomplished far more than the vast majority of writers on Earth.



Kent_Jacobs said:


> If you write with all those elements in place, you have more chance of becoming a professional writer. You're putting the cart before the horse. These people are professional writers because they showed these traits. They didn't become professional writers and then decide to incorporate all these traits. As I've said many many times on this forum, the only three readers you should be concerned about (apart from yourself) is the editor, the publisher and the agent. Keeping them reading is the most import part of become traditionally published, unless you're just happy to self publish of course. But I'm talking about professional writers here who are traditionally published.


Nonsense. Crappy writers have made a living writing for decades. Your list is YOUR opinion, nothing more.

Be they self-published or traditionally published, if they are able to make a living writing, they're professional writers.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> Your list is not the end all and be all.* Wrangler in that ego of yours.*
> 
> In fact, we have a few famous authors who's work does not align with your list or anyone's list of good writing. But, they are professionals who are well-paid and have accomplished far more than the vast majority of writers on Earth.
> 
> ...


Why the personal attack? Are you that weak that you can't handle someone with a different opinion? That couldn't be further from the truth. Understanding something you don't understand isn't ego.

But you see, I've responded to your insult so I'm the 'bad guy'.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Why the personal attack? Are you that weak that you can't handle someone with a different opinion? That couldn't be further from the truth. Understanding something you don't understand isn't ego.


That's not an attack, it's advice.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> What sets a professional writer from an amateur is the list I've provided.


You've not presented your list as opinion. You've presented it as fact. I've also never heard or read anyone (professional writers included) support your opinion list as the true definition of professional writer.

Support your stance with more than another assertion.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> That's not an attack, it's advice.
> 
> You've not presented your list as opinion. You've presented it as fact. I've also never heard or read anyone (professional writers included) support your opinion list as the true definition of professional writer.
> 
> Support your stance with more than another assertion.


It's advice ... Yeah, of course. That list is 'fact'. You'll find everything I've mentioned there in most traditionally published writing. There are exceptions of course but we don't get anywhere muddying the water with exceptions. I haven't personally read or listened to a book that doesn't have those traits. Any that don't tend to bore me and I stop reading. I recently started reading Anthony Piers, and whilst he possessed a lot of the traits I've mentioned, he certainly didn't possess them all. Looking back, I think it was the lack of Authentic/honest/sincere/candid. He seemed to lean into tropes rather than dig up his soul for the reader. It didn't feel genuine because of that.


----------



## JBF (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Whether done by instinct (subconsciously) or not, both you and bdcharles have 'got it'. I know bdcharles works extremely hard on it, and something tells me, regardless of how flippantly you often sound, you do to.



Who can say for certain?  None knows for a certainty what passes in the minds of typing raccoons.

If I could adequately put the process in words, I imagine it would be a good deal less complicated than it might appear.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> It's advice ... Yeah, of course. That list is 'fact'. You'll find everything I've mentioned there in most traditionally published writing. There are exceptions of course but we don't get anywhere muddying the water with exceptions. I haven't personally read or listened to a book that doesn't have those traits. Any that don't tend to bore me and I stop reading. I recently started reading Anthony Piers, and whilst he possessed a lot of the traits I've mentioned, he certainly didn't possess them all. Looking back, I think it was the lack of Authentic/honest/sincere/candid. He seemed to lean into tropes rather than dig up his soul for the reader. It didn't feel genuine because of that.


Do you understand that everything you've list is opinion?



Kent_Jacobs said:


> Smooth/clean/clear
> rhythmic/musical/*poetic*
> Authoritative/confident
> Authentic/honest/sincere/candid
> Specific


All of the above is how YOU interpret what you've read. None of this is fact. It's all subjective opinion. If you've ever read a review, you'll see a wide array of opinions. Some agree and some don't, but bottom line is all reviews are opinions. Your list is all your personal opinion.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> Do you understand that everything you've list is opinion?
> 
> 
> All of the above is how YOU interpret what you've read. None of this is fact. It's all subjective opinion.


It really isn't. It's there in all the traditionally published authors I've read (to completion). It underpins compelling prose, which is what I'm talking about. Take any good author and examine their prose and you'll find those traits. The obvious authors would be people like Cormac McCarthy or Ray Bradbury because they lean more obviously towards some, particular traits like rhythmic/musical/*poetic *but you'll find it in all works, just to a lesser or greater degree.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> What sets a professional writer from an amateur is the list I've provided. If you write with all those elements in place, you have more chance of becoming a professional writer. You're putting the cart before the horse. These people are professional writers because they showed these traits. They didn't become professional writers and then decide to incorporate all these traits. *As I've said many many times on this forum, the only three readers you should be concerned about (apart from yourself) is the editor, the publisher and the agent.* Keeping them reading is the most import part of become traditionally published, unless you're just happy to self publish of course. But I'm talking about professional writers here who are traditionally published.





Kent_Jacobs said:


> It's advice ... Yeah, of course. That list is 'fact'. You'll find everything I've mentioned there in most traditionally published writing. There are exceptions of course but we don't get anywhere muddying the water with exceptions. I haven't personally read or listened to a book that doesn't have those traits. Any that don't tend to bore me and I stop reading. I recently started reading Anthony Piers, and whilst he possessed a lot of the traits I've mentioned, he certainly didn't possess them all. Looking back, I think it was the lack of Authentic/honest/sincere/candid. *He seemed to lean into tropes rather than dig up his soul for the reader.* It didn't feel genuine because of that.


For the most part, these two statements are in contrast. You can pour your heart and soul into a book, but if it doesn't meet the requirements of what the publisher is looking for at the time they read it, it doesn't matter. They are in it to make money and that means looking for work that has the trends and tropes readers are/will be willing to shell out their dollars for. If a writer can do that, their chances of being picked up by a traditional publisher will sky rocket. And that is a fact.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Selorian said:


> For the most part, these two statements are in contrast. You can pour your heart and soul into a book, but if it doesn't meet the requirements of what the publisher is looking for at the time they read it, it doesn't matter. They are in it to make money and that means looking for work that has the trends and tropes readers are/will be willing to shell out their dollars for. If a writer can do that, their chances of being picked up by a traditional publisher will sky rocket. And that is a fact.


Let me exaggerate a point to express one: If your writing is crap, no trend is going to get you published. In order for anyone of importance to actually read your story to see if it's worth publishing in the first place, they have to be compelled to do so. And that comes down to 'readability'. If the prose draw them on, THEN they'll find out whether your story is good or whether it fits in with current trends. If it reads badly, forget about it.

Whether you follow trends or set trends, both require someone to read your work in order to find out which it is.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> It really isn't. It's there in all the traditionally published authors I've read (to completion). It underpins compelling prose, which is what I'm talking about. Take any good author and examine their prose and you'll find those traits. The obvious authors would be people like Cormac McCarthy or Ray Bradbury because they lean more obviously towards some, particular traits like rhythmic/musical/*poetic *but you'll find it in all works, just to a lesser or greater degree.


This is why I suggested you wrangle in your ego. Your opinion is not fact. Whether something is rhythmic or poetic or whatever, is up to the person viewing it. Your entire stance is opinion that you continually push as subjective fact. It's not. Have enough humility to consider the idea that your viewpoint is not the end all be all.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Let me exaggerate a point to express one: If your writing is crap, no trend is going to get you published. In order for anyone of importance to actually read your story to see if it's worth publishing in the first place, they have to be compelled to do so. And that comes down to 'readability'. If the prose draw them on, THEN they'll find out whether your story is good or whether it fits in with current trends. If it reads badly, forget about it.
> 
> Whether you follow trends or set trends, both require someone to read your work in order to find out which it is.


And nowhere in there did you include putting your soul into it, which is my point. If your writing is good (maybe I should have stated that to avoid confusion but I thought it was a given) and you write what a publisher is looking for, then you don't have to pour your soul into it to get published.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> This is why I suggested you wrangle in your ego. Your opinion is not fact. Whether something is rhythmic or poetic or whatever, is up to the person viewing it. Your entire stance is opinion that you continually push as subjective fact. It's not. Have enough humility to consider the idea that your viewpoint is not the end all be all.


It's not ego. It's observation. There's absolutely nothing contentious there. It's really basic stuff. I'm not going to rein in 'reality' just because someone hasn't taken the years to 'observe' and 'analyse'. Read a book or two on style to get most of what I've said from it. Perhaps start with alliteration, internal alliteration or assonance, for a general and easy fix for bumpy prose. Perhaps check out the way Anglo Saxon and Latin words can be used to create a swell and flow, and therefore mood and tone. Perhaps look at the connective tissue between action and description to see if cutting it back or making it clean can give your writing more oomph. There are so many things in the first two list of words alone.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 3, 2022)

First off:  Kent, @Tettsuo is correct.  You are expressing your opinion, not facts.  And to suggest that "*Understanding something you don't understand* isn't ego," is misguided.  When you think your opinions are facts, it's suspect.  When people don't agree with your opinion, it's not that they "don't understand", they simply don't agree.

Secondly:  You're all over the place with what you are trying to say.  Your understanding of "professional" and "amateur" is not correct.  You are using the wrong words here.  Perhaps you use them metaphorically?

Thirdly:  @JBF doesn't have to "work extremely hard on it." He's a *natural talent*.  Yes many of us are in awe, but no matter how hard we try, we can't emulate it. It's authentic.  He was born with it and it was nurtured.  And that's my _opinion_.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Selorian said:


> And nowhere in there did you include putting your soul into it, which is my point. If your writing is good (maybe I should have stated that to avoid confusion but I thought it was a given) and you write what a publisher is looking for, then you don't have to pour your soul into it to get published.


I was planning on breaking that list down into definitions at some point. What I mean by Authentic/honest/sincere/candid is that whenever something is unpacked, regardless of genre, the good writer isn't afraid of baring his soul. He/she will unpack it with confidence, possible backlash be damned. I've written it in order of importance but now I look at it, one should be placed higher, at least for readability and engagement. 

*These keep people reading:*
Smooth/clean/clear
rhythmic/musical/*poetic* (the exception to the norm)
Specific

*This becomes clear if all the above is done well:*
Authoritative/confident

*These are discovered as you are lead through the story by all the above:*
Authentic/honest/sincere/candid


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> First off:  Kent, @Tettsuo is correct.  You are expressing your opinion, not facts.  And to suggest that "*Understanding something you don't understand* isn't ego," is misguided.  When you think your opinions are facts, it's suspect.  When people don't agree with your opinion, it's not that they "don't understand", they simply don't agree.
> 
> Secondly:  You're all over the place with what you are trying to say.  Your understanding of "professional" and "amateur" is not correct.  You are using the wrong words here.  Perhaps you use them metaphorically?
> 
> Thirdly:  @JBF doesn't have to "work extremely hard on it." He's a *natural talent*.  Yes many of us are in awe, but no matter how hard we try we can't emulate it. It's authentic.  He was born with it and it was nurtured.  And that's my _opinion_.


Smooth/clean/clear (you'll find this advice on literally every writing video at some point)
rhythmic/musical/*poetic *(You'll find this advice in every good book on style)
Authoritative/confident (this is a result of all the above)
Authentic/honest/sincere/candid (this is uttered regularly by thousands of published authors)

It's not an opinion. My paragraph splitting thread WAS an opinion.


----------



## JBF (Aug 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Thirdly:  doesn't have to "work extremely hard on it." He's a *natural talent*.  Yes many of us are in awe, but no matter how hard we try we can't emulate it. It's authentic.  He was born with it and it was nurtured.  And that's my _opinion_.



I’m slightly unsettled at being called either ‘natural’ or ‘talented’…but I do appreciate the sentiment all the same.

And the lax security around the garbage cans.  That’s pretty awesome, too.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

LOL. My ability to create heated debate has got to be legendary at this point. But then again ...

Authentic/honest/sincere/candid


----------



## Taylor (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Smooth/clean/clear (you'll find this advice on literally every writing video at some point)
> rhythmic/musical/*poetic *(You'll find this advice in every good book on style)
> Authoritative/confident (this is a result of all the above)
> Authentic/honest/sincere/candid (this is uttered regularly by thousands of published authors)
> ...



Advice is not fact.  If I advise you to do something that's my opinion of what you should do.

All of these things may indicate good writing (other than poetic) but my ability to assess their presence and yours will be different. It's subjective.  To give you an example, Olympic events are won by scores.   Some are based on time, like downhill skiing.  There is a definitive winner. You could describe that as factual.   But with other sports like figure skating, there are judges.  And they don't all judge it the same.  It's based on their opinion.

Generally speaking, I agree with what you are saying, but it's just that some of the terms you are using to argue your opinion aren't quite right.  For example, being self-published or traditionally published has nothing to do with being a professional author.  There are self-published authors who are making six-figure incomes and that means they are professional authors.

I think you are trying to define some good principles of writing in hopes to master them.  That's admirable!  But no matter how hard one tries to do these things, there are some writers who do it and don't even think about it.  It's just a creative talent.  So break it out in parts and define it if you wish, but if you've got what it takes you should let it flow naturally.  That's my opinion.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Advice is not fact.  If I advise you to do something that's my opinion of what you should do.
> 
> All of these things may indicate good writing (other than poetic) but my ability to assess their presence and yours will be different. It's subjective.  To give you an example, Olympic events are won by scores.   Some are based on time, like downhill skiing.  There is a definitive winner. You could describe that as factual.   But with other sports like figure skating, there are judges.  And they don't all judge it the same.  It's based on their opinion.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree. That's not the point here though. This is a writing forum where people come to learn to write. I'm not talking to established or competent writers here, I'm talking to beginners and 'some' intermediates. Anything that can help aim them in the right direction can only help their development ... right?

Something else I want to point out that you said earlier about JBF. I've differentiated between voice and style in another thread. As far as voice is concerned (those angles and unique takes only he can produce), I agree, no one else could emulate them. They're his and will forever be his. As far as style goes though, most competent writers could emulate his style given enough time and patience. Stephen King himself has emulated many many different authors, and states it out loud and proud. JBF himself is influenced heavily by Cormac McCarthy. You can see it clearly in his prose.

So, yes, some people do have a natural ability but you'll find, regardless, that the things on my list are present. It's just that they don't have to think about it. I do ... and it wouldn't hurt if others did too.

edit: I can die a happy man now. I've got an 'who loves you baby' badge. I'd like to thank my mother, my father and my ex girlfriend. Without you, none of this would have been possible. Now ... where's my lace handkerchief? I've got some dabbing to do!


----------



## Selorian (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I was planning on breaking that list down into definitions at some point. *What I mean by Authentic/honest/sincere/candid is that whenever something is unpacked, regardless of genre, the good writer isn't afraid of baring his soul. He/she will unpack it with confidence, possible backlash be damned.* I've written it in order of importance but now I look at it, one should be placed higher, at least for readability and engagement.
> 
> *These keep people reading:*
> Smooth/clean/clear
> ...


On a basic level, I don't disagree with that. But, I'll point you to my previous replies...


Selorian said:


> And nowhere in there did you include putting your soul into it, which is my point. *If your writing is good (maybe I should have stated that to avoid confusion but I thought it was a given) and you write what a publisher is looking for, then you don't have to pour your soul into it to get published.*





Selorian said:


> For the most part, these two statements are in contrast. *You can pour your heart and soul into a book, but if it doesn't meet the requirements of what the publisher is looking for at the time they read it, it doesn't matter. They are in it to make money and that means looking for work that has the trends and tropes readers are/will be willing to shell out their dollars for. If a writer can do that, their chances of being picked up by a traditional publisher will sky rocket.* And that is a fact.


For me, a professional writer is one who makes a living from their writing and that does not require baring their soul, all it means is being a capable writer with the ability to deliver what a reader, agent, publisher wants to read and buy and sometimes that means they follow trends and tropes above trying to write a classic work that will go down in history as a great achievement. That includes self-published or traditionally published writers, because in either instance, the writer has to think of it with a business sense of making money rather than just artistic expression. That increases the chances of selling books and being a professional. And they can still be good books without including the "soul" you are speaking of. But, if the stars align, everything can come together and a writer can deliver a book at the right moment that just maybe it becomes one people point to a hundred years from now as a classic. The realization that this is the exception and not the rule of being published is what separates the professionals from the amateurs in my opinion.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Selorian said:


> On a basic level, I don't disagree with that. But, I'll point you to my previous replies...
> 
> 
> For me, a professional writer is one who makes a living from their writing and that does not require baring their soul, all it means is being a capable writer with the ability to deliver what a reader, agent, publisher wants to read and buy and sometimes that means they follow trends and tropes above trying to write a classic work that will go down in history as a great achievement. That includes self-published or traditionally published writers, because in either instance, the writer has to think of it with a business sense of making money rather than just artistic expression. That increases the chances of selling books and being a professional. And they can still be good books without including the "soul" you are speaking of. But, if the stars align, everything can come together and a writer can deliver a book at the right moment that just maybe it becomes one people point to a hundred years from now as a classic. The realization that this is the exception and not the rule of being published is what separates the professionals from the amateurs in my opinion.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. Here's how I see 'right or wrong':

I turn up at a nightclub eagerly awaiting my chance to strut my stuff and hit some new dance moves on the dance floor. I know I've got what it takes to amaze and delight! No one has ever seen_ these_ moves before! I'm going to dazzle.

"Sorry, mate, you can't come in."
"Why ... I've got all the dance moves."
"Yeah, but you're not wearing a suit, a tie and shiny black shoes."
"Let me in, damn you!"
"Go home and change your clothes and we'll let you in. Then we can see your dance moves."
"But dancing is important to me."
"Them's the rules, mate."
"I'm not sure I want to wear a suit though ..."
The bouncer shrugs.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I absolutely agree. That's not the point here though. This is a writing forum where people come to learn to write. I'm not talking to established or competent writers here, I'm talking to beginners and 'some' intermediates. Anything that can help aim them in the right direction can only help their development ... right?


Ok, but I'm a beginner moving towards intermediate, and when you first came on WF and started talking about what you think is 'good writing' as if it were a 'fact', and I realized I didn't do many of these things, you scared the hell out of me!  LOL!   You just have to be careful about how you present it.



Kent_Jacobs said:


> Something else I want to point out that you said earlier about JBF. I've differentiated between voice and style in another thread. As far as voice is concerned (those angles and unique takes only he can produce), I agree, no one else could emulate them. They're his and will forever be his. As far as style goes though, most competent writers could emulate his style given enough time and patience.


It's not just his 'voice' and 'style', it's his content.  The way he connects his thoughts to words.  You'd have to have his brain and all of his life experiences to emulate him.  Sorry @JBF to be talking about you like you are not in the room ... LOL!

But this thing called talent, you can't learn it.  You can only try to find natural talent in your own work and harness it with no fear.



Kent_Jacobs said:


> Stephen King himself has emulated many many different authors, and states it out loud and proud. JBF himself is influenced heavily by Cormac McCarthy. You can see it clearly in his prose.


Everyone is influenced.  But that isn't what makes them great.  It's the sum of all of their unique parts.



Kent_Jacobs said:


> So, yes, some people do have a natural ability but you'll find, regardless, that the things on my list are present. It's just that they don't have to think about it. I do ... and it wouldn't hurt if others did too.


Sure it's good to take time out to think about these things.  I'm still not convinced that thinking about it too much while writing is a good idea.  It's like driving a car.  You don't think about what's making it run.  You just look straight ahead and go in that direction.



Kent_Jacobs said:


> edit: I can die a happy man now. I've got an 'who loves you baby' badge. I'd like to thank my mother, my father and my ex girlfriend. Without you, none of this would have been possible. Now ... where's my lace handkerchief? I've got some dabbing to do!



Congrats!  You see...I had made the decision to spend less time on the internet and now you've got me posting again!


----------



## Selorian (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree. Here's how I see 'right or wrong':
> 
> I turn up at a nightclub eagerly awaiting my chance to strut my stuff and hit some new dance moves on the dance floor. I know I've got what it takes to amaze and delight! No one has ever seen_ these_ moves before! I'm going to dazzle.
> 
> ...


So, let me see if I got this straight. Writing without baring your soul is equivalent to going to a dance club without a suit or tie, because in either instance, without it you'll never be let in? Then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. Funny, though, because you even said that Piers Anthony lacked it and, guess what, he was published. So, in that regard, I don't even know how there is a disagreement.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Selorian said:


> So, let me see if I got this straight. Writing without baring your soul is equivalent to going to a dance club without a suit or tie, because in either instance, without it you'll never be let in? Then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. Funny, though, because you even said that Piers Anthony lacked it and, guess what, he was published. So, in that regard, I don't even know how there is a disagreement.


You're doubling down on the 'bare your soul' comment. I'm thinking about the whole OP. Piers Anthony had everything on that list except Authentic/honest/sincere/candid, as I said. It just didn't ring true, and to be honest, a lot of his stuff, regardless of how well it flowed, came across as cliqued and naïve. I could still learn from him if I read on because he did exhibit everything else on that list. I But I'd rather read someone who does possess everything on that list. He's an edge case, not the general rule. It's a complete waste of time to consider the outlier to disprove the norm. It helps no one.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> You're doubling down on the 'bare your soul' comment. I'm thinking about the whole OP. Piers Anthony had everything on that list except Authentic/honest/sincere/candid, as I said. It just didn't ring true, and to be honest, a lot of his stuff, regardless of how well it flowed, came across as cliqued and naïve. I could still learn from him if I read on because he did exhibit everything else on that list. I *But I'd rather read someone who does possess everything on that list.* He's an edge case, not the general rule. It's a complete waste of time to consider the outlier to disprove the norm. It helps no one.



And that is the only thing I'm saying isn't necessary to be present. So who is doubling down for the sake of being right even when there isn't a need? 

Piers Anthony isn't an outlier, most professional authors are just like him. Those that aren't are the exception, not the rule. You've even listed those exceptions throughout this thread. You making it sound like the rule is a complete waste of time as well as being potentially harmful to writers who may believe it is. They don't have to be the next Hemmingway to be published, but you make it sound like they do.

The bolded part in the quote above is what it boils down to... your *rathers*, not what is actually needed for a writer to be a good writer who sells books, be that through traditional or self-published means.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Selorian said:


> And that is the only thing I'm saying isn't necessary to be present. So who is doubling down for the sake of being right even when there isn't a need?
> 
> Piers Anthony isn't an outlier, most professional authors are just like him. Those that aren't are the exception, not the rule. You've even listed those exceptions throughout this thread. *You making it sound like the rule is a complete waste of time as well as being potentially harmful to writers who may believe it is. *They don't have to be the next Hemmingway to be published, but you make it sound like they do.
> 
> The bolded part in the quote above is what it boils down to... your *rathers*, not what is actually needed for a writer to be a good writer who sells books, be that through traditional or self-published means.


Now you've jumped to Hemmingway ... Oh, my good lord. I intend to pursue these writing traits. If others are either inclined not to or are 'persuaded' not to, so be it. This is basic stuff. How you've managed to correlate what I have said with Hemmingway is beyond me. I'm done with this silliness. People can take or leave what I've said. They can agree or disagree with the OP. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to say something like 'harmful to readers', unless you really, really, really don't want people to take notice of what I say. I guess removing my mentor role wasn't quite enough ... eh? What next? ... well, we all know what's next. 

It sucks being an individual. But some of us have to do it.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 3, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> It sucks being an individual. But some of us have to do it.



Absolutely!  There's nothing wrong with marching to the beat of a different drum.  Otherwise, how will we get the next Hemmingway?


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Absolutely!  There's nothing wrong with marching to the beat of a different drum.  Otherwise, how will we get the next Hemmingway?


I do hope we don't to be honest. lol. I admire his craft but not his use of it, in the same way I can admire an opera singer but still not actually like what they sing.


----------



## VRanger (Aug 3, 2022)

Okay, I'll settle this. ;-) A successful professional author tells a* good story*.

We had a thread a while back questioning whether clever prose or clever story was most important. Looking at the history of highly successful authors, clever story wins hands down. If they happen to combine it with clever writing, great. But it's not required to grab the mainstream reader.

Look at Edgar Rice Burroughs. Dozens of great selling novels. One of the founders of world building (story element). Came up with one of the most unique and iconic characters in the history of fiction (story element). Can imagine a fight scene as well as anyone I've ever read. But how good is his prose? _Dozens _of WF members are better wordsmiths. Really.

However, his books are popular to this day, and they are all page turners, despite 95% of them relying on the same formula. Start one and you won't put it down. He won't let you. The next disaster is always on stage. The recovery from said disaster taunting you until its revelation.

A lot of people called Erle Stanley Gardner's writing "dry". The conclusion was mostly unfair, but he sold second only to Agatha Christie in his day, and she's no particular wordsmith either. But they wrote fascinating stories. Gardner's courtroom scenes have me laughing in every book. Both still get a lot of readers.

Very few of the most highly regarded authors I read have ANYTHING fancy in their prose. But they know how to immerse the reader in their story, and don't do the things that kick a reader back out. Poetical? You can get away with it from time to time, but it's one of the things that reminds someone they are reading. It's layered on top of the story, not really part of the story.


----------



## Splinter (Aug 3, 2022)

Perhaps the question should be, _define a professional author's style?_ Not looks like, surely.
Anyway, the question is vague to say the least and to answer it, I would veer towards my favourite authors who are easy to read, the story flows and they don't bog you down in unnecessary procrastination.


----------



## JBF (Aug 3, 2022)

Mmm… brains.

If I may pontificate a minute from atop Trash Mountain…writing, in all its aspects, is an intensely personal affair.  So yes, any one of us could study any other, and given time could probably pull off a decent facsimile in the strictest mechanical sense.  We could replicate sentence structure, punctuation, and turns of phrase.  We can borrow theme or setting or genre.

-BUT-

The work itself is a unique combination of story and storyteller.  No two can tell it the same, and no matter the regard another writer may hold for world or character or voice, the authorial fingerprints of the creator will inevitably show through in the end as original or imitation.

Each of us has an irreplaceable perspective.  Each of us sees it different - how we write, what subject we choose, the setting of the easel and the composition of the paint.  To the question of story, the simplest and truest maxim is that there is no formula.  No one rule.  No mythical stone from down the ages that instructs _“You must always…”  _The uncomfortable truth is that we all have find our own way through the woods at night without maps or landmarks.  The journey belongs to each writer alone.

Anyone asking for your likes, subscriptions, patronage, or money for the masterkey to success is charlatan and a damn liar.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 3, 2022)

Splinter said:


> Perhaps the question should be, _define a professional author's style?_ Not looks like, surely.
> Anyway, the question is vague to say the least and to answer it, I would veer towards my favourite authors who are easy to read, the story flows and they don't bog you down in unnecessary procrastination.


Why does the story flow? They don't bog you down in unnecessary procrastination, but what else is it? I wonder what that 'something' is?

edit: I see what you mean.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 3, 2022)

Splinter said:


> Perhaps the question should be, _define a professional author's style?_ Not looks like, surely.


Oh, I just noticed that!  Now I'm picturing a woman in a crisp white blouse under a tweed hacking jacket with round horn-rimmed glasses.  LOL!!


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Oh, I just noticed that! Now I'm picturing a woman in a crisp white blouse under a tweed hacking jacket with round horn-rimmed glasses. LOL!!


Lol I was all ready to start gushing about my writerly facial hair! My smoking jacket plans! My brown leather everything!


----------



## Explosia (Aug 3, 2022)

bdcharles said:


> Lol I was all ready to start gushing about my writerly facial hair! My smoking jacket plans! My brown leather everything!


I got cool writer's glasses. 

Well, actually, they're large and in thick black frames but like... 

...cool author glasses.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 4, 2022)

I've been looking at this and wondering if people are reading it as intended. I've also added two I forgot to add. That is a list of *'six'* things all good writing possesses. The reason I've got words across, separated by a slash, is that they're all ways of viewing the same thing. Not necessarily direct synonyms but close. I just did that to give an option if one doesn't sit well with you.

I think I shot myself in the foot a little by singling out 'poetic'. I just felt as if not many people would consider the general rhythm of a piece as 'poetic', although, depending on who a person has read, they may well consider that word. For instance, you could describe Shakespeare as 'poetic'. Whether they'd then attribute that word to other pieces, I wasn't sure about, which is why I mentioned it was the exception. 

Smooth/flow/clean/clear
Rhythmic/musical/poetic
Specificity
Authoritative/confident
Consistent
Authentic/honest/sincere/candid

If I was going to write that list out exactly how I see it without offering alternatives, I'd write:

Flow
Rhythm
Specificity
Authoritative
Consistent
Authentic

Your list might be something like:

Clean
Musical
Specificity
Confident
Consistent
Honest

Do you get it?


----------



## VRanger (Aug 4, 2022)

I think that's too complicated, and while closing in on 4 million words of fiction written, I can't relate some of that to writing.

Clean I can get. I've often mentioned that clarity is a top priority. If the reader can't understand a sentence or the story, the writer has wasted both their time and the reader's.

Musical - Irrelevant. However, it's what I feel you've focused on to a fault. It gets in the way of your story. You mentioned alliteration somewhere in here. I love alliteration. I indulge in it no more than twice in 100,000 words, because it amuses _me _more than it _ever _will the reader. If we're trying to get a reader to turn the page, alliteration (along with many other forms of language gymnastics) adds nothing toward that goal. If we're trying to become "a literary giant", we can appeal to the minority which loves them and bear the scorn of the rest of humanity. LOL (Plus take years to finish a work while driving ourselves crazy fretting over the thing).

Specificity - Might ping the radar with a connection to clarity or to avoid vagueness or spice up nouns.

Confident - Where? The writer's mind? Just listing the word is vague.

Consistent - Yes, the overall voice of a particular piece needs consistency, as does where the author is willing to go in character action, plot devices and language.

Honest - again, just listing the word lacks context, and it's not a term I've considered in any of my 40 years of writing. Are you referring to something that should go on the page, or the writer's ability to regard the quality of their product?


----------



## Envy123 (Aug 4, 2022)

Surely it’s subjective?

My style is pretty much a Brazilian soap opera at its foundation, with action and dialogue done first, then the juicy book details are added later. It’s a polarising style. Some do consider it over-the-top. I was told by a beta reader that it’d be high risk, high reward in terms of getting published traditionally.

Regarding flow, I do it like this to try to maintain vivid details and getting to the action. I generally see scenes like this with my mind’s eye:

1. Overview shot of the location that transitions into a montage of differing shots. This is where I’d spend 1-2 paragraphs describing this with the sensory details and inner thoughts of the POV character.
2. The scene itself. The “actors” are in their respective places and I describe what’s happening in the background as well as the foreground.

Sometimes, my POV character is alone and needs to reflect on something, so I combine 1 and 2 in this.

3. The action and dialogue. I describe the movements that the characters do and the inner thoughts of the POV character. There’s usually tension or a full blown conflict, which moves the plot forward. This can include inner conflict. It doesn’t necessarily mean a telenovela style catfight.

This is pretty much my structure. I like taking advantage of the punchy flow of TV shows but sensory details, inner thoughts and a bit of backstory are so good too.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 4, 2022)

*Flow: *The way the words, sentences and paragraphs create a smoothed effect, making reading easier and more emotional.
*Rhythm: *The beats within that flow, using soft and hard words, soft or hard consonance, longer and shorter words etc.
*Specificity: *Creates a concrete effect, a sense of being there. Rather than tree, use oak. Rather than dog, use pug. etc.
*Consistent: *The promises (style/voice/tone/mood/genre/etc) are consistent throughout the book.
*Authentic: *When dealing with anything related to the human condition, the author is 'real' about it and not protective or vague.
*Authoritative: *This is as a result of doing all the above well.


These are in every single traditionally published book I've ever read or listened to. Some people lean into each more. They tend to be the more literary minded stained-glass writers. Others (plain-glass writers) don't lean into them so heavily but they're still there if you're observant enough. I suppose if you don't look for it, you never see it, and if you don't even know it exists, you wouldn't even think of looking for it.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

Envy123 said:


> Surely it’s subjective?
> 
> My style is pretty much a Brazilian soap opera at its foundation, with action and dialogue done first, then the juicy book details are added later. It’s a polarising style. Some do consider it over-the-top. I was told by a beta reader that it’d be high risk, high reward in terms of getting published traditionally.
> 
> ...


This sounds right up my alley! Are your books published?  I'd like to read one.


----------



## Envy123 (Aug 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> This sounds right up my alley! Are your books published?  I'd like to read one.


Not published, but I hope to be. I was just answering Kent_Jacobs' question on flow and advising on how I do it. At the moment, I'm at the beta readers stage and been making a lot of improvements.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

Envy123 said:


> Not published, but I hope to be. I was just answering Kent_Jacobs' question on flow and advising on how I do it. At the moment, I'm at the beta readers stage and been making a lot of improvements.


Wonderful!!!  I could relate very much to your process, but also your style speaks to me.  Your post is vivid.


----------



## VRanger (Aug 4, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> *Flow: *The way the words, sentences and paragraphs create a smoothed effect, making reading easier and more emotional.


Yep. You don't want to write "See Jane run. See Dick Run." Neither do you want endless complex sentences requiring effort to parse. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with emotion, which I'd regard more as the content.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> *Rhythm: *The beats within that flow, using soft and hard words, soft or hard consonance, longer and shorter words etc.


Much less important. Often irrelevant.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> *Specificity: *Creates a concrete effect, a sense of being there. Rather than tree, use oak. Rather than dog, use pug. etc.


Yep. I wrote an article about this some time back.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> *Consistent: *The promises (style/voice/tone/mood/genre/etc) are consistent throughout the book.


Per my remark in the comment above.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> *Authentic: *When dealing with anything related to the human condition, the author is 'real' about it and not protective or vague.


Seems completely off base. Yes, it helps if the writer has some experience and knowledge of his subject. The characters and the events in the book? No requirement there. What is "real"? 100 readers may have as many as 100 opinions about that.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> *Authoritative: *This is as a result of doing all the above well.


Once again, you've ignored the story, which trumps everything above. But everything above isn't even required for good writing, much less all of it. Take Isaac Asimov. There's nothing beautiful about his sentences, but he was a better writer than any of us will ever be. Imagination, story, clarity. That's Asimov. 


Kent_Jacobs said:


> These are in every single traditionally published book I've ever read or listened to.


Widen your scope. I mentioned Asimov just now.


Kent_Jacobs said:


> Some people lean into each more. They tend to be the more literary minded stained-glass writers. Others (plain-glass writers) don't lean into them so heavily but they're still there if you're observant enough. I suppose if you don't look for it, you never see it, and if you don't even know it exists, you wouldn't even think of looking for it.


If the writing is top notch, the typical reader will NEVER see it, because the story subsumes it. If the reader notices the text rather than the story, failure. Other writers? Different perspective. I tend to parse the technical along with the story these days, and at times I regret that. Other times I learn because of it. For a long time I've read with three hats: reader, writer, editor. I've seen you and others talk about "stained glass" and "plain glass". I certainly know what you mean and I've read authors you might stick in either category. That's not a thought that pops into my head while I'm reading. I'll go back once again to _story_. Roger Zelazny - stained glass. Isaac Asimov - plain glass. Zelazny wrote some brilliant stuff (the Amber series), but the brilliance was in the story. A lot of his "stained glass" was tiresome even there. There are other Zelazny novels I suffered through and will NEVER touch again. He let some vanity get in the way of his story. There isn't a single Asimov book I wouldn't happily read again ... and will if I live long enough. LOL


----------



## Envy123 (Aug 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Wonderful!!!  I could relate very much to your process, but also your style speaks to me.  Your post is vivid.


Thank you 

Each chapter aims to be like an episode and have its own mini 3 act structure, though cliffhangers are rare because they'd feel forced.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 4, 2022)

VRanger said:


> Once again, you've ignored the *story, which trumps everything* above. But everything above isn't even required for good writing, much less all of it. Take Isaac Asimov. There's nothing beautiful about his sentences, but he was a better writer than any of us will ever be. Imagination, story, clarity. That's Asimov.
> 
> 
> If the writing is top notch, the typical reader will NEVER see it, because the story subsumes it. If the *reader notices the text rather than the story, failure*. Other writers? Different perspective. I tend to parse the technical along with the story these days, and at times I regret that. Other times I learn because of it. For a long time I've read with three hats: reader, writer, editor. I've seen you and others talk about "stained glass" and "plain glass". I certainly know what you mean and I've read authors you might stick in either category. That's not a thought that pops into my head while I'm reading. I'll go back once again to _story_. Roger Zelazny - stained glass. Isaac Asimov - plain glass. Zelazny wrote some brilliant stuff (the Amber series), but the brilliance was in the story. A lot of his "stained glass" was tiresome even there. There are other Zelazny novels I suffered through and will NEVER touch again. He let some vanity get in the way of his story. There isn't a single Asimov book I wouldn't happily read again ... and will if I live long enough. LOL


The typical reader is much more forgiving as long as the story grabs them immediately and never lets go. It doesn't matter how well written, if the story sucks, I'm gone.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I've been looking at this and wondering if people are reading it as intended. I've also added two I forgot to add. That is a list of *'six'* things all good writing possesses.
> 
> I think I shot myself in the foot a little by singling out 'poetic'.
> 
> ...



Yes, you did throw me off with the "poetic."  LOL!!!  Let's try this again!

What we see has much to do with how our brains perceive what we are reading.    I think your list may be complete looking through a stain-glass writer's eyes.  I guess you would consider me a "plain-glass" writer/reader.  If I can only have *six items*, my list for what I consider *good writing* would be slightly different:

*Evocative* - I need something pretty quickly that stimulates my brain and causes me to read on.
*Unique* - Or even idiosyncratic.  Some little intriguing morsel that I haven't read before.
*Fluid* - Once I'm hooked, the flow comes into play.  The syntax must be varied and balanced, so my mind's eye travels delightfully through the sentences.
*Vivid* - This is where diction and literary devices are used to bring the story to life.
*Unencumbered* - No unnecessary literary devices or symbolism that bog the story down.
*Believable *- Even fantasy has to make logical sense. No detached motives or continuity errors.

This is a good exercise Kent.  As usual, you always bring it!!


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 4, 2022)

VRanger said:


> Yep. You don't want to write "See Jane run. See Dick Run." Neither do you want endless complex sentences requiring effort to parse. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with emotion, which I'd regard more as the content.
> 
> Much less important. Often irrelevant.
> 
> ...


'Once again, you've ignored the story, which trumps everything above.'

This is about prose ... PROSE.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 4, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> 'Once again, you've ignored the story, which trumps everything above.'
> 
> This is about prose ... PROSE.


The point of prose is communication. What are you communicating? Beautiful prose that is void of any actual meaning is trash.

The story is all. The prose is for better communication of the story.

Of course, this is all my opinion.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 4, 2022)

Sorry, just wanted to add one last thing.

Stained glass obscures the world beyond it. Clear glass allows you to see what's past it with ease. Choose which you'll be.


----------



## VRanger (Aug 4, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> 'Once again, you've ignored the story, which trumps everything above.'
> 
> This is about prose ... PROSE.


What Tettsuo said, but I have more.

You'll have to humor my inability to separate story from prose and assign priority to story. For one thing, we must have some idea for a story first, and some idea of the style we wish to write it in. Let's compare a couple. Your title is "What a Professional Author looks Like". Well, not one professional author puts style before story. No story ... blank page.

Let's take a detective story:

You're Dashiell Hammett and you want to write The Big Sleep. It's a detective story. Hammett is more your "stained glass" guy. Go to Amazon and read the first few pages.

You're Mickey Spillane and you want to write the first Mike Hammer book, I, the Jury. Spillane barely touches your list of prose requirements, if at all. (Again, read the preview). But is Spillane a professional author? He sold 225 million copies of his novels, so I'd say Yes.

So was Hammett. But _I, the Jury_ sold 3.5 million copies before the first movie version of it was made. The Big Sleep, a darling of the critics, sold 13,500 copies (probably more now after Amazon came around). I can read both just fine. In fact, I prefer Hammett in The Thin Man. But we can't ignore Spillane.

Can you make any sort of list how their prose compares to decide how each was a "professional author"? I can, and it's a short one. They both wrote in the English language. That's as much as I've got. LOL

Can I make any sort of list how their stories compare to decide how each was a "professional author"? Yes, and it's a great list. Interesting story. Great characters. Powerful twists. Clever mystery plotting. Gut-wrenching endings.

I just think you're looking in the wrong place to get a comprehensive list to stick on the wall. For prose, there simply isn't one.


----------



## Joker (Aug 4, 2022)

VRanger said:


> What Tettsuo said, but I have more.
> 
> You'll have to humor my inability to separate story from prose and assign priority to story. For one thing, we must have some idea for a story first, and some idea of the style we wish to write it in. Let's compare a couple. Your title is "What a Professional Author looks Like". Well, not one professional author puts style before story. No story ... blank page.
> 
> ...



The Big Sleep was Raymond Chandler my guy, Hemmet wrote the Maltese Falcon


----------



## JBF (Aug 4, 2022)

VRanger said:


> Neither do you want endless complex sentences...



Well...shit.


----------



## VRanger (Aug 4, 2022)

Joker said:


> The Big Sleep was Raymond Chandler my guy, Hemmet wrote the Maltese Falcon


You're right. I typed the wrong name despite looking up the details. LOL


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 5, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> The point of prose is communication. What are you communicating? Beautiful prose that is void of any actual meaning is trash.
> 
> The story is all. The prose is for better communication of the story.
> 
> Of course, this is all my opinion.


It's not about beautiful prose. Is beautiful on my list? Story has got nothing to do with this thread at all.


----------



## Matchu (Aug 5, 2022)

I wanted to join the thread and thank you all for distracting my racing mind last night when sleep was so elusive - sincerely, not a ‘boring thread jibe.’

ehmm…

Well, dear Mr @Jacobs is keen on dogmatic assertion - so I think - carry on - and a couple of people will agree and that’ll be all right and if I say you’re right about ‘quite a lot of things’ that will be all right also.

‘professional writer..’

if somebody used that term I’d leap to a host of stereotypes in my mind.

‘So…these cats are all your cats? I see.  Wow, 20000 video games, you say. Well,  I’ll accompany you to the shops where you do tend toward these disruptive encounters at the til.  I’ll stop talking.  Your turn…’

‘Professional, professional, Stephen King, Lord of the Rings, Black metal metal, my f@@ing mother is why everybody looking at me!’

Thinking on…

(probably put my foot in my mouth)


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 5, 2022)

Matchu said:


> I wanted to join the thread and thank you all for distracting my racing mind last night when sleep was so elusive - sincerely, not a ‘boring thread jibe.’
> 
> ehmm…
> 
> ...


I wouldn't call it 'dogmatic'. I'm far from a dogmatic person, in fact I'm known (in my real life) for taking a more neutral stance on most things, understanding implicitly that many things are subjective but framed objectively. Sometimes though, in order to get a handle on something, I find it helpful to dig through all the subjective and objective information and whittle those down to what can truly be labelled objective. This is why it's taken me years to finally pinpoint what that 'something' is I was constantly seeing but not quite being able to identify. 

Unlike a lot of other people, I don't just take a piece of advice, store it and use it. I think about it a lot. For instance, when I was told years and years ago that I should cut down on my adjectives, I did just that. I took the information, stored it and used it. I didn't 'think'. Eventually, after writing for many more years, I realised something felt wrong. My writing had begun to feel stale and somewhat bland, with no personality. 

At that point, around my thirties I'd say, I decided a different approach was needed. It was odd because all I had to do was approach my writing in exactly the same way I approach everything else. To simply ask 'why?'. Why was I told to cut down on my adjectives? I'd read dozens of books by published and renowned authors that used far more adjectives than me. There had to be more to it ... clearly. I joined a writing forum and started observing. Then it dawned on me: most people throw around cliqued advice. They'd been told to 'show don't tell', 'cut down on adjectives', 'cut out adverbs' (etc) and simply stored those away without thinking why. And then, when it came to giving advice, they'd offer that advice without explaining why. In most cases, it isn't too many adjectives, it's the incorrect use of them, which lead me to 'the assumed state' of a thing. That also lead me to dislike the 'cut, cut, cut' mentality.

It's the same here. I've taken out everything that could possibly be subjective and focused in on everything that I've actually seen in published authors work. Yes, I get it, there are always exceptions to rules. But it really helps no one to point those out when you're trying to focus people on what matters most, especially to beginner writers or 'some' intermediates. Originally I was going to offer only one word per category but decided (because I feared the 'subjective' argument) to offer alternatives for some of them. 

Remember, this isn't about story or plot or characters, this is simply about what it is about a 'professional' writer's prose that makes it stand out from the amateur. Brandon Sanderson uses 'professional' to differentiate in his teaching so, as far as I'm concerned, if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. 

This isn't about 'beautification' or 'poetic' either. Nor is it about 'stained-glass' versus 'plain-glass'. I see these things in plain writing as much as flowery writing, even writing I don't like. Taste is a different thing. That IS subjective and would fall under the category of style and voice, not just the prose themselves. As I mentioned earlier, this is why I can admire the technical ability of an opera singer while simultaneously disliking opera itself.


----------



## roadscribe (Aug 5, 2022)

Really interesting discussion, guys, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It sparked a few personal thoughts of my own. When I sold my first screenplay, maybe 20 years ago now (damn, I got old) I remember thinking how exciting it was to be a "professional" now. I was paid the WGA minimum, but I got paid! I would like to think it had all of these elements the OP listed, but I also remember how divisive the various reps, producers, and creative execs were on the work. Some "got it", others frankly thought it was weak and missing many of the elements described by the OP. Either way, the script went into what's called, production hell and then disappeared into the ether. Surely it's lining some producer's birdcage somewhere.

My point is I've seen this with countless authors as well, selling their work, only to have it completely ostracised by readers and end up gathering dust without sales. Therefore, I would suggest there's a wide net of taste and what constitutes a professionally written work. And many (I would say most) are hardly reaching these lofty adjectives mentioned and I think it's got folks in this thread fired up. *Not because it's wrong, but because it's not always right*. There's a difference. One can write without hitting any of these so-called mandatory elements and still become a published, professional author. Therein lies the conflict in this thread.

There is no such thing as a list of what is necessary for every novel to constitute professional work, and *it's not even a pre-requirement*, as suggested by the OP. I would take it a step further and suggest half the professional writers I have read, with solid sales and reviews (or I wouldn't have bothered) were terrible. I must toss half the books I read into the wastebin before I reach the second act. I know that's not very nice of me, but after 40 years of reading novels voraciously, I know when a story is working or not (for me). Does that necessarily mean these rules the OP created were not met? Could they be there for my neighbor who absolutely loved the work?

What about the subjectivity of each of these adjectives and descriptions you have listed, can they be loose in terms of interpretation? I say yes. I say all lists created to compartmentalize what is needed to become a professional will only lead to a further argument as it did here because we simply do not react to storytelling in the same way because we are individual readers with a wide spectrum of taste. We are storytellers, and I believe one story can have none, some, or all of these prescribed elements mentioned, and none, some, or all of those stories will either be published or sit at the bottom of a birdcage.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 5, 2022)

Well, ideally the "professional" writing would have a zoomed out, at least somewhat phosphorescent quality. It's been a fairly consistent feature in the published works I've read, though admittedly I don't consume much contemporary stuff. Maybe it's the offerings I usually gravitate to that lend themselves to that observation. Anyway, this can translate into two broad types, an almost three-dimensional "chunking" style (spatial, a bit denser), and a less three-dimensional style/where the words have less of an overall structure that binds them.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 5, 2022)

roadscribe said:


> Really interesting discussion, guys, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It sparked a few personal thoughts of my own. When I sold my first screenplay, maybe 20 years ago now (damn, I got old) I remember thinking how exciting it was to be a "professional" now. I was paid the WGA minimum, but I got paid! I would like to think it had all of these elements the OP listed, but I also remember how divisive the various reps, producers, and creative execs were on the work. Some "got it", others frankly thought it was weak and missing many of the elements described by the OP. Either way, the script went into what's called, production hell and then disappeared into the ether. Surely it's lining some producer's birdcage somewhere.
> 
> My point is I've seen this with countless authors as well, selling their work, only to have it completely ostracised by readers and end up gathering dust without sales. Therefore, I would suggest there's a wide net of taste and what constitutes a professionally written work. And many (I would say most) are hardly reaching these lofty adjectives mentioned and I think it's got folks in this thread fired up. *Not because it's wrong, but because it's not always right*. There's a difference. One can write without hitting any of these so-called mandatory elements and still become a published, professional author. Therein lies the conflict in this thread.
> 
> ...


To a certain degree, yes. That's why I offered alternatives separated by the slashes. My big gripe, during the process of learning to write and whilst observing people who teach writing, is a total lack of clarity. It's only found in writing for some reason. In any other discipline, the idea of breaking the process down into constituent parts is the go to approach without question. You want to learn piano? Learn this scale first. You want to learn the guitar? Learn this plucking technique first. Want to learn to paint? Learn which brushes to use first. And so on.

People get confused, especially beginners. Writing is a bottomless pit of endless not knowing. There's always more to learn and you never stop improving (or shouldn't stop). It's as daunting as hell for most people, and the more ambitious I get, the more daunting it is for me too. I went from wanting to be a decent hack to wanting to be a good writer and now (as sweat breaks out on my forehead) I'm honestly thinking I want to be a great writer. That scares the shit out of me. Who am I to think that? That should be the call of others, not me ... right? 

So, I spent a whole year ironing out all the newbie kinks I may have or had inadvertently introduced over the years. It was a hard year of letting my inner editor have full reign over my head. Every word, every sentence, every paragraph, every scene, was scrutinised over and over and over again. I'm seeing the result of that in my work now and I'm quite happy with that year I spent. Now I've moved to the next stage, which is this. It's always been there and I reckon it's there for a lot of people. What is it that makes this writing sound so much better than mine? Why do I still sound like an amateur? All the styles and voices are different! All the genres are different! And yet there's this 'something' that makes me realise this sounds 'professional' whilst mine doesn't. So ... what the hell is it?

This is my answer (at last). Luckily, because I'd spent that whole year honing my craft, it was much easier to identify than I thought. I can now see all the things professional writings avoid and all the tricks they use to create good prose. There are many others I can't see, obviously, I've still got much to learn. Unlike that year of letting my inner editor free though, this is different. What I'm working hard at at the moment is creating engaging scenes. Part of that process is writing in such a way that keeps the reader reading. Hence this thread.


----------



## roadscribe (Aug 5, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> To a certain degree, yes. That's why I offered alternatives separated by the slashes. My big gripe, during the process of learning to write and whilst observing people who teach writing, is a total lack of clarity. It's only found in writing for some reason. In any other discipline, the idea of breaking the process down into constituent parts is the go to approach without question. You want to learn piano? Learn this scale first. You want to learn the guitar? Learn this plucking technique first. Want to learn to paint? Learn which brushes to use first. And so on.
> 
> People get confused, especially beginners. Writing is a bottomless pit of endless not knowing. There's always more to learn and you never stop improving (or shouldn't stop). It's as daunting as hell for most people, and the more ambitious I get, the more daunting it is for me too. I went from wanting to be a decent hack to wanting to be a good writer and now (as sweat breaks out on my forehead) I'm honestly thinking I want to be a great writer. That scares the shit out of me. Who am I to think that? That should be the call of others, not me ... right?
> 
> ...


I can dig it. I think the confusion in this thread is more about the difference between opinion and fact. I think you may have presented it more as fact, rather than your own personal insight into how an author like yourself might move forward. I think the whole debate comes down to the presentation. I think these defined words are meaningful to you as a breakthrough, and that's what counts. As long as you also understand it does not have to be the same for others who might have an entirely different list of qualifiers to become a better writer. Again, you are not wrong at all, I think these qualifiers are simply subjective and hold different levels of importance for everyone. Good luck!

Edited to add: Went through a few of your older posts and you do seem to speak in absolutes often. I would humbly suggest being more careful with this. I did the same when I was younger because I knew it all. I did not. Hubris has always been a struggle for me, but I've learned to temper the absolutes and platitudes over the years. When I have an opinion, I make sure to present it as such, and welcome other opinions without painting myself into a corner. That's when I get into trouble because now it becomes a matter of pride.  But that's me.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 5, 2022)

roadscribe said:


> I can dig it. I think the confusion in this thread is more about the difference between opinion and fact. I think you may have presented it more as fact, rather than your own personal insight into how an author like yourself might move forward. I think the whole debate comes down to the presentation. I think these defined words are meaningful to you as a breakthrough, and that's what counts. As long as you also understand it does not have to be the same for others who might have an entirely different list of qualifiers to become a better writer. Again, you are not wrong at all, I think these qualifiers are simply subjective and hold different levels of importance for everyone. Good luck!


Honestly, I don't think they're subjective. Nor do I think they're controversial. This is my own personal list compiled from the choices I gave in the OP.

*Flow: *The way the words, sentences and paragraphs create a smoothed effect, making reading easier and more emotional.
*Rhythm:* The beats within that flow, using soft and hard words, soft or hard consonance, longer and shorter words etc.
*Specificity:* Creates a concrete effect, a sense of being there. Rather than tree, use oak. Rather than dog, use pug. etc.
*Consistent:* The promises (style/voice/tone/mood/genre/etc) are consistent throughout the book.
*Authentic: *When dealing with anything related to the human condition, the author is 'real' about it and not protective or vague.
*Authoritative: *This is as a result of doing all the above well.

The only adjustment I'd consider making is removing Authoritative from that list and changing the thread title to 'Defining What an Authoritative Author's Writing Looks Like'. 
​


----------



## roadscribe (Aug 5, 2022)

This is what I mean. Try more listening, and less defending the trench you've dug for yourself at all cost. When someone gives you a thoughtful suggestion, maybe address that first before jumping straight into defense mode. It does you no favors. With that said, I'm out. Good luck to you.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 5, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> To a certain degree, yes. That's why I offered alternatives separated by the slashes. *My big gripe, during the process of learning to write and whilst observing people who teach writing, is a total lack of clarity. It's only found in writing for some reason. In any other discipline, the idea of breaking the process down into constituent parts is the go to approach without question. You want to learn piano? Learn this scale first. You want to learn the guitar? Learn this plucking technique first. Want to learn to paint? Learn which brushes to use first. And so on.*
> 
> People get confused, especially beginners. Writing is a bottomless pit of endless not knowing. There's always more to learn and you never stop improving (or shouldn't stop). It's as daunting as hell for most people, and the more ambitious I get, the more daunting it is for me too.* I went from wanting to be a decent hack to wanting to be a good writer and now (as sweat breaks out on my forehead) I'm honestly thinking I want to be a great writer. That scares the shit out of me. Who am I to think that? That should be the call of others, not me ... right?*
> 
> ...


I think what you mistake for a lack of clarity is allowance for each person to discover the exact method that works for them beyond the basics. The basics of writing are covered everywhere and to start, that is all a person needs. If then they need a more precise method, I can guarantee they can search more and find it. But, each person is different, some may find one that works, but some may not so they create something that does. But, when they do, that is their journey up the mountain and it is just one of many possible paths with each suiting some (or even the one) but not all.

And while there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a great writer (I believe we all do if we're honest with ourselves), don't let that keep you from just being a writer. That is getting work out there to be read. By the masses. We can practice all we want and maybe come to the conclusion we're great ourselves, or amongst a small group of other writers, but until the masses decide it really means nothing. Even then, there will be the naysayers. And that is because everyone has different tastes. Don't let the quest for perfection cripple you, or worse, make you blind to what others say isn't.




Kent_Jacobs said:


> Honestly, I don't think they're subjective. Nor do I think they're controversial. This is my own personal list compiled from the choices I gave in the OP.
> 
> *Flow: *The way the words, sentences and paragraphs create a smoothed effect, making reading easier and more emotional.
> *Rhythm:* The beats within that flow, using soft and hard words, soft or hard consonance, longer and shorter words etc.
> ...


To some extent, I believe that something you are trying to put your finger on isn't able to be broken down so easily because it is different for everyone. It is a wonderful mishmash of voice, style, prose, mechanics, and creativity that just comes through for a reader when a writer does it right. No list and definitions are going to guarantee it'll always be there. And even if it does increase the chances, it will be different for every reader and writer. I think that is where the debate comes from in this thread, because you see it as universal because it works for you.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 5, 2022)

Kent, perhaps rather than thinking of it as facts vs opinion or objective vs subjective, try thinking of it as a *theory*.  Kent's theory.

From Google:

A theory is a belief, an idea, or a set of principles that explains something. This set of principles may be organized in a simple manner or could be complex in nature. *Theories are not facts*. They *are *predictions that need to be tested for their reality.

As you know from studying piano yourself even in music, we have theory:

Musicological study that seeks to *define processes and general principles* in music — a sphere of research that can be distinguished from analysis in that it takes as its starting-point not the individual work or performance but the fundamental materials from which it is built.

I believe you want to share your findings with other writers, as you mention amateurs who wish to improve.  You're on to something!  But as I expressed in an earlier post, *to be heard*, you have to take care in how you present your ideas or theories.

Using an example from my own world, teaching business, the greatest authority in business education is Michael Porter.  He is the author of 20 books and numerous articles on business strategy.  A six-time winner of the McKinsey Award for the best_ Harvard Business Review_ article of the year, Professor Porter is the most cited author in business and economics.  His theories can be found in every business strategy textbook.

This is a quote from Michael Porter:

_ "What I've come to see as probably my greatest gift is the ability to take an extraordinarily complex, integrated, multidimensional problem and get arms around it conceptually in a way that helps, that informs and empowers practitioners to actually do things."_

I think that's what you are shooting for in the practice of good writing.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 5, 2022)

Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of trying to ferret out a pattern across works based off of an official stamp they have in common (in other words, being published).


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 5, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of trying to ferret out a pattern across works based off of an official stamp they have in common (in other words, being published).


That's an interesting statement. So, basically, the secret of being published is being published. There's nothing a published author does in order to get published. They get published no matter what quality their work is and become published, which is a sign they're good enough to be published. When Stephen King says the best way to learn to write is to read books (books that have been published), he doesn't mean you'll learn anything from their quality, he just means they're published and that's all you need to learn.

You got likes though, so you must be right.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 5, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> That's an interesting statement. So, basically, the secret of being published is being published. There's nothing a published author does in order to get published. They get published no matter what quality their work is and become published, which is a sign they're good enough to be published. When Stephen King says the best way to learn to write is to read books (books that have been published), he doesn't mean you'll learn anything from their quality, he just means they're published and that's all you need to learn.
> 
> You got likes though, so you must be right.



Well, it's more you don't have to interpret things so rigidly. I meant more in the sense that not all works will adhere to the pattern simply because they've "been published." A biased mind might try to "make all things fit" because of an official stamp. You might be able to look at things generally, but not necessarily in an absolutist sense.

Also the likes comment reads as a bit immature. They seem to inspire groupthink or at least have the capacity to, but it's simply a feature of the site. You could say that about any number of posts in this thread.


----------



## JBF (Aug 5, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> That's an interesting statement. So, basically, the secret of being published is being published. There's nothing a published author does in order to get published. They get published no matter what quality their work is and become published, which is a sign they're good enough to be published. When Stephen King says the best way to learn to write is to read books (books that have been published), he doesn't mean you'll learn anything from their quality, he just means they're published and that's all you need to learn.



Look at it this way: 

Suppose you sell chairs.  Have an outlet store and everything.   The one-stop shop for the customer's seating needs, per the slogan and the guy in the commercials that run on late-night television between pitches from the local used-car salesmen and the adult chat hotline.  Before you let your audience get back to _Springer _and reruns of _The Beverly Hillbillies _you make it clear that you are the Seating King and _nobody_ beats your prices and selection. 

So people show up looking for a place to sit.  This one is a college stoner who wants a beanbag so he can loaf in his apartment and smoke dope and play videogames with his doper friends all night.  That one over there just bought a circa-1780 farmhouse and is looking for something to complement their restoration work.  Over by the door is a guy wanting something sleek and futuristic to outfit the lobby at his startup business.  The lady yonder works a twelve-hour shift at a console and needs something that's going to stay comfortable over the long haul.  The expecting young couple are looking for your best tradeoff in a three-way race between durability, cost, and comfort because soon they won't be shelling out for _anything _that isn't a childcare expense. 

Each selects something that suits them.  Whether it's a compromise or exactly what they wanted is beside the point. 

The point is that none of these customers would be satisfied with the  selection of any other.  Ever try to pull a pregnant woman off a beanbag?  Sit a day straight in an avant-garde piece designed for the Spanish Inquisition?  Drop two grand on a classic French side chair that's only going to get stained with pizza grease and have no resale value because it smells like weed?

The commonality here is that each purchaser buys what they want.  They seek out something they believe meets a need in their life.  I would argue that's the big takeaway on 'good' writing and the rules thereof.  You make a thing.  You try to sell it.  In search of a definition for the the ideal chair you can argue wood stains, patterns, carvings, leather versus cloth, indoor or outdoor, style by decade, and so on until the stress puts you in the hospital, but when it's all said done, what really have you accomplished? 

You offer a product. 

Does everyone buy?  No.

Do enough people buy to make it worthwhile? 

....and that's the crux right there.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 5, 2022)

JBF said:


> Look at it this way:
> 
> Suppose you sell chairs.  Have an outlet store and everything.   The one-stop shop for the customer's seating needs, per the slogan and the guy in the commercials that run on late-night television between pitches from the local used-car salesmen and the adult chat hotline.  Before you let your audience get back to _Springer _and reruns of _The Beverly Hillbillies _you make it clear that you are the Seating King and _nobody_ beats your prices and selection.
> 
> ...



F******g  Brilliant!!!


----------



## Parabola (Aug 5, 2022)

It's interesting when you look at it in terms of "general ability." I remember when I used to frequent NoSleep (just reading), and this one author came along with a blazing, original style. People gravitated to it. That kid took off like a rocket. No idea if he's even published (I'd guess so in some form), but he had the magic, that spice.

Also, in that space, I've never seen anything like it since. I suppose I'm more interested in that dynamic than merely "professional" status, just from a raw sociological standpoint.


----------



## Cornelius Coburn (Aug 6, 2022)

Deleted


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 6, 2022)

At least stop this semantic argument about what a professional is. You know what I meant for goodness sake LOL.


----------



## PiP (Aug 6, 2022)

The difference between an amateur and a professional writer is attitude. You can walk the walk and talk the talk of a gangster but do you have what it takes … ? Talent alone does not enter into the equation.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 6, 2022)




----------



## Parabola (Aug 6, 2022)

"What the HELL are you talking about?"
"What the are YOU talking about?"

Welcome to the internet, the post-apocalyptic stretch of desert where someone will come along and beat you with your own crappy sign from a bygone era.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 6, 2022)

PiP said:


> The difference between an amateur and a professional writer is attitude. You can walk the walk and talk the talk of a gangster but do you have what it takes … ? Talent alone does not enter into the equation.



I like this one...


> 5. Amateurs fear failure. Pros crave it.​_You have to fail your way to success._
> 
> What professionals know that the rest of us don’t appreciate is that failure can teach you more than success ever will. Failure is feedback, and truly successful people use it to move forward in their careers.


Success can lead to stagnation. Failure can lead to growth.

Writers can spend years theorizing what it takes to be a published writer or they can write, submit, and find out what it takes. My question would be who actually learns more?


----------



## PiP (Aug 6, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I spent over a year honing all the basic skills for crafting stories and now I'm doing the same for scenes ... and after that chapters. But there was always one thing that alluded me. I read books written by professional writers and 'felt' something I wasn't feeling from either my own stuff or others. It was an indefinable quality and all I could ever manage was 'It's still not there' or 'I'm still missing something'. But what was that 'something'?
> 
> If I could just define it then I could approach it in the same way I approach everything else: break it down into its constituent parts and deal with one at a time. Well, I finally have my list of pointers, most of which I've already inadvertently learned through that year of honing my craft. This just allows me to step back and look at the broader implications as a set of pointers.
> 
> ...


’

So if you are using the term ‘professional’ as your benchmark are you saying ALL professional writers write well?


----------



## Taylor (Aug 6, 2022)

Hey Kent!  Although contentious, this has been one of the best threads we've had for a while.  Look at all the great discussions you generated.

Your theory of systematically capturing the look of a professional author is interesting.

I've just been reading from one of my favourite authors, Jackie Collins.  I read most of her stuff when I was younger, but as I got older I found her characters were not intellectual enough for me, so I didn't read her last few.  I just picked one up now, _The Power Trip_.  I still love the way she writes.  It's so lively!

I doubt that JC has much clout in the high literary world, but she is still one of the bestselling authors of all time with over 500 million copies of her 32 books sold.

If you have time, I would love to hear your analysis of her style and how it fits within your framework of what makes an author's writing look professional.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Hey Kent!  Although contentious, this has been one of the best threads we've had for a while.  Look at all the great discussions you generated.
> 
> Your theory of systematically capturing the look of a professional author is interesting.
> 
> ...


I've never read her stuff, Taylor. I hate addressing you as 'Taylor'. It feels so damned rude! I suppose that's the thing isn't it. I say 'I've' seen this in every published book 'I've' ever read. I read horror and fantasy mainly with a little general fiction thrown in. But I'm still willing to bet I can find it in any book someone shows me. It's not always a deliberate choice by the author though. Sometimes there's a natural inclination towards flow and rhythm for instance that isn't anything to do with them crafting but rather to do with an inner metronome that instinctively builds and drops at appropriate moments. But it's still part of what makes their prose compelling to read.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 6, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I've never read her stuff, Taylor. I hate addressing you as 'Taylor'. It feels so damned rude! I suppose that's the thing isn't it. I say 'I've' seen this in every published book 'I've' ever read. I read horror and fantasy mainly with a little general fiction thrown in. But I'm still willing to bet I can find it in any book someone shows me. It's not always a deliberate choice by the author though. Sometimes there's a natural inclination towards flow and rhythm for instance that isn't anything to do with them crafting but rather to do with an inner metronome that instinctively builds and drops at appropriate moments. But it's still part of what makes their prose compelling to read.


I think you should be able to read a sample of this one.  Try the first few pages and see if you can get a feeling:






						Amazon.com: The Power Trip: A Novel eBook : Collins, Jackie: Kindle Store
					


Amazon.com: The Power Trip: A Novel eBook : Collins, Jackie: Kindle Store




					www.amazon.com


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think you should be able to read a sample of this one.  Try the first few pages and see if you can get a feeling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't copy and paste but I've seen lots already. For instance, check out how she used the rhythm of long multi-syllabic words and then in the last sentence, uses single syllabic words. That is deliberate and creates and emphatic end to the paragraph, heightened by the more stretched out flow of the first sentence.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 6, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> I can't copy and paste but I've seen lots already. For instance, check out how she used the rhythm of long multi-syllabic words and then in the last sentence, uses single syllabic words. That is deliberate and creates and emphatic end to the paragraph, heightened by the more stretched out flow of the first sentence.


Interesting, I do see that!  Anyway, I don't want to pressure you.  I know it's late where you are.   

But if you have any other thoughts in the coming days on what makes her writing so strong, let me know.   I'd be interested in hearing your analysis.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 6, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Interesting, I do see that!  Anyway, I don't want to pressure you.  I know it's late where you are.
> 
> But if you have any other thoughts in the coming days on what makes her writing so strong, let me know.   I'd be interested in hearing your analysis.


Oh, my goodness, you're trying to get me to read Jackie Collins! I might take a look tomorrow ...


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 6, 2022)

Hmm...

_*Smooth/flow*_  Hmm, I've been told my writing's like this.

*clean/clarity*  I'd like to think mime is.

_*Rhythmic/musical/*_*poetic*  strike one

*Specificity*   check

*Consistent*  check

*Authentic/honest/sincere/candid*  check

*Authoritative/confident*  check


< summoning my best - or possibly worst- inner Meatloaf singing voice>
_Now, don't be sssaaaddd, 'cuz four outta seven aaaiiinnn'ttt bbaadd....._



A.C.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 6, 2022)

That Guy Named Aaron said:


> Hmm...
> 
> _*Smooth/flow*_  Hmm, I've been told my writing's like this.
> 
> ...


Chances are, if you've got flow, you're likely to have rhythm too. Show me one of your paragraphs!


----------



## indianroads (Aug 6, 2022)

PiP said:


> The difference between an amateur and a professional writer is attitude. You can walk the walk and talk the talk of a gangster but do you have what it takes … ? Talent alone does not enter into the equation.


Agree completely.

In the biker world, you may wear the leathers, boots, rally shirts, and club support patches, but if your 10 year old tricked out bike only has 5K miles on the clock, you’re a poser, not a biker.

Writers write. You can call and consider yourself what you like, but titles don’t matter, only substance does.


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 7, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Chances are, if you've got flow, you're likely to have rhythm too. Show me one of your paragraphs!




OK. I'll be your huckleberry.  From a section of _God Bless Small Town, USA_ that I haven't re-written yet, so excuse the errors. One of my favorite parts of the book.

“Your buddy’s here,” Tony smirked. Confused, I followed him back to the grill area. Steve had walked in and sat down at the counter in Tara’s area. The other waitresses watched as she slowly walked down to him. Judy walk toward the store, probably to get Harold. We couldn’t determine what was said, but I judged by the body language of both Steve and Tara that he was trying to apologize and make amends to her for the injuries. By now, Judy had returned with Harold in tow. Harold stood near the jukebox so that he had a view of Steve. A few minutes later, Tara walked to us and put a ticket on the wheel. Tony grabbed it, and we both looked at the order. Bacon cheeseburger, complete order of fries.

I was about to drop an order of fries when I caught sight of Tara as she looked in at Tony and me. She lowered her sunglasses to show us that her right eye was still nearly swollen shut. I glanced over at Steve, who watched us intently, then I glanced back at Tara as she pushed her sunglasses back up and turned away. Tony, rested his head in his hands as he watched Steve. I dropped an order of fries and then turned back to the opening. Tony threw a burger and strips of bacon on the grill, then leaded forward like I was so only our eyes appeared above the opening. Steve watched me the entire time.

“I think Tara wants you to get paybacks for her,” Tony observed.

“I’d do it just for my own satisfaction. The hell with her,” I remarked. Tony chuckled lightly.

“Well, if you want to, this might be your best chance,” Tony replied. I side-glanced him for a brief second before I looked back at Steve, who watched us intently. “He’s gonna watch every move you make. So, If you want a shot at him, don’t leave this spot. I’ll take care of everything.”

I gave Tony a very subtle nod. Tony turned back to the grill. A moment later, he subtly placed a plate with a burger in front of me. Two pieces of bacon sat next to the patty.

“Big loogie. Cover it with the bacon. I’ll take care of the rest. Don’t move from here whatever you do.” Tony muttered as he peeked out through the opening. He stood up and walked over to the fryer to check on the fries. Steve and I maintained our eye contact with each other as I secretly worked up as much spit as I could muster. Slowly, I tilted my head, opened my mouth, and felt the large collection of saliva pass over my bottom lip as it fell onto the burger. I wish I could have looked down and admired my gross handiwork, but I was afraid that it might have given myself away to Steve.

I put the pieces of bacon on it, then kicked the floor as a signal for Tony to return. As he walked by, Tony turned and grabbed the plate with the burger on it. Steve   said something to Tara, but never broke eye contact with me. If he had any idea of what had transpired, he didn't show any sign. Behind me, I heard the burger on the grill and Tony covering it with the lid to melt the cheese. A moment later, Tony put a bigger plate with the burger and fries under the heat lamp.

“You’re cleaning the grill,” Tony said quietly, then hollered for Tara. I nodded in agreement as Tara came up to get Steve’s food.

“Hey, Tara. I’m going to talk to Jet later this week. I’ll tell him you said hi,” I said to her as she grabbed the plate. A sad grin crossed her busted lip as she grabbed the plate with the bacon cheese spit-burger and took it over to Steve. I don’t know if she realized what was going on or not. As he picked up the burger and took a bite, I figured she didn’t oppose it if she had.

_Bon Appetit, you asshole._


----------



## JBF (Aug 7, 2022)

He stopped at the diner on his way home. The parking lot was mostly empty, the blinds lit from behind and glowing with faded neon, and he parked and went inside and ordered a hamburger and fries and on second thought sprung for the last piece of apple pie from the slope-fronted dessert counter and asked the night waitress that she box it all to go, and he sat and waited and listened to the grease popping on the stovetop and rubbed his eyes.

A menu smacked sharp on the counter and he started, not realizing he’d been drifting. But all the same he grinned, and Darla Coggins grinned back on her way to attend a nest of long-haul truckers in the back room.

Once, longer ago than seemed possible in the arc of his twenty years, she came by the neighbor’s place three times a week to cook and clean and look after Langdon Daltry in lieu of his blood relations. She took care of the inside of house and he looked after those things outside, and in the course of strangers occupying the same time and place, in those first months he was on his own, they struck up a familial accord of sorts. More than once he carried her on errands around town when her car failed, and in turn she came to bring a smaller second tray of whichever food she’d brought for Daltry.

The world was simpler, then. More focused.

So sometimes now he saddled Beau Geste  and rode out to visit the old man out at the city cemetery and knew by the little white candles atop the headstone that she had been there before him. Or he rounded an aisle and met her in the grocery store, reaching for something on the top shelf, and he’d laugh and take it down for her and they’d observe the small pleasantries and go their ways. Or they passed on the highway, each raising two fingers from the wheel in greeting.

She returned and rested a hip against the counter and grinned through stray dark hairs loose of a paisley headband.

“Been a while, stranger.”

“So it has,” he returned a grin of his own, prodding at her with the menu until she took it away. “They got you working late now?”

“Overnight, Sunday to Thursday.”

“That’s rough.”

“It’s full-time,” she corrected, and it seemed a little of the brightness dimmed in her face, just for a heartbeat, and resumed like it had never gone at all. “Keeps it from stinging too bad, and I still get my weekends. So what have you been up to?”

“Working at the airport. Pay’s not much, but I set my schedule and it’s pretty quiet.”

“Not with Rick’s outfit anymore, huh?”

He hesitated. A million different things he might have said came to mind and he didn’t a voice not a single one. Still she fixed him with smoke-gray eyes and her mothering half-smile and he imagined – not for the first time – that she’d probably been something in her day, two marriages and a couple of kids ago. Before the weight of living settled and those compromises started stacking like there was no tomorrow and drawn the lines around her mouth and salted her hair.

“I didn’t mean anything by it,” she said.

“It’s alright.”

Something else, he decided. Having seen her so little he direly wanted to tell her about the letter and its significance and the possibilities. Tell her of the tempered hope of the new-made man making that one last long walk towards a world of limitless promise, contingent that he trade all he knew in return.

“Get you something?”

“Small coffee,” he said, reaching for his wallet.

She waved him down and turned and set a foam cup on the counter. “On the house.”

Too he remembered the day he’d come home from town and jumped the fence to find the ambulance in the driveway. No lights. No sirens. Just the justice of the peace’s Crown Vic parked by the road and the paramedics wheeling a shrouded gurney through the sliding doors by the kitchen. It was her who’d found Daltry and made the call. She was there under the frayed patio awning talking to a sheriff’s deputy, and when she saw him crossing the yard the she broke away and put her arms around him. Too soon to speak or cry, then. The edges of the absence felt but not yet mapped.

John sorted a fresh cigarette and absentminded tapped the filtered end on the counter.

“It’s all change, ain’t it?”

“Yeah, hon.” She slapped him lightly with the menu and smiled a smile not altogether sad and stood to straighten her apron. “That’s all it is.”


----------



## Parabola (Aug 8, 2022)

Forgive me, @Kent_Jacobs, but I wonder about the label "professional" since I've read such hollow endorsements on book covers as "a cute read" and a "snappily crafted, fun yarn." You know, the ones with the recipes in the back. Surely you've excluded those?


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

Before anyone can answer this question, I think the term *'Professional Author'* *should be defined.*


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 9, 2022)

indianroads said:


> Before anyone can answer this question, I think the term *'Professional Author'* *should be defined.*



If your primary source of income or any _*substantial*_ portion of your income comes from it, that would be my definition of _*"Professional." *_

Hello, my name is Aaron. Before I was a professional forklift operator, I was a professional radio personality. 


A.C.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

Before retiring, my profession was that of an engineer - because that's where my income came from. I rode a motorcycle for fun, and never many any money from it, so I was NOT a professional motorcyclist.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

One more thing.
We might consider what writing at a *professional level* entails. IMO though, we might write excellent, high quality stories / novels / etc. but unless the money we make from that endeavor sustains us financially, I wouldn't use that title.
Opinions?


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 9, 2022)

indianroads said:


> Before retiring, my profession was that of an engineer - because that's where my income came from. I rode a motorcycle for fun, and never many any money from it, so I was NOT a professional motorcyclist.



My radio career went from professional to past-time in 2000. Besides, as anyone in radio will tell you, DJ's aren't paid worth jack-squat unless you're a drive-time host or caliber talent, syndicated, or into sales. The era of the DJ being the KIng of Radio ended in the late 80's and early 90's.. just as I was getting into it. I have certainly drawn some unwanted attention with my radio politics and post commercial endeavors, which has caused my career to die an undignified passing. But that was certainly self-inflicted, and I knew it would happen. 

But damn, was it fun while it lasted.


A.C.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

That Guy Named Aaron said:


> My radio career went from professional to past-time in 2000. Besides, as anyone in radio will tell you, DJ's aren't paid worth jack-squat unless you're a drive-time host or caliber talent, syndicated, or into sales. The era of the DJ being the KIng of Radio ended in the late 80's and early 90's.. just as I was getting into it. I have certainly drawn some unwanted attention with my radio politics and post commercial endeavors, which has caused my career to die an undignified passing. But that was certainly self-inflicted, and I knew it would happen.
> 
> But damn, was it fun while it lasted.
> 
> ...


DJ's have great speaking voices... have you considered recording audio books?


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 9, 2022)

indianroads said:


> One more thing.
> We might consider what writing at a *professional level* entails. IMO though, we might write excellent, high quality stories / novels / etc. but unless the money we make from that endeavor sustains us financially, I wouldn't use that title.
> Opinions?



Hence my definition. If it's not making you money, you're no a pro. Aspiring, maybe, but not a pro.


A.C.


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 9, 2022)

indianroads said:


> DJ's have great speaking voices... have you considered recording audio books?



No, I have not. Reading for audio books just feels _confined_ to me. I love the concept, but not my cup of tea. 


A.C.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

That Guy Named Aaron said:


> No, I have not. Reading for audio books just feels _confined_ to me. I love the concept, but not my cup of tea.
> 
> 
> A.C.


Yeah, I agree.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 9, 2022)

For myself, I would consider the term *professional* to apply when your monthly income from writing allows you to pay for a significant portion of your monthly living expenses.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

Selorian said:


> For myself, I would consider the term *professional* to apply when your monthly income from writing allows you to pay for a *significant portion* of your monthly living expenses.


So, the income would be less than what you would need to survive without other income?


----------



## PrairieHostage (Aug 9, 2022)

Jumping on this thread late. A professor once asked my class what we thought the word "professional" means. We all had fancy answers and the prof finally said it's simply to do our best. With all the things we've learned and all the resources at our disposal, just Do. Our. Best.

I would rather be a creative writer than a professional one. Having just read the first chapter in Ayize Jama-Everett's _The Entropy of Bones_ I'm blown out of the water by his creativity. Creativity involves many things, not the least of which is to take risks.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 9, 2022)

PrairieHostage said:


> Jumping on this thread late. A professor once asked my class what we thought the word "professional" means. We all had fancy answers and the prof finally said it's simply to do our best. With all the things we've learned and all the resources at our disposal, just Do. Our. Best.
> 
> I would rather be a creative writer than a professional one. Having just read the first chapter in Ayize Jama-Everett's _The Entropy of Bones_ I'm blown out of the water by his creativity. Creativity involves many things, not the least of which is to take risks.


Doing our best doesn't seem enough for me. I mean, we do that every day with everything we do, right? In that sense, everyone is a professional, and a title that applies to all looses its meaning.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 9, 2022)

Aren't there "literary" types who have been published, have some sort of elitist street cred but just don't get paid much?


----------



## PrairieHostage (Aug 9, 2022)

indianroads said:


> Doing our best doesn't seem enough for me. I mean, we do that every day with everything we do, right? In that sense, everyone is a professional, and a title that applies to all looses its meaning.


Ya, I figured that would come off sounding trite. It means do our best with one big assumption... that the writer has learned, read, and practiced all they can. Even then it mayn't be enuf. Because innate talent is a real thing. Speaking of author Ayize again, one reviewer said _Ayize's imagination will mess with yours, and the world won't ever look quite the same again_.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 9, 2022)

PrairieHostage said:


> Ya, I figured that would come off sounding trite. It means do our best with one big assumption... that the writer has learned, read, and practiced all they can. Even then it mayn't be enuf. Because innate talent is a real thing. Speaking of author Ayize again, one reviewer said _Ayize's imagination will mess with yours, and the world won't ever look quite the same again_.



Another aspect is that innate talent doesn't necessarily collide with being published right away. In a sense, you could spin talent as creative + market focused, pattern-generating ability, but some writers don't focus on the current market and that seems equally legitimate. Not saying either one is better, but I've seen this argument in this past where artistic merit has to be linked with some sort of economic achievement.


----------



## PrairieHostage (Aug 9, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Another aspect is that innate talent doesn't necessarily collide with being published right away. In a sense, you could spin talent as creative + market focused, pattern-generating ability, but some writers don't focus on the current market. Not saying either one is better, but I've seen this argument in this past where artistic merit has to be linked with some sort of economic achievement.


Absolutely! There are probably thousands of, as yet, unpublished writers who are extremely talented.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 9, 2022)

indianroads said:


> So, the income would be less than what you would need to survive without other income?


Let me ask this. If you are married and you both have jobs and contribute to your living expenses, if one person's job alone doesn't provide enough income alone to cover those expenses, does it mean they aren't a professional at what they do?

To be honest, though, I don't see where the amount made has anything to do with it if a writer is consistently able to sell their work. My definition is simply what I said was what I considered it to be.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 9, 2022)

The credential "professional" is hard to define. 

My understanding of Kent's use of the term would be a prominent published author who is well-read and respected by the literary community.

In keeping with others' posts, here is my experience with being a professional: 

At 18-21 years old, I played flute in a symphony orchestra.  We played in professional halls for paying patrons and I did get a paycheck -- albeit not anywhere near enough to sustain myself, but I would have at the time considered myself a professional musician.

After a degree in applied design, I worked full-time as a fashion designer for 20 years, Although I haven't worked in the industry for 20+ years, I still consider myself a professional fashion designer. 

After a degree in business, I worked full-time as an accountant, but would _not_ have considered myself a professional because I was not chartered by law.  After I passed the cruelling two-day CFE exam and gained my designation, I was allowed to call myself a p_rofessional_ accountant.  Non-designated accountants are not permitted by law to use the term professional, regardless of how much money they make.  And, I can only use the term if stay in good standing with the CPA Society.

Although I get paid handsomely to write training manuals, I don't call myself a professional writer, because that would be misleading, and I will never fall into the category that Kent describes.  However, I am writing a trilogy and treating it like a business, hiring professionals where needed.  My standard for the end product is "Professional Standard."  I can't define that yet, but it will be comparable to other products I have put into the market as a professional designer. 

Although I argued with @Kent_Jacobs earlier, I'm starting to understand what he is trying to say. There's just a certain standard of writing that sounds professional -- although hard to pin it down.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 9, 2022)

Taylor said:


> The credential "professional" is hard to define.
> 
> My understanding of Kent's use of the term would be a prominent published author who is well-read and respected by the literary community.
> 
> ...


Yes. Identifying it is the first step to emulating it. That's not to say you copy what you've read. It's to say you try to isolate what that 'something' is that, regardless of length or genre, a book picked up at the library tends to feel at home there.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 9, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Yes. Identifying it is the first step to emulating it. That's not to say you copy what you've read. It's to say you try to isolate what that 'something' is that, regardless of length or genre, a book picked up at the library tends to feel at home there.


That's interesting Kent.  Perhaps that's as good of a test as any.  Would this author be found in a public library?

EDIT:  Lately, I've been going to the library and sitting down with a pile of books and just reading the first few pages.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 9, 2022)

Taylor said:


> That's interesting Kent.  Perhaps that's as good of a test as any.  Would this author be found in a public library?


I'd say yes. As I've pointed out, there are 'some' writers who know someone or who are someone and get published that way, but I don't think their numbers are high enough to bother including them in the analysis.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 9, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> Yes. Identifying it is the first step to emulating it. That's not to say you copy what you've read. It's to say you try to isolate what that 'something' is that, regardless of length or genre, a book picked up at the library tends to feel at home there.



It would be interesting to assess if certain genres might have "looser" standards for rhythmic writing and such, allowing for relatively clunky prose (thus making the pattern harder to define). I get that you're trying to isolate a core, but many things can obscure a pattern or contribute to apophenia. Some things to watch out for.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 9, 2022)

Parabola said:


> It would be interesting to assess if certain genres might have "looser" standards for rhythmic writing and such, allowing for relatively clunky prose (thus making the pattern harder to define).


That could be the case. Remember I'm trying to point out the universal factors only. Even though all books I've read may well fall into these categories, how well some are done compared to others doesn't really matter. You can still have a poorer quality but still be of a high enough quality to be recognised as professional. My recent piece, We Are 1, is the first piece written with this list of pointers uppermost in my mind.


----------



## That Guy Named Aaron (Aug 9, 2022)

The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind….


----------



## Parabola (Aug 9, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> That could be the case. Remember I'm trying to point out the universal factors only. Even though all books I've read may well fall into these categories, how well some are done compared to others doesn't really matter. You can still have a poorer quality but still be of a high enough quality to be recognised as professional. My recent piece, We Are 1, is the first piece written with this list of pointers uppermost in my mind.



Fair enough, though I guess my point was finding that "band" and narrowing it to your preference isn't easy. "Barely professional--moderately professional" and so on (sometimes on the lower end, certain elements can "muddy the waters" so to speak).

On the other hand, maybe my gut is reading it wrong, but you seem to focus on intuitive writing that isn't just classified as professional. I think you're looking for a core rhythm/poetic flair which goes beyond that generic label (even if it's technically subsumed by it). Like I said, I could be wrong there. More broadly, I get what you're saying about trying to isolate those universal factors.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 9, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Fair enough, though I guess my point was finding that "band" and narrowing it to your preference isn't easy. *"Barely professional--moderately professional" and so on.*
> 
> On the other hand, maybe my intuition is reading it wrong, but you seem to focus on intuitive writing that isn't just classified as professional. I think you're looking for a core rhythm that's beyond that generic label (even if it's subsumed by it). Like I said, I could be wrong there.


I don't think it serves the purpose well if we try splitting it down further to be honest. Just a general sense is enough. And it depends on what kind of book you're reading. If it's plain-glass, chances are the rhythm is designed with a lower key in mind. If it's stained-glass writing, then all the factors will be considered and at the forefront. Either way, they're still there. I tend to lean more heavily on stained-glass writing so maybe that's making you believe I'm looking for something beyond the 'generic' label. If I was to give 'plain-glass' a go, I'd still be putting all of those things into practice.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 9, 2022)

I guess it's like: do you want to write a fishing shack or the great wall of china?


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 9, 2022)

Parabola said:


> I guess it's like: do you want to write a fishing shack or the great wall of china?


Something just to give the editor or publisher pause for thought would do me.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 9, 2022)

For me, I think talented would resonate better than professional. The amount of money, even if any, made does not equate to the quality the OP is talking about. Some of the greatest authors in history pale in comparison to the number of books and money made by modern authors who do not come close in having the talent they do.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

PrairieHostage said:


> Ya, I figured that would come off sounding trite. It means do our best with one big assumption... that the writer has learned, read, and practiced all they can. Even then it mayn't be enuf. Because innate talent is a real thing. Speaking of author Ayize again, one reviewer said _Ayize's imagination will mess with yours, and the world won't ever look quite the same again_.


Excellence can only be attained through a process of continual improvement. An artist doesn't stagnate, but constantly looks for way to challenge themselves. With every story we finish, I suggest that we look back at it and find a way to be better next time.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it.
Pablo Picasso

Success is dangerous. One begins to copy oneself, and to copy oneself is more dangerous than to copy others. It leads to sterility.
Pablo Picasso

The people who make art their business are mostly imposters.
Pablo Picasso


----------



## PiP (Aug 10, 2022)

Maybe the title of the thread is misleading and setting goals to achieve quality output is different and not linked to the word ‘professional’. You can set goals and outline s.m.a.r.t. objectives to achieve them. SPaG you can quantify and set benchmarks but if you are looking for metrical rhythm and flow  anyone with a natural ‘feel’ can achieve this while other writers need to develop the technique and many writers develop their own style. The use of the word professional is a red herring.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

Stained-glass writing is interesting. I've noticed two broad types. A more 3d "spatial chunking" style where you can almost feel the writer's mind is trying to take the shape of the prose. For me, that's really intriguing because I haven't encountered a lot of contemporary writers who do this. In my mind, this correlates with introverted thinking skillset in general (it's almost like academic writing cut with creative flow). The other kind of prose is less spatially focused, more "disconnected" in its flow. Beautiful words maybe but floating in a dark sea. I guess you could apply these descriptions to whatever glass writing as well. Since we are trying to dissect the writing parts, I just find it useful to think of different structural elements.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 10, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> 'Once again, you've ignored the story, which trumps everything above.'
> 
> This is about prose ... PROSE.


Prose does not exist in a vacuum. Without story, there is no prose. The entire point of prose is to communication something.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

IMO, reading an abundance of florid prose is like shoving a lit stick of incense up your nose and inhaling deeply.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 10, 2022)

indianroads said:


> IMO, reading an abundance of florid prose is like shoving a lit stick of incense up your nose and inhaling deeply.


I hadn't imagined it that way, but I would agree.

Florid prose can have it's place at times, but like herbs and spices for a recipe, too much and it overpowers everything else so it ends up being all you taste.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

Selorian said:


> I hadn't imagined it that way, but I would agree.
> 
> Florid prose can have it's place at times, but like herbs and spices for a recipe, too much and it overpowers everything else so it ends up being all you taste.



Like with many things, context is important. How does the prose flow alongside the MC's narrative and so on.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 10, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Like with many things, context is important. How does the prose flow alongside the MC's narrative and so on.


For my mind, flow and rhythm have very little to do with florid writing. Yes, you can lean into it harder and write stained-glass prose, but you can just as easily approach it subtly and write plain-glass prose. For the life of me I don't understand how this topic has now moved on to florid, as if everything I've mentioned in the OP is in some way geared towards that. It does leave the subject with a little whiff of discredit though ... Oh, how the subconscious mind works. 

You get it though. 'Context' and all that.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> For my mind, flow and rhythm have very little to do with florid writing. Yes, you can lean into it harder and write stained-glass prose, but you can just as easily approach it subtly and write plain-glass prose. For the life of me I don't understand how this topic has now moved on to florid, as if everything I've mentioned in the OP is in some way geared towards that. It does leave the subject with a little whiff of discredit though ... Oh, how the subconscious mind works.
> 
> You get it though. 'Context' and all that.



Florid prose can often be marked by poor flow and rhythm. Once those things have been smoothed out, it seems to become harder to see it as "florid" barring context issues, which is another thing that can highlight purple-y stuff. I'd argue that's equally as important as flow and rhythm. That's part of what makes the fluid creative process difficult. Not just a pretty line, but one that's crafted to fit the specific aesthetic of a story/character.

I agree about there being too much emphasis on florid, or at least the usual arguments that flow from it. Still, it's something to consider when talking about professional...whatever.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 10, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Florid prose can often be marked by poor flow and rhythm. *Once those things have been smoothed out, it seems to become harder to see it as "florid" barring context issues, which is another thing that can highlight purple-y stuff. I'd argue that's equally as important as flow and rhythm. That's part of what makes the fluid creative process difficult. Not just a pretty line, but one that's crafted to fit the specific aesthetic of a story/character.*


BINGO! Sometimes you have to go through the ugly to get to the beautiful.

This might interest you:


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

Beautiful is in the murky eye of the beholder, at least partially.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 10, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Beautiful is in the murky eye of the beholder, at least partially.


Bloody Nora, don't you start muddying the waters too ...


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

My current read is, Upgrade by Blake Crouch. It's excellent, and I recommend it for those that enjoy books about the misuse of technology.

The story is very well written (and researched) and he does introduce brief descriptions that can be considered florid --- but, these are usually ONE SHORT SENTENCE and are separated from each other by a page or so of story. Using florid prose that way makes the story a pleasure to read.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Aug 10, 2022)

indianroads said:


> My current read is, Upgrade by Blake Crouch. It's excellent, and I recommend it for those that enjoy books about the misuse of technology.
> 
> The story is very well written (and researched) and he does introduce brief descriptions that can be considered florid --- but, these are usually ONE SHORT SENTENCE and are separated from each other by a page or so of story. Using florid prose that way makes the story a pleasure to read.


I think this use of the word florid needs to be reigned in a little. I think it's detrimental to some writers. As many many authors have said, they blame Hemmingway.


----------



## wgoops (Aug 10, 2022)

Generally a writer with a "professional" style doesn't really fart around. Usually the prose has a strong voice, the pacing's decent, they're able to describe things decently, they'll have dialogue that feels internally consistent + reveals character.

Decent prose usually has a good sense of pacing, too. Pacing is a very very very tricky one to pin down, but the speed of descriptions and dialogue and actions and plot just... feels right?

They also consistently establish scenes, and tension, and they can reveal character very quickly. Reader expectations are set just right out the gate.

I've done a whole bunch of in-depth critiques on a different forum, and by god man, you don't recognize these elements (dialogue, scenes, imagery/description, pacing) when they're decent, but when they're absent, or off-key, you just smell it. This sounds really bold and snotty, but you can generally tell within the first hundred or so words (at most) whether or not the author actually knows how to write decent prose.

Style has 0% to do with whether or not a writer feels "professional" or whatever as generally a poor style is* symptomatic of the writer not having a solid grip of one of those four things. And there's way way way way way way more stuff mechanically + character/plot-wise than just those four (dialogue, scenes, imagery/description, pacing), but those imo are the easiest to focus on.

Basically any classic author is a good case study for this sort of thing.

Twain and Dickens imo are both really solid examples.
Herbert's opening to Dune is an absolute showstopper and balances those four elements really, really well.
Faulkner's Barn Burning is really good on the imagery front but if you don't got a stomach for lit it's insufferably unclear. Steinbeck's opening to Grapes is an alternative example of imagery/description to go off of.
Vonnegut's good with the pacing but it's kinda breakneck imo and if you're not careful studying it will make you afraid of actually dwelling in a scene.
If you don't really think figurative language can work, I'd recommend Blood Meridian as its figurative shit is absolutely beautiful.
Kafka's The Trial is a really good example of a piece which shouldn't work because the imagery and the dialogue suck ass; the plot and pacing carry the thing.
People point to Lolita as being a really good example of "purple" done right, but I really don't see it. Kinda sacrilegious to say that but oh well. I might need to work through more old stuff though before I really get a healthy respect for it.
It's kinda interesting to compare Vonnegut and Joyce's short story styles. I'm only partway through Dubliners but Joyce does these beautiful poignant stories that lack any real stakes or momentum, seemingly, while in Harrison Bergeron Vonnegut just refuses to make a single word expendable.

I have yet to find a classic that does dialogue right. McCarthy comes very, very, very close, and is the best example I got right now. I do gotta diversity my classics authors a little bit but imo these guys all do the whole "dialogue imagery pacing scene" thing very well and are worth a bit of personal study. All that's just my opinion though and I'm unpublished lmao, so take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

Clear, concise, engaging.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

The first two are synonyms for boring.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

Parabola said:


> The first two are synonyms for boring.


Wouldn't that depend on the story being told?


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

indianroads said:


> Wouldn't that depend on the story being told?



Sure. I just mean, "clear and concise" sound like the celery of literature. I can't tell you how many books I've put down because they are just so, so very boring/clear and concise. It has to have something imaginative that stimulates me. "Engaging" sounds like a movie with Ryan Gosling. Maybe it'll alleviate the boredom, but what did I ultimately get from consuming it?

I need that sizzle, that pop.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 10, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Sure. I just mean, "clear and concise" sound like the celery of literature. I can't tell you how many books I've put down because they are just so, so very boring/clear and concise. It has to have something imaginative that stimulates me. "Engaging" sounds like a movie with Ryan Gosling. Maybe it'll alleviate the boredom, but what did I ultimately get from consuming it?
> 
> I need that sizzle, that pop.


It's a balancing act, isn't it? Too much florid prose makes for a dull and ponderous story, but its lack makes the read like something from a text book.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 10, 2022)

indianroads said:


> It's a balancing act, isn't it? Too much florid prose makes for a dull and ponderous story, but its lack makes the read like something from a text book.



Yes, quite the balancing act. As @Kent_Jacobs said, I think the use of the term could be reigned in a little. Too much of something can make it florid, but take some of those lines and isolate them, or insert them into some other context and they have the potential to work. Not to say "florid prose" isn't a meaningful label, I just wonder why that's lampooned more than, say, white prose.

I've read authors who can weave electrifying lines into a story, and if I had to pick a mode of consumption, it would be a slightly less engaging story (but you still need one), and blazing prose that makes me think because of the symbolism/image, or maybe the characters are three-dimensional even though the plot isn't exactly a rollercoaster ride.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 11, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Yes, quite the balancing act. As @Kent_Jacobs said, I think the use of the term could be reigned in a little. Too much of something can make it florid, but take some of those lines and isolate them, or insert them into some other context and they have the potential to work. *Not to say "florid prose" isn't a meaningful label, I just wonder why that's lampooned more than, say, white prose.*
> 
> I've read authors who can weave electrifying lines into a story, and if I had to pick a mode of consumption, it would be a slightly less engaging story (but you still need one), and blazing prose that makes me think because of the symbolism/image, or maybe the characters are three-dimensional even though the plot isn't exactly a rollercoaster ride.


It's lampooned more because it takes away and distracts from the story. "White" prose at the very least will always give you the story info, while florid can be confusing. If you're confusing your reader, you're not doing a good job communicating your story.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 11, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> It's lampooned more because it takes away and distracts from the story. "White" prose at the very least will always give you the story info, while florid can be confusing. If you're confusing your reader, you're not doing a good job communicating your story.



If you're putting your reader into a coma because the prose is so white you might as well have a blank page, you're not doing a good job of communicating, well, anything.


----------



## Selorian (Aug 11, 2022)

Tettsuo said:


> It's lampooned more because it takes away and distracts from the story. "White" prose at the very least will always give you the story info, while florid can be confusing. If you're confusing your reader, you're not doing a good job communicating your story.





Parabola said:


> If you're putting your reader into a coma because the prose is so white you might as well have a blank page, you're not doing a good job of communicating, well, anything.


Both true at the extreme ends of the spectrum. When balanced, neither should cause these situations.


----------



## Parabola (Sep 25, 2022)

I've come to the conclusion that some writers have an innately relatable style. Not just from reading/writing and absorbing that, something about their thought style is more compatible with the majority, like their mind is naturally inclined to assess market patterns/trends in general, or their brain just fits with the majority.


----------



## VRanger (Sep 25, 2022)

Parabola said:


> I've come to the conclusion that some writers have an innately relatable style. Not just from reading/writing and absorbing that, something about their thought style is more compatible with the majority, like their mind is naturally inclined to assess market patterns/trends in general, or their brain just fits with the majority.


I agree that some writers have a relatable style, and of course there are other qualities that may attract readers ... and that's what I think happens. Some authors are fortunate enough to attract the readers who prefer their style and their choice of stories.


----------



## Parabola (Sep 25, 2022)

VRanger said:


> I agree that some writers have a relatable style, and of course there are other qualities that may attract readers ... and that's what I think happens. Some authors are fortunate enough to attract the readers who prefer their style and their choice of stories.



Yeah, I look at it as, some have innate ability (through more relatable experience or some genetic quirk) for choosing compelling subject based off of trends + "okay" style, while others have the former with great style. 

Guess the way the way to phrase it is, some are better swimmers in the sea of cultural values, for whatever reason.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 25, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Yeah, I look at it as, some have innate ability (through more relatable experience or some genetic quirk) for choosing compelling subject based off of trends + "okay" style, while others have the former with great style.
> 
> Guess the way to phrase it is, some are better swimmers in the sea of cultural values, for whatever reason.


Totally agree!  In fact, this is true for any designed product or artform. 

I remember when _The Davinci Code_ by Dan Brown, came out.  Shortly after its release, I was flying to New York.  I bought it in the airport bookstore, and then I saw it everywhere.  People were reading it at the gate, it was tucked in briefcases, and was all around me.  Something about it, cover, tile, back blurb ... who knows.  He was never really able to do it again though.  _Shades of Grey_ by E. L. James was also a smash hit.  The last time I remember a book with immediate widespread success was _American Dirt _by Jeanine Cummins.  Not as popular, but already 100,000 sold since 2020.  

One thing I have to say that all of these books have in common is a catchy title that speaks to the story.  Hmmmm....


----------



## Parabola (Sep 25, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Totally agree!  In fact, this is true for any designed product or artform.
> 
> I remember when _The Davinci Code_ by Dan Brown, came out.  Shortly after its release, I was flying to New York.  I bought it in the airport bookstore, and then I saw it everywhere.  People were reading it at the gate, it was tucked in briefcases, and was all around me.  Something about it, cover, tile, back blurb ... who knows.  He was never really able to do it again though.  _Shades of Grey_ by E. L. James was also a smash hit.  The last time I remember a book with immediate widespread success was _American Dirt _by Jeanine Cummins.  Not as popular, but already 100,000 sold since 2020.
> 
> One thing I have to say that all of these books have in common is a catchy title that speaks to the story.  Hmmmm....



Great examples. Except for the cover/blurb/marketing stuff, it's really hard to figure out what is intentional, especially for the writer. Some of them subconsciously pick up on some cultural pattern and then put their stamp on it, or maybe their authenticity just gets accidentally rewarded (though that's not meant to take away from talent/skill etc). With others, they are more intentional on how they go about things.

Re: the title, also good point! Back in my NoSleep days, a catchy title that makes the reader click, ie "clickbait" with sly word usage communicating some mystery to be unraveled etc, that was half the battle, and of course, trying not to post when an author with 10,000 followers comes strutting into the saloon.


----------



## JBF (Sep 26, 2022)

Parabola said:


> Some of them subconsciously pick up on some cultural pattern and then put their stamp on it, or maybe their authenticity just gets accidentally rewarded (though that's not meant to take away from talent/skill etc).



I’ve wondered this before.  Supposing one could generate a book which is:

easy enough to pick up and put down for the beach vacation/airline travel market
with enough Easter eggs buried for the freshman lit majors and the high school English teachers to ferret out
that doesn’t actively piss off a significant share of the potential readership
while sufficiently taking the reader out of their own world and into the setting of the book

…you’ll probably do alright across a vast swath of markets, irrespective of your genre, provided you tag 75% of that list.

Great literature?  Maybe not.  Great lit can probably get by on _one_ of the above and devil take the hindmost.

Conversely, great lit isn’t likely to buy you a beach house in the Bahamas, nor the private jet and yacht to deliver you there.


----------



## Parabola (Sep 26, 2022)

JBF said:


> I’ve wondered this before.  Supposing one could generate a book which is:
> 
> easy enough to pick up and put down for the beach vacation/airline travel market
> with enough Easter eggs buried for the freshman lit majors and the high school English teachers to ferret out
> ...



Concerning the list, it's always interesting to wonder what's an intentional targeting of any of those points by the author, or their specific brand of authenticity just happens to get mirrored by the culture. Dexter is a fairly good example. 'Muricans are fascinated by killers. He humanized one by making the protag go after them. Not to mention little writing tricks like giving him a fondness for children, or being protective of his foster sister, Deb.

The only author I know of that seemed to straddle literary "street cred" and some form of commercial success was Ursula Le Guin.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 9, 2022)

For some reason, I like bumping this thread. 

Another quote I came across that might illuminate depending on various shtuffs. "Here's a hint: it's not a thing. It's a state of mind." Now that's not meant to be taken literally.


----------



## RGS (Oct 9, 2022)

Kent_Jacobs said:


> As I've said many many times on this forum, the only three readers you should be concerned about (apart from yourself) is the editor, the publisher and the agent.



So you're okay with that book that met the approval of the editor, publisher, and agent sitting on a shelf somewhere and never being read?


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Oct 9, 2022)

RGS said:


> So you're okay with that book that met the approval of the editor, publisher, and agent sitting on a shelf somewhere and never being read?


If you want to be published the traditional way, those are the readers you need to impress. If they don't read your work, regardless of how great your characters are or how deep the story is, you won't get published. Your first focus should be on a hook in the first line, a good supporting first paragraph (unless the opening line is separate), a compelling first page and a killer first chapter. I've heard enough published authors say this now to understand it's true: You can get people to read and enjoy an ordinary story if it's written well, but you can't get people to read a great story if the writing is second rate.

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking the editor, the publisher or the agent are the most important people to impress. This is just common sense. You don't need to know anything at all about writing to realise this. You can self publish though of course, but that's not the topic of this thread.


----------



## JBF (Oct 9, 2022)

RGS said:


> So you're okay with that book that met the approval of the editor, publisher, and agent sitting on a shelf somewhere and never being read?


Much like any ship can sweep a mine (once) this wouldn’t seem to bode well for future contracts.

The perfect book unread, the pretty girl not asked, the classic roadster plinthed with a single-digit run on the odometer, the big-game rifle not fired, and the vintage wine never opened are a tragic waste.

Use it up, wear it out…the prize is all in the  mileage.


----------

