# The Well Written Story v The Good Story



## luckyscars

Inspired by a response by Sam in another thread



Sam said:


> Writing well is half the battle. You can write the most technically sound novel imaginable and it won't matter a damn if there's no _story, _no _conflict, _no _hook. _A great novel employs both great writing and great storytelling.



Obviously the ideal state is for a novel to be both an excellent story and well written. But, let's pretend that's not possible. 

Let's say somebody who is only barely competent as a writer happens to be a great storyteller. They're truly brilliant when it comes to narrative, character, everything that exists beyond the page, but the actual prose is straight journeyman, grade-school-level stuff.

Let's say another writer exists then, one who is a truly gifted writer but happens to only be an average sort of storyteller: That is, they can 'tell a story' to the extent they can deliver according to formula. There's nothing _wrong  _with their writing, certainly nothing you could point to, but the ideas, characterization, concept is all pretty much in line with what is already out there. There's nothing that feels new, nothing _interesting. _However, again, the writing is REALLY good. That is, it's technically flawless, inventive, beautifully poetic at times. 

Which of these two scenarios is more likely to yield success? Are either of them? Assume for the moment that it is not possible for either of these two individuals to improve dramatically... In essence, can fairly rough writing be overlooked by the average writer if there is a solid underlying concept...or are great stories completely enslaved to competency? 

At what point does a great story become undermined by poor writing skill (if any)? At what point (if any) does great writing skill become undermined by an average or worse story? 

Is it possible to be such a great storyteller that you will still be successful even if you can't even master basic grammar? Is it possible to be such a great writer that you will still be successful even if the actual things you are writing about are generally considered dull as ditchwater?


----------



## Sam

It's difficult to answer that without sufficient research, but I'd venture to say there a lot more best-selling novels that read like a 10-year-old's first draft, than there are expertly written books bereft of great storytelling. 

If I had to choose, I'd choose to be a great storyteller. Imagination is one of the rare skills that arguably cannot be learned, but you can learn to become a better writer with enough practice and time.


----------



## EternalGreen

I require a novel to be very well-written and involve basic story-telling competence.

There are best-selling novels with prose that insults my intelligence.

But without at least decent story-telling, a novel *will *descend into unreadable mush.

I dislike both skeletons and bloated bodies. The skeleton writer is more likely to be successful today than the bloated writer.


----------



## Olly Buckle

I can only speak personally, but on the whole I would stick with a great story, good writing is the sort of thing I will pick up and put down between reading the stories, entertaining, but basically unimportant.


----------



## bdcharles

luckyscars said:


> Inspired by a response by Sam in another thread
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the ideal state is for a novel to be both an excellent story and well written. But, let's pretend that's not possible.
> 
> Let's say somebody who is only barely competent as a writer happens to be a great storyteller. They're truly brilliant when it comes to narrative, character, everything that exists beyond the page, but the actual prose is straight journeyman, grade-school-level stuff.
> 
> Let's say another writer exists then, one who is a truly gifted writer but happens to only be an average sort of storyteller: That is, they can 'tell a story' to the extent they can deliver according to formula. There's nothing _wrong  _with their writing, certainly nothing you could point to, but the ideas, characterization, concept is all pretty much in line with what is already out there. There's nothing that feels new, nothing _interesting. _However, again, the writing is REALLY good. That is, it's technically flawless, inventive, beautifully poetic at times.
> 
> Which of these two scenarios is more likely to yield success? Are either of them? Assume for the moment that it is not possible for either of these two individuals to improve dramatically... In essence, can fairly rough writing be overlooked by the average writer if there is a solid underlying concept...or are great stories completely enslaved to competency?
> 
> At what point does a great story become undermined by poor writing skill (if any)? At what point (if any) does great writing skill become undermined by an average or worse story?
> 
> Is it possible to be such a great storyteller that you will still be successful even if you can't even master basic grammar? Is it possible to be such a great writer that you will still be successful even if the actual things you are writing about are generally considered dull as ditchwater?



It pains me to say that I think the journeyman writer may have a measure more. I say this simply based on experience - _Fifty Shades_ comes to mind, as do a plethora of mediocrely-written books. There are a lot of median-to-below-median readership levels out there, and if booksellers can sell to them, and if they can overlook (or more likely, remain unaware of) the issues, that's what will happen.

Some of my editing clients are my clients precisely because - often by their own admission - their grammar needs work. However their stories and ideas are often very inventive, and some have reasonable reviews on Amazon (though I'm never sure how genuine a mechanism this is). I think there's a partnership element to it, with the writer and the editor working as a team of equals, but ultimately, as Sam says, you kind of have to have both ideally to really stand out. I don't think it takes many SPaG problemsor instances of weak prose to fully derail a potentially good story. Eventually it gets to a point where readers can't discern it; it has failed to make the leap from writer's head to legible prose.


----------



## Terra

The fiction stories I have in my head are always so much bigger than what I am able to express in written form ... put a microphone in my hand or a grandchild on my lap, and the stories come alive. I want to learn how to write those stories so they are alive on paper without losing their essence. "I hope this is something that can be achieved", she said, laughing out loud to "dull as ditchwater". I've read the 50 shades series and the first book imo was a much better story than the others, but I'm a sucker for a love story of any kind so that didn't surprise me.

One author that comes to mind is Elizabeth Gilbert who captured my attention in Eat, Pray, Love but perhaps that's because I'm on a similar journey and could easily relate to 'her' story. Then I read the Signature of All Things, and was enthralled by the 'story' of Alma -- was it the character development that I got lost in, or Alma's 'story' -- was it well written, or is EG a pop culture author? City of Girls was next, but this time I listened to the book on audible and at first I couldn't tell if it was the story I enjoyed, or the narrators voice.  By the end though, I'm certain it was the narrator's voice that held my attention. Pretty sure I would have set the book down 2/3 through had I been reading a hard copy -- the story fizzled and I got tired of 'how' it was written.

Some sci-fi fantasy are so elaborate I can't get into the actual story -- I'd rather watch the movie. Romance and erotica are stories aimed at my feelings and emotions, so how well it's written can be 'meh' and I don't really care LOL

 A good book for me is either when I can't put it down, OR I put it down because I don't want the story to end.


----------



## Tettsuo

I'm rolling with the good story. I don't pick up a book because it's well written, I pickup books to experience something new, fun and thoughtful. I'm not checking for SPaG, interesting metaphors and nice turns of phrase when I read, I'm checking for cool ideas and fun storytelling. I've never stopped reading a great story because there was a spelling error, but I have put down books that had an extremely weak story, but was written expertly.


----------



## bdcharles

Tettsuo said:


> I'm rolling with the good story. I don't pick up a book because it's well written, I pickup books to experience something new, fun and thoughtful. I'm not checking for SPaG, interesting metaphors and nice turns of phrase when I read, I'm checking for cool ideas and fun storytelling. I've never stopped reading a great story because there was a spelling error, but I have put down books that had an extremely weak story, but was written expertly.



Ever a sucker for well-crafted prose, I have put down books that were just unstylish or too mediocrely written. FBOW there is something in me that craves clever and perceptive phrasing. The story was probably perfectly okay but for me it dangled out of reach, separated by a veil of meh.


----------



## indianroads

As long as the prose is not so bad as I am driven to gouge my eyes out with a soup spoon, I'll take a good story every time.

Pretty words that say nothing are of no interest to me.


----------



## EmmaSohan

You don't define good writing.

I have been surprised, again and again, how often a popular book will do something nice with punctuation and grammar. Would Harry Potter or Twilight be as good or popular with ordinary punctuation and grammar? I doubt it.

So, suppose you have something interesting happening in your story. Then you tell it wrong -- bury it in the middle of a paragraph could reduce the interest by a half, spoiling it with advance knowledge or wrong perspective could be even more devastating. So then the person who knows how to write well only has to do half as much to work to be just as interesting.


----------



## Squalid Glass

Genre is a big determiner. Literary fiction is all about technique and theme. Popular fiction is all about story. The terms "high-art" and "low-art" come to mind, as snobby as those may be.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> You don't define good writing.
> 
> I have been surprised, again and again, how often a popular book will do something nice with punctuation and grammar. Would Harry Potter or Twilight be as good or popular with ordinary punctuation and grammar? I doubt it.
> 
> So, suppose you have something interesting happening in your story. Then you tell it wrong -- bury it in the middle of a paragraph could reduce the interest by a half, spoiling it with advance knowledge or wrong perspective could be even more devastating. So then the person who knows how to write well only has to do half as much to work to be just as interesting.



It's funny you mention Harry Potter, because that was actually one book I had in mind with this topic.

To me, Harry Potter is extremely 'ordinary' in terms of writing. Part of that is because it was written for children, obviously, and I suppose you could extend this stuff to YA books generally: They're almost never examples of 'good writing' so much as examples of supreme storytelling with decent, albeit simple, writing. It's even more acute when you're talking more middle grade type books.

 Something like R.L Stine's 'Goosebumps' series is obviously pretty primitive as far as writing but the man is an excellent storyteller. He is particularly excellent as a children's storyteller. However, reading his adult horror books (Red Rain, specifically) it's clear that his actual writing is pretty limited (there's a lot of kind of hammy dialogue, the emotional depth of the characters is a bit lacking, the descriptions are fairly basic -- kind of budget Stephen King) and, quite honestly, it doesn't really read much like a book for adult. Some of that is possibly due to confirmation bias -- we expect writers to sound like their prior work (reading JK Rowling's 'adult' novels has a similar effect) but I think there is, unfortunately, an element of some really good storytellers aren't very good writers.

Likewise, I feel like I encounter a decent number of obviously talented writers who actually aren't great at telling a story. This seems particularly true in literary fiction. Stuff like Virginia Woolf's 'To The Lighthouse' is a masterclass in writing craft but the story itself is so basic it almost doesn't resemble one.


----------



## MistWolf

I just finished listening to the _Harry Potter_ while at work. It's a great story that takes place in a wonderful world and I like the characters. But, there are some serious plot holes and truly awful tropes. Yet, I find it entertaining.

Shakespeare is considered a writer of beautiful prose. But, he's wordy and I want to scream "Just shut up and tell the story already!"

Asimov is a great writer _and_ a great story teller. He's a natural. But his writing before he became a big name and the editors gave him free reign is better than his later stuff.

Luis L'Amour is a great storyteller and his writing style, in turn, is as raw and refined as the frontier here wrote about. He too was better before the editors gave him free reign. 

An author doesn't have to write well to tell a good story. However, I think an author has to have a good story to tell to write well. Nothing can kill a good story faster than poor writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> To me, Harry Potter is extremely 'ordinary' in terms of writing.



The following ends with probably the most important sentence in the book. Three words. If you look at the thought and detail that went into this passage, it is anything but simple. The author slows things down and gives it a lot of emotion.



> What they're saying," she pressed on, "is that last night Voldemort turned up in Godric's Hollow. He went to find the Potters. The rumor is that Lily and James Potter are -- are -- that they're dead."
> Dumbledore bowed his head. Professor McGonagall gasped.
> "Lily and James . . . I can't believe it . . . I didn't want to believe it. . . Oh, Albus . . ."
> Dumbledore reached out and patted her on the shoulder. "I know . . . I know. . ." he said heavily.
> Professor McGonagall's voice trembled as she went on. "That's not all. They're saying he tried to kill the Potters' son, Harry. But -- he couldn't."



_Trembled _would probably count as a word that makes that boring sentence come alive.

At it's best, punctuation and grammar helps create the story. How good is the story by itself?



> "I heard that last night Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow and killed the Potters."
> "It's true. He also tried to kill their son Harry, but for some reason he couldn't."


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> The following ends with probably the most important sentence in the book. Three words. If you look at the thought and detail that went into this passage, it is anything but simple. The author slows things down and gives it a lot of emotion.



Yes, it's good writing. However, it isn't great writing -- it's a great _story _with great _characters _that is written _competently. 

_This may be where we run into issues writing/storytelling being treated as a dichotomy because, well, they're obviously not really separate at all. You may quite reasonably ask 'if it's a good story written competently, isn't that 'great writing'?" And the answer is...yes. Logically, it is. 

Imagine a car that drove 1,000,000 miles and counting without ever once breaking down or experiencing a single problem. A car which had comfortable seats, great fuel economy, just about checked every 'functionality' box there is. _Is that the greatest car in the world? _Well, sure, it is...until I tell you it looks like this:















And that's essentially the problem: Great writing isn't just about functionality. The above car may be the greatest car in every sense we would ordinarily expect to measure one, but something about it stops us from calling it a great car. 

Part of it is aesthetics, obviously. But also...what about the other things we might want in a car? What about speed? What about power? What about the feelings we get when we drive it? Are those things not important parts of establishing a car's greatness? Of course they are. Or, at least, they can be, depending on what we want in cars. 

And that is why when you ask people what's the GREATEST car in the world, they will probably think of something more like this...














And that's why JK Rowling's writing is great but not _great_, in my opinion: Her writing is closer to that first hypothetical car. First of all, her style is simply not all that distinctive nor overwhelmingly attractive. Stylistically it resembles many traditional English authors (just slightly tweaked for 'modernism'). There's not much really delicious imagery. The language doesn't dance off the page. 

 You could argue none of that stuff matters, of course, and you would not necessarily be wrong -- it depends what you want. But if she was truly a _great writer _as opposed to a _great storyteller and decent writer _one imagines she would be universally acclaimed as the best writer of all time. But you wont find many people, even die hard fans, who will say that. What they will say instead is _she wrote the best book series of all time, _which is a slightly but still significantly different accomplishment.


----------



## EternalGreen

An often-overlooked perk of well-written prose, no matter how dull the storytelling, is that a writer learns techniques from reading it.


----------



## Olly Buckle

EternalGreen said:


> An often-overlooked perk of well-written prose, no matter how dull the storytelling, is that a writer learns techniques from reading it.



Some writers never seem to learn anything


----------



## Squalid Glass

Lucky, if you’re looking to define great writing in the way you do, poetry seems the appropriate medium, not prose. Storytelling is one aspect of great writing, just like aesthetics and linguistic prowess are. If you are defining _great _as style, you should be more concerned with poetry or the highest of literary fiction.

If we’re looking for an author who has both high literary style and tells great stories, I think you can look at someone like Vonnegut or Twain or even someone like Tolkien.


----------



## Kyle R

Given a choice between the two extremes, I'd say that a good story will succeed over good writing.

This is a tricky one to discuss, though, because as writers, we spend so much time discussing _technique_ that it naturally becomes our main focus. Beautiful writing is a clear sign of excellent craftsmanship.

But for most readers, I'd argue that the story is the main point, and the words themselves are just the medium.

Personally, I feel that the "best" writing is twofold: a gripping story, wrapped in writing that's beautiful without being noticeable. Complex, yet seemingly effortless. It's a slippery thing to define, like trying to nail a puff of smoke to the wall. But you pretty much know it when you see it.


----------



## luckyscars

Squalid Glass said:


> Lucky, if you’re looking to define great writing in the way you do, poetry seems the appropriate medium, not prose. Storytelling is one aspect of great writing, just like aesthetics and linguistic prowess are. If you are defining _great _as style, you should be more concerned with poetry or the highest of literary fiction.
> 
> If we’re looking for an author who has both high literary style and tells great stories, I think you can look at someone like Vonnegut or Twain or even someone like Tolkien.



I really kind of hate the distinction because it doesn't feel like it should exist. I want to say 'great writing is writing that tells a great story competently'. 

But then I have a problem of accounting for the difference between the JK Rowlings and Stephen Kings of the world from the Fitzgeralds and the Faulkners.

 I always think putting down the difference to 'literary v genre fiction' as being a bit of a cop out because, as we often find, there's no much overlap between literary and genre fiction anyway, to the point one would wonder WHY Rowling/King could not be described as 'literary fiction' -- are they not good enough?

And the answer is...they probably aren't good enough, I guess. In stylistic terms, at least. Stephen King is absolutely as good a storyteller as F. Scott Fitzgerald, as possibly a better one (subjective), but stylistically he probably isn't as good. Ergo, there must be a difference between high-end storytelling and high-end writing...


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> Yes, it's good writing. However, it isn't great writing -- it's a great _story _with great _characters _that is written _competently . . .
> _ But if she was truly a _great writer _as opposed to a _great storyteller and decent writer _. . ..



Rowling is a great storyteller? I agree, at least for the passage I cited. What do you mean by that? How does she do that if not by good writing?


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> What do you mean by that? How does she do that if not by good writing?



By writing competently and having a good story. The writing doesn't enhance the story particularly, it merely captures it sufficiently well that the excellent story is efficiently conveyed. She is a good writer, sure. But she is, more accurately, a competent writer with a great imagination.

Do you disagree? If so, do you think university literature students will be studying Rowling's writing in 100 years the way they currently do for writers like Fitzgerald, Hemingway or Faulkner? We don't know, of course, but I am doubtful. I think they _might_ study Rowling for character design, storytelling but not the actual manner in which she wrote, which is rather similar to a lot of other writers and not particularly inventive. Actually, I'm pretty doubtful even there.

Why is Rowling any better than a modernized Enid Blyton, who achieved comparable popularity yet also oddly absent from  literature lecture halls, and who is actually pretty derided as a 'serious' writer?


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> I really kind of hate the distinction because it doesn't feel like it should exist. I want to say 'great writing is writing that tells a great story competently'.
> 
> But then I have a problem of accounting for the difference between the JK Rowlings and Stephen Kings of the world from the Fitzgeralds and the Faulkners.
> 
> I always think putting down the difference to 'literary v genre fiction' as being a bit of a cop out because, as we often find, there's no much overlap between literary and genre fiction anyway, to the point one would wonder WHY Rowling/King could not be described as 'literary fiction' -- are they not good enough?
> 
> And the answer is...they probably aren't good enough, I guess. In stylistic terms, at least. Stephen King is absolutely as good a storyteller as F. Scott Fitzgerald, as possibly a better one (subjective), but stylistically he probably isn't as good. Ergo, there must be a difference between high-end storytelling and high-end writing...



I call King a master technician of punctuation and grammar. He ends up with an easy, friendly read that is nearly impossible to mimic. He does nothing new or brilliant that I know of, and he is not on my wizard list. But still, we seem to have such different opinions of him. And of course everyone seems to agree with you, and I respect your judgment.

How is that possible? I mean, a big part of the problem is that I can't say how he accomplishes that. But when I try to think of a writer who can write like King, I get nothing. Evanovich might be as clear, but in a different way. Have you ever tried to write like King, with that easy, friendly style? I tried, I'm not sure I can, it was a good learning experience, though not exactly what I wanted.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> Have you ever tried to write like King, with that easy, friendly style? I tried, I'm not sure I can, it was a good learning experience, though not exactly what I wanted.



No, I can't either, and yet I can't see anybody studying his oeuvre in the future as examples of great literature either. I can see them studying Jonathan Saffran Foer.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> do you think university literature students will be studying Rowling's writing in 100 years the way they currently do for writers like Fitzgerald, Hemingway or Faulkner?



If your character is frenetic, you can just say "Ronald was frenetic." Story told! I think it's considered better if you can convey that in speech; Faulkner was one of the first to use the long, punctuation-less paragraph which I think conveys frenetic-ness.

To me, doing that well is good writing that's contributing to the story. Faulkner's technique doesn't work very well, because it's too hard to understand, and I haven't seen a lot of copying. But you can find people adapting the technique to make it work, except that would be more modern writers.

But right, we may disagree about how brilliant Rowling was being, but I never found her doing anything with punctuation and grammar that I hadn't seen before. (That passage has a short "punch line", nice set up, good use of disfluency and ellipses, informative dialogue tags).

It's interesting to think about who we will study 100 years from now, but it's probably more important to talk about who we should be learning from today. New thread?


----------



## Olly Buckle

EmmaSohan said:


> It's interesting to think about who we will study 100 years from now, but it's probably more important to talk about who we should be learning from today. New thread?



That will be me on both counts


----------



## Kyle R

luckyscars said:


> I always think putting down the difference to 'literary v genre fiction' as being a bit of a cop out because, as we often find, there's no much overlap between literary and genre fiction anyway, to the point one would wonder WHY Rowling/King could not be described as 'literary fiction' -- are they not good enough?
> 
> And the answer is...they probably aren't good enough, I guess. In stylistic terms, at least. Stephen King is absolutely as good a storyteller as F. Scott Fitzgerald, as possibly a better one (subjective), but stylistically he probably isn't as good. Ergo, there must be a difference between high-end storytelling and high-end writing...



I think intent should be considered, too. I have no doubt that King could write some strong literary fiction, if he wanted to. He shows flashes of it, here and there. And judging from his own conversations on the craft, it doesn't seem beyond his ability. But that's not the style that he prefers, nor is it a style that would likely be enjoyed by his target audience.

So when we say "not good enough" to write high-brow literature (in regards to King), we could also reword it to say, "chooses not to".

I'm more uncertain with Rowling. I think her success can never be argued with. But I'd say she's more an example of a competent writer with a great concept. When I've read her work, I haven't caught myself thinking, "Wow! Now that's great writing." While I _do_ catch myself saying that with some other authors. Authors like: Margaret Atwood, Anthony Doerr, Karen Russell, Ekaterina Sedia, Leigh Bardugo, (and on and on the list can go ...)


----------



## MistWolf

EmmaSohan said:


> The following ends with probably the most important sentence in the book. Three words. If you look at the thought and detail that went into this passage, it is anything but simple. The author slows things down and gives it a lot of


----------



## MistWolf

Let me emphasize, I like the "Potter" series and have listened to it several times while at work. But I hate it when smart characters do stupid things. Over and over. Harry in particular is guilty of not passing on critical information when their was no reason to hold it back. 

"No, Professor Dumbledore, there's nothing you should know. Because if I told you what I know, you might think I was a git."

Another thing that was over the top was Hermione constantly whining about something being against school rules and  the dire consequences if caught.

The above come across as needless word count padding because neither push the story forward.

If not "poor writing", it's certainly bad editing. 

A couple of examples of great stories not so well written-
-Tarzan and the Barsoom series
-Lensman series
-Shanara series
-Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew and The Happy Hollisters

I thought my tastes in reading were crass because I don't like many of the books that are considered literary classics. Listening to teachers tell us how wonderful these stories are left me feeling like I was too stupid to get it. Until one day, I freed myself of all that when I had the courage to say "These books aren't classics. They're boring!" I don't care how beautifully something is written- if it's boring, it's not good.


----------



## EternalGreen

The literary fiction of Henry James has almost no "storytelling" and yet, due to the quality of the writing and characterizations, I still enjoy it.

The literary genre as a whole has also always been full of insufferable nonsense, but thankfully, time washes that away.


----------



## Squalid Glass

luckyscars said:


> I really kind of hate the distinction because it doesn't feel like it should exist. I want to say 'great writing is writing that tells a great story competently'.
> 
> But then I have a problem of accounting for the difference between the JK Rowlings and Stephen Kings of the world from the Fitzgeralds and the Faulkners.
> 
> I always think putting down the difference to 'literary v genre fiction' as being a bit of a cop out because, as we often find, there's no much overlap between literary and genre fiction anyway, to the point one would wonder WHY Rowling/King could not be described as 'literary fiction' -- are they not good enough?
> 
> And the answer is...they probably aren't good enough, I guess. In stylistic terms, at least. Stephen King is absolutely as good a storyteller as F. Scott Fitzgerald, as possibly a better one (subjective), but stylistically he probably isn't as good. Ergo, there must be a difference between high-end storytelling and high-end writing...




But King, Rowling, Fitzgerald, etc. are/were all writing for different audiences and for different purposes. Genre isn't a cop-out because it determines style in a lot of ways. But there are some writers who write in the style of literary fiction while telling compelling genre stories. Atwood is a good example. Maybe that makes those writers truly great? I'm not sure.

But I just don't think it's right to say one genre is great while another isn't or that sacrificing one aspect of great writing for the other aspect of it somehow invalidates something or makes it not great. I like to think of it like sports positions. It's hard to argue who is the greatest athlete in some sports because the positions within the sport are so different. They require different skill sets.


----------



## luckyscars

Squalid Glass said:


> But King, Rowling, Fitzgerald, etc. are/were all writing for different audiences and for different purposes. Genre isn't a cop-out because it determines style in a lot of ways. But there are some writers who write in the style of literary fiction while telling compelling genre stories. Atwood is a good example. Maybe that makes those writers truly great? I'm not sure.
> 
> But I just don't think it's right to say one genre is great while another isn't or that sacrificing one aspect of great writing for the other aspect of it somehow invalidates something or makes it not great. I like to think of it like sports positions. It's hard to argue who is the greatest athlete in some sports because the positions within the sport are so different. They require different skill sets.



And yet people do argue it and, to some extent at least, there is some consensus regarding who the truly great athletes are -- certainly there is consensus regarding who definitely isn't. Even the most ardent hater of the New York Yankees recognized Joe DiMaggio. Even English soccer fans respect Maradona's talent. On the other hand, absolutely nobody thinks the placekicker for the Cleveland Browns in 2008 was the greatest. 

I believe what tends to unite all the 'greatest' in any given sport is the athlete in question's ability to bring something profoundly new and significant to the game, to reinvent it according to one's ability -- I think those criteria are _fairly _analogous to the status, or at least the goal, of literary fiction.

What I find puzzling is that genre fiction could do that as well. We know it's possible. Atwood would be a prime example of a genre fiction story written in a literary fiction style and arguably excelling on both counts. Stephen King? Maybe, sometimes. I feel like King actually dumbs his writing down, and having read his interviews I understand his reasoning: He doesn't care about writing beyond his level and, as a multi-millionaire in his seventies, doesn't care. That's fine, but what about the rest of them, and genre fiction as a whole?

Is true that most bum-average, sold-at-the-grocery-store works of commercial genre fiction, even 'great' genre fiction, aren't exactly masterclasses in style. Some really popular novels read like high school term papers. Some are really good, though, and that -- for me -- undermines the argument that 'genre dictates style' and that this is a square that cannot be circled: If the reason for simplistic writing in a lot of science fiction is because the genre of science fiction requires relatively simplistic writing to be science fiction, then I don't know why Handmaids Tale got popular, because it is science fiction and yet reads like a literary novel and is popular across the board.

The problem (and it isn't necessarily a problem) seems to be that the readers of genre fiction don't generally require really good writing and, because they do not require it, the writers don't _have_ to provide it -- They just need to be _okay _at writing and have a really attractive concept and some good characters.


----------



## Llyralen

EternalGreen said:


> The literary fiction of Henry James has almost no "storytelling" and yet, due to the quality of the writing and characterizations, I still enjoy it.
> 
> The literary genre as a whole has also always been full of insufferable nonsense, but thankfully, time washes that away.



I also love Henry James!   

My two bits:
I want my literature to show me new aspects of the human condition.  A rawness and realness that makes me feel a greater understanding of myself and others is what I read for.  I consider Middle March by George Elliot as the best novel in the English language.  The plot means not too much.  Character is everything in these works.    It is critical that this type of writing be beautifully written, very deep, and to address moral dilemmas.   I need to feel and to think deeply.  I personally NEED whatever classics have.  I can't even tell what aspect of them is the most important to me.  They challenge me.  They give me a greater sense of the meaning of life. 

But different people read for different reasons.  We are all searching for the piece that brings us what we need.  And I really need the well-written deep stuff  and feel like I really can't do without it.... but there are also weekends that I want to read something magical or humorous or adventurous or a weekend that I want to make fun of a stupid Scottish romance. 

As for comparing great literature to general best sellers... Do we compare the Godfather to Earnest Goes to Camp?  (I'm not sure if Earnest Goes to Camp is a bestseller, but you get what I mean).  Of course there is a higher level of writing!   if people can't immediately tell the difference well... that's okay for them.  Have fun with Earnest.    I do sometimes....you just won't hear me talking about how it should win an Oscar. 

  It's good that we all need something different.  Just like we all have different careers.  Variety is the spice of life.   But come on....we can TELL quality.... right?   No?   Right?    Bleh...   I guess quality has never been obvious to my best friend.  But that's okay.  I've never figured out why that is, probably just that she never learned to enjoy literature as a type of work is what I thought.  Because I can tell and enjoy quality, does that make me a snob?  I would think no based on my attitude.  I've never learned to enjoy playing baseball or critiquing baseball players or enjoy working on the roof and understand what a good roof is like people I know.   I do enjoy pulling weeds.  Anyway, we've all got stuff.   But I kind of think when you just naturally know you know... then you're interested in the right thing for you.   But if you enjoy literature for adventure and relaxation and can tell what really checks those boxes for you and others then that's a talent itself.   But for me I'm not going to compare Stephen King to Tolstoy.


----------



## Squalid Glass

luckyscars said:


> And yet people do argue it and, to some extent at least, there is some consensus regarding who the truly great athletes are -- certainly there is consensus regarding who definitely isn't. Even the most ardent hater of the New York Yankees recognized Joe DiMaggio. Even English soccer fans respect Maradona's talent. On the other hand, absolutely nobody thinks the placekicker for the Cleveland Browns in 2008 was the greatest.
> 
> I believe what tends to unite all the 'greatest' in any given sport is the athlete in question's ability to bring something profoundly new and significant to the game, to reinvent it according to one's ability -- I think those criteria are _fairly _analogous to the status, or at least the goal, of literary fiction.
> 
> What I find puzzling is that genre fiction could do that as well. We know it's possible. Atwood would be a prime example of a genre fiction story written in a literary fiction style and arguably excelling on both counts. Stephen King? Maybe, sometimes. I feel like King actually dumbs his writing down, and having read his interviews I understand his reasoning: He doesn't care about writing beyond his level and, as a multi-millionaire in his seventies, doesn't care. That's fine, but what about the rest of them, and genre fiction as a whole?
> 
> Is true that most bum-average, sold-at-the-grocery-store works of commercial genre fiction, even 'great' genre fiction, aren't exactly masterclasses in style. Some really popular novels read like high school term papers. Some are really good, though, and that -- for me -- undermines the argument that 'genre dictates style' and that this is a square that cannot be circled: If the reason for simplistic writing in a lot of science fiction is because the genre of science fiction requires relatively simplistic writing to be science fiction, then I don't know why Handmaids Tale got popular, because it is science fiction and yet reads like a literary novel and is popular across the board.
> 
> The problem (and it isn't necessarily a problem) seems to be that the readers of genre fiction don't generally require really good writing and, because they do not require it, the writers don't _have_ to provide it -- They just need to be _okay _at writing and have a really attractive concept and some good characters.



If we’re looking at genre fiction written in a literary style, then sure, I suppose that’s what we could look at as an example of great writing. And yeah, I think being able to do both is difficult, and not all authors can do it. At the same time, though, I don’t think all authors can write children’s books or YA fiction and make it work. These are all different talents, and authors either choose to write according to their own limits, or they find a niche that works for them, and they stick with it. Remember, too, literary fiction is usually more complex than most genre fiction. Not only more complex for the writer, but also for the reader. I suppose it’s easier to write a hit if it avoids some of the more complex aspects of high literary style. I wouldn’t want to judge an author if the question is more about motivation than ability.


----------



## luckyscars

Squalid Glass said:


> If we’re looking at genre fiction written in a literary style, then sure, I suppose that’s what we could look at as an example of great writing. And yeah, I think being able to do both is difficult, and not all authors can do it. At the same time, though, I don’t think all authors can write children’s books or YA fiction and make it work. These are all different talents, and authors either choose to write according to their own limits, or they find a niche that works for them, and they stick with it. Remember, too, literary fiction is usually more complex than most genre fiction. Not only more complex for the writer, but also for the reader. I suppose it’s easier to write a hit if it avoids some of the more complex aspects of high literary style. I wouldn’t want to judge an author if the question is more about motivation than ability.



I suppose my question is: Why isn't genre fiction written in a literary style the norm rather than the exception? Why isn't the 'Atwoodian' approach to science fiction (i.e. it's science fiction, but written to a really high standard) the norm for all good science fiction, rather than some nebulous halfway-house? Why aren't standards higher?

As horrible as it will sound, the only answer I can conceive of is that a large percentage of readers of genre fiction are generally not mentally capable (or not mentally willing, which is much the same thing) of reading much beyond a fifth grade reading level and many writers not capable of writing beyond it. Yeah, I know, it's horribly pompous shit...but we have to call a spade a spade at some point, right? 

Since it's possible to combine the best of literary fiction (strong voice, deep characterization, powerful imagery) with the best of genre fiction (rich ideas; imaginative; a story that actually feels like a story as opposed to meandering navel-gazing) then why doesn't this happen more? Not to say that every book needs to be 'high art', but...should this not be the expectation, certainly for those authors we are wanting to celebrate as the best?

This question is slightly rhetorical, I guess, because we all know we don't live in that world.


----------



## indianroads

luckyscars said:


> I suppose my question is: Why isn't genre fiction written in a literary style the norm rather than the exception? Why isn't the 'Atwoodian' approach to science fiction (i.e. it's science fiction, but written to a really high standard) the norm for all good science fiction, rather than some nebulous halfway-house? Why aren't standards higher?
> 
> As horrible as it will sound, the only answer I can conceive of is that a large percentage of readers of genre fiction are generally not mentally capable (or not mentally willing, which is much the same thing) of reading much beyond a fifth grade reading level and many writers not capable of writing beyond it. Yeah, I know, it's horribly pompous shit...but we have to call a spade a spade at some point, right?
> 
> Since it's possible to combine the best of literary fiction (strong voice, deep characterization, powerful imagery) with the best of genre fiction (rich ideas; imaginative; a story that actually feels like a story as opposed to meandering navel-gazing) then why doesn't this happen more? Not to say that every book needs to be 'high art', but...should this not be the expectation, certainly for those authors we are wanting to celebrate as the best?
> 
> This question is slightly rhetorical, I guess, because we all know we don't live in that world.



Ages ago - I've forgotten where and when - one of my teachers said that most popular books are written at the eighth grade level (~ thirteen years old). I don't recall the context of that statement, but it stuck with me.

It's surprising (and depressing) how many people I know that tell me that they don't read. I suppose they just stare at the television and play video games - which is a pretty sad life. Reading is too much effort for some - it's easier to wait for the movie or television show to come out. For me, and I'm sure everyone else here, reading is effortless, and the and the mental images that form in my mind as I read are far more detailed and interesting than anything in the theaters or television.

Is humanity becoming less intelligent? What is our society becoming?


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

luckyscars said:


> I suppose my question is: Why isn't genre fiction written in a literary style the norm rather than the exception? Why isn't the 'Atwoodian' approach to science fiction (i.e. it's science fiction, but written to a really high standard) the norm for all good science fiction, rather than some nebulous halfway-house? Why aren't standards higher?



I would guess it's because sometimes people/ readers want to read just for the pure entertainment of reading something. Those readers will more likely choose genre fiction. Not everyone wants to have their ideas challenged (as some literary fiction does) but would more likely prefer to read a good and interesting and entertaining story and be done with it. There's nothing wrong with that. 

The more literary styles, I would guess, are more for those who like to learn something new, who like to examine their ways of thinking and perhaps discover other ways to think. I understand that some genre fiction has pretty strict guidelines. I've also read that some genre writers use aliases so their genre work doesn't mix with their more literary work (I think I read that the great Kurt Vonnegut once used a pen name for his less literary work). I understand that genre work also pays the best. Writers, I think, try to supply what readers want and it seems to me readers, in their differences, often want different things.


----------



## indianroads

Pamelyn Casto said:


> I would guess it's because sometimes people/ readers want to read just for the pure entertainment of reading something. Those readers will more likely choose genre fiction. Not everyone wants to have their ideas challenged (as some literary fiction does) but would more likely prefer to read a good and interesting and entertaining story and be done with it. There's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> The more literary styles, I would guess, are more for those who like to learn something new, who like to examine their ways of thinking and perhaps discover other ways to think. I understand that some genre fiction has pretty strict guidelines. I've also read that some genre writers use aliases so their genre work doesn't mix with their more literary work (I think I read that the great Kurt Vonnegut once used a pen name for his less literary work). I understand that genre work also pays the best. Writers, I think, try to supply what readers want and it seems to me readers, in their differences, often want different things.



I'll counter this argument by saying that genre fiction often explores controversial subjects - racism, intolerance, totalitarianism, ... the list goes on. Science fiction especially does this - reminder that the first interracial kiss on television was on Star Trek, not Masterpiece Theater.


----------



## Olly Buckle

best of both worlds. Give them what they want, fulfill expectations, and slide in an extra message


----------



## Olly Buckle

luckyscars said:


> I suppose my question is: Why isn't genre fiction written in a literary style the norm rather than the exception? Why isn't the 'Atwoodian' approach to science fiction (i.e. it's science fiction, but written to a really high standard) the norm for all good science fiction, rather than some nebulous halfway-house? Why aren't standards higher?



Don't put it all on the readers, I do the best I can, but I know I am not going to be remembered for generations as one of the world's great writers. There are some who can write stories people want to read, rather than should read or will learn from, good luck to them, there is a place for that too.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

I was just reading that one common reason agents don't take on certain manuscripts is because the authors don't understand the genre the books belong to. Many times rejection comes about because the authors have categorized their books incorrectly. Here's a quotation: 

"If you’re a novelist, it doesn’t matter how compelling your story is or how clean your writing is. You won’t get a literary agent to represent you unless you categorize your book correctly. Label your novel with the wrong book genre(s) in your query letter and you run the risk of getting “false positives” that will only lead to rejection. In other words, if you unwittingly submit your query to the wrong agents and they ask you for more material, they’re going to reject it when they realize your book isn’t what you said it is. And, those agents probably won’t tell you _why_ they’re rejecting your book."
https://literary-agents.com/commercial-fiction-vs-other-genres/


That surprised me. (At this same site are simple definitions of literary, commercial, and mainstream.)


----------



## Squalid Glass

luckyscars said:


> I suppose my question is: Why isn't genre fiction written in a literary style the norm rather than the exception? Why isn't the 'Atwoodian' approach to science fiction (i.e. it's science fiction, but written to a really high standard) the norm for all good science fiction, rather than some nebulous halfway-house? Why aren't standards higher?
> 
> As horrible as it will sound, the only answer I can conceive of is that a large percentage of readers of genre fiction are generally not mentally capable (or not mentally willing, which is much the same thing) of reading much beyond a fifth grade reading level and many writers not capable of writing beyond it. Yeah, I know, it's horribly pompous shit...but we have to call a spade a spade at some point, right?
> 
> Since it's possible to combine the best of literary fiction (strong voice, deep characterization, powerful imagery) with the best of genre fiction (rich ideas; imaginative; a story that actually feels like a story as opposed to meandering navel-gazing) then why doesn't this happen more? Not to say that every book needs to be 'high art', but...should this not be the expectation, certainly for those authors we are wanting to celebrate as the best?
> 
> This question is slightly rhetorical, I guess, because we all know we don't live in that world.



I think you’re right. It’s no different than movies. Why are the most profitable films the simple ones? Audiences demand them.


----------



## ironpony

Not sure if this applies but I took a screenwriting class and all the students had to follow a certain movie story structure with certain story beats throughout, because these are the storybeats that almost all movies have.  One student who graduated with top marks nailed every beat exactly, where as a lot of other students missed a beat here and there, and couldn't hit them all, myself included.

But even though he nailed all the beats, I didn't really find the script to be that interesting.  It was entertaining in parts.  It was a comedy so it had laughs and gags, some that were effective and funny.  But as a story, I just didn't think it was that interesting, nor did it stick with me after, since I remember gags, but cannot remember anything else about it really.  My work was probably not better either, but I can't judge my own work compared to others.

But I feel that even if you hit all the beats exactly, you can still come up with a story that is average and forgetable in the end? Well written but not good?


----------



## luckyscars

Pamelyn Casto said:


> I was just reading that one common reason agents don't take on certain manuscripts is because the authors don't understand the genre the books belong to. Many times rejection comes about because the authors have categorized their books incorrectly. Here's a quotation:
> 
> "If you’re a novelist, it doesn’t matter how compelling your story is or how clean your writing is. You won’t get a literary agent to represent you unless you categorize your book correctly. Label your novel with the wrong book genre(s) in your query letter and you run the risk of getting “false positives” that will only lead to rejection. In other words, if you unwittingly submit your query to the wrong agents and they ask you for more material, they’re going to reject it when they realize your book isn’t what you said it is. And, those agents probably won’t tell you _why_ they’re rejecting your book."
> https://literary-agents.com/commercial-fiction-vs-other-genres/
> 
> 
> That surprised me. (At this same site are simple definitions of literary, commercial, and mainstream.)



Well yeah, regarding genre, I think an awful lot of the time writers pick their book's genre based on what they would like it to be rather than what it actually is.

If you're going to label your book as horror, you better damn well make sure it meets the expectations of horror. And 'my book is a historical psychological horror-thriller with elements of science fiction' isn't going to fly.


----------



## Olly Buckle

It's part of the reason I am considering recording my book and making it a podcast; I have no idea what genre it is, it doesn't fit anything I can think of.


----------



## Kyle R

ironpony said:


> Not sure if this applies but I took a screenwriting class and all the students had to follow a certain movie story structure with certain story beats throughout, because these are the storybeats that almost all movies have.  One student who graduated with top marks nailed every beat exactly, where as a lot of other students missed a beat here and there, and couldn't hit them all, myself included.
> 
> But even though he nailed all the beats, I didn't really find the script to be that interesting.  It was entertaining in parts.  It was a comedy so it had laughs and gags, some that were effective and funny.  But as a story, I just didn't think it was that interesting, nor did it stick with me after, since I remember gags, but cannot remember anything else about it really.  My work was probably not better either, but I can't judge my own work compared to others.
> 
> But I feel that even if you hit all the beats exactly, you can still come up with a story that is average and forgetable in the end? Well written but not good?



Common story beats are just _one_ way to write a story. Modern screenwriting has fallen into a trap where people have begun to think that it's the _only_ way, which (in my opinion) is a terrible approach to creativity.

It gets tiring, to me, whenever I watch a Romantic Comedy, for example, and I can tell you exactly at what minute the "race to the airport" sequence will begin.

Or the "all is lost" plot turn, between the midpoint and the 3/4 mark, followed by the inevitable "dark night of the soul", where our hero meanders around, feeling defeated. Soon this will be followed by a "kick in the pants", where our hero's friend or mentor will show up and give them a pep talk, or a new resource, to help them realize the thematic message, and propel then into the third and final act . . .

And so on, and so forth.

I spent years learning and memorizing it, but now I kind of hate it. Because it's not creative thinking; it's formulaic regurgitation.

There are literally _endless_ ways to tell a story. But modern screenwriters seem to think that there's only _one_ way. :grief:


----------



## ironpony

Yeah I concur, and trying to hit all those plot points is difficult in my opinion cause I find my characters making decisions that prevent all the beats from being hit at the right spots.


----------



## Llyralen

Genre writing can also be "great writing", imo.    Tolkien, Mary Shelley. Bradbury, Orwell.  Genre doesn't exclude greatness, imo.  I'm speaking as a reader here, but I think the difference is.... I made this point before, I guess I just felt unheard.... but great literature makes you WORK.  It challenges you.  It holds up a mirror forcing you to look inward or at your society.  It should make you examine yourself and if you need to change, that's the aim.   How well it does that is how you measure the efficacy of that work (i.e. greatness, imo).   It doesn't even have to sacrifice plot (speaking of Mary Shelley), although most adventure stories are not going to challenge your mind effectively in this way but it CAN.    

Isn't it probably correct to say that not everyone has learned to like being challenged? Not everyone wants to contemplate the need for change or growth?  Not everyone reads for that or has learned to look for that either, most people want to relax at the end of the day.  I do too sometimes although for some reason what I really want often is to be challenged.  Different reasons to read different things.   But isn't the difference clear to everyone?  (Ugg, no?)   

 It doesn't even have to be serious.  Making fun of society and of how people think can be the challenge.  I think the new Borat movie was very quality because of how it really holds up that mirror.   To me that was as well done as anything Mark Twain was doing in his day.  I think Mark Twain would have loved it. Good job, Sascha!   I also had my longest laugh ever at the dancing scene.  We've got to just meet the social dilemmas, stigmas, and biases of our times and challenge them to do important writing.   Does that sell?   The great stuff doesn't always sell...and sometimes the morality of something misses it's mark.  At least _The Jungle_ got some sausage regulations in the USA.    Sorry to bring in more shows, but even "Arrested Development" only got 3 seasons (until the Netflix re-do) because it was "too thinky".   But great stuff seems to always be a slow burn.   Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ is as pertinent today about science ethics versus scientific capability and questions about the human condition as ever.   Being challenged usually sticks in your brain the way a good campfire story won't.    

There is also a lot of really great YA fiction that challenges us and who doesn't remember the Newberys (or whatever)  that they read in their growing years and feel that those make up who they are?   It stretches us.  I do kind of think that if I'm not striving for that then I would be whiling away my finite time here on earth... but I don't know... it's hard for me to imagine that the improvement of the human individual (or society in general, however you want to think) isn't important.   I guess there are people who don't feel like books change them?  So why would they think it was important to be challenged?   But books that challenge have brought strong change in increments, imo.   Dickens challenged the way people thought about poverty and children.  Charlotte Bronte was probably the first novelist to unabashedly say she was a man's equal.   I can be grateful for the way the world works now, imo due to writers.  Do we even think we would understand anything about the Holocaust if writers had not made it special and relatable in film?  They made it so that we were able to put ourselves into the victim's shoes.  We haven't known about other genocides much because those weren't chosen to write more about in the USA (compare Armenia and the USA's own American Indian population which I don't think there has been NEARLY enough about)   Am I repeating things everybody knows and feels?   Or no?    Great writing is essential to the progress of the human race.  The narratives we tell ourselves shapes what we will do next.  Who we decide to have sympathy for is very much at the mercy of our whims as writers.   And film right now is really how the masses hear a story.  It can make or break things for minorities, etc.   

Okay, I'll stop.  This has a lot of gravity to it for me, but it's why I care about finishing that novel before I die.  It's not for a "good story",   It's to make a difference.


----------



## luckyscars

Llyralen said:


> Genre writing can also be "great writing", imo.    Tolkien, Mary Shelley. Bradbury, Orwell.  Genre doesn't exclude greatness, imo.  I'm speaking as a reader here, but I think the difference is.... I made this point before, I guess I just felt unheard.... but great literature makes you WORK.  It challenges you.  It holds up a mirror forcing you to look inward or at your society.  It should make you examine yourself and if you need to change, that's the aim.   How well it does that is how you measure the efficacy of that work (i.e. greatness, imo).   It doesn't even have to sacrifice plot (speaking of Mary Shelley), although most adventure stories are not going to challenge your mind effectively in this way but it CAN.



Nobody said it couldn't. In fact, it's the fact that it CAN that fuels this conversation. Because if it CAN then why DOESN'T it more often?

The writers you quoted, none of them are typical of their genres in terms of literary acumen. Mary Shelley is not typical horror writing (assuming we are classifying it as horror -- not sure it is). Bradbury is basically known for being 'weirdly good' for a science fiction writer (assuming we are classifying him as that). These are exceptions. Most horror writing isn't very good at all. Most of it is _okay _in the sense it's not bad, but it's primitive and stylistically unchallenging. Ditto fantasy, romance, all of them. 

Why is that?



> Isn't it probably correct to say that not everyone has learned to like being challenged? Not everyone wants to contemplate the need for change or growth?  Not everyone reads for that or has learned to look for that either, most people want to relax at the end of the day.  I do too sometimes although for some reason what I really want often is to be challenged.  Different reasons to read different things.   But isn't the difference clear to everyone?  (Ugg, no?)



I'm not willing to personally coat the hard truth of 'people are lazy and kind of dumb' with the sweet sugary coat of 'people have not learned to like being challenged'. I understand the empathetic angle, but we have to be honest I think and accept that modern genre readers are generally quite lazy, stupid or both when it comes to the actual quality of what they read. 

You could argue that some of it is more about ideas and...maybe? I don't think that's really relevant, though. Why not have both? Everything? Again, I agree in general that the best stories are usually genre-fiction, so this isn't about bashing everything that isn't literary. I find most literary fiction awfully humdrum. But the writing quality in genre fiction still usually sucks. It just does. And it doesn't _need_ to suck (because not all of it does suck...) which means this is a choice somebody is making somewhere, which means it is irksome.


----------



## Llyralen

luckyscars said:


> Nobody said it couldn't. In fact, it's the fact that it CAN that fuels this conversation. Because if it CAN then why DOESN'T it more often?
> 
> The writers you quoted, none of them are typical of their genres in terms of literary acumen. Mary Shelley is not typical horror writing (assuming we are classifying it as horror -- not sure it is). Bradbury is basically known for being 'weirdly good' for a science fiction writer (assuming we are classifying him as that). These are exceptions. Most horror writing isn't very good at all. Most of it is _okay _in the sense it's not bad, but it's primitive and stylistically unchallenging. Ditto fantasy, romance, all of them.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to personally coat the hard truth of 'people are lazy and kind of dumb' with the sweet sugary coat of 'people have not learned to like being challenged'. I understand the empathetic angle, but we have to be honest I think and accept that modern genre readers are generally quite lazy, stupid or both when it comes to the actual quality of what they read.
> 
> You could argue that some of it is more about ideas and...maybe? I don't think that's really relevant, though. Why not have both? Everything? Again, I agree in general that the best stories are usually genre-fiction, so this isn't about bashing everything that isn't literary. I find most literary fiction awfully humdrum. But the writing quality in genre fiction still usually sucks. It just does. And it doesn't _need_ to suck (because not all of it does suck...) which means this is a choice somebody is making somewhere, which means it is irksome.



Mary Shelley is the mother of Science Fiction, I thought.   Did anyone predate her?  Jules Verne was born a bit after her, I thought (just confirmed yes with wikipedia) And she wrote _Frankenstein_ at a very young age.   So yes, she's the mother and her book is still the metaphor for the questions we still have.  Very innovative. 

Why not more interesting combos more often?   Hmm.   Could it be that most people are imitators and fail to ask the big questions?  There's a lot of milk with only a bit of cream?  There is a reason these authors are the "greats".   

Yes, I'm trying to allow space for different reasons for reading.   Flat out, I don't understand why people don't seek to be constantly growing due to literature and don't seek to see the world from as many voices and perspectives as possible.    Oh dear.. actually I do... but everything goes back to Jung's cognitive theories  (personality theory) for me.    There are a lot of people who don't like change, I guess, who are protective of what they have and who might not even think much about personal growth or societal growth.

There are also films that can change people's awareness without people even realizing it.  I've heard that with atrocities we can't think empathetically in large numbers.  We aren't made for it, supposedly.  Genocide of 6 million is too big, it means nothing to us cognitively until we tell the story of one little girl in a red coat and what happens to her.  We learn about people's situations and about our world best through stories about people.  Stories in film are going to be very important to unify us all, I would think.   We have to be careful that it isn't heroic nationalism like what fueled WW2.

Some stories that I think have great adventure and also some moral challenge might be _The Count of Monte Cristo_ (adventure but some of that story is about forgiveness... that could be done better).   _Hunchback of Notre Dam_ .    _Handmaid Tale_ is getting quite the revival and Atwood's stuff is boring and doesn't move imo.. it became repetitive imo and started to not challenge me. The show is more exciting and actually asks more societal questions (better challenge) ... although she does so well at building that dark gloomy landscape.   And then there are all these awesome YA fictions, especially Newbery winners, that challenge and are interesting to read.  _A Wrinkle in Time_.  _The Giver_.  _The Witch of Blackbird Pond_, etc.   They are awesome.  I'm so grateful for those.   

Jung also said that you can change the world through powerful symbols better than you can through politics (or something close to that), so that is definitely something to keep in mind about the importance of writing.   I think people can become symbols.  Martin Luther King is a symbol in himself for most people, for instance.    The girl in the red coat from _Shindler's List_ is a symbol.  

I'm always trying to think of what stories need to be told.  Definitely we need more in the USA from our undocumented Latinos.  I do feel like I know what is going on in that culture and how important they are to our economy and I know most people have no clue and do not understand their contributions and think that they are gaining from our system more than they are contributing which is a huge misconception.  I would think that a lot of very exciting stories could be written from perspectives of refugees.   I know it.  I used to work with refugees.  I loved every minute of it and count it one of the best privileges of my life.   Amazing true stories to people in front of me!-- adventurous stories at that! But they are heart wrenching.   Actually J. K. Rowlings said working with refugees was what kept fueling parts of Harry Potter for her as she said something about refugees being real heroes.  I agree with her on that completely.

I know that I'm sitting on a story that really does get at the heart of some questions we are facing with social media and our technology right now.  The idea came to me in 2006 and it is still very relevant now just more so.  Soon Elon Musk will have invented things that will give the whole thing a more scary edge, maybe? I won't say more on that... but it is also an exciting story.  Enough so that I am a bit torn on it.  I don't want it to miss it's mark like Sinclair's _The Jungle_ did.  I don't want people just getting scared like as if you'd compare it to the movie _The Net_ which now looks ridiculous.   When the metaphor first came to me then I wanted to put the story in a fantasy quasi-just post King Arthur times kind of thing (magical Britain 500-600 AD).   It's just that it could be fantasy or I could set it in the very near future when what would have been magic in the fantasy actually starts to become available.   The plot is adventure (kidnapping, etc... honestly just a tad like the movie _Taken_ with Liam Neesen except without a Liam Neesen character and instead a small military force).  I did not think of Taken when I was writing my fantasy chapters, but the plot makes a metaphor providing a huge question that has been discussed without a name on The Social Dilemma on Netflix.   If I place the story into the future then I think people will focus on their fears of new emerging technology instead of thinking about these questions about how to deal with the arising problems born from our new technology and the problem is surly going to persist with our current trajectory.  It's not even a named problem yet in real life.   So I'm a bit on a fence... but I should probably act on writing it before too long here since Musk is gonna catch up to some of the ideas at some point (he's got plans) and when he does these problems are going to be even bigger... not different though... we've got these problems here now and I saw them emerging the first time I heard the nightly news quote a Tweet in 2006.   I know I'm sounding mysterious but I'm bringing it up because I am actually worried that an adventurous plot (although the plot IS a metaphor for questions I want people to ask) is going to make it so that people don't get the right message.   There is something we can DO.  It's a worry for me and makes me want to maybe go back to the fantasy idea which would likely not sell as well... but the metaphor can hardly be missed if I placed it in fantasy.    Ugg... or I hope it won't get missed.   Why is my faith on this like a 20%?  Not due to me, but to people not using critical thinking skills because we don't do a good job teaching critical thinking in schools especially with the advent of multiple choice questions.  Of course my writing skills might totally wreck it too, who knows?   I haven't written it yet.  Only bits.


----------



## Deleted member 64995

I prefer to write a good story.
What a story, well written.


A good story lasts over time, regardless of how it was written. I think it's every writer's dream.


Ágota Kristóf, wrote wonderful books, without ever mastering the language well.


----------



## EmmaSohan

When we talk about Mary Shelley being a good writer, are we talking about the book? Wiki said that _Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus_ is widely read, but looking it, that's hard to believe. Isn't, for just one example, the dialogue stilted? Or the suspense mangled? Or too much telling?

The start. For those who haven't read the book, this seems to be a frame.



> *Letter 1*
> 
> _To Mrs. Saville, England._​St. Petersburgh, Dec. 11th, 17—.​[FONT=&Verdana]
> You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings. I arrived here yesterday, and my first task is to assure my dear sister of my welfare and increasing confidence in the success of my undertaking.
> 
> [/FONT]I am already far north of London, and as I walk in the streets of Petersburgh, I feel a cold northern breeze play upon my cheeks, which braces my nerves and fills me with delight. Do you understand this feeling? This breeze, which has travelled from the regions towards which I am advancing, gives me a foretaste of those icy climes. Inspirited by this wind of promise, my daydreams become more fervent and vivid. I try in vain to be persuaded that the pole is the seat of frost and desolation; it ever presents itself to my imagination as the region of beauty and delight. There, Margaret, the sun is for ever visible, its broad disk just skirting the horizon and diffusing a perpetual splendour. There—for with your leave, my sister, I will put some trust in preceding navigators—there snow and frost are banished; and, sailing over a calm sea, we may be wafted to a land surpassing in wonders and in beauty every region hitherto discovered on the habitable globe. Its productions and features may be without example, as the phenomena of the heavenly bodies undoubtedly are in those undiscovered solitudes. What may not be expected in a country of eternal light? I may there discover the wondrous power which attracts the needle and may regulate a thousand celestial observations that require only this voyage to render their seeming eccentricities consistent for ever. I shall satiate my ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never before visited, and may tread a land never before imprinted by the foot of man. These are my enticements, and they are sufficient to conquer all fear of danger or death and to induce me to commence this laborious voyage with the joy a child feels when he embarks in a little boat, with his holiday mates, on an expedition of discovery up his native river. But supposing all these conjectures to be false, you cannot contest the inestimable benefit which I shall confer on all mankind, to the last generation, by discovering a passage near the pole to those countries, to reach which at present so many months are requisite; or by ascertaining the secret of the magnet, which, if at all possible, can only be effected by an undertaking such as mine.


----------



## indianroads

EmmaSohan said:


> When we talk about Mary Shelley being a good writer, are we talking about the book? Wiki said that _Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus_ is widely read, but looking it, that's hard to believe. Isn't, for just one example, the dialogue stilted? Or the suspense mangled? Or too much telling?
> 
> The start. For those who haven't read the book, this seems to be a frame.



Writing styles change over time - a lot of modern readers find Great Expectations, Moby Dick, and the like hard to get through. The cause of this may be that we have a shorter attention span these days.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> When we talk about Mary Shelley being a good writer, are we talking about the book? Wiki said that _Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus_ is widely read, but looking it, that's hard to believe. Isn't, for just one example, the dialogue stilted? Or the suspense mangled? Or too much telling?
> 
> The start. For those who haven't read the book, this seems to be a frame.



For me? Even just this little clip is absolutely delicious.  I’m very used to reading the books of the 1800’s but her style is very innovative.  If we were comparing her to people writing today for... let’s say 12th grade audience now, her style in my opinion still seems fresh and evocative.  

Whose writing could we compare with from today?  Probably Ian McEwan or Cormac McCarthy or Toni Morrison.  The greats.  In my opinion her style is holding up beautifully compared to these and her plot is much more exciting.  But I don’t think we have a truly great science fiction writer right now.  Asimov asks some questions but his work does not address ethics and morals to the degree she does and his questions are not as big or persistent.  Mary Shelley really had vision.  Maybe Orwell.   Maybe Kafka, but then we are talking about past greats still.    I'd say she wins out in the area of providing new ground-breaking and persistent questions over writers like Charlotte Bronte, but Bronte's style is probably better.  I do want to read Mary Shelley's other works because she was only I think 18-20 years old when writing _Frankenstein_. 

There is such a thing as quality written at a lower reading level.  There’s a lot of really good young adult fiction.   The Tale of Desperaux.  A Winkle In Time, etc.



Edit:   Okay, so I talked to my husband who doesn't read classics.  He said, 


Him:   "I hate to tell this to you, but I think you know that you are in a small minority.  I think it just seems dense and inaccessible to me. Is this an IQ thing?"

Me:  "I don't think so.  You're brilliant.  My friend BJ is brilliant and she's never understood quality writing.   I think it has to do with whether people have learned to put in the work of reading things that challenge their way of thinking.  And I think it's really important.  I think this is why reading is important is to be able a more compassionate and thinking person and all of us become beter."

Him:  "Right, those are the greats. People who produce social change.  Like Tolstoy's _War and Peace_.  Doesn't everyone bring up _War and Peace_ almost as a by-word for what is inaccessible?  But I don't write in order to produce social change."

Me:  "No, but your writing is more like Shakespeare's.   He didn't write for social change either.  He wrote for entertainment but them put poetry into it.   And he did deeply explore the human condition.  So there are different reasons to write or read.   _War and Peace_ is absolutely amazing, by the way.  I would think that you'd love it."

Him:  "Maybe you just have to categorize the different kinds of good writing.  Why they are good and in different ways."

Me:  "That's what I think"

Him:  "I don't know why I never learned to enjoy classics.  I think it had to do with being forced to read _To Kill a Mockingbird_ in one week in high school.  I didn't understand it and I hated it. "  

Me:  "This is what I think, that there is a certain way of learning to read that might not be getting taught well and people aren't getting good experiences.  I'm not sure exactly what it is." 


As an after-thought, I don't think critical thinking is getting taught in schools either and I don't know if those 2 ideas go together or not.  I started to look up information on critical thinking in schools and the researchers were saying that it doesn't have to be this way AT ALL because critical thinking is what makes you successful in any field, but for some reason it isn't until people get to their Master's Degrees before the type of questions that lead to critical thinking skills start to be asked.  And critical thinking skills in real life are needed at every age.   Multiple choice is basically the opposite of critical thinking and WRITING is the only thing in grade school that requires critical thinking.   And here we are.


----------



## MistWolf

Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ doesn't stand out because it questions how we use science. It stands out because it questions our view of monsters. 

I take umbrage at the opinion genre readers are lazy. The scifi and fantasy fans I know are very creative, intelligent, independent minded, educated, well read and while they have their heads in the clouds, they also have their feet on the ground.

Literature can be beautifully written, but it's not the most efficient way to tell a story.

All too many literary classics are a waste of the paper they're printed on.


----------



## EternalGreen

MistWolf said:


> All too many literary classics are a waste of the paper they're printed on.



Lol, what?


----------



## Taylor

indianroads said:


> Writing styles change over time - a lot of modern readers find Great Expectations, Moby Dick, and the like hard to get through. The cause of this may be that we have a shorter attention span these days.



So true! I use to select a book by it's thickness, because I preferred the read to last longer if I was going to invest my time in the characters. I remember when Shogun was such a best seller and it had 1152 pages. According to 'Book in a Box': 64% of number one best-sellers are in the 200-400 page range since their list began in 2014.

What has happened to our attention spans? Is it the internet? Email? Cellphones?


----------



## MistWolf

EternalGreen said:


> Lol, what?


What I wrote is clear enough. Not every book considered a literary classic is worth reading. 

Which are and which are not is subjective.


----------



## indianroads

Taylor said:


> So true! I use to select a book by it's thickness, because I preferred the read to last longer if I was going to invest my time in the characters. I remember when Shogun was such a best seller and it had 1152 pages. According to 'Book in a Box': 64% of number one best-sellers are in the 200-400 page range since their list began in 2014.
> 
> What has happened to our attention spans? *Is it the internet? Email? Cellphones?*



IMO the answer is yes... all of those. Television too - all those channels, there were only 3 channels available where I grew up. I also grew up in a household where the television only came on at night, after my father arrived home from work. 

How many more people have watched the Expanse series on TV vs. those who have read the books?

Many people have told me that they don't read... at all, which seems like saying that they don't breathe.


----------



## luckyscars

MistWolf said:


> Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ doesn't stand out because it questions how we use science. It stands out because it questions our view of monsters.
> 
> I take umbrage at the opinion genre readers are lazy. The scifi and fantasy fans I know are very creative, intelligent, independent minded, educated, well read and while they have their heads in the clouds, they also have their feet on the ground.
> 
> Literature can be beautifully written, but it's not the most efficient way to tell a story.
> 
> All too many literary classics are a waste of the paper they're printed on.



You miss the point spectacularly.

 The point isn't that 'genre readers are lazy' in any sense _other _than they don't seem to require their writing to be high in quality and, in fact, seem to prefer writing that is pretty basic, juvenile even. 

For example, here is an opening from The Oppenheimer Alternative, a science fiction novel by Robert J. Sawyer. I picked this because it is modern (2020) and Sawyer is a Hugo and Nebula winner. So this could be described as 'as good as it gets'.



> "You're bad luck for me," said Haakon Chevalier. "I hope you know that."
> Robert Oppenheimer looked at his friend, seated next to him on the pink-and-green living-room couch as the party bustled about them. Oppie's sense was the exact opposite: Hoke had brought him nothing but good fortune, including getting him into this offbeat rooming house here on Shasta Road. "Oh?"
> "Absolutely. When I go places without you, _I'm_ considered the attractive one."
> Oppenheimer made a small chuckle. Chevalier, who had just turned thirty-five, was three years his senior, and was indeed movie-star handsome: gallant, as befitted his last name, and long of face, with wide-spaced eyes and sandy hair swept back in a slight pompadour.
> By comparison, Oppie knew he himself was scrawny, his tall body angular, his coarse black hair a wild nimbus, and his duck-footed gait awkward — one friend had described it as a constant falling forward as if he were forever tumbling into the future.


[FONT=&Verdana]

Now look, I'm not here to say this is bad writing. It isn't bad writing. It's perfectly competent writing. But it's also pretty basic. There's nothing here that makes you immediately go 'oooh'. It's functional, competent, JK Rowling-esque prose. "Movie star handsome"? 

And, bear in mind, this is an award winner. By definition, most science fiction isn't as good as this. Most of it is far worse than this.

That isn't to reflect on any other aspects of the writing, though. The ideas in this story are good, arguably far more intriguing than much literary fiction. The characterization is fine. It's an easy sort of read, it's a _fun _read and it's an exciting, action packed storyline. None of that is being disputed whatsoever. 

My question is: Why is it not possible to do both? Does being literary, or 'writing well', have to be in conflict with writing intriguing ideas and/or an action packed storyline? You could possibly argue that literary merit comes at the expense of that, but then you have to explain Atwood, also a 'science fiction author' but a highly literary one. Here is an excerpt so you know what I mean...



> We slept in what had once been the gymnasium. The floor was of varnished wood, with stripes and circles painted on it, for the games that were formerly played there; the hoops for the basketball nets were still in place, though the nets were gone. A balcony ran around the room, for the spectators, and I thought I could smell, faintly like an afterimage, the pungent scent of sweat, shot through with the sweet taint of chewing gum and perfume from the watching girls, felt-skirted as I knew from pictures, later in miniskirts, then pants, then in one earring, spiky green-streaked hair. Dances would have been held there; the music lingered, a palimpsest of unheard sound, style upon style, an undercurrent of drums, a forlorn wail, garlands made of tissue-paper flowers, cardboard devils, a revolving ball of mirrors, powdering the dancers with a snow of light.



I don't think many people would argue that isn't better writing than Sawyer. We can perhaps disagree as a matter of taste, but consider that even if we dislike the style that it objectively has more inventiveness of language, more depth of description. There's no 'he was movie star handsome' type stuff. At the risk of sounding a snob, it's closer to 'art'. It is thick with emotional depth and voice. It positively drools it's _literaryness._

Sawyer would probably say his priorities when writing are to convey his ideas efficiently. And I agree, he does that just fine. But I wonder why the need is to do so in quite so simple terms quite so constantly, if not because his readers simply don't want to have to read more challenging material.[/FONT]


----------



## Matchu

I dunno, the top piece is clean, immersive, and honest. The second section has a mind reaching for the aromas of ground coffee, of pedigree cats, of woollen jerseys ‘like the fishermen outside.’  Wealthy slug-author types dripping superior enlightenment, the world seen through windows, and spectacles, and not quite Venus in my opinion.  Or too Venus, actually...


----------



## luckyscars

Matchu said:


> I dunno, the top piece is clean, immersive, and honest. The second section has a mind reaching for the aromas of ground coffee, of pedigree cats, of woollen jerseys ‘like the fishermen outside.’  Wealthy slug-author types dripping superior enlightenment, the world seen through windows, and spectacles, and not quite Venus in my opinion.  Or too Venus, actually...



Yeah and I would also want to clarify: I'm not saying there isn't a place for basic writing styles, there is. 

All I am saying is it doesn't seem as though there should be a stark a difference between most genre and literary books given it is possible to write genre fiction that feels literary. Ray Bradbury does this quite well. So does Orwell, arguably. 

But these feel like exceptions, certainly nowadays. "Literary horror' is such a niche people almost treat it as a contradiction in terms.


----------



## MistWolf

Yes, there is a "movie star handsome" in the Atwood passage. "Felt skirted, miniskirts & pants" sentence does the same thing. They are cultural images that not only tell the reader what's going on in just a few words, it evokes an emotion. Atwood does it better. To a reader that doesn't know what movie stars, pompadours, felt skirts, miniskirts or girls wearing pants mean, they're just meaningless words.

I think the Atwood passage is stripped of almost everything it doesn't need and contains everything it does. It's efficient. It flows. It's well crafted. It pushes the story forward on more than one level. It gives insight to the location, the character, how it impacts on POV character and the characters state of mind. It sets the mood.

The Sawyer passage only gives facts. It tells us the two are friends. It gives us names and descriptions. It's sparse rather than efficient. It does nothing to connect the reader to the location, sets no mood and other than establishing the fact the two are friends, tells us nothing about anyone's state of mind. 

Each passage has a different mission.

(Just as I think there are literary novels not worth reading, I think there are Hugo winning stories not worth reading. Again, which are and are not is subjective.)


----------



## EternalGreen

luckyscars said:


> "Literary horror' is such a niche people almost treat it as a contradiction in terms.



Hmm... Shirley Jackson, maybe?


Genre readers often spend their time critiquing books based on stuff like tropes and plot alone. So it's no wonder most genre-writers default to basic prose.


----------



## luckyscars

EternalGreen said:


> Hmm... Shirley Jackson, maybe?



Yeah, Shirley Jackson...who died almost sixty years ago.

There are actually some modern examples. Sarah Waters, Stephen King at times, etc. But it's rare. Don't come across too many literary romances and almost no literary science fiction. Just no real market, I guess.


----------



## EmmaSohan

indianroads said:


> Writing styles change over time - a lot of modern readers find Great Expectations, Moby Dick, and the like hard to get through. The cause of this may be that we have a shorter attention span these days.



Length of attention span is can't be the issue -- I can read a book for hours, but I have trouble paying attention to that first paragraph by Shelly.

Could it be that the paragraph I cited is difficult to pay attention to, because the grammar is dense? And that we have invented ways of writing that make comprehension easier? Inventions to make things easier have been popular for thousands of years. BTW, I guess that one reason Dickens was popular was that he found a way of writing that was easier to understand than Shelly's.

Of course, it's also difficult to pay attention to because nothing is happening. We avoid that too in modern writing, usually.


----------



## indianroads

A saying I heard many years ago - we each dip our tongue into a different well of words. 

Long ago, when I was still in secondary school, our principal could read and speak in 'Old English' - that's what he called it, and I have no idea from what era it comes. He read a bit to us one time, and I couldn't understand a single world.

Perhaps, over time the common vernacular shifts? English is a HUGE language, and a shift from normal verbiage could throw us for loop.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Wiki says this of Frankenstein; a modern Prometheus:



> Despite the reviews, Frankenstein achieved an almost immediate popular success. It became widely known especially through melodramatic theatrical adaptations



The second sentence is what would be expected from a very good story not especially well-told. And look at what you say:



Llyralen said:


> .... and her plot is much more exciting . . . . but his work does not address ethics and morals to the degree she does and his questions are not as big or persistent. Mary Shelley really had vision... I'd say she wins out in the area of providing new ground-breaking and persistent questions over writers like Charlotte Bronte, but Bronte's style is probably better.



You also say nice things about her writing style. I am trying to imagine you liking that style, and I think I can do that, but it's difficult. Is it any different than anyone else from that time?



Llyralen said:


> I do want to read Mary Shelley's other works because she was only I think 18-20 years old when writing _Frankenstein_



Were they similar? Did you ever read Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus?


----------



## Sam

luckyscars said:


> Yeah and I would also want to clarify: I'm not saying there isn't a place for basic writing styles, there is.
> 
> All I am saying is it doesn't seem as though there should be a stark a difference between most genre and literary books given it is possible to write genre fiction that feels literary. Ray Bradbury does this quite well. So does Orwell, arguably.
> 
> But these feel like exceptions, certainly nowadays. "Literary horror' is such a niche people almost treat it as a contradiction in terms.



Can you write genre fiction that feels literary? Yes. 

The question, however, is _should _you write genre fiction that feels literary? 

Unless your name is F. Scott Fitzgerald, I'd seriously recommend you didn't.


----------



## VRanger

indianroads said:


> I'll counter this argument by saying that genre fiction often explores controversial subjects - racism, intolerance, totalitarianism, ... the list goes on. Science fiction especially does this - reminder that the first interracial kiss on television was on Star Trek, not Masterpiece Theater.



Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold is a good example of your point. It's a very strong lesson on racism, which is often misunderstood by some later readers. The MCs son is a racist jerk, and acts like a racist jerk at every opportunity. The misunderstanding comes in analysis of the author decades later, when "critics" point out the racist in the book and ignorantly assume it's the author's PoV.

What it was, released at a tense time in the Civil Rights movement, was masterful use of the "negative example". Heinlein had a black character introduced with admirable traits, and the racist son had terrible things to say about and to the black character. Reading at the time and reading for 'pleasure'-- not as critics--sympathy fell to the black character as the reader rejected the attitudes and behavior of the jerk. It's a sub-conscious education for the reader.

When I read the book as a teen, I rejected the racist son. When I read it many years later as an adult, I understood why, and how deliberately Heinlein created that effect.


----------



## EternalGreen

Sam said:


> Can you write genre fiction that feels literary? Yes.
> 
> The question, however, is _should _you write genre fiction that feels literary?
> 
> Unless your name is F. Scott Fitzgerald, I'd seriously recommend you didn't.



Thanks, but I'll shoot for the stars, anyway.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Old English is basically Anglo Saxon English, so it was dominant for about five hundred years from about a hundred years after the Romans left until 1066 when the Normans got here speaking French.

All languages change all the time, but the process is slowed down when there is a written form. People have found that 25% of proper nouns in a language without writing will change in a thirty year generation. I always reckon that shows in slang, which is mostly used verbally; how many words can you think of for a joint, doobie, reefer, or whatever you call it?

Change happens two ways, there are new words for things and old words take on new meanings. You can spot the one's changing their meaning, pedants insist on the 'old' meaning. When I was younger they would insist that 'nice' meant 'precise' for example, nowadays everyone accepts the meaning of 'pleasant', even if they still understand what a 'nice argument' is. What is often the case is that the meaning the pedants are insisting on is not the original one, but an earlier change. 

Words with changed meanings and things with changed names could make for an interesting thread.


----------



## Sam

EternalGreen said:


> Thanks, but I'll shoot for the stars, anyway.



The problem with shooting for the stars is if you miss, there’s nothing to break your fall.


----------



## luckyscars

Sam said:


> Can you write genre fiction that feels literary? Yes.
> 
> The question, however, is _should _you write genre fiction that feels literary?
> 
> Unless your name is F. Scott Fitzgerald, I'd seriously recommend you didn't.



Okay, but why? It's not a trick question or anything, I do not understand the perceived lack of market or why these things should be considered as separate entities?

As somebody who strongly prefers genre fiction storytelling but finds it often so poorly written it distracts/annoys, I find myself often literately (not literally!) homeless. Reading for me is often a choice between subject matter that really interests me and writing style that really moves or challenges me. I don't think I should have to be making those choices on a regular basis.

I think this is actually quite a common thing. I would actually estimate a writer like Stephen King's popularity is in large part because of this: It's horror for readers who don't like 'ordinary horror'. My grandmother dislikes genre fiction generally, but quite likes some Stephen King books (The Green Mile, Misery, etc.) and it's clear to me it's because King is writing his genre fiction 'for grownups', so to speak. There is a literary pedigree to at least some of his work, as well as an emotional depth that doesn't feel 'standard'. 

One could say the same thing for nearly all genre breakout stars: George RR Martin, Bradbury. These are writers who, to some extent, are able to transcend the genre fiction/literary fiction gap. They aren't just competent writers with great concepts and characters and worlds, they are also able to actually make their concepts/characters/worlds feel, to varying extents, like they have a place in the literary canon. A lot of that comes down to the simple fact they are great writers, but I also feel the approach of Bradbury is vastly different to standard science fiction. It feels like he is approaching genre fiction in a more mature manner.

Or...?


----------



## EternalGreen

Sam said:


> The problem with shooting for the stars is if you miss, there’s nothing to break your fall.



Very poetic. I'm still gonna go for it, though.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> You also say nice things about her writing style. I am trying to imagine you liking that style, and I think I can do that, but it's difficult. Is it any different than anyone else from that time?
> 
> Were they similar? Did you ever read Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus?



LOL!  Yeah, I have a pretty tattered copy of _Frankenstein_.  I think I first read it when I was 20.  It's hard for me to imagine not liking Mary Shelley's style.     She has a style that was unusual for her time and even now is fairly unusual and in my opinion innovative.   It forces you to  put yourself into the character's circumstances, imo.  

Classics are my jam, but if you compare her quotes to other books being written at the time (and mainly I like those too) but Ivanhoe, Last of the Mohicans.... they aren't as good and don't stretch you as much.  

She could best be compared to Charlotte and Emily Bronte; and I think both of them, who wrote a few decades after  Mary Shelley, might have been heavily influenced by her.  Jane Austen wrote just a few years before, but Jane's writing (as much as I also have my tattered copies of her books too) were about a narrow slice of life compared to Mary Shelley's more expansive reach.   She asked some of the best questions out there in any literature.  She wrote the first science fiction book ever and the major questions it brings up about ethics with our creations as humans are still relevant. That's pretty darn amazing. 

I pulled a few quotes off of GoodReads:
"Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it."

"I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other."

 I love that passionate invasive first person POV style of hers.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> Yeah and I would also want to clarify: I'm not saying there isn't a place for basic writing styles, there is.
> 
> All I am saying is it doesn't seem as though there should be a stark a difference between most genre and literary books given it is possible to write genre fiction that feels literary...



I don't understand how you do both. Everyone claims this is poorly written. How would it be rewritten to be both literary and genre (action?). So you would want an action start, with the same information, and presumably no increased word count. If you say the same information in more words, you have diluted the action. I mean, I have no idea how you make this literary.



> Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.
> As he had anticipated, a thundering iron gate fell nearby, barricading the entrance to the suite. The parquet floor shook. Far off, an alarm began to ring.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't understand how you do both. Everyone claims this is poorly written. How would it be rewritten to be both literary and genre (action?). So you would want an action start, with the same information, and presumably no increased word count. If you say the same information in more words, you have diluted the action. I mean, I have no idea how you make this literary.



You piqued my interest, here, because it sounds like a challenge.  lol. 
 Bram Stoker's _Dracula_ is really terrifying at the beginning (then it does get boring with the letters) but it's literary.  It takes a lot of skill to create that kind of terror, imo.

  I think you could make the quote you've got closer to literary if there were pronouns..  The author kind of just worked hard at calling the same guy multiple variations on his names and the author over-dramatizes the action verbs.  It's almost hyperbolic.  To make this quote interesting and mean something (like great literature does) you would want your character to have a clear motive and... maybe to be somewhat torn over his decision?   You have to have some kind of conflict and characterization anyway. 

Here is your challenge quote:
_Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece off toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas. As he had anticipated, a thundering iron gate fell nearby, barricading the entrance to the suite. The parquet floor shook. Far off, an alarm began to ring._


Here is my stab to add conflict and character (and pronouns). for FUN, guys! 

*Under the old archway Jacque paused.  He stared vaguely at the first painting on the wall and thought about how differently he would have thought about his situation when he was younger.   He would have been superstitious, as if committing sacrilege, apologizing in his mind to the ghost of Caravaggio and making the sign of the bull behind his back.  He had been the head curator for the museum for 49 years.  How differently he now felt about dead artists!  *_*When the night guard came, would the man even believe that this was Jacque Sauniere stealing? Or would he just think old Jacque must have been out wandering, wiping dust off of masterpieces in his sleep and that there had been some kind of an accident?  *_*Jacque pulled one side of the frame off the wall.  It took more arm strength than he had thought and the canvas fell on top of him while he plied the other side.  Alarms went off has he had anticipated.  The parque floor shook, an iron gate fell nearby to trap a thief. *
. 
(It would be easy to clip the word-count down, like just taking out the italicized sentences.  I just wanted to address the idea that in the clip it sounded like the guy knew he was going to be caught... and I don't know anything that is an anti-suspenseful as knowing that a guy wants to be caught... unless the danger would be in not getting caught....That's what it seemed like from the "as anticipated" alarms.  He wants to get caught, right?)


If pure action and no conflict or character... that's fine.   You can just simplify it, let your questions get addressed at other times. 
*Jacque slipped under the archway and took the nearest painting.   Alarms went off.  The parque floor shook and an iron gate fell, blocking his way. * 

I don't know.... I hope someone else tries!    If I knew what the author was going for then I think I'd be able to make it even more interesting.

_ Count of Monte Cristo_ has some great action scenes.   Action and great writing aren't strangers.   At least I didn't think so.  And I like all those old French page-turners like _Three Musketeers_ and _The Scarlett Pimpernel_ and _Phantom of the Opera_ .  Action books don't have to be poorly written or lack psychological conflict, I didn't think.   Oh and I love romantic well-written thrillers like Mary Stewart's _The Moon Spinners_.  

Or what about Edward Allan Poe?   What about the _Tell Tale Heart_ or _The Cask of Amontillado_ ?   I did read _The Jungle_ by Upton Sinclair but I didn't read _There Will Be Blood_.... but there has got to be plenty of action in there.  Cormac McCarthy, _The Road_.   I don't think it necessarily has to be great writing to be well-written.  I bawled when I read the first _Hunger Games_ and there's plenty of action, but it's not horribly written.  There is conflict.  There is characterization.  There are pronouns.   IT CAN BE DONE   lol.


----------



## VRanger

Llyralen said:


> And I like all those old French page-turners like _Three Musketeers_ and _The Scarlett Pimpernel_ and _Phantom of the Opera_ .  Action books don't have to be poorly written or lack psychological conflict, I didn't think.   Oh and I love romantic well-written thrillers like Mary Stewart's _The Moon Spinners_.
> 
> Or what about Edward Allan Poe?   What about the _Tell Tale Heart_ or _The Cask of Amontillado_ ?   I did read _The Jungle_ by Upton Sinclair but I didn't read _There Will Be Blood_.... but there has got to be plenty of action in there.  Cormac McCarthy, _The Road_.   I don't think it necessarily has to be great writing to be well-written.  I bawled when I read the first _Hunger Games_ and there's plenty of action, but it's not horribly written.  There is conflict.  There is characterization.  There are pronouns.   IT CAN BE DONE   lol.



I have a [good]/[unfortunate] tendency to be a natural mimic. After I read (a translation of) The Three Musketeers in Jr High, I had to restrain myself from talking like the musketeers. It slipped out from time to time. (Call me a nerd. It won't be the first time I've heard it).

I've made some controversial statements from time to time, so why stop now? I understand the topic of literary vs. genre, but I think it applies less often than some discussion supposes.

I read two qualifications for "literary fiction": (1) exploration of the human condition, and (2) hoity-toity prose.

How much more exploration of the human condition do we really need? We get it from every sort of media. Plus, humans haven't changed all that much since the dawn of recorded history. Sure, some of us are more civilized, but if we still saw an advantage to human sacrifice, it would be "on the table". {he he}. When the chips are down, basic human psychology boils down to (with rare exception) "every man for himself". We already know that. We're at the point where virtually every presentation of every media virtue signals. We're overwhelmed with it. So maybe we can dispense with #1. It's played out.

For #2, I've read plenty of "genre fiction" produced by wordsmiths ... and wordsmiths who don't lean on run-on sentences as proof they harbor literary aspirations. Earlier in this discussion I read of an author regarded as "literary and genre". I hadn't happened to read the author, and after sampling that author's work in exploration, I won't read any more of it. Paragraph-long sentences don't do it for me. And somehow, I fail to see how endless allusions to irrelevant observation carries the narrative. Yeah, there's a miniscule market for that, and I'm not that market.

Then there was the discussion of literature written for the 8th grade reader. I believe it. It's not what I've ever read much of. I have an extensive vocabulary, proven by the experience of sometimes having friends ask "what does that word mean" (when they're brave enough). Authors I've always preferred challenged me with vocabulary. Some I learned in context, some I looked up, and occasionally I _thought _I learned in context, but later learned better. ;-) My preferred genres are sci fi, heroic fantasy, and mystery. Somehow, I find plenty of authors who challenge me in those genres, and that's not easy to do ... especially after 56 years of reading that sort of author. I also find authors in those genres who write beautiful prose without sublimating themselves to the "rules" of literary style (ne: overwritten rubbish adored by critics. See: The Emperor's New Clothes).

So yes, there are popular authors who write great stories with atrocious plotting and pedestrian prose. Later authors overcame those limitations and produced some great fiction. I've read both, but I read much more of the latter.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Llyralen said:


> *Under the old archway Jacque paused. *



It was not a fair contest, methinks. Thanks for trying. I choose an action scene on purpose. You slowed it down a lot with thoughts and reflections, about the past and future. Not what a man running for his life would do. So, fair contest or not, you took the action out of an action scene.

About a month ago I saw an action scene with a metaphor in it. That did not seem to work well either. So I'm not sure adding imagery is going to work either, if that's a feature of literary.

And now that I think about it, I can't imagine a more literary rewrite of the kiss scene from a romance book. It seems that reflections about the past and future would take all the passion out of the kiss.

I suppose Brown was trying to create a mystery -- why was the curator of a museum ripping down a painting? And then mystery two, why did he want the gate to come down? You were trying to resolve those mysteries. That of course could have been a problem of context.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> It was not a fair contest, methinks. Thanks for trying. I choose an action scene on purpose. You slowed it down a lot with thoughts and reflections, about the past and future. Not what a man running for his life would do. So, fair contest or not, you took the action out of an action scene.
> 
> About a month ago I saw an action scene with a metaphor in it. That did not seem to work well either. So I'm not sure adding imagery is going to work either, if that's a feature of literary.
> 
> And now that I think about it, I can't imagine a more literary rewrite of the kiss scene from a romance book. It seems that reflections about the past and future would take all the passion out of the kiss.
> 
> I suppose Brown was trying to create a mystery -- why was the curator of a museum ripping down a painting? And then mystery two, why did he want the gate to come down? You were trying to resolve those mysteries. That of course could have been a problem of context.



It's not a fair contest because you are asking for a scene to be rewritten yet expect it, and the parent book, to be otherwise totally unchanged. This is the equivalent of expecting gourmet food to be made at the speed of fast food, you can't have it both ways. 

Of course the scene is going to be 'slower' if there are more words in it. Where I disagree with you is that you are conflating lack of brevity with lack of impact. I understand that conflation because it's a popular truism: In critique we often tell people to 'trim the fat' to increase the immediacy of the scene. Sometimes we do need to do that. But there are other scenes in the book and there are other ways of telling the same, or a similar, story.

I actually think Llyralen did a pretty good job. Hell, I'll go further: I think he/she's version -- with adequate editing -- would be superior to Brown's. That isn't a huge compliment, Brown is a generally considered a fairly poor writer (just google it!) but yes, their version was far more literary, far more interesting than Brown's. Certainly ,there is far more depth to it. I don't think anybody can dispute that? 

So the question becomes is what Llyralen's rewrite provides _in addition_ worth the slight loss of 'action' (assuming we agree there is a loss in action -- for the sake of argument, let's agree on that). That's obviously going to be a matter of opinion and a matter of case-by-case study to decide if it is, in fact, worth it. Sometimes it is not. 

Certain scenes, even in literary novels, are trimmed down 'action'. Despite what people think, Literary novels aren't always meandering purple navel-gazing. Hemingway is literary fiction. Is Hemingway not action packed?



> _When the shooting started he had clapped this helmet on his head so hard it banged his head as though he had been hit with a casserole and, in the last lung-aching, leg-dead, mouth-dry, bullet-spatting, bullet-cracking, bullet-singing run up the final slope of the hill after his horse was killed, the helmet had seemed to weigh a great amount and to ring his bursting forehead with an iron band._



I would argue, though, that in general immersivity is really important and adding rich detail (to a point -- nobody wants to get too purple) is better than how most commercially popular novels these days are written and it gets super tiresome. The number of books I read which start with some unknown character 'doing something' gets tiresome. It gets tiresome not because I am opposed to in media res (I am not) but because so often it is formulaic and, yeah, not unique or challenging at all...

"Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery..."
"Jill Morton, a lonely housewife, slipped off her sheer lace panties and turned to her lover..."
"Big Tony, big man, ran down the beach and jumped in the ocean..."
"One morning, Terrance Reaver decided to kill his wife with a chainsaw..."

Again, there is a place for this kind of writing, but it's sheer dominance and establishment as being now the norm of 'good writing' is tiring. It's not good writing. It's decent writing and may well have a more-than-decent plot (as the Da Vinci Code certainly does) but it's definitely not writing that has any sort of power beyond concept.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> It's not a fair contest because you are asking for a scene to be rewritten yet expect it, and the parent book, to be otherwise totally unchanged. This is the equivalent of expecting gourmet food to be made at the speed of fast food, you can't have it both ways.



I am thinking now that you can't have it both ways. Some readers like action. They are going to like authors who can tell an action scene as well as possible -- or at least as good as anyone else.

And those scenes need to be judged by the standards of producing good action. I think you are not going to match them by trying to add literary, which they apparently have learned to take out.

Metaphors. I don't want the image of 'getting hit on the head with a casserole' in a serious battle scene.
Meaningfulness. I got bored by your adjective string -- they were everything you wanted them to be, but I didn't  know what they applied to as I read them.
Temporal order. You present events out of order and I think are describing everything in the past (had clapped, had seemed). I am guessing that a good action scene is very much in the present flow of events.
Word count. Action writers seem to reduce word count with a fervor. So, amount  of action per word matters to them.

Thanks for the example, and the point is not to criticize one example, and I don't know what is essential to being literary. There is no argument here against trying to write a book that is both literary and has action in it and trying to appeal to those readers who want both.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> It was not a fair contest, methinks. Thanks for trying. I choose an action scene on purpose. You slowed it down a lot with thoughts and reflections, about the past and future. Not what a man running for his life would do. So, fair contest or not, you took the action out of an action scene.
> 
> About a month ago I saw an action scene with a metaphor in it. That did not seem to work well either. So I'm not sure adding imagery is going to work either, if that's a feature of literary.
> 
> And now that I think about it, I can't imagine a more literary rewrite of the kiss scene from a romance book. It seems that reflections about the past and future would take all the passion out of the kiss.
> 
> I suppose Brown was trying to create a mystery -- why was the curator of a museum ripping down a painting? And then mystery two, why did he want the gate to come down? You were trying to resolve those mysteries. That of course could have been a problem of context.



Oh this was The DeVinci Code?   Lol.  I should have recognized it.   Okay just knowing where it was from would have made the fight more fair.   Oh yeah that was supposed to be suspenseful.  And it wasn’t supposed to be comedic either which I kind of think it was with the painting coming down in him and logistics I’m not quite sure he got anything quite right, but anyway...     

Okay, you did see the even faster way to write that quote that I also put down, right?  I just took out his clutter.  It removes you from the action when you start mentioning specific nouns.   But the sleeked down version is devoid of interest in and of itself (although more literary bits could sandwich action in a more literary book) and therefore suspense. 

 Good action is not actually about speed— which Dan Brown must agree with because look at all the cumbersome things in his quote.     Making something more literary is about making it more interesting, conflicting and about characterization but good action is about seeing if a bomb that got placed earlier is going to go off.  How is someone going to get out?   So... I think Dan Brown was okay at suspense if I remember right.   Nothing in the quote was very suspenseful except knowing that he is going to have to get out or something.  I can’t remember why he wanted to set off alarms.  The type of writing in the quote with all the super specific nouns is distracting though and hinders the action rather than helps though. But again, it’s not about speed.


----------



## EternalGreen

luckyscars said:


> The number of books I read which start with some unknown character 'doing something' gets tiresome. It gets tiresome not because I am opposed to in media res (I am not) but because so often it is formulaic and, yeah, not unique or challenging at all...
> 
> "Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery..."
> "Jill Morton, a lonely housewife, slipped off her sheer lace panties and turned to her lover..."
> "Big Tony, big man, ran down the beach and jumped in the ocean..."
> "One morning, Terrance Reaver decided to kill his wife with a chainsaw..."
> 
> Again, there is a place for this kind of writing, but it's sheer dominance and establishment as being now the norm of 'good writing' is tiring. It's not good writing. It's decent writing and may well have a more-than-decent plot (as the Da Vinci Code certainly does) but it's definitely not writing that has any sort of power beyond concept.



Now you have my curiosity. Do you think we should start our books with a few sentences of "who" the MC is before we get into the actual first scene?


----------



## luckyscars

> Metaphors. I don't want the image of 'getting hit on the head with a casserole' in a serious battle scene.
> Meaningfulness. I got bored by your adjective string -- they were everything you wanted them to be, but I didn't  know what they applied to as I read them.
> Temporal order. You present events out of order and I think are describing everything in the past (had clapped, had seemed). I am guessing that a good action scene is very much in the present flow of events.
> Word count. Action writers seem to reduce word count with a fervor. So, amount  of action per word matters to them.
> 
> Thanks for the example, and the point is not to criticize one example, and I don't know what is essential to being literary. There is no argument here against trying to write a book that is both literary and has action in it and trying to appeal to those readers who want both.



It isn't mine, it's Hemingway. Whether we individually like the example or not, it's a pretty famous action scene from a pretty famous literary fiction book.



EternalGreen said:


> Now you have my curiosity. Do you think we should start our books with a few sentences of "who" the MC is before we get into the actual first scene?



I don't want to get into rules, especially not rules of my own design. I think there are almost infinite good ways of starting any book and they all have their uses. I am simply calling out that an awful lot of books start according to the 'Da Vinci Formula'.

Brown is sufficiently unimaginative that he actually introduces all his characters in multiple books according to this exact same formula. All of these are actual openings of his:



> Robert Langdon awoke slowly. A telephone was ringing in the darkness--a tinny, unfamiliar ring.







> Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery





> As the ancient cogwheel train clawed its way up the dizzying incline, Edmond Kirsch surveyed the jagged mountaintop above him.





> Physicist Leonardo Vetra smelled burning flesh, and he knew it was his own. He stared up in terror at the dark figure looming over him.




Not to rip on Brown too much, nor fixate on opening lines, only to say...this guy is clearly a lost cause as far as writing style. He is replicating the same tired stance that has become almost a caricature of modern genre fiction. I would put money that he could write a thousand books and they would probably all start and end exactly this way. Contrast this with how literary fiction varies and it's eye-opening.

Why? I think I agree that it basically comes down to reader values. Genre fiction readers don't want complex writing. Maybe because they don't want to deal with it, maybe because they can't deal with it, but either way it indicates laziness.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> It isn't mine, it's Hemingway. Whether we individually like the example or not, it's a pretty famous action scene from a pretty famous literary fiction book.



I am relieved to hear you did not write that. Objectively, it's bad writing. _Casserole _doesn't even make sense. It worries me that you defend it.

When we read an adjective, such as _last_, it doesn't really make sense until it's connected to the noun. _Last man_, for example, would be no trouble. But then we read another difficult-to-imagine adjective, _lung-aching_. Two adjective are not much problem as long as the noun comes next. But an adjective comes next, _leg-dead_. Then another adjective, _mouth-dry_. If this was followed by a noun, then _mouth-dry_ would make sense, but those "meaningless" adjectives at the start have been pushed off the table. And then to have three more adjectives before the noun is ridiculous.

No one does this, for good reason. Or is this common in literary? Note that the sentence reads just fine the second time, when the reader knows what the adjectives apply to.



> . . . and, in the last lung-aching, leg-dead, mouth-dry, bullet-spatting, bullet-cracking, bullet-singing run up the final slope of the hill after his horse was killed . . .



 It's very vivid. But putting the noun first could have made the sentence very powerful the first time.

To me, working well the second time is a sign of bad writing. Hemingway didn't fix it in editing because he thought readers would be impressed? He was just experimenting? None of his beta-readers mentioned the problem?


----------



## Olly Buckle

EternalGreen said:


> Now you have my curiosity. Do you think we should start our books with a few sentences of "who" the MC is before we get into the actual first scene?



Forget "Should", think possibilities. 
It is often a viable possibility, one aspect of this can be getting them on side with the hero, save the cat. 

You can place them temporally and geographically to each other, and that may well add to the "Who". If you can get in what, where, when, and who into your very beginning and make them relate to each other and amplify each other 

You can quietly introduce a modest central character. Or introduce a Hell raiser uproariously.

To me the 'ordinary' book ticks the boxes, the 'literary' one explores possibilities in unexpected ways.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

luckyscars said:


> Why? I think I agree that it basically comes down to reader values. Genre fiction readers don't want complex writing. Maybe because they don't want to deal with it, maybe because they can't deal with it, but either way it indicates laziness.



I don't think it's laziness not to crave or seek out complex writing. Maybe it's disinterest. Maybe some don't think literature is the be-all/end- all and want forms of genre fiction to have an enjoyable or interesting escape from life now and then. 

I'm one who loves good books that explain writing or literature. And love many general "how to write" books (how to write poems, short stories, novels). 

One book I am re-reading (for a project I have going) is James Wood's _How Fiction Works_. It's not the typical "how to write" book. It's quite complex. A beginner writer would likely be disappointed in this book and would probably prefer something a bit simpler. Not because the beginner is lazy but because there might be a better "how to" for the beginner without a huge literary background. 

Wood's complex work discusses the works of Flaubert, Chekhov, Jane Austen, Saul Bellow, V.S. Naipaul, John Updike, David Foster Wallace, Nabokov (and other literary writers). He discusses these concepts: free indirect speech or style, unidentified free indirect style (or village-chorus narration), mock-heroic comedy, the contagion of moralizing niceness, "thisness" (_haecceitas_), commercial realism, and much more. 

Wood's work, while outstanding, likely isn't for everyone. Just as the more simple "how to" books wouldn't be for everyone either. Different types of such books (genres, even?) serve different purposes. And somehow that seems to connect to this discussion.


----------



## Llyralen

luckyscars said:


> Where I disagree with you is that you are conflating lack of brevity with lack of impact.



I agree completely.  Creating suspense is what is needed to make action compelling.   I'm trying to think if a quick pace is what is needed in a certain circumstance and no examples are coming to my mind.  The way you put that action on the page is all about what is needed for suspense it seems like to me and creating suspense is about set-up usually, I'd say.   Which would make a good thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md6folAgGRU




> I actually think Llyralen did a pretty good job. Hell, I'll go further: I think he/she's version -- with adequate editing -- would be superior to Brown's. That isn't a huge compliment, Brown is a generally considered a fairly poor writer...



I cracked up into belly laughs all 7 times that I read this today.   Read it before work, found out I had re-written something of Dan Brown's.  lol  Read it after work-- still funny.  Read it to my husband-- I couldn't get through.  The very polite he/she references.... oh my gosh, I'm wiping away tears.  This was SO AWESOME!   I might have finally arrived at not taking myself too seriously!  Thank you for the self-growth!   I freaking love this site!  Thank you!  Thank you!  Thank you!.     (She/her is fine, I'm cis-female)  =)



> ... their version was far more literary, far more interesting than Brown's. Certainly ,there is far more depth to it. I don't think anybody can dispute that?



Let me just take a moment (and many others) for disproportionate satisfaction...
Very agreed about Hemmingway!  And about the importance of writing that challenges readers. 
I realize I don't know as much about the color purple as you do. I must look it up.   =)

What other best-selling authors can I take on today?


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> I am relieved to hear you did not write that. Objectively, it's bad writing. _Casserole _doesn't even make sense. It worries me that you defend it.
> 
> When we read an adjective, such as _last_, it doesn't really make sense until it's connected to the noun. _Last man_, for example, would be no trouble. But then we read another difficult-to-imagine adjective, _lung-aching_. Two adjective are not much problem as long as the noun comes next. But an adjective comes next, _leg-dead_. Then another adjective, _mouth-dry_. If this was followed by a noun, then _mouth-dry_ would make sense, but those "meaningless" adjectives at the start have been pushed off the table. And then to have three more adjectives before the noun is ridiculous.
> 
> No one does this, for good reason. Or is this common in literary? Note that the sentence reads just fine the second time, when the reader knows what the adjectives apply to.
> 
> 
> 
> It's very vivid. But putting the noun first could have made the sentence very powerful the first time.
> 
> To me, working well the second time is a sign of bad writing. Hemingway didn't fix it in editing because he thought readers would be impressed? He was just experimenting? None of his beta-readers mentioned the problem?




It's Hemmingway.  I'll defend a casserole.  I'm amazed at how far I am prepared to go to defend that casserole. 
You think the quote you brought from Dan Brown is better?   By the way.... that was a really fun exchange of thought.      

But I'm actually wondering about what kind of books you like?   Have you read any classics that you like a lot?   What do you usually read?   Do you think you represent a slice of the pie out there?   Because I'm really kind of wondering what the audience out there is like.  I am not writing disrespectfully when I'm saying this.   I'm pretty curious, because you have written your posts coherently and it sounds like you read.  And you thought I was talking about Mary Shelley's style without even reading her work.   Do a lot of people do that around here?      I'm curious.  I'm Gen-X.  I think I've got a lot to learn about the current audience, actually.  I haven't looked into trends in writing for years.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> I am relieved to hear you did not write that. Objectively, it's bad writing. _Casserole _doesn't even make sense. It worries me that you defend it.
> 
> When we read an adjective, such as _last_, it doesn't really make sense until it's connected to the noun. _Last man_, for example, would be no trouble. But then we read another difficult-to-imagine adjective, _lung-aching_. Two adjective are not much problem as long as the noun comes next. But an adjective comes next, _leg-dead_. Then another adjective, _mouth-dry_. If this was followed by a noun, then _mouth-dry_ would make sense, but those "meaningless" adjectives at the start have been pushed off the table. And then to have three more adjectives before the noun is ridiculous.
> 
> No one does this, for good reason. Or is this common in literary? Note that the sentence reads just fine the second time, when the reader knows what the adjectives apply to.
> 
> It's very vivid. But putting the noun first could have made the sentence very powerful the first time.
> 
> To me, working well the second time is a sign of bad writing. Hemingway didn't fix it in editing because he thought readers would be impressed? He was just experimenting? None of his beta-readers mentioned the problem?



Okay, so the book is 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' by Hemingway. It is generally considered one of the finest books in the English language -- Pulitzer Prize winning, usually appearing on Top 100 lists, etc. On that basis, I don't think Hemingway was 'just experimenting'.

You can actually read the entire book for free on Google Books. The excerpt I quoted appears on page 333. 

As far as whether it's 'objectively bad writing'....I would be careful with that word 'objective'. You may consider it bad, and that's totally fine, but there's nothing objective -- and your reasoning is very flawed. Generally, 'objective' things should not have flawed reasoning.

Regarding that reasoning...



> _Casserole _doesn't even make sense.



Yes it does? Casserole is a type of deep pan dish with a lid. Are you thinking it refers to a type of food? The food is named after the dish and a lot of people do know that. 

In fairness, I'm not sure I am in love the image in isolation either, but in the context of the story as a whole it does make sense: The focus character is a young kid from America and the approximation with 'being hit over the head with a casserole dish' while a little eccentric makes sense (it's got a kind of simple, everyman quality to it, right?). Again, may not be to your taste but you're dead wrong to say it lacks sense to it. What would you suggest as an alternative? I think war is pretty hard to describe in general.



> When we read an adjective, such as _last_, it doesn't really make sense until it's connected to the noun. _Last man_, for example, would be no trouble. But then we read another difficult-to-imagine adjective, _lung-aching_. Two adjective are not much problem as long as the noun comes next. But an adjective comes next, _leg-dead_. Then another adjective, _mouth-dry_. If this was followed by a noun, then _mouth-dry_ would make sense, but those "meaningless" adjectives at the start have been pushed off the table. And then to have three more adjectives before the noun is ridiculous.
> 
> No one does this, for good reason. Or is this common in literary? Note that the sentence reads just fine the second time, when the reader knows what the adjectives apply to.



Again, no. That's mostly just arbitrary rules you have made up, probably because they fit the kind of writing you read and write.

 They may apply in some, even most, circumstances, but why should they apply here? It is clear the excerpt in question is intended to sound frenetic and the character overwhelmed. The writing accomplishes that and I see no grounds for saying it is ridiculous or doesn't make sense. I can certainly see grounds for individuals not liking it -- it may be ridiculous or nonsensical for the type of reader who is used to Dan Brown and appreciates that style. 

Otherwise I just find your judgments pretty off the mark. Again, this is literally one of the most highly acclaimed books ever, so if this manner of writing is ridiculous, it's by no means 'objectively' recognized as such.


----------



## Llyralen

luckyscars said:


> Yes it does? Casserole is a type of deep pan dish with a lid. Are you thinking it refers to a type of food? The food is named after the dish and a lot of people do know that.
> 
> In fairness, I'm not sure I am in love the image in isolation either, but in the context of the story as a whole it does make sense: The focus character is a young kid from America and the approximation with 'being hit over the head with a casserole dish' while a little eccentric makes sense (it's got a kind of simple, everyman quality to it, right?). Again, may not be to your taste but you're dead wrong to say it lacks sense to it. What would you suggest as an alternative? I think war is pretty hard to describe in general.
> 
> .




Luckyscars... look up... we both must have been defending the casserole usage in Hemmingway at the same time.  I think this bonds us in a way that I have never bonded with anyone before and I propose that we MUST start a garage band right away called the "The Casserole Defenders"...hmm... or maybe "The Casserole Definers... for those who don't know it's a type of dish." The Casserole Definers FTWDKTATOD" ?   Hmm... not quite right?   Well we will have to keep our heads down and keep working on it.  (I play the harp, btw).


----------



## luckyscars

Pamelyn Casto said:


> I don't think it's laziness not to crave or seek out complex writing. Maybe it's disinterest. Maybe some don't think literature is the be-all/end- all and want forms of genre fiction to have an enjoyable or interesting escape from life now and then.



Oh sure, I can agree with that. 

I feel like the differences between 'laziness' and 'disinterest' aren't huge or important in practice, right? I mean, usually people are pretty lazy when they're disinterested in something, and more likely to be disinterested when they are lazy. We can split the hairs on the semantics if people are offended by them. I don't mind.




> Different types of such books (genres, even?) serve different purposes. And somehow that seems to connect to this discussion.



Yeah, they do, and this discussion is more about proportionality than about whether things should or should not exist. 

I am actually quite a fan of mindless crap. I don't _like _that I am a fan of it, but I am of the opinion anybody who says they only read highbrow literature is either a liar or a weirdo. So, contrary to how it may sound, this isn't really about rubbishing lowbrow literature, let alone genre fiction. It's all good. Again, point is about proportionality. My point is that genre fiction is so highly dominated by...let's be charitable and call it 'simple prose' that it essentially makes finding a good genre fiction book that contains genuinely challenging, smart, elaborate, etc. writing quite difficult. 

The degree ofabsolute shite in genre fiction is mind boggling, the degree of simplistic (read: bland) writing is even greater. I can't remember the last time I read a horror or science fiction writer (at least, not one who wasn't Stephen King) and felt remotely moved by the language itself. There is shite in literary fiction too, to be clear, but not nearly as much and at least the writer is usually seeming to be trying their best.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Llyralen said:


> But I'm actually wondering about what kind of books you like?   Have you read any classics that you like a lot?   What do you usually read?



I often read classics to try to learn about old styles. I also have an interest in the history of grammar and punctuation. I rarely am drawn in to actually read the older classics though, even though many books do draw me in. IMO, we have learned a lot about writing.

I read about three books a week. My favorite genre is Y/A, but I read a variety of semi-random books, I think because I never know where I'll find something useful.

Does these count as literary? About a month ago I read _Feast Your Eyes_ by Myla Goldberg. (It seems like a book you would like, as does_ The Question Authority_). I also wonder what you would think of _The King of Lies_, which has the most luscious metaphors of any book I know.

 My favorite book is _The Fault in Our Stars_. But I am usually happy if a book does one thing right and not too many things that are wrong for me. People tell me it is possible to enjoy a sentence just for the sound of the words, or something like that, but I don't get it.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> I often read classics to try to learn about old styles. I also have an interest in the history of grammar and punctuation. I rarely am drawn in to actually read the older classics though, even though many books do draw me in. IMO, we have learned a lot about writing.
> 
> I read about three books a week. My favorite genre is Y/A, but I read a variety of semi-random books, I think because I never know where I'll find something useful.
> 
> Does these count as literary? About a month ago I read _Feast Your Eyes_ by Myla Goldberg. (It seems like a book you would like, as does_ The Question Authority_). I also wonder what you would think of _The King of Lies_, which has the most luscious metaphors of any book I know.
> 
> My favorite book is _The Fault in Our Stars_. But I am usually happy if a book does one thing right and not too many things that are wrong for me. People tell me it is possible to enjoy a sentence just for the sound of the words, or something like that, but I don't get it.




Ahh yay!  I love that you wondered if I would also like these!  You've got me figured already, I do need my metaphors.  I can check these out.  Anything that is described as the most luscious metaphors of any book you know would be very worth looking into.  I have often watched John Green's stuff on youtube so I'm pretty open to liking his book.  I saw the movie too.


----------



## Hector

Rowling's stories are mediocre like hell, yet she has sold 523 million copies. Anything is possible.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I enjoyed this discussion, as cross-purposed as it might have been.

My interest in punctuation, grammar, and word choice starts and stops with helping tell my story. I think its important. To me, King is a master technician.

There apparently is an ability to write in a way that is pleasing by itself, independently of content. This has been described as using uncommon words and using imagery. I assume alliteration would be good, and a more complicated grammar also seems to be enjoyable. I am guessing this is especially useful for describing a scene. True? I can't do it, so I think of it as showing literary skill. However, I also don't appreciate it.

And then a question arose as to how well some or all of this could be incorporated into genre fiction.

To be clear, if an author does something I've never seen before, with punctuation, grammar, or story telling, I will stop and appreciate that. Or if it's especially well done. (But only if it helps tell the story.)


----------



## Olly Buckle

EmmaSohan said:


> There apparently is an ability to write in a way that is pleasing by itself, independently of content. This has been described as using uncommon words and using imagery. I assume alliteration would be good, and a more complicated grammar also seems to be enjoyable. I am guessing this is especially useful for describing a scene. True? I can't do it, so I think of it as showing literary skill. )



Knight slays monster and is feted.

or

Jabberwocky
BY LEWIS CARROLL
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
      The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
      Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
      And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
      The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
      And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
      The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
      He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
      Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
      He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

I loved that when I was a little boy, practically had it by heart. You should see the number of red lines spellcheck puts in it


----------



## Matchu

WE had to learn it by rote. [It is a bit bawring, eh?]

 ...

I've written a few of those senseless ones for fun, for shape only.  One provoked a death threat on the Abs*l*t* crit board.  A Star Wars child, completely driven insane, saying 'the reason you only got two reviews is because this biggest crock of sh!t is sh!t since sh!t!!!!'

I retired my piece afterward, probably had sent it to 'World Poetry' or something, they put it in the dustbin.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Ok if we accept that literary prose is superior to genre prose. Is the point of this thread to improve our style? Or to learn that by persuasion that writing better prose should be a writer's goal? I know very little of how to improve style to be honest. You can use symbols to convey a mood. Maybe reading a poem can help you spot some objects that can be part of a setting a play a role in part of the characterization or plot. For instance william faulkner used a birthday cake to help his plot move along and characterize a old woman in a house (the birthday cake was forgotten and a character picked it up).  How he describes the woman in that story is pretty circumspect. IMO and I am not well informed on how they achieve their effects. But I do own a few creative writing books. One explains that setting is character when it sets a mood. When you write a story in a slaughterhouse you better bet the mood will help captivate the reader.  Obviously the character's history better be relevant to the slaughterhouse. Also you must chose what to dramatize of the whole situation.

The style may be superior. I agree when you add two genres together they become stronger. But to accomplish that you need to be learned in literary technique. I have a book which I can dig up for the discussion that talks about setting. It's titled Shaping the Story by Mark Baechtel. It's not necessarily a how to book but a book with exercises and theory. I bought it a good while ago because a prolific reviewer on amazon would buy these books. One day I bought a book because someone recommended Janet Burroway's writing fiction. That was after I received a critique saying I should give that book a chance.

Setting is very important in literary prose. You match the setting to their emotion. Imagine a museum and two people trying to argue. That's an example taken from shaping the story. To attempt is tricky. Creative writing on the whole in terms of textbooks is always in need of a teacher. You can interpret but must practice with someone who knows this theory and how to apply it in your stories.

So one thing is to imagine what is going to happen in your setting. You imagined it for a special reason. To create conflict that is according to the book.

Setting suggests the emotional state of the character. Imagine if you will an abandoned amusement park. (I made this up) (now create a character to conflict with this setting). (who will have the emotional state you want)(regretfully having fun)(again an example I made up)
(all setting seems to suggest is a starting point for the emotional state or what the character could be feeling because you imagined it).

Characterization is dependent on detail. If you want to show detail you better use it to characterize a character for example a prolific reader of books and a bibliophile. In this case you would show the books he owns, the shelf with bookcases, maybe a personal library instead of saying what the character does or telling. Would the character collect books on poison mushrooms? Depends on you if he thought it was innocous.

These are some concrete pointers on how to do and write better prose based on setting (taken from the book). I keep ignoring the book since I always have placed an important on plot which the book doesn't explain. I assume it comes from your experiences that can then help you imagine a story (short story in this case because the book mentions short stories as a starting point). It's a beginner's book. But it has pertinent theory since the book itself is used as a college textbook for creative writing. The thread has been discussing moods and setting and this has to do with literary theory. So this has to do with moods suggested by settings.


----------



## Olly Buckle

> Ok if we accept that literary prose is superior to genre prose. Is the point of this thread to improve our style?



I don't accept that at all, it depends what you think gives superiority. For me it is a matter of accessibility. If something gets people reading that is great by me, a simple genre novel which is read and enjoyed by thousands of people or some esoteric piece that a small number get a sense of superiority from and countless students are bored stiff by. No contest.

Improving our style is probably no bad thing, but the point of the thread is to discuss the relative merits of content and style. This is obviously still in contention. My feeling is that I don't care what people read, so long as they read. Chances are that they will pick something up from it, also that if they do they will try the experience again, that is what is important. If it's content is obfuscated by style and their enjoyment impaired or nullified they won't bother again. The minority who understand and enjoy really don't need any encouragement, they are already into reading.

Try an analogy, is Coca-cola  superior to water? It tastes good, but it contains caffeine which makes you pee more so it does not hydrate you as well and sugar which will rot your teeth and may bring on secondary diabetes, so in taste coke wins, but if I could only have one or the other give me water.


----------



## TheManx

EternalGreen said:


> Very poetic. I'm still gonna go for it, though.



Of course you should. I’ve read your work and I think you have a shot at it. It’s bizarre that anyone on a writing site would discourage you from trying to do otherwise. Oh well.


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't accept that at all, it depends what you think gives superiority. For me it is a matter of accessibility. If something gets people reading that is great by me, a simple genre novel which is read and enjoyed by thousands of people or some esoteric piece that a small number get a sense of superiority from and countless students are bored stiff by. No contest.
> 
> Improving our style is probably no bad thing, but the point of the thread is to discuss the relative merits of content and style. This is obviously still in contention. My feeling is that I don't care what people read, so long as they read. Chances are that they will pick something up from it, also that if they do they will try the experience again, that is what is important. If it's content is obfuscated by style and their enjoyment impaired or nullified they won't bother again. The minority who understand and enjoy really don't need any encouragement, they are already into reading.
> 
> Try an analogy, is Coca-cola  superior to water? It tastes good, but it contains caffeine which makes you pee more so it does not hydrate you as well and sugar which will rot your teeth and may bring on secondary diabetes, so in taste coke wins, but if I could only have one or the other give me water.



I agree with a lot of this but I think it slightly misses the point.

The problem is, there is an inconvenient but stubborn link between 'improving our style' and the relative merits of what we read. It's a highly unfashionable thing to say nowadays, in an era where most people are just glad that books still exist.

 I find myself sympathetic to it myself: Often I am so happy/relieved to hear that ordinary people still have a response to a question like 'What is your favorite book?' that I give almost no thought to whether the book(s) they are reading are actually any good. I am so happy to see somebody read a paperback on a train (as opposed to, say, a cell phone) that the book in question could be literally anything and it would not much matter. It could be raging trash and I would still, a part of me, want to hug them.

But let's think about this dispassionately, alright? Alright. There are really terrible books out there. Yes, even now. There are books that are as 'bad for you' as, lets say, snuff movies or German torture porn. Absolute garbage that should not be written and exists for all the wrong reasons. We know there are books like that because there are certainly movies like that -- right? Content on TV, too. And we have no problem calling out trash in other mediums. We have a problem calling it out in books, though. Even mention that a book should not exist and you get called Hitler.

Now, as it happens, I am not trying to say I don't think such books should exist. I am certainly not saying that is a fair characterization of genre fiction. What I am trying to say, is that the old axiom of 'I don't care what people read...so long as they read' while well-intentioned is a little bit naïve. What if they are reading child erotica? Again, I'm not saying this is the case, only that it could be, so we need to be careful of the logic that says 'all books are equal'. Because it is self-evidently not the case.

We need to be careful before _fully _committing to the idea that there is no such thing as 'superiority'. I would almost argue such a position cannot make sense on a 'writing discussion' forum because isn't the entire basis for discussing writing formed on the idea that, yeah actually, some writing is actually better? I mean, that's kind of the underlying assumption behind most of these threads, right? When we talk about "Avoid Deus ex Machina with foreshadowing" we are basing that on the assumption that everybody knows Deus Ex Machina tends to be inferior.  When we talk about 'How to finish a novel" we are basing that assumption on the _rather old fashioned _belief that novels should finish a certain way, or finish at all! Why not have an unfinished novel? Is a finished novel actually superior to one that stops midsentence?

Well, yeah, of course it is. And if some writing is better than others then it's reasonable (though not mandatory, I guess) to try to formulate some concept of where it can be found and how it can be created, and what its function is -- why does it matter?

Regarding coke v. water...that seems to me pretty apt, then. High-quality writing is clearly water. It can be challenging to drink (in sufficient quantities, at least) and rather less delicious, but ultimately the superiority lies in the simple truth that it is _better for you. _The intellect demands it. Whether we feed that demand or not is up to us, but ultimately the outcome is a loss in intellectual health, not of simple replacement. The choice between coke and water isn't really a choice.


----------



## Llyralen

I've been trying to find quotes of the most exciting parts of _The Count of Monte Cristo_... my favorite is him meeting his fellow prisoner and then the escape where he switches bodies with the dead man.   I got so excited tonight reading this over.  Try 53/464 to start where he's been in prison for 5-6 years.   I love it.  It's a great exploration of the human condition, suspense, adventure, etc. 

http://msdl.cs.mcgill.ca/people/tfeng/books/The Count of Monte Cristo.pdf


----------



## Olly Buckle

I reckon that if someone has any sort of intellect they will end up getting bored reading 'Edge', or child erotica, or whatever rubbish they have been stuck in, and want to move on. Maybe not far, but they will move on, and when they do they will have had the practice that means they don't have to spell out the words. 

I am not convinced that absolute garbage constitutes books that are 'bad for you'. It is arguable whether they lead people into bad behaviour or whether they satisfy a desire without the necessity to actually indulge, and for those who do indulge whether they would have done so anyway. To my mind it is what people do that counts, only a tiny minority of those who read 'bad books' actually go out and kill, rape, and torture. I would contend that they are probably the ones who would have done it anyway, it is them. not the books, that are 'bad'.


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> I am not convinced that absolute garbage constitutes books that are 'bad for you'. It is arguable whether they lead people into bad behaviour or whether they satisfy a desire without the necessity to actually indulge, and for those who do indulge whether they would have done so anyway. To my mind it is what people do that counts, only a tiny minority of those who read 'bad books' actually go out and kill, rape, and torture. I would contend that they are probably the ones who would have done it anyway, it is them. not the books, that are 'bad'.



No, I'm not saying that. But we can clearly distinguish between the kind of benefit that reading War & Peace could provide versus something like Fifty Shades Of Grey. That isn't to say that there's no place for Fifty Shades -- there probably is -- only that one will not become a better writer (or wiser human being) for having read it compared to War & Peace -- Fifty Shades is closer to Coca Cola.

 At a certain point (the child erotica level) we might even say that not reading at all might be better for you. I would not go that far regarding most genre fiction, I really wouldn't, but I would defend the judgment that really poor quality reading is probably as bad/worse as zero reading much like watching exclusively pornography is generally considered worse for the brain than never watching anything.


----------



## Llyralen

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't accept that at all, it depends what you think gives superiority. For me it is a matter of accessibility. If something gets people reading that is great by me, a simple genre novel which is read and enjoyed by thousands of people or some esoteric piece that a small number get a sense of superiority from and countless students are bored stiff by. No contest.
> 
> Improving our style is probably no bad thing, but the point of the thread is to discuss the relative merits of content and style. This is obviously still in contention. My feeling is that I don't care what people read, so long as they read. Chances are that they will pick something up from it, also that if they do they will try the experience again, that is what is important. If it's content is obfuscated by style and their enjoyment impaired or nullified they won't bother again. The minority who understand and enjoy really don't need any encouragement, they are already into reading.
> 
> Try an analogy, is Coca-cola  superior to water? It tastes good, but it contains caffeine which makes you pee more so it does not hydrate you as well and sugar which will rot your teeth and may bring on secondary diabetes, so in taste coke wins, but if I could only have one or the other give me water.



I have a question for you.  I've appreciated your comments wherever I see them, btw. 
I think I don't even think about what people should READ so much as I think there is a responsibility of what we should WRITE. 
I feel this way with journalism too.  And basically with the whole Social Media problems that haven't even been named yet.... but when everyone is a town-crier, basically, then isn't the important stuff that as a society we actually SHOULD focus on getting drowned out? 
In the social media or journalism sense, when we give equal space or air time for someone to criticize someone's hair instead of talk about global warming then aren't we doing ourselves and especially the upcoming generation a huge disservice?  Are we discussing Melania's Christmas decorations and not talking about kids in cages?   Is this what our writing is like too?   I mean... at every level there can be writing that does good things and helps direct thinking to things that are important.  I'm thinking of Dr. Seuss level even.  _Horton Hatches the Egg_  is an important story.  And even _The Cat in the Hat_ helped me explore some emotions of fear when I was little..  

From a literature standpoint if we aren't directing attention or focusing on writing that can improve our world and make people ask all sorts of important questions about what is important, how to treat people, etc. then aren't we just perpetuating the noise?    I mean.. some of the noise we need like comedy... we need comedy and play but I also think comedy can be really useful to society as I think I wrote earlier in this post.  I think this year's _Borat_ was a very challenging awesome work that could start conversations.  

What do you feel?   What do you think?   Yes?  No?    I actually think lack of critical thinking skills in the information-overload era might make dictators look more appealing to some and might produce more people who drink the coolaid.   Although you might completely disagree with my political thoughts on all of this. 
Anyway... your thoughts?


----------



## Tettsuo

> Bill Watterson:
> 
> The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!



Obviously, this is sarcasm from Mr. Watterson, in case you didn't catch it.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't accept that at all, it depends what you think gives superiority. For me it is a matter of accessibility. If something gets people reading that is great by me, a simple genre novel which is read and enjoyed by thousands of people or some esoteric piece that a small number get a sense of superiority from and countless students are bored stiff by. No contest.
> 
> Improving our style is probably no bad thing, but the point of the thread is to discuss the relative merits of content and style. This is obviously still in contention. My feeling is that I don't care what people read, so long as they read. Chances are that they will pick something up from it, also that if they do they will try the experience again, that is what is important. If it's content is obfuscated by style and their enjoyment impaired or nullified they won't bother again. The minority who understand and enjoy really don't need any encouragement, they are already into reading.
> 
> Try an analogy, is Coca-cola  superior to water? It tastes good, but it contains caffeine which makes you pee more so it does not hydrate you as well and sugar which will rot your teeth and may bring on secondary diabetes, so in taste coke wins, but if I could only have one or the other give me water.


I can relate with your post Olly Buckle. I won't digress. I simply have a viewpoint which I think I like literary with genre fiction.

I think I will have to dig up my book by Terry Eagleton to continue this discussion of literary theory.

However, does anyone think people should learn something when reading a story? That a world and a character changes for the better. I used to write for entertainment. But nowadays I write for social causes.


----------



## indianroads

Theglasshouse said:


> I can relate with your post Olly Buckle. I won't digress. I simply have a viewpoint which I think I like literary with genre fiction.
> 
> I think I will have to dig up my book by Terry Eagleton to continue this discussion of literary theory.
> 
> However, does anyone think people should learn something when reading a story? That a world and a character changes for the better. I used to write for entertainment. But nowadays I write for social causes.



I have a similar view - but my writing goals are not to change anyone's mind, instead I describe the affect something has my my characters and leave it to my readers to form their opinions. I've written about intolerance, sexism, socialism, and injustice that springs from those trying to bring justice. Again, I just tell the story and do my best to not pontificate. I want my books to be about the STORY not the message.

Who else remembers Dudley Do-Right cartoons? Too many novels these days have just about that amount of substance. As a reader, I crave something more, and I write what I would like to read.

Is my writing 'literary'? I dunno, it's a work in progress. I do my best to write clearly and cleanly, give my characters depth and motives for what they do, and provide compelling descriptions of the world they live in. I think that's all that any of us can do.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

luckyscars said:


> At a certain point (the child erotica level) we might even say that not reading at all might be better for you. I would not go that far regarding most genre fiction, I really wouldn't, but I would defend the judgment that really poor quality reading is probably as bad/worse as zero reading much like watching exclusively pornography is generally considered worse for the brain than never watching anything.



In grad school I took a course in pornography. I don't think it harmed me. I learned a lot by exploring that genre and I'm pretty sure my brain is still working properly. The intense course didn't change my morality in any way either. I dislike pornography (in particular the way some of it portrays women) and took the course to better understand why I hold my negative judgement of the genre and to see if I was right or wrong holding my opinion. It wasn't all poor quality writing either.  I think my brain would have been *worse* off if I'd read nothing at all for that sixteen-week course and I'm glad I took the class.


----------



## Theglasshouse

In the substance and style discussion I think I sided with substance but that is a narrow focus perhaps for me even now. I am saying literary fiction is more general than just style.

 So you do make a good statement on that. I feel this thread is similar to that thread. In some ways yes and in some ways not. If you will for me literary technique is something we can agree to use or not. I like works with a profound message expressed in it. These are what I think the pulitzer hands awards for right? I may need to look that up. But genre needs more good criticism. Science fiction was taken more seriously because of darko's Suvin's (a yale critic) work on criticism called metamorphosis.  They call science fiction formulaic. If one of the best ones was mentioned by luckyscars then why can't science fiction be as a once reviled and liked critic be moral? Would people like science fiction more if more moral? 

I like what genre fiction can do. It can give a plot that teaches something if we use no exposition to tell the story and show and not tell. Also, if in dialogue the story isn't preaching. This also makes me think when you write about the truth, you have a voice and your work could appear to be more marketable. Or am I wrong on what a voice is? If you have a voice it seems to me you are writing about the human condition. Which is a varied experience that varies and is a macrocosm of culture.

The problem critics seem to point out is that it is escapist. Ursula k le guin said in a quote to paraphrase: "Escape from whom." I don't remember if she said reality.

I haven't read on moral fiction by John Gardner, but if it gives some precepts on what it is I will give it a try. Because moral fiction according to him is of the human heart.

What if we tackled themes on moral fiction and their examples? Would our fiction become more popular with critics and readers alike? I dont know the answer. But now I am interested in some examples of this type of fiction. I realize he is just one critic, but maybe he critized what genre fiction lacked? Would Atwood's fiction fall under moral fiction?


----------



## luckyscars

Pamelyn Casto said:


> In grad school I took a course in pornography. I don't think it harmed me. I learned a lot by exploring that genre and I'm pretty sure my brain is still working properly. The intense course didn't change my morality in any way either. I dislike pornography (in particular the way some of it portrays women) and took the course to better understand why I hold my negative judgement of the genre and to see if I was right or wrong holding my opinion. It wasn't all poor quality writing either.  I think my brain would have been *worse* off if I'd read nothing at all for that sixteen-week course and I'm glad I took the class.



There is a wealth of research on the effects that prolonged and heavy use of hardcore and extreme/violent pornography has on mental health.


----------



## Theglasshouse

> *What Are the Characteristics of Literary Fiction?*
> 
> Character-focused narratives.
> Ample symbolism, metaphor, and allegory.
> Advanced vocabulary infused with imagery.
> Ambiguous plot points, including even the work's conclusion.
> Exploration of larger philosophical themes regarding the human condition and the will of *nature*.
> 
> More items...
> •
> Nov 8, 2020



Found this in a google search on top of the search page. Opinions?


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

luckyscars said:


> There is a wealth of research on the effects that prolonged and heavy use of hardcore and extreme/violent pornography has on mental health.



If that's so I'd guess there is also danger to mental health with the effects of "prolonged and heavy use of extreme/ violent" depictions of murders and killings? As shown in many action films where stabbed or shot or decapitated or bombed bodies fly all across the film screen?


----------



## Theglasshouse

For those that didn't click the link that is Margaret Atwood's own definition of literary which we have been discussing. The same author who wrote the handmaid's tale which is a literary science fiction dystopia.



> *What Are the Characteristics of Literary Fiction?*
> 
> Literary fiction is not a rigidly defined term, but most works of literary fiction include one or more of these facets:
> 
> 
> Character-focused narratives
> Ample symbolism, metaphor, and allegory
> Advanced vocabulary infused with imagery
> Ambiguous plot points, including even the work’s conclusion
> Exploration of larger philosophical themes regarding the human condition and the will of nature
> Exploration of larger trends in history and culture
> Lack of adherence to a fixed plot formula


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

I think Atwood's tentative definition is outstanding. I agree that "literary fiction" can't be defined to everyone's satisfaction but her definition is a good way to look at it.


----------



## Theglasshouse

I agree with you that it is a really good definition. I wonder if it is enough to imagine our own stories in terms of the definition about it being historical and cultural trends that I assume is the moral aspect of the story. That does sound helpful for trying to write both genres. She also has a definition for genre fiction. This is also from Atwood.



> *What Are the Characteristics of Genre Fiction?*
> 
> Genre novels tends to be defined by the following characteristics:
> 
> 
> Adheres to time-honored formulas for plot and character arcs
> Typically more literal with fewer obscure symbols and allegories
> Whatever symbolism might exist is typically clear and easily accessible to all readers
> Often fits specific genres like mystery, horror, science fiction (sci-fi), romance, military thrillers, and spy novels


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> There is a wealth of research on the effects that prolonged and heavy use of hardcore and extreme/violent pornography has on mental health.



I just want to make the observation that you have said nothing about the effects. Good? Bad? Mixed? Is there a consensus? And probably none of the research is experimental.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto

Here's an essay by Scott Francis (for _Writers Digest)_ about the differences between literary, mainstream, and commercial *https://tinyurl.com/y9azyun9 *[h=1][/h]


----------



## Theglasshouse

> In general, fiction is divided into literary fiction and commercial fiction (also called mainstream fiction). There aren’t any hard and fast definitions for one or the other, but there are some basic differences, and those differences affect how the book is read, packaged, and marketed.
> Literary fiction is usually more concerned with style and characterization than commercial fiction. Literary fiction is also usually paced more slowly than commercial fiction. Literary fiction usually centers around a timeless, complex theme, and rarely has a pat (or happy) ending. Good examples of literary fiction are books by Toni Morrison and John Updike.



I like this definition of the literary story. One of the aspects I can genuinely enjoy in literary fiction is its ambiguous and complex characterization. I don't know if genre uses more imagination. It may be formula fiction to them. But some plots can become new, using the what if question to begin a story. I think in my humble opinion. Calling it formula fiction is an accusation. If the same writer we are talking about in this discussion merged them. I think writers can do the same. Sure if you don't know a lot about certain literary techniques it becomes a challenge to write that story and merge them both. I personally think some parts of the definition can be challenged. Namely the imagination aspect of it and what is called the formula plot. But I am not an authority on this. I've seen some original stories. But those writers used tropes probably. I wish I could comment on Terry Prachett's work since one particular story of his made me think it was very original. To come up with other examples would be difficult. Maybe writers are trying to write what has already been written too many times. So they include the bulk of the definition as representing most of literature of popular fiction. If every plot has been thought up. I find it difficult to believe this part of what they consider unoriginal.  This might be a select few who think this way.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Lit





> Literary fiction is not a rigidly defined term, but most works of literary fiction include one or more of these facets . . .



I like this list, I really do, but . . . it doesn't think-about very well. For one, having one of those characteristics seems like a really low bar.

_Twilight _could be literary fiction because it is a character-focused narrative? That's all it needs? It also has 'an exploration of larger philosophical themes regarding the human condition.' Pretty much any romance would do that. I would give it credit for 'Lack of adherence to a fixed plot formula' -- the arc is wrong for a romance book.


----------



## luckyscars

Regarding the Atwood definitions....

*What Are the Characteristics of Literary Fiction?

Literary fiction is not a rigidly defined term, but most works of literary fiction include one or more of these facets:



Character-focused narratives
Ample symbolism, metaphor, and allegory
Advanced vocabulary infused with imagery
Ambiguous plot points, including even the work’s conclusion
Exploration of larger philosophical themes regarding the human condition and the will of nature
Exploration of larger trends in history and culture
Lack of adherence to a fixed plot formula


*This seems to me to be simply a more long-winded way of saying "good writing". 

Why isn't it?  We can possibly debate on/nitpick what is meant by stuff 'advanced vocabulary' (Hemingway is considered literary fiction nowadays and his vocabulary isn't especially advanced) but as a spiritual outline....this is what good writing is!

Seriously, there's no reason any genre story can't do all of the above. There's no reason why a story set in space or a fantasy world or even a haunted house shouldn't explore 'philosophical themes' of some sort and do so well. Why not? It's been done. Atwood did it with Handmaids. Ira Levin did it with Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives. King does it, at least occasionally. These are good writers writing good genre fiction. They are incorporating literary fiction concepts in genre fiction stories and the end result is -- shocker -- books that are good. All I am asking is why isn't this more of a thing? Why isn't this 'the standard' for genre fiction? Or, more profoundly, why does literary fiction even exist in these terms? Why isn't literary fiction just another word for 'writing that's actually good writing' and given credit accordingly?

It seems to me that the reason it is not the standard says nothing except that mainstream genre fiction readers are simply unwilling or unable to engage with these sorts of things regularly -- i.e. that they are too lazy, too cognitively incapable, or just plain disinterested. Which is the same point I made some time back in this discussion?



Pamelyn Casto said:


> If that's so I'd guess there is also danger to mental health with the effects of "prolonged and heavy use of extreme/ violent" depictions of murders and killings? As shown in many action films where stabbed or shot or decapitated or bombed bodies fly all across the film screen?



I don't know...Maybe, but I doubt most people are consuming that sort of material anywhere near as frequently as most people (particularly men) consume stuff based on debased sexual kinks. Lots of people (again, mainly men) tend to view porn daily. I don't think lots of people are viewing murders daily, but if they are I would totally believe that isn't mentally healthy either.

 It seems like a bit of an irrelevant detour, honestly. I'm not here to argue against pornography especially, only to give it as an example of a 'genre' that doesn't actually benefit most of its consumers. Oh, I'm sure one could cherry pick examples of especially high-production pornography, but we all know that isn't really the porn people are watching, certainly not now. There's nothing productive that comes out of _My Step-Sister's Fat Ass,__ Volume 3 _and we shouldn't strike false equivalencies, in my opinion.

Beyond that, one can argue that pornography isn't _harmful _to everybody who watches it...but at best we must agree the effects are, at best, neutral. Nobody is getting their intellect or moral perspectives or engaging with good characterization and story from porn -- certainly not in a positive way. Modern erotic content is almost by definition a substance for one's inner lizard, an outlet for repressed perversions. And that's okay, but we should accept that is what it is.



EmmaSohan said:


> I just want to make the observation that you have said nothing about the effects. Good? Bad? Mixed? Is there a consensus? And probably none of the research is experimental.



If you google 'pornography' under Google scholar it will spew out a lot. There are indeed experimental studies, mostly college, consisting of things like having one set of students watch porn daily for a couple of hours over a couple of months and monitor brain activity. 

Again, just to be clear, I'm not here to say 'porn bad'. All that matters to this topic is that its an example of a media genre that isn't proven to be beneficial. At it's most benign level, it's a harmless vice, an indulgence people engage in to appease certain kinks, de-stress, whatever. At it's most insidious, it fuels negative ideas about women and sex. A bit like Fifty Shades Of Grey.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> *
> *This seems to me to be simply a more long-winded way of saying "good writing".



Kind of? To me, the Old Man and the Sea seemed like the type of book that should not have metaphors, similes, etc. When I looked (not the whole book), I found only two, and I didn't like either of them. So not all metaphors and similes are good writing.

In For Whom the Bell Tolls, the MC faces death calmly and philosophically. He doesn't run from his task, he does it as well as he can. I'm not sure what happens at the end, but it would be a disappointment to me if he didn't die -- survival would undercut the message. I think this counts as 'Lack of adherence to a fixed plot formula.' It's good writing to structure you plot around your story rather than follow a formula. But the usual winning formula is to have the reader care about what happens to the MC in the end.

So having a different plot formula isn't by itself good writing.

For the rest, they are only good writing when they are done well, right? I am tired of authors talking about brackish water when they don't know what it is.


----------



## EternalGreen

Interesting, unique, elaborate, intricate, and/or well-flowing grammatical style would be another.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> Kind of? To me, the Old Man and the Sea seemed like the type of book that should not have metaphors, similes, etc. When I looked (not the whole book), I found only two, and I didn't like either of them.



Not to be too snarky, Emma, but literally the entire book is a metaphor. I mean, you didn't think the Nobel Prize For Literature was won by a book that was only 'about some old guy fishing', did you? There are entire essays about the rampant symbolism in Old Man & The Sea. Some see it as Christian allegory, others as a symbolic biography. I recommend you read the whole book -- It's only like 120 pages.



> In For Whom the Bell Tolls, the MC faces death calmly and philosophically. He doesn't run from his task, he does it as well as he can. I'm not sure what happens at the end, but it would be a disappointment to me if he didn't die -- survival would undercut the message. I think this counts as 'Lack of adherence to a fixed plot formula.' It's good writing to structure you plot around your story rather than follow a formula. But the usual winning formula is to have the reader care about what happens to the MC in the end.



Again, I have to just suggest you read the book. 



> So having a different plot formula isn't by itself good writing.



She didn't say having a different plot formula was by itself good writing. She said lack of adherence to plot formula. I think the emphasis belongs on the word 'formula' there: Literary fiction tends to be less inclined towards the formulaic generally. While I agree that lack of adherence to formula doesn't necessarily result in good writing, I think good writing tends to not write according to set structure. Again, there's no reason this must be the domain of 'literary' fiction.


----------



## Llyralen

indianroads said:


> I want my books to be about the STORY not the message.




It sounded like there are a lot of people who agree.  
I think I need to ask some questions to understand this perspective better. 

Have you ever heard 2 different people tell the same story?   But one of them made it interesting and one made it boring?   That's kind of where I don't understand how you can just focus on the story.   I think you need some characterization and good writing skills to tell a story well. 

And sometimes a story on paper looks exciting but it is so badly written that you put the book down right away. 
And sometimes a story on paper looks boring but is so well done that you just want to read it forever. 

Also, isn't understanding the characters an important part of the story so that you know what they are after?
Anyway, if you care about the story then wouldn't you care about making sure it's interesting and that some characterization is in place?  Don't we want readers to sympathize with the characters and so in that way it is a bit of an exploration into the human condition?


----------



## Olly Buckle

Llyralen said:


> I have a question for you.  I've appreciated your comments wherever I see them, btw.
> I think I don't even think about what people should READ so much as I think there is a responsibility of what we should WRITE.
> I feel this way with journalism too.  And basically with the whole Social Media problems that haven't even been named yet.... but when everyone is a town-crier, basically, then isn't the important stuff that as a society we actually SHOULD focus on getting drowned out?
> In the social media or journalism sense, when we give equal space or air time for someone to criticize someone's hair instead of talk about global warming then aren't we doing ourselves and especially the upcoming generation a huge disservice?  Are we discussing Melania's Christmas decorations and not talking about kids in cages?   Is this what our writing is like too?   I mean... at every level there can be writing that does good things and helps direct thinking to things that are important.  I'm thinking of Dr. Seuss level even.  _Horton Hatches the Egg_  is an important story.  And even _The Cat in the Hat_ helped me explore some emotions of fear when I was little..
> 
> From a literature standpoint if we aren't directing attention or focusing on writing that can improve our world and make people ask all sorts of important questions about what is important, how to treat people, etc. then aren't we just perpetuating the noise?    I mean.. some of the noise we need like comedy... we need comedy and play but I also think comedy can be really useful to society as I think I wrote earlier in this post.  I think this year's _Borat_ was a very challenging awesome work that could start conversations.
> 
> What do you feel?   What do you think?   Yes?  No?    I actually think lack of critical thinking skills in the information-overload era might make dictators look more appealing to some and might produce more people who drink the coolaid.   Although you might completely disagree with my political thoughts on all of this.
> Anyway... your thoughts?



Gosh this thread has moved on fast.  
Some writer's are discussing Melania's Christmas decorations, some kids in cages, to my mind that is as it should be, something for everyone. When kids in cages may not be discussed is a danger point, when Melania's decorations can't be discussed people will stop paying attention. People need to write about what they can write about naturally, forced writing, trying too hard to make a point, preaching, shows, and is not convincing other than to the converted. When I look back at my own writing I think the message is 'There are no good people and bad people on the whole, most people are doing the best they can in their situation.' or at least the best they think they can, there are plenty of underachievers.  That is something I believe, but I didn't set out to write it.

II have not watched last year's Borat (Happy New Year) but I would well believe what you say. There are comedians of all sorts, but when the Generals take over some comedians are among the first to be thrown in prison. On the other hand I would point out that in Ancient Greece, the original democracy, in times of emergency they elected dictators. They have only had such a bad reputation since a certain little Austrian refused to step down when his time was up.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Llyralen said:


> It sounded like there are a lot of people who agree.
> I think I need to ask some questions to understand this perspective better.
> 
> Have you ever heard 2 different people tell the same story?   But one of them made it interesting and one made it boring?   That's kind of where I don't understand how you can just focus on the story.   I think you need some characterization and good writing skills to tell a story well.
> 
> And sometimes a story on paper looks exciting but it is so badly written that you put the book down right away.
> And sometimes a story on paper looks boring but is so well done that you just want to read it forever.



Is this good writing?



> She looked again at the head, the arms, the hands --
> The hands.
> She felt a chill when she looked at the kid's hands.



Standing alone, it has repetition, which is usually not good. The grammatical structure is clearly rule-breaking. If you use this at some random place in your book --
Your book.
We are talking about how to write your book well.

It probably won't be good writing. It surely will get tiring, and I'm not going to do it again here. But to me, that was great writing, but only because it helped tell the story so well. It was an electrifying moment. (It in a way forces the reader's experience to be like the character's experience.)

The same author has a great scene, _when I replay it in my mind_. And it's a good scene when I read it. And I take that as a sign of good story but not so good writing. When you write -- we are talking about that -- you (ideally) should not stop rewriting a scene until it is as good of experience at first read as it is in your head.

I'm don't know if I am answering your question, or if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you. It has been an eye-opener for me to realize some people judge good writing independently of the story.


----------



## indianroads

Llyralen said:


> It sounded like there are a lot of people who agree.
> I think I need to ask some questions to understand this perspective better.
> 
> Have you ever heard 2 different people tell the same story?   But one of them made it interesting and one made it boring?   That's kind of where I don't understand how you can just focus on the story.   I think you need some characterization and good writing skills to tell a story well.
> 
> And sometimes a story on paper looks exciting but it is so badly written that you put the book down right away.
> And sometimes a story on paper looks boring but is so well done that you just want to read it forever.
> 
> Also, isn't understanding the characters an important part of the story so that you know what they are after?
> Anyway, if you care about the story then wouldn't you care about making sure it's interesting and that some characterization is in place?  Don't we want readers to sympathize with the characters and so in that way it is a bit of an exploration into the human condition?



For the most part, characters ARE the story - the plot is just how we get to know them. Stories are the bones of what we write, characters inform us of the impact of that story, and the meaning behind it all informs us of something poignant that may alter our perspective.


----------



## VRanger

indianroads said:


> For the most part, characters ARE the story - the plot is just how we get to know them. Stories are the bones of what we write, characters inform us of the impact of that story, and the meaning behind it all informs us of something poignant that may alter our perspective.



I think kind of yes and no here. Parts of a story are interchangeable. We need a setting, one or more characters, and some interesting activity. The activity could often occur in a variety of settings, or with substantially different characters. Or we can decide on a character and then figure out what activity challenges them. We can start with any of the three elements and spread out from there, and if we don't write well in all three areas, it won't turn out well. You can write a perfectly interesting character, have them in activity that makes people's eyes roll, and you've just wasted a good character.

I think part of this discussion revolves around people's need to categorize, whether or not it's helpful or even sensible. This idea that there is "literary" vs. "genre" and there is an inherent difference in the quality of the prose is, I believe, invalid on its face. It's all in the skill of the author, not the author's chosen subject. I've read so-called "genre" novels that are beautifully written or employ "experimental" styles. I've read so-called "literary" efforts that are bungled messes. The difference is whether the author has effective skills, or not. It has nothing to do with the subject.

One review of my first novel says "[FONT=&Verdana]Beautiful descriptive writing pulled me into the medieval fantasy world". 

[/FONT]Okay, thanks. I'm glad it did, but that isn't what I set out to do. If that had been my only goal, I doubt the book would be worth reading. LOL

And the idea of "experimental" in 2020 is a pipe dream. With 130 million books published, the author who thinks their experimental idea is new is simply ignorant of the (at least) dozens of times it's been done before. Authors in the first half of the 20th Century might have been able to stake out some new ground. We're born too late.

I'll present a sideways example. I'm a darned good cook, and from time to time I come up with a new idea for a dish that sounds off wall, but it turns out good. EVERY SINGLE TIME I've done that, I then Google that idea and find DOZENS of recipes virtually identical to the one I "personally invented". Yeah, I invented it. It was new and unknown for me. It's just that dozens of other people already had the same idea, and years and years before I did.


----------



## indianroads

vranger said:


> I think kind of yes and no here. Parts of a story are interchangeable. We need a setting, one or more characters, and some interesting activity. The activity could often occur in a variety of settings, or with substantially different characters. Or we can decide on a character and then figure out what activity challenges them. We can start with any of the three elements and spread out from there, and if we don't write well in all three areas, it won't turn out well. You can write a perfectly interesting character, have them in activity that makes people's eyes roll, and you've just wasted a good character.
> 
> I think part of this discussion revolves around people's need to categorize, whether or not it's helpful or even sensible. This idea that there is "literary" vs. "genre" and there is an inherent difference in the quality of the prose is, I believe, invalid on its face. It's all in the skill of the author, not the author's chosen subject. I've read so-called "genre" novels that are beautifully written or employ "experimental" styles. I've read so-called "literary" efforts that are bungled messes. The difference is whether the author has effective skills, or not. It has nothing to do with the subject.
> 
> One review of my first novel says "[FONT=&Verdana]Beautiful descriptive writing pulled me into the medieval fantasy world".
> 
> [/FONT]Okay, thanks. I'm glad it did, but that isn't what I set out to do. If that had been my only goal, I doubt the book would be worth reading. LOL
> 
> And the idea of "experimental" in 2020 is a pipe dream. With 130 million books published, the author who thinks their experimental idea is new is simply ignorant of the (at least) dozens of time it's been done before. Authors in the first half of the 20th Century might have been able to stake out some new ground. We're born too late.
> 
> I'll present a sideways example. I'm a darned good cook, and from time to time I come up with a new idea for a dish that sounds off wall, but it turns out good. EVERY SINGLE TIME I've done that, I then Google that idea and find DOZENS of recipes virtually identical to the one I "personally invented". Yeah, I invented it. It was new and unknown for me. It's just that dozens of other people already had the same idea, and years and years before I did.



Good points. 
Regarding florid or non-florid prose in literary novels - I really don't have an opinion... some phrasing occasionally grips me, and I'll read it again to savor it. This comes down to the author's voice - is it compelling, does it create a mood... that sort of thing. But great prose alone doesn't make a good novel.

Readers look through the eyes of our characters - so if they're two dimensional or shallow or of a type that is overused, the reader won't bond or relate to anything in the story. They won't care how the story turns out, with that said though the character needs to experience something that holds the reader's interest.

Just about every story possible has been told though - like your recipe. I'm currently reading an alien invasion novel - it sounded interesting because the aliens are using nanotechnology to reprogram humans. Beyond that though, it's the same old - same old. I'm half way through and bored. The problem is that the book really isn't about anything.

That's what's missing (IMO) in a lot of novels - what's the book about? Not just the character or story, what's the theme? This aspect of the story is the character's arc, how their experience changes them.

In martial arts we have what we call 'tenets' - principals of character development. Typically, five are usually taught:
Integrity
Courtesy
Self Control
Perseverance
Indomitable Spirit
I've used these as themes within by earlier novels, and there are many more. For my WIP, the theme - what it is about - is redemption.

There are also social themes - living under tyranny, human inhumanity, social issues, such things as that. IMO these need to be handled carefully, with a neutral hand, describe the issue in such a way that the reader forms their own opinion. As one of my professors (too) frequently said: _Just tell the fucking truth, and let your readers form their own opinions._


----------



## Taylor

luckyscars said:


> Inspired by a response by Sam in another thread:
> 
> "Writing well is half the battle. You can write the most technically sound novel imaginable and it won't matter a damn if there's no _story, no conflict, no hook. A great novel employs both great writing and great storytelling."_
> 
> Obviously the ideal state is for a novel to be both an excellent story and well written. But, let's pretend that's not possible.
> 
> Let's say somebody who is only barely competent as a writer happens to be a great storyteller. They're truly brilliant when it comes to narrative, character, everything that exists beyond the page, but the actual prose is straight journeyman, grade-school-level stuff.
> 
> Let's say another writer exists then, one who is a truly gifted writer but happens to only be an average sort of storyteller: That is, they can 'tell a story' to the extent they can deliver according to formula. There's nothing _wrong  _with their writing, certainly nothing you could point to, but the ideas, characterization, concept is all pretty much in line with what is already out there. There's nothing that feels new, nothing _interesting. _However, again, the writing is REALLY good. That is, it's technically flawless, inventive, beautifully poetic at times.
> 
> Which of these two scenarios is more likely to yield success?



I have been following this thread for days and finding it very interesting.  But I'm not sure I follow the question.  Maybe I fall into the grade-school-level stuff myself and that's why I don't get it.  But when I have read the various quotes people have contributed and hear people's opinions, I am finding it hard to differentiate between the two options. 

It's like you're trying to create two barrels and put a novel in one barrel ‘well written’ or the other barrel, ‘good story’, as if these two things can be divided.  I can't for the life of me be able to do this.  Every time I think of a novel, I would have to rip it in two pieces and place a part in each barrel.  I think it's because both these things are so subjective. What one reader thinks is good writing the other may find cumbersome and overstated.  And a good story...well that's entirely individual.  Personally, as soon as I pick up a book and see that someone is murdered, I usually lose interest.  And yet look how popular murder mysteries are.  

So what is a good story?  Virtually anything an author can make interesting.  It could be how the MC struggled with everyday life as an accountant. To me that would be interesting if the author gave a unique insight that I could relate to.  To some that may not be a good story. 

So what is good writing?  If they make it sound interesting. And that could be mastered in any number of ways. But I come back to my problem of separation, because my answer would be that the reader is finding the story interesting, because it is written in a good way.  

You see I am hopeless!!


----------



## Llyralen

vranger said:


> I think kind of yes and no here. Parts of a story are interchangeable. We need a setting, one or more characters, and some interesting activity. The activity could often occur in a variety of settings, or with substantially different characters. Or we can decide on a character and then figure out what activity challenges them. We can start with any of the three elements and spread out from there, and if we don't write well in all three areas, it won't turn out well. You can write a perfectly interesting character, have them in activity that makes people's eyes roll, and you've just wasted a good character.
> 
> I think part of this discussion revolves around people's need to categorize, whether or not it's helpful or even sensible. This idea that there is "literary" vs. "genre" and there is an inherent difference in the quality of the prose is, I believe, invalid on its face. It's all in the skill of the author, not the author's chosen subject. I've read so-called "genre" novels that are beautifully written or employ "experimental" styles. I've read so-called "literary" efforts that are bungled messes. The difference is whether the author has effective skills, or not. It has nothing to do with the subject.
> 
> One review of my first novel says "[FONT=&Verdana]Beautiful descriptive writing pulled me into the medieval fantasy world".
> 
> [/FONT]Okay, thanks. I'm glad it did, but that isn't what I set out to do. If that had been my only goal, I doubt the book would be worth reading. LOL
> 
> And the idea of "experimental" in 2020 is a pipe dream. With 130 million books published, the author who thinks their experimental idea is new is simply ignorant of the (at least) dozens of times it's been done before. Authors in the first half of the 20th Century might have been able to stake out some new ground. We're born too late.
> 
> I'll present a sideways example. I'm a darned good cook, and from time to time I come up with a new idea for a dish that sounds off wall, but it turns out good. EVERY SINGLE TIME I've done that, I then Google that idea and find DOZENS of recipes virtually identical to the one I "personally invented". Yeah, I invented it. It was new and unknown for me. It's just that dozens of other people already had the same idea, and years and years before I did.



I predict that books might become more interactive between reader and author pretty soon.  We've got all these online books, why not make them more choose your own adventure with links.  Or create novels with links.   At some point here when smart phones are maybe something like a microchip in our minds then what would stop us from subscribing to be a part of that author's mindscape?   I'm thinking only 50-150 years ahead I'd bet.   But even in the very short term I keep thinking there will be innovations in the graphic novel and in game/novel integration and in more collaborative online works.   There is a lot that can be done that hasn't been yet even with technology as we know it, I think.


----------



## Llyralen

Taylor said:


> I have been following this thread for days and finding it very interesting.  But I'm not sure I follow the question.  Maybe I fall into the grade-school-level stuff myself and that's why I don't get it.  But when I have read the various quotes people have contributed and hear people's opinions, I am finding it hard to differentiate between the two options.
> 
> It's like you're trying to create two barrels and put a novel in one barrel ‘well written’ or the other barrel, ‘good story’, as if these two things can be divided.  I can't for the life of me be able to do this.  Every time I think of a novel, I would have to rip it in two pieces and place a part in each barrel.  I think it's because both these things are so subjective. What one reader thinks is good writing the other may find cumbersome and overstated.  And a good story...well that's entirely individual.  Personally, as soon as I pick up a book and see that someone is murdered, I usually lose interest.  And yet look how popular murder mysteries are.
> 
> So what is a good story?  Virtually anything an author can make interesting.  It could be how the MC struggled with everyday life as an accountant. To me that would be interesting if the author gave a unique insight that I could relate to.  To some that may not be a good story.
> 
> So what is good writing?  If they make it sound interesting. And that could be mastered in any number of ways. But I come back to my problem of separation, because my answer would be that the reader is finding the story interesting, because it is written in a good way.
> 
> You see I am hopeless!!



Taylor, this is kind of what I was thinking is that they can't actually be two different things... or not too far apart, away.  

 I can think of a few examples of books that do some things very well and other things not too well.  Patrick Rothfus' The Name of the Wind.  He writes beautiful lines with deep feeling but his plot is shit (pardon my French...he sets you up for something big and then there's nothing) and it does make you sick of the characters as well because they aren't moving in any interesting direction.  

I think children's books can be GREAT books-- they can be critically acclaimed books.


----------



## Olly Buckle

From Austen's Northanger Abbey, about Catherine Morland.

"Provided that nothing like useful knowledge could be gained from them, provided they were all story and no reflection, she had never had any objection to books at all."  

Different folks, different strokes


----------



## Llyralen

Olly Buckle said:


> Gosh this thread has moved on fast.
> Some writer's are discussing Melania's Christmas decorations, some kids in cages, to my mind that is as it should be, something for everyone. When kids in cages may not be discussed is a danger point, when Melania's decorations can't be discussed people will stop paying attention. People need to write about what they can write about naturally, forced writing, trying too hard to make a point, preaching, shows, and is not convincing other than to the converted. When I look back at my own writing I think the message is 'There are no good people and bad people on the whole, most people are doing the best they can in their situation.' or at least the best they think they can, there are plenty of underachievers.  That is something I believe, but I didn't set out to write it.
> 
> II have not watched last year's Borat (Happy New Year) but I would well believe what you say. There are comedians of all sorts, but when the Generals take over some comedians are among the first to be thrown in prison. On the other hand I would point out that in Ancient Greece, the original democracy, in times of emergency they elected dictators. They have only had such a bad reputation since a certain little Austrian refused to step down when his time was up.



Thank you for answering.   I do hope you get to see the new Borat. 

   Your message is a good message and it's a good perspective...   It's not like I'm going around criticizing others for discussing unimportant aspects of life... some of that can be enjoyable, and isn't life to be enjoyed?  And if it's not then maybe that's what we should be writing about.  Actually I think one day Tolstoy said something like that to someone...that he hoped his works just made someone happier to be alive.  TOLSTOY!   But I think I also always have tried to think about what thoughts would improve life for people.   It's important to ME that I think about that.  It's kind of important to me that my works have meaning and/or explore the human experience.   I do think it would be good if more people asked these questions about why they write what they write and also think of impact.  I'm glad you thought about what you wrote and your message.  It's good, don't you think?   Or maybe that doesn't give more meaning to it for you?   It does for me, though... big time. 

And one of those patterns that I'm seeing around me that I think is making things difficult and making it hard for people to think clearly is actually the lack of definition of what is important out there.   I actually think it is suffering and wars and things like that that FORCE people to figure out what is important and why we do what we do.   I guess in peace times and easy opulent life then there is time for things that don't matter... but then because people aren't trying to improve things or watching out then it can give rise to problems starting.    But this is something I need to write about.   I could tell you the happening or catalyst for this thought, but I've been working on that book in my mind for about 15 years now.    Anyway, these are my thoughts, but it's not like I can't appreciate some good Christmas decorations too.  =)


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> Is this good writing?
> 
> 
> 
> Standing alone, it has repetition, which is usually not good. The grammatical structure is clearly rule-breaking. If you use this at some random place in your book --
> Your book.
> We are talking about how to write your book well.
> 
> It probably won't be good writing. It surely will get tiring, and I'm not going to do it again here. But to me, that was great writing, but only because it helped tell the story so well. It was an electrifying moment. (It in a way forces the reader's experience to be like the character's experience.)
> 
> The same author has a great scene, _when I replay it in my mind_. And it's a good scene when I read it. And I take that as a sign of good story but not so good writing. When you write -- we are talking about that -- you (ideally) should not stop rewriting a scene until it is as good of experience at first read as it is in your head.
> 
> I'm don't know if I am answering your question, or if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you. It has been an eye-opener for me to realize some people judge good writing independently of the story.




Repetition is often listed as a literary or oratory device.  When used correctly it can be extremely powerful.  For instance, in Martin Luther King's Mountain Top speech where he keeps saying "If I had sneezed...."  it's probably considered one of the best speeches of all time.  I consider it THE best speech of all time.  It gives me chills.  I recommend anyone check it out.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgq61-owOG8   Man, it is annoying that they put music behind it.  Hopefully you can find a version without music. 

I think repetition is so good to add emphasis that when it is being used ineffectively or without point then it can be one of the most annoying things.   

Anyway, this quote you brought up... and I don't know where you got it... is excellent writing in my mind.   It's very impactful.  

I think you and I probably disagree about what the word "story" refers to.    Because while this is a very impactful meaningful way to write, I don't think it tells a story the way that I define story.... well the story part of that quote in my opinion would just be the MC looking at the child.    So this is excellent writing to tell a part of the story that could have been told without impact.    I guess "story" usually means "plot" to me. 

I see some books that the plot does not sound exciting... but the writer makes it exciting because they make you care about the characters and show and build strong conflict.    There are other books that the plot sounds exciting but the writing makes it unexciting where you don't care about the characters and you don't really feel like there is anything at stake in the conflict.   I'm trying to think of an example... but you can usually boil the plot or the story (in my mind those are interchangeable) down to bare bones and find that the impact of the work was all in the skill of the author. 

For example: "Woman who has sex out of wedlock is forced to wear a cloth letter "A"" could be _The Scarlet Letter_ and "Kid watches her dad be a lawyer for a black man in the South" could be _To Kill a Mockingbird. _That to me is "story". So I guess its the word literature that means a lot more to me. I think of story as just plot. 

But what do you think?

   When you say the word "story" does it incorporate a lot more than just plot? 

And maybe the word means a lot more to other people commenting too? 

 I think "story" means a lot more to a journalist... in journalism it implies more to me...it implies  finding the most conflicted relevant stories that are actually happening  in real life.  Which stories you're able to find... what ones you are allowed to write, etc.  The word story would mean more in that context.  There's extra skill in being able to "see" story and portray it and make it obvious that it matters.  But sometimes journalists are able to find very small things happening that represent what a whole group is going through.  

When the word story could mean absolutely anything including "adventure story" then I think it does take on the same meaning as plot for me though.  But maybe you mean it more in the journalism sense where plot and a important meaning and impact of the story are all combined in the word "story"?


To be fair the way this whole thread is written is to compare a "well-written story" to a "good story" and I guess you can read what you will into those terms.  I guess in my mind I took it as the difference between a fun entertainment read (pretty much plot based like _Jurassic Park_ or _Ready Player One_ or something and great literature like _Crime and Peace_ or _The Sound and the Fury_ or something.


----------



## VRanger

Llyralen said:


> I predict that books might become more interactive between reader and author pretty soon.  We've got all these online books, why not make them more choose your own adventure with links.  Or create novels with links.   At some point here when smart phones are maybe something like a microchip in our minds then what would stop us from subscribing to be a part of that author's mindscape?   I'm thinking only 50-150 years ahead I'd bet.   But even in the very short term I keep thinking there will be innovations in the graphic novel and in game/novel integration and in more collaborative online works.   There is a lot that can be done that hasn't been yet even with technology as we know it, I think.



My first business, started in the early 80s, was interactive fiction. I started with a heroic fantasy role playing game, where I wrote a short chapter of a story leaving the player with a crisis to solve or plan to make. They wrote back, then I responded with the next short chapter. Over time I hired several other writers, and we added two science fiction games, a spy game, and an Indiana Jones type game. We did great business for several years until computer based games began to eat into that market.

There is a web based company I came across about three years ago hiring writers for their series of programmed adventures, and IIRC they were looking for about 80K words per programmed adventure. I don't know if they're still around.


----------



## TheManx

Is this really about helping writers -- or is it about just trying to show people how much you think you know about writing? I wonder...


----------



## luckyscars

Taylor said:


> I have been following this thread for days and finding it very interesting.  But I'm not sure I follow the question.  Maybe I fall into the grade-school-level stuff myself and that's why I don't get it.  But when I have read the various quotes people have contributed and hear people's opinions, I am finding it hard to differentiate between the two options.
> 
> It's like you're trying to create two barrels and put a novel in one barrel ‘well written’ or the other barrel, ‘good story’, as if these two things can be divided.  I can't for the life of me be able to do this.  Every time I think of a novel, I would have to rip it in two pieces and place a part in each barrel.  I think it's because both these things are so subjective. What one reader thinks is good writing the other may find cumbersome and overstated.  And a good story...well that's entirely individual.  Personally, as soon as I pick up a book and see that someone is murdered, I usually lose interest.  And yet look how popular murder mysteries are.
> 
> So what is a good story?  Virtually anything an author can make interesting.  It could be how the MC struggled with everyday life as an accountant. To me that would be interesting if the author gave a unique insight that I could relate to.  To some that may not be a good story.
> 
> So what is good writing?  If they make it sound interesting. And that could be mastered in any number of ways. But I come back to my problem of separation, because my answer would be that the reader is finding the story interesting, because it is written in a good way.
> 
> You see I am hopeless!!



I understand the confusion because, sure, there are overlaps. Good stories are usually written well, and vice versa.

But while those overlaps exist, there aren't nearly so many as perhaps we assume. The traditional logic that 'writing is good if it tells the story competently' is a fine definition in many circumstances: Indeed, it's the one most non-writers would use, right? Right. But it's not actually The Definition that makes sense. 

It does not make sense because we KNOW there are lots of really good stories that are written somewhat poorly (or at least, no excellently) and, because they are written somewhat poorly, writers should not look to those books to learn sentence structure, imagery, dialogue, whatever... 

...on the other hand, they can (and should!) look to them for cues on storytelling. The fact that we can and do make such separations whenever we start to get down to the fundamentals -- nobody is recommending James Patterson for a masterclass on complex symbolism or elegant description, but for storytelling we absolutely can do that. You can't learn 'great writing' from JK Rowling. You can learn 'great storytelling' from JK Rowling but she has very little to offer as far as fantastic prose, the sort of thing that burns off the page. You have to go elsewhere for that.

Let's pick an example already mentioned in this thread: The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

I actually love the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was brilliant when it came out. I still think as a thriller it has a brilliant plot. The characters aren't terrible, the settings are fun, the use of history and art history while not, I am aware, 'correct' is still _credible _and if we pretend that facts don't matter then it's just fine. I definitely thought the arc was great. Excellent pacing. Good-ish antagonist. Mediocre but serviceable protagonist. Good 'conspiracy' stuff.

So what's wrong?

What's wrong is stuff like this sentence...

_



			“The Knights Templar were warriors,” Teabing reminded, the sound of his aluminum crutches echoing in this reverberant space.
		
Click to expand...

_
'Remind' is a transitive verb. This sentence makes no sense because there is nobody being reminded. I can't simply remind, I have to remind _someone _or someone has to remind _me._

Another:



> A _voice spoke, chillingly close. “Do not move.” On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly. Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils._



Read that closely. A SILHOUETTE has ghost pale skin and thinning white hair? Does Brown not know what a silhouette is, or does he not care? It's not clear. It's also, in isolation, not a big deal. The problem is, with Brown's writing, this sort of thing isn't in isolation. His inappropriate use of the language is pretty much every other paragraph and it's the sort of thing that, once you notice it, really gets distracting...

_



			Overhanging her precarious body was a jaundiced face whose skin resembled a sheet of parchment paper punctured by two emotionless eyes.
		
Click to expand...

_
What does precarious mean in this sentence? Nothing, it means nothing. It's a word Brown is using because he wants to steroid his prose to 'sound like a thriller'. But the word doesn't actually make sense.

This sort of thing is even the case with the opening line Emma Sohan brought up as an example of a good opener earlier:

_



			Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery.
		
Click to expand...


_I didn't mention it at the time, but let's think about this a moment. _Is 'staggered' actually the right word here? _Staggered suggests the character is on the verge of falling over. It is a word usually used in the context of drunkenness or severe injury or some terrible malady, something like that. The character in question is elderly, but he's only in his mid-seventies and his subsequent actions in the same scene (he crawls from beneath the canvass, gets up, etc.) don't quite fit with the initial promise given in the word 'staggered'. There's no real reason given as to why he is staggering. Brown's only intent with this word seems to be to create the impression of Sauniere being elderly, which makes total sense, but it does not alleviate the problem that most mid-seventy year olds simply don't 'stagger' through museums. Shuffled, maybe? I could even have possibly tolerated 'limped'. Staggered just seems hyperbolic. And that is Dan Brown in a nutshell: Hyperbolic. He does this sort of thing _constantly. _There is never a single case when it wrecks the story, to be clear, but combined? Yeah, it's not great writing. It's highly flawed writing...and this is post edit, of course.

So the question is: If there's so much *wrong* with Dan Brown's prose then why is he so popular? The answer is...because he isn't a terrible writer. He's a writer who is just about competent, but who also happens to have an excellent grasp of storytelling.

 So yes, it makes sense that he is popular and I don't begrudge it. However, I do observe that it is remarkable that standards are sufficiently low in popular fiction that such rampant flaws are allowed to persist unchecked throughout a bestselling novel and, again, can only assume that is because most readers don't care.


----------



## Olly Buckle

"I actually love the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was brilliant when it came out...     ...However, I do observe that it is remarkable that standards are sufficiently low in popular fiction that such rampant flaws are allowed to persist unchecked throughout a bestselling novel and, again, can only assume that is because most readers don't care."

A god storyteller can get away with a lot, when read and put down, which might become more obvious on subsequent analysis. I put it to you that it is not so much they don't care as that they do not indulge in the subsequent analysis writers might?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Nice summary, lucky. Can I pick at some loose ends?



Llyralen said:


> Repetition is often listed as a literary or oratory device.  When used correctly it can be extremely powerful...



And most of the time? I was just reading a quote from King, where he doesn't like the repetition of _with _in "My romance with Shayna began with our first kiss." He doesn't even like accidental repetition of a word. There is a real skill to realizing when this usually-unwanted repetition is useful.

I would say the same about vocabulary. I just was working on a sentence where "obvious" worked fine. Then I thought of "flagrant", making my sentence is more powerful (which in nonfiction is hard to do).

I would say the same about metaphors and similes: When used correctly, they can be extremely powerful. But done poorly, or in the wrong place, I don't appreciate them. I claimed that there are places they probably should not be used, like action scenes. I assume that's contentious? But I just don't want people assuming they are always good. Unless the reader loves them, and then maybe they are always good for that reader.

But I would say the same thing about elaborate descriptions of dogs. In a book designed to appeal to readers who love dogs, they work really well, I assume. I just skip over them, or practice my patience if I have to read them.

Keen insights into human nature might be a little different. I think we both like them. But I prefer them as earned or part of the story, not as narrative asides.

So this is still asking, what is good writing? To me, things like metaphors, difficult vocabulary, repetition, and dog descriptions are not automatically good. That's my point here.


----------



## EternalGreen

The sound of his aluminum crutches echoed in the *reverberant* space? 

I thought *echoing* happened only in non-reverberant spaces . . .


----------



## EmmaSohan

I liked the analysis of Brown and found it insightful. But not quite fair? That "reminded" sentence, from the middle of the book, is a clunker. But . . .



> You know how it is there early in the morning in Havana with the bums still asleep against the walls of the buildings; before even the ice wagons come by with ice for the bars?



That doesn't follow the rules for a semicolon. It's interesting to think about why the writer wrote that -- he didn't have the dash in his toolbox? It's old, so he might not have. And the question mark is awkward, I think that might mandate using two sentences. Anyway, not good writing.

The point is, you would not want to judge a writer by his or her worst sentences.



> Now, please now, only now, not anything else only this now, and where are you and where am I and where is the other one, and not why not ever why, only this now; and on and always please then always now, always now, for now always one now; one only one, there is no other one but one now, one, going now, rising now, wailing now, leaving now, wheeling now, soaring now, away now, all the way now, all of all the way now; one and one is one, is one, is one, is one, is still one, is still one, is one descendingly, is one softly, is one longingly, is one kindly, is one happily, is one in goodness, is one to cherish, is one now on earth with elbows against the cut and slept-on branches of the pine tree with the smell of the pine boughs and the night; to earth conclusively now, and with the morning of the day to come.



If someone told you that was from _Twilight _or _The Da Vinci Code_, you would probably take out your bazooka. If you ever stopped laughing. If someone told you that was Hemingway you might try to see the value in that, but there are easier and more worthwhile tasks. It's old, and I'm happy to call it experimental. If you write a sex-scene KIND OF like that, you might be on track (but add a few healthy dollops of common sense). But don't copy it.

 All authors write a few clunkers. (Attributions: The first sentence of _To Have and Have Not,_ and a sentence from _For Whom the Bell Tolls_)


----------



## indianroads

EternalGreen said:


> The sound of his aluminum crutches echoed in the *reverberant* space?
> 
> I thought *echoing* happened only in non-reverberant spaces . . .



Why use a $5 word? 'Reverberant' takes me out of the moment. Use an onomatopoeia that mimics the sound.


----------



## Olly Buckle

EternalGreen said:


> The sound of his aluminum crutches echoed in the *reverberant* space?
> 
> I thought *echoing* happened only in non-reverberant spaces . . .



I thought reverberation is basically multiple echoes superimposed, so not so much contradictory as tautological.  Either way ...


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> I put it to you that it is not so much they don't care as that they do not indulge in the subsequent analysis writers might?



If they do care then why wouldn't they want to indulge in some level of analysis? Seems like the gap between not caring and not actively taking an interest is, at least in practical terms, small enough. If it keeps the peace and gets me on the Oprah Book Club, I am happy to use your version...



EmmaSohan said:


> And most of the time? I was just reading a quote from King, where he doesn't like the repetition of _with _in "My romance with Shayna began with our first kiss." He doesn't even like accidental repetition of a word. There is a real skill to realizing when this usually-unwanted repetition is useful.



I agree with you and disagree with King, although I think King might be speaking with one type of writing (his own) in mind. 

I'm not sure about 'with' but, in general, I consider repetition to get a bad rap. Since we are stuck on Hemingway, he is a good example. Consider the effective use of repetition here of the word 'try/tried' (and, to a lesser extent, 'they'):



> _Mr. and Mrs. Elliot tried very hard to have a baby. They tried as often as Mrs. Elliot could stand it. They tried in Boston after they were married and they tried coming over on the boat. They did not try very often on the boat because Mrs. Elliot was sick as Southern women are sick._



I consider ^this^ effective writing because (1) It actually sounds genuine -- people do repeat words and, more importantly (2) It adds emphasis and a sense of 'musicality'. You can almost hear a melody and the simple, unpretty word 'try' becomes something of an emotional center. It becomes a motif, which can be a hallmark of 'literary fiction' itself. 

I'm not saying people have to love Hemingway's peculiar style (they don't) but simply recognize that such things are poor indicators of 'bad writing', because they can be justified. If Dan Brown's alleged errors can be justified in a similar fashion, prior judgments on him can be debated as well.



> I would say the same about metaphors and similes: When used correctly, they can be extremely powerful. But done poorly, or in the wrong place, I don't appreciate them. I claimed that there are places they probably should not be used, like action scenes. I assume that's contentious? But I just don't want people assuming they are always good. Unless the reader loves them, and then maybe they are always good for that reader.



 I think metaphors can actually work great in action scenes and struggle with your claim that they don't belong. I suspect your claim stems from the idea of not slowing down the scene, but to me that misses two things: (1) Action scenes don't HAVE to be written in real time. They should have a sense of pace but the pace need not be consistent. Consider this passage from Remarque's _All Quiet On The Western Front_...




> The earth bursts before us.  It rains clods.  I feel a smack.  My sleeve is torn away by a splinter.  I shut my fist.  No pain.  Still that does not reassure me: wounds don’t hurt till afterwards.  I feel the arm all over.  It is grazed but sound.  Now a crack on the skull, I begin to lose consciousness.  Like lightning the thought comes to me: Don’t faint, sink down in the black broth and immediately come up to the top again.  A splinter slashes into my helmet, but has traveled so far that it does not go through.  I wipe the mud out of my eyes.  A hole is torn up in front of me.  Shells hardly ever land in the same hole twice, I’ll get into it.  With one bound I fling myself down and lie on the earth as flat as a fish; there it whistles again, quickly I crouch together, claw for cover, feel something on the left, shove in beside it, it gives way, I groan, the earth leaps, the blast thunders in my ears, I creep under the yielding thing, cover myself with it, draw it over me, it is wood, cloth, cover, cover, miserable cover against the whizzing splinters.



There are several metaphors and similes used in this passage. Does it not feel like an action scene? Is it not effective? I think it is. The key here is that the metaphors are used carefully. Even something as simple as 'flat as a fish' is quite effective here because we can see that kind of flatness in a real and tangible way. I agree that they are often poorly used, though.





> Keen insights into human nature might be a little different. I think we both like them. But I prefer them as earned or part of the story, not as narrative asides.



I'm not sure what you mean by earned.



> So this is still asking, what is good writing? To me, things like metaphors, difficult vocabulary, repetition, and dog descriptions are not automatically good. That's my point here.



Nothing is automatically good, that is silly, but we can nonetheless see a difference between the kinds of things that feature in more literary conscious writing versus, well, Dan Brown. Dan Brown is probably a better storyteller than Remarque. I would certainly say Brown is a much better storyteller than Hemingway. But Hemingway isn't really a storyteller. What Hemingway is, is a writer of insight and of voice and, yeah, with those things together -- a writer of style. My perennial question in this thread is why these cannot be blended.



EternalGreen said:


> The sound of his aluminum crutches echoed in the *reverberant* space?
> 
> I thought *echoing* happened only in non-reverberant spaces . . .



I think reverberant generally is a synonym for echoing/prone to echoing. Yeah, that's a good point too. Reverberant and echoing are tautologous. Another strike against Brown. Honestly, if you read his stuff with an awareness of just how poor the style is it really does get (unfortunately) quite comical. Shame, again, he's a great storyteller.



EmmaSohan said:


> That doesn't follow the rules for a semicolon. It's interesting to think about why the writer wrote that -- he didn't have the dash in his toolbox? It's old, so he might not have. And the question mark is awkward, I think that might mandate using two sentences. Anyway, not good writing. The point is, you would not want to judge a writer by his or her worst sentences.



I kind of disagree.

 I don't think the standards for punctuation have ever been equivalent to the rules for basic grammar. I don't think most people know or care about the full range of 'rules' for semicolon/dash/etc. Hell, there are disagreements on that stuff even now. 

Regarding that example, since the general rule for semicolons is "to join two independent clauses without using a conjunction" I am not sure it even is wrong?

_*You know how it is there early in the morning in Havana with the bums still asleep against the walls of the buildings; before even the ice wagons come by with ice for the bars?

*_replace that with...

_*You know how it is there early in the morning in Havana with the bums still asleep against the walls of the buildings and before even the ice wagons come by with ice for the bars?*_

It doesn't seem wrong to me. Is it definitely perfect? Probably not. Is it absolutely wrong? I don't think so. But, maybe you would know better. I don't know or care about improper use of semicolons because they have never hurt me. In my writing, I use semicolons when I think they look right (I hardly ever use them).  

While ignorance is not an excuse or anything (maybe I should know that stuff better) and there are definitely occasions when poor punctuation usage can have a significant effect on a sentence (improper use of commas definitely comes to mind) the point I am making is questionable use of punctuation doesn't (even to the wildest grammar nerd, I imagine) carry the same weight as questionable uses of words. 

We can explain that distinction very easily -- the eye spends less time on a semicolon compared to a word like 'precarious' and less processing is needed. The words are more important to get right. Punctuation is mostly invisible unless it's really screwed up.




> Now, please now, only now, not anything else only this now, and where are you and where am I and where is the other one, and not why not ever why, only this now; and on and always please then always now, always now, for now always one now; one only one, there is no other one but one now, one, going now, rising now, wailing now, leaving now, wheeling now, soaring now, away now, all the way now, all of all the way now; one and one is one, is one, is one, is one, is still one, is still one, is one descendingly, is one softly, is one longingly, is one kindly, is one happily, is one in goodness, is one to cherish, is one now on earth with elbows against the cut and slept-on branches of the pine tree with the smell of the pine boughs and the night; to earth conclusively now, and with the morning of the day to come.
> 
> If someone told you that was from _Twilight _or _The Da Vinci Code_, you would probably take out your bazooka. If you ever stopped laughing. If someone told you that was Hemingway you might try to see the value in that, but there are easier and more worthwhile tasks. It's old, and I'm happy to call it experimental. If you write a sex-scene KIND OF like that, you might be on track (but add a few healthy dollops of common sense). But don't copy it. All authors write a few clunkers. (Attributions: The first sentence of _To Have and Have Not,_ and a sentence from _For Whom the Bell Tolls_)



Maybe this is a good example of where we just can't agree on style. I see absolutely wrong with the excerpt. As you mention, it is a sex scene and the voice of it is clearly internal monologue. Sure, out of context and viewed through a modern lens it is odd, but in context? What's wrong with it? By the same rational that this is bad, that makes Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, etc. bad style. That is not the point I am making. I am not arguing that prose needs to be technically perfect. In fact, if anything, I am arguing the opposite.

So why did I pick on Brown for that reason? The reason I picked on Brown's apparent flaws is not because I care about the fact his writing uses transitive verbs incorrectly or weird words or 'white silhouettes'. I pick on those things not because they exist but because they exist without reason, without need, and clearly are a result of his lack of competence. In Hemingway's case, he is doing this on purpose (at least in the excerpt you are quoting -- I can't say that about all of his work) and whether we like the writing or not there is no question this isn't a case of a man not knowing what the word 'precarious' means.

If this excerpt was in Twilight, my main complaint would not be that it is bad but that it is so out of kilter with the rest of Meyer's prose, it is like dropping a lump of sushi into a bowl of vanilla ice cream. And that's kind of the point here. Good writers don't write perfectly, but they do write effectively, and they never come across as not knowing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

> The earth bursts before us. It rains clods. I feel a smack. My sleeve is torn away by a splinter. I shut my fist. No pain. Still that does not reassure me: wounds don’t hurt till afterwards. I feel the arm all over. It is grazed but sound. Now a crack on the skull, I begin to lose consciousness. Like lightning the thought comes to me: Don’t faint, sink down in the black broth and immediately come up to the top again. A splinter slashes into my helmet, but has traveled so far that it does not go through. I wipe the mud out of my eyes. A hole is torn up in front of me. Shells hardly ever land in the same hole twice, I’ll get into it. With one bound I fling myself down and lie on the earth as flat as a fish; there it whistles again, quickly I crouch together, claw for cover, feel something on the left, shove in beside it, it gives way, I groan, the earth leaps, the blast thunders in my ears, I creep under the yielding thing, cover myself with it, draw it over me, it is wood, cloth, cover, cover, miserable cover against the whizzing splinters.



Thanks. I was worried about forcing the reader to imagine fish in the middle of an action scene. Thunder and lightning are less of a problem, or maybe no problem at all.

I would prefer _bullet _to _splinter_, if that's what the author is trying to say by splinters. I assume the author means large splinters, not the kind you get in your finger. It's like the author is making me work to understand the scene. Which slows me down. Which I am guessing most authors do not want in their action scenes.

I just looked at the single action scene (so far) in the book I am reading. It doesn't have any metaphors or similes. And, it made me tense. The scene above doesn't, and I stress those are vague impressions. But my guess is that passage is suboptimal for readers who like action. But maybe good for readers who like literary.

And, I can imagine an author wanted to slow me down and try to help me feel what it's like to be the middle of a battle. But then I want gritty realism, not metaphors and similes. If that's the goal, the metaphors and similes seem lazy. (Or at least I could write metaphors and similes a lot easier than actually describing the scene.)


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks. I was worried about forcing the reader to imagine fish in the middle of an action scene. Thunder and lightning are less of a problem, or maybe no problem at all.



Again, I think we just have different ideas about what an action scene (or any scene) should be. To me, the last thing I want to read in an action scene is 'like lightning'. To me, that's a lazy simile. How often have I heard bombs being talked about like lightning/thunder? All the time. It's almost National Anthem. I get the perspective that imagery needs to be appropriate for tone, but there's a way to strike a balance between originality and congruence. 

The fish thing works really well for me in a war zone describing a character who is enduring bombardment. When I think of 'flat like a fish' I think of a fish out of water: Helpless, lost, dying, etc. Is there a better way to describe a frightened kid in a battle?



> I would prefer _bullet _to _splinter_, if that's what the author is trying to say by splinters. I assume the author means large splinters, not the kind you get in your finger. It's like the author is making me work to understand the scene. Which slows me down. Which I am guessing most authors do not want in their action scenes.



I think that's because it's translated from German and the correct word would probably be shrapnel. But yeah, I agree splinters isn't great and it is repeated too much. 



> I just looked at the single action scene (so far) in the book I am reading. It doesn't have any metaphors or similes. And, it made me tense. The scene above doesn't, and I stress those are vague impressions. But my guess is that passage is suboptimal for readers who like action. But maybe good for readers who like literary.



It's interesting to me it doesn't make you tense. Each to their own, right? It's a pretty tense scene in a very tense book.



> And, I can imagine an author wanted to slow me down and try to help me feel what it's like to be the middle of a battle. But then I want gritty realism, not metaphors and similes. If that's the goal, the metaphors and similes seem lazy. (Or at least I could write metaphors and similes a lot easier than actually describing the scene.)



Yeah, I don't consider the scene slow. It uses short, sharp sentences. If I had two criticisms it is that it focuses too much on the character's movement as a play-by-play and not enough variety. It doesn't really describe the bigger scene. Secondarily, it does slightly overuse repetition, but that's a nitpick. I feel it's overall a good piece of writing capturing something that is probably extremely difficult to do well (war zones are among the hardest things to write, in my opinion). 

If anything, I felt it wasn't quite chaotic enough. I like the last line a lot as it breaks the fourth wall slightly and you feel the writer mirroring the chaos of thought in the prose by almost making it stream-of-consciousness: "I creep under the yielding thing, cover myself with it, draw it over me, it is wood, *cloth, cover, cover, miserable cover* against the whizzing splinters" I think more of that would have been effective. It's a little too clinical prior to that moment.


----------



## Olly Buckle

I don't see why it shouldn't be splinters. In the days of wooden ships the majority of casualties were from splinters. On the approach to Trafalgar a splinter took the buckle off Hardy's shoe as he and Nelson were walking the deck leading to the famous remark "Warm work this Hardy". Not splinters like you would get in your finger, agreed, 18" to 2ft long pieces blasted off the inside of the hull. The pictures I see of trench systems show plenty of wooden support systems, heavy beams, and I reckon explosive shells would do the same sort of thing to them. Equally, however, they could well be metal splinters. Shrapnel is something else, the product of a shell designed by Henry Shrapnel which contained pieces of metal packed around an explosive center.


----------



## luckyscars

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't see why it shouldn't be splinters. In the days of wooden ships the majority of casualties were from splinters. On the approach to Trafalgar a splinter took the buckle off Hardy's shoe as he and Nelson were walking the deck leading to the famous remark "Warm work this Hardy". Not splinters like you would get in your finger, agreed, 18" to 2ft long pieces blasted off the inside of the hull. The pictures I see of trench systems show plenty of wooden support systems, heavy beams, and I reckon explosive shells would do the same sort of thing to them. Equally, however, they could well be metal splinters. Shrapnel is something else, the product of a shell designed by Henry Shrapnel which contained pieces of metal packed around an explosive center.



I think it's just a case of association. Most people now, at least in the US, hear 'splinter' and think of small-ish, fairly harmless wood pieces that stick in your finger or whatever. It sounds like a slightly odd thing to be afraid of. It doesn't sound so much like what comes out of an explosion. In isolation probably wouldn't stick out but four times in a paragraph it needs to carry some weight...

But you're right that there's nothing wrong with it, just like there's nothing wrong with referring to a male chicken as a 'cock' or bundled sticks as 'faggots' or saying "i am so gay" to mean "I am so happy" -- they are still all perfectly correct definitions. But a definition is only as good as the image it creates and that changes with place and time.


----------



## Olly Buckle

So possibly the word has changed meaning somewhat, or is in the course of change, since the piece was written?


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> I liked the analysis of Brown and found it insightful. But not quite fair? That "reminded" sentence, from the middle of the book, is a clunker. But . . .
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't follow the rules for a semicolon. It's interesting to think about why the writer wrote that -- he didn't have the dash in his toolbox? It's old, so he might not have. And the question mark is awkward, I think that might mandate using two sentences. Anyway, not good writing.
> 
> The point is, you would not want to judge a writer by his or her worst sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone told you that was from _Twilight _or _The Da Vinci Code_, you would probably take out your bazooka. If you ever stopped laughing. If someone told you that was Hemingway you might try to see the value in that, but there are easier and more worthwhile tasks. It's old, and I'm happy to call it experimental. If you write a sex-scene KIND OF like that, you might be on track (but add a few healthy dollops of common sense). But don't copy it.
> 
> All authors write a few clunkers. (Attributions: The first sentence of _To Have and Have Not,_ and a sentence from _For Whom the Bell Tolls_)



Um... that quote with all the “only now” language is fantastic writing!  I would think so with whoever wrote it.   You asked what is the definition of great writing?  Just on the fly...I think it is to make ideas and feelings (and life?) deliberately meaningful, if I was going to boil it down.  If the meaning is that something or nothing is meaningful then that is also meaningful.   And that quote (from Hemingway?) does an excellent job!   I loved it.


----------



## EmmaSohan

It seems to me that when something is new and different and good (like The Old Man and the Sea or the Eilish sibs), people have a really hard time seeing the new. Um, because it's new.

So the presumption is that we understand what King, or Brown, or Meyer, or Hemingway is doing to be good. And I'm not sure we do. Or Dickens. Or we trivialize Ian Fleming. And on and on.

This is, often, a difficult argument to make, for several reasons. I have enough trouble making it for Meyer or Presley; I pretty much don't even try for Taylor Swift. But there is one reasonably easy argument.



> He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. (Hemingway, _The Old Man and the Sea_)



In terms of grammatical correctness, there should be a comma before _and_. So this is a somewhat odd construction. Doing it once means almost nothing. Doing it for almost the whole book is a different thing. Here is a paragraph from that book where that construction is used FOR EVERY SENTENCE.



> The line rose slowly and steadily *and* then the surface of the ocean bulged ahead of the boat *and* the fish came out. He came out unendingly *and* water poured from his sides. He was bright in the sun *and* his head and back were dark purple *and* in the sun the stripes on his sides showed wide and a light lavender. His sword was as long as a baseball bat *and* tapered like rapier *and* he rose his full length from the water *and* then re-entered it, smoothly, like a diver *and* the old man saw the great scythe-blade of his tail go under *and* the line commenced to race out.



And, basically, the whole book is like that. The Old Man and the Sea is arguably the most grammatically bizarre book ever written. There is no way that could be an accident, Hemingway had to have been doing it on purpose.

And . . . I've never seen anyone even MENTION it. There's a fairly reasonable argument that it creates an effect, and Hemingway liked the effect, and the effect helped him create the mood (and probably the character) that he wanted.

If there is some other explanation, I have difficulty imagining it. I can imagine Hemingway finding that construction and being so inspired he sat down and in two months wrote the best book of his life that made him internationally famous.

So, if we try to answer the question of how much the writing of this story contributed to its success, we need to include the effect of that grammar choice. Which apparently no one does. (Or at least I haven't seen it.)


----------



## EmmaSohan

Llyralen said:


> Um... that quote with all the “only now” language is fantastic writing!  I would think so with whoever wrote it.   You asked what is the definition of great writing?  Just on the fly...I think it is to make ideas and feelings (and life?) deliberately meaningful, if I was going to boil it down.  If the meaning is that something or nothing is meaningful then that is also meaningful.   And that quote (from Hemingway?) does an excellent job!   I loved it.



Well, aren't you a troublemaker! Laughing, I really should have seen that coming.

Okay, but are you going to write like that? Does anyone? Would you recommend to aspiring writers that they write like that? If you can show me someone's sentence like that, I will eat my mouse (figuratively speaking).

Or is it that most people don't have the skill to write a sentence like that? I think I could.



> It was love, and love of her, and love of all that she was, and love, and more love, and even love of himself, love filling the heavens, love filling the earth, loving fill all and everyone, the feeling of love, the neverending love, the love with a purpose and and yet no purpose now except to love; and it was beingness, and openness, and togetherness, and encompassing and filling and wanting and needing, needing and wanting.



No, wrong, I can't go on that long, and I think I made it too meaningful without enough repetition.

I will concede you could like it. I think you would get tired of it, and I think many modern authors could copy that effect and do it better.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> In terms of grammatical correctness, there should be a comma before _and_. So this is a somewhat odd construction. Doing it once means almost nothing. Doing it for almost the whole book is a different thing. Here is a paragraph from that book where that construction is used FOR EVERY SENTENCE.
> 
> And, basically, the whole book is like that. The Old Man and the Sea is arguably the most grammatically bizarre book ever written. There is no way that could be an accident, Hemingway had to have been doing it on purpose.
> 
> And . . . I've never seen anyone even MENTION it. There's a fairly reasonable argument that it creates an effect, and Hemingway liked the effect, and the effect helped him create the mood (and probably the character) that he wanted.
> 
> If there is some other explanation, I have difficulty imagining it. I can imagine Hemingway finding that construction and being so inspired he sat down and in two months wrote the best book of his life that made him internationally famous.
> 
> So, if we try to answer the question of how much the writing of this story contributed to its success, we need to include the effect of that grammar choice. Which apparently no one does. (Or at least I haven't seen it.)




It's an odd construction (in the sense it's unusual) but it's a fairly well-known trademark of Hemingway's style -- repetition and either very long conjoined sentences (frequently with 'and', sometimes with 'with' or 'that', sometimes with commas). If you google 'Hemingway' and 'repetition' you can find a lot of blogs and articles on it like this one.

As far as why he wrote this way, I'm not some sort of Hemingway scholar (and not even a huge fan of the style -- I waiver constantly between finding it irritating and finding it weirdly endearing) but there are reasons he wrote this way, at least plenty of informed people agree there are. 

One explanation often cited for the repetition and extended sentences joined by the simple 'and' is what Gertrude Stein calls 'the law of insistence', that is to achieve a kind of weight to the writing by constantly adding to the scene with a lot of details quickly and tied together with this one constant _sound_ in order to essentially overwhelm the reader and creating a sense of urgency. Think of it like a snowball rolling down a snowy hill and gathering pace and volume, or a runaway train, or somebody being handed more and more shopping bags until they collapse.

Let's try it with something fairly ordinarily written. Harry Potter...



> Harry had taken one step toward it when a slithering sound made him freeze where he stood. A bush on the edge of the clearing quivered. . . . Then, out of the shadows, a hooded figure came crawling across the ground like some stalking beast. Harry, Malfoy, and Fang stood transfixed. The cloaked figure reached the unicorn, lowered its head over the wound in the animal’s side, and began to drink its blood.



Hemingway might rewrite this as:



> Harry had taken one step toward it when a sound made him freeze where he stood. A bush on the edge of the clearing quivered. Suddenly a hooded figure came crawling from the shadows and across the ground and they stood, transfixed, as the cloaked figure reached the unicorn and lowered its head over the wound in the animal’s side and began to drink.



I'm not sure if the second version is better or worse. But it definitely reads differently. One effect I think the simplifying + compounding of sentences has it it adds a sense of gathering pace (that 'snowball' effect) and by the end of those three sentences you feel breathless (literally if reading out loud -- figuratively otherwise) and that is a really powerful effect when used properly. Whether Hemingway always does use it properly is open to debate, but there's no doubt -- to me -- that whether we like the effect or not it's certainly an important part of his style and not a symptom of sloppiness.

I think there are some other reasons for this style, too. I think in certain contexts it adds a innocence, a kind of 'art naive' feel to the prose. This makes an interesting contrast to the actual content of Hemingway's writing -- which is fairly adult and macho -- but also makes it feel accessible, almost adds a needed hint of something quite childlike. Consider this passage from The Sun Also Rises:



> At the end of the street I saw the cathedral and walked up toward it. The first time I ever saw it I thought the façade was ugly but I liked it now. I went inside. It was dim and dark and the pillars went high up, and there were people praying, and it smelt of incense, and there were some wonderful big windows. I knelt and started to pray and prayed for everybody I thought of, Brett and Mike and Bill and Robert Cohn and myself, and all the bull-fighters, separately for the ones I liked, and lumping all the rest, then I prayed for myself again, and while I was praying for myself I found I was getting sleepy, so I prayed that the bull-fights would be good, and that it would be a fine fiesta, and that we would get some fishing.



Let's forget the bullfighting -- doesn't this sound like it is written by a child? "The first time I ever saw it I thought the facade was ugly but I liked it now", "I knelt and started to pray and prayed for everybody..." "then I prayed for myself again, and while I was praying for myself I found I was getting sleepy, so I prayed that the bull-fights would be good..."

This are the sorts of things kids say (especially kids who are trying to tell stories) and in many ways Hemingway's writing does this a lot. The prose meanders and constantly adds-to-thought and goes in little tangents and it really does sound quite juvenile at times. Why does he do this? Beats me, but it's effective. It's effective because it sounds honest and straightforward and yet quietly emotional. I think he does it because he discovered that readers tend to find the childlike world view quite emotionally powerful and respond to it. Which is a similar reasoning as Picasso.


----------



## EternalGreen

[FONT=&quot]Observe the following passage by from _Lady Chatterley's Lover_ by D. Lawrence.

"_I*t was obvious in them too that love had gone through them : that is, the physical experience. It is curious what a subtle but unmistakeable transmutation it makes, both in the body of men and women : the woman more blooming, more subtly rounded, her young angularities softened, and her expression either anxious or triumphant : the man much quieter, more inward, the very shape of his shoulders less assertive, more hesitant*_."

It's well-written but I have never read a more ridiculous "understanding" of what happens during or after sex. 

A good story is an authentic one; and literary fiction must be authentic. Good writing without any authenticity is what spawns stuff like the above text.[/FONT]


----------



## EmmaSohan

I see your point, but the quote from _The Sun Also Rises_ seems relatively normal. We are looking for clauses connected by _and _and no comma. Or, if you want, a coordinating conjunction.



> At the end of the street I saw the cathedral and walked up toward it.



That's not the construct, because the _and _connects two predicates. It could be changed to the construct by putting _I _in front of _walked_, which would be pretty much what Hemingway did in the first sentence of TOMATS.



> The first time I ever saw it I thought the façade was ugly but I liked it now.



Follows the construct, using _but _instead of _and_. TOLMATS used _but _in that way, but not very often.



> I went inside. It was dim and dark and the pillars went high up, and there were people praying, and it smelt of incense, and there were some wonderful big windows.



The second sentence has an _and _following the pattern, and then three ands preceded by commas. So, totally different from TOMATS.



> I knelt and started to pray and prayed for everybody I thought of, Brett and Mike and Bill and Robert Cohn and myself, and all the bull-fighters, separately for the ones I liked, and lumping all the rest, then I prayed for myself again, and while I was praying for myself I found I was getting sleepy, so I prayed that the bull-fights would be good, and that it would be a fine fiesta, and that we would get some fishing.



That has 5 coordinating conjunctions preceded by commas. As far as I know, those only appear in TOMATS when the comma is there for another reason, such as to finish marking off a modifying phrase.

I found around 20 places in TOMATS where Hemingway used a comma to separate two clauses (when he did not have to for other reasons). That compares to 8 in one paragraph alone from _The Sun Also Rises_.

Hemingway clearly used this construction in his earlier books. Maybe that was unusual for the time, I don't know. I didn't find any pattern to when he did or did not have a comma in those. But it was just occasional, not relentless.

So I stand by my perhaps clarified claim. TOMATS is grammatically unique/bizarre, and that holds even compared to Hemingway's other books.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, aren't you a troublemaker! Laughing, I really should have seen that coming.
> 
> Okay, but are you going to write like that? Does anyone? Would you recommend to aspiring writers that they write like that? If you can show me someone's sentence like that, I will eat my mouse (figuratively speaking).
> 
> Or is it that most people don't have the skill to write a sentence like that? I think I could.
> 
> 
> 
> No, wrong, I can't go on that long, and I think I made it too meaningful without enough repetition.
> 
> I will concede you could like it. I think you would get tired of it, and I think many modern authors could copy that effect and do it better.



Copying a style usually doesn't bring added meaning although that's something each writer has to figure out.  Some creativity comes from studying techniques.  Finding the thing inside of you that you find meaningful and finding a way to show that and explain that to others is I think the goal.  It should all be real and raw if possible.   But of course you can't have a whole book of the stream of consciousness style imo (although James Joyce nearly did)... part of the meaningfulness of it comes from the context.  If a person has never loved... and you showed that... you showed the reader the bareness of the person's life and way of being and then you showed that person breaking down in response to someone until all the walls are down and there's an outpouring love, desire, intimacy and joy ... the person irrevocably changed.... well then you have enhanced meaning and wonder.  The author imagined it or spotted it and deliberately showed it to the reader, which enhances the meaningfulness of life for all of us.  It would make us all more grateful to be able to love.   In my opinion, that's great writing.   

As I said, sometimes the meaningful message can honestly be that nothing matters.  Underneath everything you would think that I'd HATE that message, but I actually do feel that that is the message from James Joyce's The Dead, which is my favorite short story.  It shows all these little social triumphs and problems for the main character but culminating in the epiphany that he is not as important as he thought.  That he is not even as important to his wife as someone who is dead... and the end of the story ends with him talking about snow falling on graves "...snow falling across the living and the dead."   And I believe that the meaning is that our lives and the ups and downs of our lives are so small in the grand scheme of things.   Actually I've never had the opportunity to talk to anyone who is an expert in James Joyce and I haven't read any critiques or papers about The Dead even though it is my favorite.  I think I'd love to... but also I just love it so much that I think it would ruin it or take something from me to hear someone else talk about it.  So this is actually the first time ever that I've talked about it.  I feel deeply connected to both Joyce and to humanity for some reason when I think about this story.  Even right now.

Given my definition it's pretty obvious that adventure stories that do not pay attention to meaning are not usually going to top my list--- but you have heard me talk about some that I think are great!  Count of Monte Cristo if you read it really does show so much human emotion and empathy.  It does explore the human condition... which is the same thing as showing meaning, imo.   Anyway, that's how I tick and the reading level is not what makes it great.  I think Goodnight Moon is a good read... I still liked it after reading it hundreds of time to my sweet kids when they were little.  I think it's quite a feat to write something that comforting.


----------



## Llyralen

EternalGreen said:


> [FONT=&Verdana]Observe the following passage by from _Lady Chatterley's Lover_ by D. Lawrence.
> 
> "_I*t was obvious in them too that love had gone through them : that is, the physical experience. It is curious what a subtle but unmistakeable transmutation it makes, both in the body of men and women : the woman more blooming, more subtly rounded, her young angularities softened, and her expression either anxious or triumphant : the man much quieter, more inward, the very shape of his shoulders less assertive, more hesitant*_."
> 
> It's well-written but I have never read a more ridiculous "understanding" of what happens during or after sex.
> 
> A good story is an authentic one; and literary fiction must be authentic. Good writing without any authenticity is what spawns stuff like the above text.[/FONT]




I love D. H. Lawrence.   But it's true that's not how I personally would describe the transmutation.  But it's interesting that it's what he thinks, because I do think he wrote honestly about how he experienced things.


----------



## luckyscars

EternalGreen said:


> [FONT=&Verdana]Observe the following passage by from _Lady Chatterley's Lover_ by D. Lawrence.
> 
> "_I*t was obvious in them too that love had gone through them : that is, the physical experience. It is curious what a subtle but unmistakeable transmutation it makes, both in the body of men and women : the woman more blooming, more subtly rounded, her young angularities softened, and her expression either anxious or triumphant : the man much quieter, more inward, the very shape of his shoulders less assertive, more hesitant*_."
> 
> It's well-written but I have never read a more ridiculous "understanding" of what happens during or after sex.
> 
> A good story is an authentic one; and literary fiction must be authentic. Good writing without any authenticity is what spawns stuff like the above text.[/FONT]



The meaning, sure yeah it's ridiculous. Most pre-20th century is riddled with cringe and gobbledygook because, well, quite frankly people were fairly stupid back then generally. Especially about sex.

Style-wise -- which I thought was the main topic here -- I don't think D.H Lawrence is bad at all, including that extract. Again, it's an out-of-context snippet and that always makes things several magnitudes worse but it reads okay... 

...Okay considering it's a man writing about a woman sexually and that's usually a recipe for a fucking disaster.


----------



## Llyralen

luckyscars said:


> The meaning, sure yeah it's ridiculous. Most pre-20th century is riddled with cringe and gobbledygook because, well, quite frankly people were fairly stupid back then generally. Especially about sex.
> 
> Style-wise -- which I thought was the main topic here -- I don't think D.H Lawrence is bad at all, including that extract. Again, it's an out-of-context snippet and that always makes things several magnitudes worse but it reads okay...
> 
> ...Okay considering it's a man writing about a woman sexually and that's usually a recipe for a fucking disaster.



In my opinion nobody has topped D. H. Lawrence in writing about sex.  I haven't read anything more erotic and my friends for some reason want me to read a lot of crappy vampire sex... there are honestly about 20 of them in a bag that I haven't read yet.   I don't understand people... how they can think 50 Shades is a turn on when there is D. H. Lawrence to read?  I read a bit of 50 Shades and it was repetitive and annoying.   Even if I don't relate to his observation in this particular snippet and even if I don't relate to a lot of his observations Lady Chatterley's Lover is so so erotic.  Actually e.e. cummings might rival him... but those were poems so apples to oranges.   I still think anyone interested in trying to write about sex and make it erotic and also literary should read _Lady Chatterley's Lover_.   Again.... I usually don't feel like I agree with his observations... but his observations are always interesting.  And would I ever agree with most people's observations about sex anyway?   It's an incredibly singular experience.  I think people's experiences with sex, when examined, ARE probably all as different as cats and turtles.


----------



## Llyralen

I am writing this post here just to make sure that the last post I wrote is not going to be the end of this awesome thread... because Bwahahaha!   No!

Hmm... who else's writing can we examine.  What about Faulker?   
Also, who do you guys think are the best writers out there right now?  Living?   I like Ian McEwan a lot.  I think Cormac McCarthy might have my vote, although he chooses subjects that are tough for me to read.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> Hemingway clearly used this construction in his earlier books. Maybe that was unusual for the time, I don't know. I didn't find any pattern to when he did or did not have a comma in those. But it was just occasional, not relentless.
> 
> So I stand by my perhaps clarified claim. TOMATS is grammatically unique/bizarre, and that holds even compared to Hemingway's other books.



It's important to consider the historical context. My understanding is that Hemingway was not considered high-end literature for much of his life or, initially, a particularly good writer. His background was as a journalist and his writing style incorporates a lot of the style that was more common to journalism at that time. It was, in many respects, the commercial fiction of its day written to appeal primarily to those who were not hugely literate. If you want, you could almost consider him the Stephanie Meyer of the early 20th century. He is considered one of the two masters of style of his time now (together with Faulkner) but that was not the case before. So I don't think he was necessarily trying to do anything special here.

Regarding the polysyndeton you are referring to, it's actually more common in books that are not written in English. Spanish writers use this type of style more often. Consider the below extract from _One Hundred Years Of Solitude _by Marquez:



> A heavy gypsy with an untamed beard and sparrow hands, who introduced himself as Melquíades, put on a bold public demonstration of what he himself called the eighth wonder of the learned alchemists of Macedonia. He went from house to house dragging two metal ingots and everybody was amazed to see pots, pans, tongs and braziers tumble down from their places and beams creak from the desperation of nails and screws trying to emerge, and even objects that had been lost for a long time appeared from where they had been searched for most and went dragging along in turbulent confusion behind Melquíades’ magical irons.



It might have a few more commas than Hemingway, but you can see how it's not a vastly different style. It's long sentences with lots of conjunctions that 'string together' different clauses and has a similar type of effect to Hemingway's writing IMO. Particularly the last sentence "He went from house to house..." reads a LOT like Hemingway. I don't know Spanish well enough to say why this is so common but it is. It's probably related to the way the language reads pre-translation.

As to why Hemingway was taking cues from foreign writers, the modernist era and his cosmopolitan, expatriate background probably explains that. Hemingway spent a lot of time in Spain and Europe generally. Also the time period in the aftermath of World War One caused a lot of these guys to basically flip the bird at conventional style.

Anyway, not to detour too much into a single writer but all this to say...I don't see a lot of this sort of experimentation and invention in most modern mainstream writing. If somebody tried to write like Hemingway now (to say nothing of Faulkner) I suspect it would struggle to get published. Style these days is far more prescriptive and readers tend to want books that read pretty similarly. There's no huge difference between the styles of Rowling, Brown, Meyer, Patterson, King. It's all similarly workmanlike prose of varying degrees of competency (competency wise, probably in order of King > Rowling > Brown/Patterson > Meyer).


----------



## luckyscars

Llyralen said:


> Also, who do you guys think are the best writers out there right now?  Living?   I like Ian McEwan a lot.  I think Cormac McCarthy might have my vote, although he chooses subjects that are tough for me to read.



I would agree McEwan is probably one of the best living writers. Until she died a couple years ago, I would probably have said Toni Morrison. Atwood, definitely. 

There's a few other really good writers still out there, some of them only with one or two books out so hard to really say. I consider Delia Owens to be very good -- still too early. Stephen King is up there. Cormac McCarthy may be one of the last living truly literary writers who has seen any real mainstream success but some of his books are incredible. Doubt he will write anymore, though.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that all these people are super fucking old.


----------



## Llyralen

luckyscars said:


> I would agree McEwan is probably one of the best living writers. Until she died a couple years ago, I would probably have said Toni Morrison. Atwood, definitely.
> 
> There's a few other really good writers still out there, some of them only with one or two books out so hard to really say. I consider Delia Owens to be very good -- still too early. Stephen King is up there. Cormac McCarthy may be one of the last living truly literary writers who has seen any real mainstream success but some of his books are incredible. Doubt he will write anymore, though.
> 
> The elephant in the room, of course, is that all these people are super fucking old.



Gosh, I know it!   It's like no one really innovative has come around for so long.   Oh! I forgot to say Kazuo Ishiguro.   Actually out of everyone just mentioned his works have meant more to me.  He's also old!   lol.   And I agree Toni Morrison in our lifetime until she died last year.  She WAS innovative.... RIP Toni.


----------



## VRanger

luckyscars said:


> Cormac McCarthy may be one of the last living truly literary writers who has seen any real mainstream success but some of his books are incredible. Doubt he will write anymore, though.



Now I see why you took such exception when I expressed disapproval of Cormac in a thread a few weeks ago. I don't care how "literary" an author is, if they can't do better than depressing sadism porn, I'm not going to respect them. Glad to hear he's done.


----------



## luckyscars

vranger said:


> Now I see why you took such exception when I expressed disapproval of Cormac in a thread a few weeks ago. I don't care how "literary" an author is, if they can't do better than depressing sadism porn, I'm not going to respect them. Glad to hear he's done.



Funnily enough, vranger, I don't imagine Cormac McCarthy, a writer who has won the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Prize, Critics Circle Award to name but a few...and whose work is consistently voted by the general public in multiple national polls as among the most influential of the 20th/21st century...and whose screen adaptions of his work have won four Academy Awards to date....and who has sold millions of books in multiple languages...and who has been publicly acknowledged as a key influence the work of multiple other bestselling authors...honestly gives a shit if you don't respect him. Neither, I'm afraid, does anybody else. Thanks for your thoughts though, truly enriching.


----------



## Taylor

luckyscars said:


> You can't learn 'great writing' from JK Rowling. You can learn 'great storytelling' from JK Rowling but she has very little to offer as far as fantastic prose, the sort of thing that burns off the page. You have to go elsewhere for that.



Ok, so that is what I mean about subjectivity. I have been told by many giving me advice on writing, that I should read Harry Potter. It never made it into our home even though when it came out my son was 12 and the target market. He was already into Steven King and had no interest. However, I recently started to read it, as I was urged to do by my fellow authors. The writing is fine I guess, nothing stood out. But I didn't really notice the writing because the story was just boring for me. I'm just not the target audience. But I couldn't say either the story or the writing was good or bad.



luckyscars said:


> Let's pick an example already mentioned in this thread: The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
> 
> I actually love the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was brilliant when it came out. I still think as a thriller it has a brilliant plot. The characters aren't terrible, the settings are fun, the use of history and art history while not, I am aware, 'correct' is still _credible _and if we pretend that facts don't matter then it's just fine. I definitely thought the arc was great. Excellent pacing. Good-ish antagonist. Mediocre but serviceable protagonist. Good 'conspiracy' stuff.



Totally agree! He sold over 80 million copies. When it first came out, I remember buying it in LaGuardia just before getting onto a red-eye to London. As I was walking towards my gate I saw it everywhere. Sticking out of briefcases, tucked under arms and people reading it all around me. Needless to say, I didn't get any sleep on the flight. And, I don't know anyone in my peer group who hasn't read it. I honestly cannot remember another novel having the same impact. 

I got thinking about Indianroad's comment about how our attention spans are shortening. It made me ponder how a modern day author could put out a novel today and get the same instant, bestselling, wide appeal of the masses. Or, if it ever can really be done again. What would it take? So, I started to read it again, just recently. But if you are saying that it goes into the barrel of 'not well written', then I am even more confused.



luckyscars said:


> And that is Dan Brown in a nutshell: Hyperbolic. He does this sort of thing _constantly. _There is never a single case when it wrecks the story, to be clear, but combined? Yeah, it's not great writing. It's highly flawed writing...and this is post edit, of course.
> 
> So the question is: If there's so much *wrong* with Dan Brown's prose then why is he so popular? The answer is...because he isn't a terrible writer. He's a writer who is just about competent, but who also happens to have an excellent grasp of storytelling.
> 
> So yes, it makes sense that he is popular and I don't begrudge it. However, I do observe that it is remarkable that standards are sufficiently low in popular fiction that such rampant flaws are allowed to persist unchecked throughout a bestselling novel and, again, can only assume that is because most readers don't care.



I think to go so far as to say, they don't care is a bit harsh. Something can be well written but not perfect. If 90% of it is great, then they just look past the other 10%. And everyone's standards are different. It's not so black and white to say something is either well written or not well written. A good story or not a good story. It's a sliding scale for both, and depending on who the readers are, where they sit on the scale will be different.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Olly Buckle said:


> So possibly the word has changed meaning somewhat, or is in the course of change, since the piece was written?



The original word was Splitter, in German, and it seems to mean fragment of wood. That fits the context.  So did you mean Splitter or splinter? And when people say Tolstoy is a good writer, does that mean the original Russian or a translation?


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> I don't see a lot of this sort of experimentation and invention in most modern mainstream writing.



Is that a _challenge_?

Martin Clark uses an unusual grammar, and his books are an exploration of that style. I admit, probably no one has heard of him. I suspect _The Fight Game_ might qualify, but I haven't looked at that closely.

Mafi does enough new and different things that I think she's from the future.

Today I was thinking how much Rivers was like Hemingway, pushing the boundaries. Only more modern.



> And then -- don't ask me how or why -- suddenly we're making out, she lying down on the rock and me above her, her lips pulling me down and in and over and under and oh my god, I mean, seriously, oh my god,it's like I'm falling through space, through the ocean floor, through the galaxy, through everything everything everything and it's amazing. (Before We Go Extinct, Rivers, page 223)





> ...and now my foot is wedged into the [toilet] bowl at an angle that looks like a joke picture someone should post on social media. But it sure doesn't feel like a joke, and I don't post stuff like that and LOL. Not anymore. #becausenothingisfunnynow.



My impression is King waits until something has been around about 5-10 years and is well-accepted before he will use it, which actually makes perfect sense given his market position. Then he's still ahead of your average action or adventure writer. But they do experiment. And Y/A is a great place to look for new and different things.

And I am only talking about punctuation and grammar.

And right, I read a quote that people should pay attention to the classics, not the current writers. It was 1928, so that would have been advice to ignore Hemingway and Steinbeck.


----------



## MistWolf

luckyscars said:


> I think it's just a case of association. Most people now, at least in the US, hear 'splinter' and think of small-ish, fairly harmless wood pieces that stick in your finger or whatever...


I don't see how anyone could fail to make the connection. Splinters can be of any size and made of anything.


Taylor said:


> Ok, so that is what I mean about subjectivity. I have been told by many giving me advice on writing, that I should read Harry Potter. It never made it into our home even though when it came out my son was 12 and the target market. He was already into Steven King and had no interest. However, I recently started to read it, as I was urged to do by my fellow authors. The writing is fine I guess, nothing stood out. But I didn't really notice the writing because the story was just boring for me. I'm just not the target audience. But I couldn't say either the story or the writing was good or bad...



Harry Potter is a great premise and good story although it has plot holes large enough to fly a Norwegian Ridgeback through. Writing is better than average but padded for word count. Sometimes characters are stupid (I'm not sharing information with people who need to hear it because I don't want to look stupid because the last time I didn't share information worked so well!)

The books are much easier to listen to than read.

I read for my own enjoyment. I don't care if the author writes in a literary style that explores the depths of the human condition or just skims the surface during slam bang action as long as I find it interesting.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> And I am only talking about punctuation and grammar.



I don't think I'm really talking about punctuation and grammar. I mean, that can be part of it, possibly the easiest to make semi-objective judgments on, but it's more about voice and meaning.



Taylor said:


> Ok, so that is what I mean about subjectivity. I have been told by many giving me advice on writing, that I should read Harry Potter. It never made it into our home even though when it came out my son was 12 and the target market. He was already into Steven King and had no interest. However, I recently started to read it, as I was urged to do by my fellow authors. The writing is fine I guess, nothing stood out. But I didn't really notice the writing because the story was just boring for me. I'm just not the target audience. But I couldn't say either the story or the writing was good or bad.




There's always one! Kidding, but I don't really care about Harry Potter either. I am not its target market. But I do feel like it's _fairly _well established that it's a great story. 




> I got thinking about Indianroad's comment about how our attention spans are shortening. It made me ponder how a modern day author could put out a novel today and get the same instant, bestselling, wide appeal of the masses. Or, if it ever can really be done again. What would it take? So,





> I started to read it again, just recently. But if you are saying that it goes into the barrel of 'not well written', then I am even more confused.




Like I said, it depends on what we are defining as 'well-written'. If the definition is 'a really good story that is told coherently' then, sure, Brown is coherent (overall). And, yeah, people can decide what they want for themselves. But, speaking analytically, it's not elegant or technically proficient prose, for the reasons I outlined already. Does it matter? Depends on whether you notice it, depends on whether you care. I care a bit.



> I think to go so far as to say, they don't care is a bit harsh. Something can be well written but not perfect. If 90% of it is great, then they just look past the other 10%. And everyone's standards are different. It's not so black and white to say something is either well written or not well written. A good story or not a good story. It's a sliding scale for both, and depending on who the readers are, where they sit on the scale will be different.




The difference is, you're not going to find those kinds of things in a book by, I don't know, Dickens...or, for that matter, Salman Rushdie or Ian McEwan or Harper Lee. You're right it's a sliding scale. Brown is on the lower end of that scale. We don't have to call the book 'poorly written' if we don't want to, but I don't see grounds for saying it is 'well written', unless you want to use the super vague definition provided above: It's coherent. It's readable. But is that the bar for something being well written? Maybe it is, but then Twilight is also 'well written'. So is EL James. So is just about any universally derided 'bad book'. So, for that matter, are the stories tiny children write. There's no point in discussing the concept of 'well written' if we accept rampant malapropisms, run on sentences, incorrect definitions, poor structure, weak or unclear imagery, etc. simply on the basis of 'the story is great and I understand it'. 



EmmaSohan said:


> The original word was Splitter, in German, and it seems to mean fragment of wood. That fits the context.  So did you mean Splitter or splinter? And when people say Tolstoy is a good writer, does that mean the original Russian or a translation?



It's 'splinter' in the translation. Not my choice. Generally we consider professional translations to be 'the author's words' because a professional translator should be able to more or less perfectly reflect the original writing by virtue of being a professional translator. That's controversial, certainly, people are fallible and we already kind of mentioned the problem with regard to Hemingway's sentences and Spanish. 

In English, a splinter is a fragment of wood, though, per the dictionary, so it seems like there's no difference between 'splitter' or 'splinter' -- they are the same exact word with the same exact meaning (although what they mean in colloquial usage may be different, I don't know, I don't speak German). 



MistWolf said:


> I don't see how anyone could fail to make the connection. Splinters can be of any size and made of anything.



It's not about failing to make the connection but that words carry different associations, even in many cases where the definition is correct.

For example, if I say "A missile is flying in your direction", you will probably assume I mean a large explosive fired from a plane or drone or whatever. But a missile can be anything that is propelled from a hand or machine. A paper airplane is a 'missile'.

 Yet the fact it can correctly mean a paper airplane doesn't mean it will be interpreted as such. Same with splinter. "Splinters everywhere' tends not to be immediately interpreted as 'vast chunks of explosive debris'. It can mean that, but it's ambiguous and simply doesn't carry the same weight. It sounds diminutive.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> The difference is, you're not going to find those kinds of things in a book by, I don't know, Dickens...or, for that matter, Salman Rushdiee.



Rushdie has a 277-word sentence that is a masterpiece of grammatical clarity.

I thought, "He's showing off." It was pointless and irrelevant to the story.

I read a lot of long sentences, say 100+, and most of them are run-ons, because that creates a useful effect. Or, they are like Hemingway's 144-word sentence in FWTBT, perhaps grammatically correct but pretty much impossible to analyze, and it doesn't really matter. The structure of Rushdie's sentence was crystal clear.

So, how do you evaluate that? Good writing? I vote no. And of course there are many things that are easy to do and good only because they are done in the right place and done well.


----------



## Olly Buckle

The longest sentence I ever came across was one by Samuel Pepys. He had written to a sea captain who was seen in London when his ship was elsewhere and the captain had said he had the King's warrant and could do as he pleased. Pepys put him right, including the sentence that took about a page and a half, it seemed daft at first, but it was phrased more like a legal document with all the responsibilities and caveats that applied, so it really was one good sentence.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> Rushdie has a 277-word sentence that is a masterpiece of grammatical clarity.
> 
> I thought, "He's showing off." It was pointless and irrelevant to the story.
> 
> I read a lot of long sentences, say 100+, and most of them are run-ons, because that creates a useful effect. Or, they are like Hemingway's 144-word sentence in FWTBT, perhaps grammatically correct but pretty much impossible to analyze, and it doesn't really matter. The structure of Rushdie's sentence was crystal clear.
> 
> So, how do you evaluate that? Good writing? I vote no. And of course there are many things that are easy to do and good only because they are done in the right place and done well.



"Pointless" and "irrelevant", which valuable in assessing writing are difficult because they are usually entirely subjective. I don't know the sentence nor the context so I cannot say if you are right or not. If it was, indeed, pointless and irrelevant that is obviously not good writing. In any case, nearly all books contain at least a handful of pointless sentences, paragraphs or even in some cases pages and chapters. It's not a good way to assess a book entirely, let alone a writer. 

My point with mentioning Rushdie, which you seem to agree with, is that the caliber of the writing from a technical standpoint is high. He doesn't write about white silhouettes and silly things like that. Again, I have no judgment beyond that. Like I said, Brown is likely the better storyteller. But he is, it seems to me quite obviously, a worse writer.


----------



## Olly Buckle

For me Kipling is the master of the short story. It is not always what it is about, but the structure, the way all the necessary elements are included in the right order, simply and naturally. Even when you read his children's stories it is so, The cat that walks by itself from the Just so stories is one of my favourite tales ever, along with the opening chapter of Puck of Pook's hill.


----------



## Taylor

luckyscars said:


> My point with mentioning Rushdie, which you seem to agree with, is that the caliber of the writing from a technical standpoint is high. He doesn't write about white silhouettes and silly things like that. Again, I have no judgment beyond that. Like I said, Brown is likely the better storyteller. But he is, it seems to me quite obviously, a worse writer.



But writing is still an art form right?  So are techniques the only measure of writing well?   It makes me think of other art forms and how we judge their merit.  Is classical music considered superior over rock and roll?  Some would argue.   Is a prima ballerina of the Bolshoi Ballet, better than the lead dancer of Alwyn Alley Studios?


----------



## luckyscars

Taylor said:


> But writing is still an art form right?  So are techniques the only measure of writing well?   It makes me think of other art forms and how we judge their merit.  Is classical music considered superior over rock and roll?  Some would argue.   Is a prima ballerina of the Bolshoi Ballet, better than the lead dancer of Alwyn Alley Studios?



If you try to define 'better' in terms of the overall, it becomes a silly and self-defeating question because obviously the answer is that rock n roll is not better or worse than classical music. Likewise, I did not at any time say (at least, not intentionally) that literary fiction is better than genre fiction. Everything has its place. If you really want to read about sex then some trashy erotica can be the best book in the world -- at least for awhile. It's certainly better than To Kill A Mockingbird.

But the intent is to try to separate the components out to make evaluation legitimate: We cannot say that classical music is better than rock n roll but we can say that aspects of it are. We can definitely say, for instance, that it's more elaborate, that it generally requires more skill to play. We can probably make a case that the relative complexity of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony makes it more meaningful, more musically important, than 'Bird Is The Word' by The Trashmen and that isn't because it's 'better music' but simply because it's 'more musical'. There are more instruments, those instruments strive for more and accomplish more than a couple guitars playing the same chords over and over. 

 And that's the difference between literary novels and non-literary ones. It's not a case of being better or worse but simply having more to offer. Genre novels tend to struggle to break a sense of two dimensionality, not because they can't (they can and some of them do) but because a lot of them simply don't try because there is no requirement to try.


----------



## indianroads

Taylor said:


> But writing is still an art form right?  So are techniques the only measure of writing well?   It makes me think of other art forms and how we judge their merit.  Is classical music considered superior over rock and roll?  Some would argue.   Is a prima ballerina of the Bolshoi Ballet, better than the lead dancer of Alwyn Alley Studios?



Who is the better artist? Picasso or Da Vinci?

Art is like water - it takes the shape of the vessel it's poured into.


----------



## MistWolf

luckyscars said:


> It's not about failing to make the connection but that words carry different associations, even in many cases where the definition is correct.
> 
> For example, if I say "A missile is flying in your direction", you will probably assume I mean a large explosive fired from a plane or drone or whatever. But a missile can be anything that is propelled from a hand or machine. A paper airplane is a 'missile'.
> 
> Yet the fact it can correctly mean a paper airplane doesn't mean it will be interpreted as such. Same with splinter. "Splinters everywhere' tends not to be immediately interpreted as 'vast chunks of explosive debris'. It can mean that, but it's ambiguous and simply doesn't carry the same weight. It sounds diminutive.


Yes, words do carry different associations and writer and reader cooperate with each other to make the connection to that association. By itself, the sentence "There's a missile flying in your direction" conjures up an image of a guided rocket or jet propelled device. However, "A machinegunner sent a missile flying in your direction" obviously describes a ballistic payload (bullet).

"Wife, pull this splinter from my finger, it hurts!" points to the splinter being small. Splinters on a battlefield are obviously _lethal_. The need to take cover, no matter how thin, from splinters on a battlefield says the splinters are not only lethal, but are a constant and random threat. Real life experience quickly teaches us splinters are dangerous. We learn safe practices to avoid injury and death inflicted by splinters.

Hemmingway's splinters aren't "vast chunks of explosive debris". His splinters are sharp jagged bits of debris from shattered shell casings, trees, stone, wood bulwarks turned into high velocity kinetic kill missiles. During the Battle of the Bulge, the Americans had troops dug in in a heavy forest. The German artillery attack proved to be especially deadly because the shells exploded in the trees. The wood splinters greatly enhanced the lethality of each shell.

I find Hemmingway's use of splinters increases the feeling of desperation, helplessness and numb acceptance of fate, in that battle.


----------



## EmmaSohan

luckyscars said:


> My point with mentioning Rushdie, which you seem to agree with, is that the caliber of the writing from a technical standpoint is high. He doesn't write about white silhouettes and silly things like that..



I wonder. Is that true? When I try to scrutinize Shalimar the Clown, I find nothing good in the writing and am overwhelmed by the errors. The first sentence:



> At twenty-four the ambassador’s daughter slept badly through the warm, unsurprising nights.



I have no idea what an unsurprising night is. Isn't that worse than anything Brown did? (Her nights were bizarre.)

The point is her sleeping badly, and Rushdie "steps on" that by talking about the quality of the nights. So it's a mistake in basic writing ability.

Minor problems: I do not know why the nights are all warm; there should be a comma after twenty-four IMO; and she did not sleep _through _the night (the next sentence says, "She woke up frequently.")



> One night in a spirit of research the ambassador’s daughter left a tape recorder running by her bedside but when she heard the voice on the tape its death’s-head ugliness, which was somehow both familiar and alien, scared her badly and she pushed the erase button, which erased nothing important.



Eliminating commas to make a sentence more difficult to understand. A purposeless run-on. This is a remarkably bad sentence.



> After her father died ...she began to sleep soundly, as if she had been shriven.



That's from the start. Her father dies somewhere around page 100.

So, no, I find no ability to write well. I acknowledge that is a wonderful collection of evocative half-sentences. It breaks through the boundaries of conventionality, demonstrating that they are in place for a good reason.


----------



## luckyscars

MistWolf said:


> I find Hemmingway's use of splinters increases the feeling of desperation, helplessness and numb acceptance of fate, in that battle.



It's not Hemingway, it's Remarque.


----------



## MistWolf

luckyscars said:


> It's not Hemingway, it's Remarque.



Even better! That makes the use of splinters Remarque-able!


----------



## Taylor

luckyscars said:


> If you try to define 'better' in terms of the overall, it becomes a silly and self-defeating question because obviously the answer is that rock n roll is not better or worse than classical music. Likewise, I did not at any time say (at least, not intentionally) that literary fiction is better than genre fiction. Everything has its place. If you really want to read about sex then some trashy erotica can be the best book in the world -- at least for awhile. It's certainly better than To Kill A Mockingbird.
> 
> But the intent is to try to separate the components out to make evaluation legitimate: We cannot say that classical music is better than rock n roll but we can say that aspects of it are. We can definitely say, for instance, that it's more elaborate, that it generally requires more skill to play. We can probably make a case that the relative complexity of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony makes it more meaningful, more musically important, than 'Bird Is The Word' by The Trashmen and that isn't because it's 'better music' but simply because it's 'more musical'. There are more instruments, those instruments strive for more and accomplish more than a couple guitars playing the same chords over and over.
> 
> And that's the difference between literary novels and non-literary ones. It's not a case of being better or worse but simply having more to offer. Genre novels tend to struggle to break a sense of two dimensionality, not because they can't (they can and some of them do) but because a lot of them simply don't try because there is no requirement to try.



I appreciate your explanation, but I thought this post was about "well written" versus "good story". Now it sounds like you are arguing that a "literary novel" has more to offer than a "non-literary novel". I do sort of see your point, but it's kind of a different argument IMO. Would make a good thread!

But, I can't agree with you when you start to argue that one piece of music is "more musical" than another. I could argue the same point as what is good? What is more?

As a classically-trained, former symphonic musician, I don't find that the complexity of Beethoven's Fifth makes it more meaningful, or important than, I don't know who that band is, but let's just say a smaller group of musicians playing guitars, piano, drums etc. Symphony orchestras have a lot of musicians, yes, but they each only play a small part of the score. So you have more people versus less people. So who's more musical? A larger group of musicians reading from their desk, a score they have played hundreds of times, or four to five musicians playing something by memory and making a great sound by combining their unique talents? There was a time when I would have said, like you, the former, but my opinion changed when my son formed his own rock band. When I compared his musicality to mine...it was no contest who had more skill...the later. Just MO. And, one has to ask why today a rock band can fill a stadium, but a symphony orchestra can barely fill a hall and has to rely on donations to survive.   There's been a few comments about the literary classics in this thread and how much of a role they will continue to play in English studies.  Could they be headed down the same path as the symphony orchestra?

As a demonstration of the mutual respect paid by a classical musician and a rock/pop musician, I love this video of Yo-Yo Ma and James Taylor. Could you truly give more credibility to one over the other?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoURkWYiQKc


----------



## VRanger

Taylor said:


> And, one has to ask why today a rock band can fill a stadium, but a symphony orchestra can barely fill a hall and has to rely on donations to survive.



Every fandom has layers of snootiness. Every genre I care to read has proponents of certain authors, whom, if you don't lavish praise on them, you're a second class reader ... the bourgeoisie. (Horrible word to have to spell!) 

It's true with both those who appreciate classical music, and those who organize concerts. There is a symphony in the city where I resided for 40 years (until recently). Their concerts outside of certain holiday events are not well attended, even by me ... and I've been a classical music fan since my early teens, and probably own more classical albums and CDs than 99.9%. And I own works by composers most people would not have heard of.

When the director of our local symphony plans a program, he generally goes even further afield, because who wants to hear Beethoven _again_? He completely misunderstands that popular composers are popular because they were among the best, just as popular authors are often popular because they are among the best. When I read the upcoming program and saw a list of composers who don't interest me, I didn't attend. I have a fantastic sound system, and I can put one of the dozens of great composers performed by a world renowned orchestra on ... without having to drive, park, sit in a theater, find my car, and drive again. But if I'd occasionally read a program with Beethoven, or Rossini, or Holst, or Debussy, (etc.) we'd have attended from time to time.

Yes, some poor authors sell a lot at times for specific reasons. Several weeks ago I mentioned John Norman's Gor series. His writing is terrible and his plotting is endlessly simplistic, predictable, and unbelievable. But elements of his plots appeal to prurient interests, so he's sold for 55 years. Almost everyone in this forum can write circles around the guy, but he hit the jackpot.

On the other hand, there are some "highly regarded" authors who some critic or critics once took a shine to, so they're celebrated in spite of not really being good reads. And the "Emperor's New Clothes" psychology earns them ardent supporters regardless. Things like long, difficult sentences, a refusal to use correct punctuation, or writing things someone else has to explain to you (and I'll bet money the "explainer" didn't really understand it either) don't make a superior author.

If we enjoy a read, that's plenty. We all need escape from time to time. If we learn something along the way, that's a bonus. And frankly, you'll get more meaningful social commentary from any top sci-fi author, per book, than in the career of most "literary" authors.


----------



## luckyscars

Taylor said:


> I appreciate your explanation, but I thought this post was about "well written" versus "good story". Now it sounds like you are arguing that a "literary novel" has more to offer than a "non-literary novel". I do sort of see your point, but it's kind of a different argument IMO. Would make a good thread!




I really don't think I am arguing that. A literary fiction novel tends to have more literary depth, but I also said that genre fiction can, and that is the point. Depth is not something that must be unique to literary fiction and avoided or ignored in genre fiction because there are lots of examples of genre fiction novels that do have literary depth. I am simply saying it tends not to be that way.





> But, I can't agree with you when you start to argue that one piece of music is "more musical" than another. I could argue the same point as what is good? What is more?





> As a classically-trained, former symphonic musician, I don't find that the complexity of Beethoven's Fifth makes it more meaningful, or important than, I don't know who that band is, but let's just say a smaller group of musicians playing guitars, piano, drums etc. Symphony orchestras have a lot of musicians, yes, but they each only play a small part of the score. So you have more people versus less people. So who's more musical? A larger group of musicians reading from their desk, a score they have played hundreds of times, or four to five musicians playing something by memory and making a great sound by combining their unique talents? There was a time when I would have said, like you, the former, but my opinion changed when my son formed his own rock band. When I compared his musicality to mine...it was no contest who had more skill...the later. Just MO. And, one has to ask why today a rock band can fill a stadium, but a symphony orchestra can barely fill a hall and has to rely on donations to survive.   There's been a few comments about the literary classics in this thread and how much of a role they will continue to play in English studies.  Could they be headed down the same path as the symphony orchestra?




When I say 'meaningful' I do not mean in the sense that 'inspires meaning' or anything relating to the intent or passion of those who play -- that's not what I mean. I mean in terms of what is actually there 'on the page'. I'm talking about the difference between a song that is simply there for four minutes or so, centers around a single emotional purpose, a single lyrical topic (if any topic at all), includes a very limited range of chords, etc....and an extended symphony or something that contains a spectrum of different themes, creates a musical tapestry of sorts. Or, if you prefer, a sense of arc.

The analogy isn't perfect because obviously all books contain arcs and even the most basic book is certainly a longer experience than the most complex piece of music -- even the most elaborate symphonies aren't _that _drawn out. Additionally, there are a few pop and rock 'n' roll songs that do accomplish many of the things symphonies do. Those are the 'Atwoods' of popular music. Bohemian Rhapsody arguably fits that description (I personally think it's rubbish, but people seem to like it). Stairway To Heaven. Stuff like that. These aren't simple pieces of music by any stretch. So, that's fine. In those cases, the differences do exclusively come down to style.

But nobody is going to tell me that Stairway To Heaven is typical of most pop and rock songs and, again, I must express this is a matter of generalities. Most mainstream pop and rock music isn't very elaborate or, for that matter, very technically proficient compared to classical music. 

Why? Because the majority of music listeners don't want that. They don't want to sit and listen to a symphony -- hardly anybody does. Everybody knows this. This isn't exactly a matter of changing tastes, either. It's not that people dislike classical music for the type of music it is, because a lot of people _do _like classical music in movies and in short snippets on commercials, that sort of thing. But they still won't listen to it in full or very often. They won't engage with it, and they certainly won't clamor for Taylor Swift to start writing symphonies. Why? Well, ask most people why they dislike classical music, or even jazz, and they almost always say the same type of things: _It's boring, It takes too long, etc. _So, they like the idea of it, the flavor even, they just lack the capacity to actually bother interpreting it in the manner it was composed. They like Beethoven fine when it's used as the intro music for Judge Judy, but they will never listen to the symphony.And that is where the comparison between music and books makes sense...because it is, I believe, exactly those same reasons that genre fiction, and most heavily commercialized fiction, suffers from a lack of invention and depth. It's not that people don't want invention and depth, but that they cannot or will not engage with it sufficiently without becoming bored or confused or both. 

This is a matter of either intelligence, education or effort on the part of the reader. As I see it, there's no reason why 99% of the (literate) world would not love well-crafted, high-end writing if only they would get through the first three chapters. But no, that doesn't seem possible. Agents and publishers --correctly-- emphasize over and over the importance of a clear, engaging voice and immediacy to new books. One hundred years ago this did not used to be a requirement and the fact it is now is because books have to compete with media where these things are a given. Much like a symphony composer now has to compete (and lose) a battle for an audience with Taylor Swift. 

I am not saying that is right or wrong necessarily, only that we must -- I think -- accept that people today are markedly less willing or able to put the effort in. And, sometimes, this means the actual quality of writing suffers, because the really good writers aren't always the really good storytellers. 

Taylor Swift is a fine singer, but she is not the best singer in the world -- she isn't even the best pop singer in the world -- and just about any classically trained vocalist could run rings around her. But, Taylor Swift writes really good songs that she sings well. That is why she is one of the most successful artists of all time. That's fine, no problem, but that makes Taylor Swift the Dan Brown of the music industry -- or the JK Rowling maybe. Likewise, there are countless rejected wannabe opera singers -- probably countless Italian street sweepers and Nashville bar singers too -- who have better voices than Elvis, and certainly better than One Direction. So what?

So...nothing! It's not a _problem_! I personally don't care much for opera and I like Taylor Swift just fine -- just like I like Dan Brown. But I also wonder what it would be like if the best of opera could be blended with the best of rock n roll, if the standards could be raised so that the 'most successful artists' always, or at least usually, incorporated both extremely high vocal prowess and extremely good songwriting and these were the people who made it onto radio. 

Not entirely relevant, but related...

Like, why do we even need genres anyway? Margaret Atwood proves we don't. So does Tolkien. So does Mary Shelley and dozens of others. I personally think the proliferation of genre is probably the worst thing to ever happen to the publishing industry. It's ultimately a tribal distinction, a marketing invention. It consigns certain stories to the scrapheap without a single look and raises others up undeservedly. From "Oh, it's YA Urban Fantasy with a queer protagonist? Is it readable? It is? Oh good, PUBLISH IT!" to "Ugh, a _western_!" The need to ascribe labels to things prevents us from judging them fairly and it's entirely unnecessary, it really is. Genres hardly existed before the twentieth century yet we had ghosts, monsters, love trysts, crimes and investigations, science fiction...absolutely everything we have now, except back then everything was mostly 'just a book' and we didn't have to play these silly games of "I'm a horror writer and horror fiction must be X". Makes me want to scream.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Maybe . . . what we are calling genre writing tends to have the restriction of a happy ending. What we are calling the "classics" would allow unhappy endings, and off-hand they almost all seem to have unhappy endings.

I did read the ending to _For Whom the Bell Tolls_, and it was just what I predicted. But it was true to the character -- he faced death stoically, philosophically, and dutifully. And that message would have been undercut if he had lived.

One of the best lines I know of is when Edward has just professed his love for her, Bella responds something like. "I'm here. That means I would rather die than be without you." (I think it's much better in the book.) But Juliet actually does die.

An unhappy ending should not a classic make. But it allows things. I rewrote The Scarlet Letter, and at one place near the end, I tell the reader


> You can feel in your heart the same thing Roger does, and the same thing Arthur does -- until Arthur confesses his sin to Boston, he doesn't deserve happiness. This attempt to flee to England cannot possibly end well.


And when I wrote a tragedy, it was fascinating the way the arc changes things. Literally, the opening scene was different.

The list of classics with unhappy endings is somewhat impressive. Of Mice and Men, The Old Man and the Sea, The Great Gatsby, Hamlet (I assume), 1984 (if I remember right), Lord of the Flies. Do Tolstoy's books have happy endings?

Are there any classic books with happy endings? Pride and Prejudice, I guess. In a way, a good happy ending is hard to write, and I found nothing especially difficult about having an unhappy ending. Maybe the classics should include Hammett, Doyle, and Fleming.


----------



## Taylor

vranger said:


> I have a fantastic sound system, and I can put one of the dozens of great composers performed by a world renowned orchestra on ... without having to drive, park, sit in a theater, find my car, and drive again.



...and sit quietly in a theatre, not coughing, and knowing when to clap. I bought a series once for a smaller city orchestra. The promoter did an amazing job of increasing subscriptions with a younger audience. I was thrilled to see less white hair amongst the concertgoers. But the orchestra director came out at the beginning and asked people not to clap between movements, I guess in anticipation for what he knew would happen. Of course they clapped anyway. And he came out again at the intermission and asked them again not to do it...I mean...what's the big whoop! Why not change convention? Why not let people move, come and go, look at their phones...act normally like they do at a rock concert? 

Or, maybe accept the fact that once people realized they could listen to classical music while doing something else, the concert is no longer viable. I mean what's better than listening to Beethoven while cooking? 




vranger said:


> If we enjoy a read, that's plenty. We all need escape from time to time. If we learn something along the way, that's a bonus. And frankly, you'll get more meaningful social commentary from any top sci-fi author, per book, than in the career of most "literary" authors.



Exactly!  And like my symphony story above, my point is, it should be about the audience. Perhaps what is happening is a shift from being musician or author centric to being more listener or reader centric. Maybe we're not getting less sophisticated as some would have us believe, but perhaps we are just evolving.


----------



## VRanger

EmmaSohan said:


> Maybe . . . what we are calling genre writing tends to have the restriction of a happy ending. What we are calling the "classics" would allow unhappy endings, and off-hand they almost all seem to have unhappy endings.



Well ... many murder mysteries aren't all that happy. The case is solved, but often both the victim and the culprits are sympathetic characters.

You can Google "Science Fiction (or fantasy) novels with unhappy endings" and get lists. In Moorcock's Elric series, Elric survives, but only at the cost of killing everyone he cares about by his own hand through the agency of a cursed sword.

Even the "happy ending" is a nebulous achievement. Often a goal is achieved, but at great sacrifice.

In the Heinlein "juvenile" Tunnel in the Sky (which would be a great place to find a happy ending, you'd think), a large group of HS students are sent to an unpopulated world for a survival exercise. They can't be retrieved on schedule, and have to band together to form an ad hoc society. Many die. They survive thus for a few years, and the MC eventually becomes their leader. Then, out of the blue, retrieval happens and they are rescued. Happy ending? The MC is left sitting alone on a stump while his friends troop off the world. His status has suddenly evaporated. It's a deep moment. 

In a book I just finished, an interstellar civilization has discovered that "lost ships" are being trapped in a time warp when they activate their drive in any area of space where a black hole has, at any time, passed. They discover how to predict when the lost ships are temporarily accessible, for brief periods of time. They form a rescue for the next ship which will reappear. From a group of ships attempting to be present at the correct time and place, only one reaches the lost ship ... a rescue ship crewed by mother and daughter. They rescue only two from the ship before it fades back into the warp, taking the mother with it. Sixty nine years later, a better informed and organized rescue meets the lost ship on its next emergence, rescues the passengers and the mother. Happy ending, right? It's sixty-nine years later, and her daughter died ten years previously.

So-called happy endings often carry a price.

ETA: To answer your ending question, is Dickens "classic"? If so, we might regard A Christmas Carol. You don't get a much greater leap from bleak to happy in a single story.


----------



## VRanger

Taylor said:


> ...the orchestra director came out at the beginning and asked people not to clap between movements, I guess in anticipation for what he knew would happen. Of course they clapped anyway.



That story brought a smile to my face. My first experience with a live symphony was a 5th grade field trip. School busses from around the city deposited students at an auditorium downtown for a performance by the Atlanta Symphony. _Of course_ all the kids clapped at the end of each movement. The conductor half-turned each time to his audience, smiled with patience, and once the applause died down, faced the orchestra again and raised his baton.

It would be about three years, listening to records and reading the liner notes, before I understood about movements, and FAR longer than that before I attended a concert where no more than a few began applause at the end of a movement. 

I've watched televised concerts of major symphonies, American and European. End of movement. Applause. Sometimes I'll see the conductor turn and try to wave it down, sometimes they merely suffer it.


----------



## Taylor

luckyscars said:


> I really don't think I am arguing that. A literary fiction novel tends to have more literary depth, but I also said that genre fiction can, and that is the point. Depth is not something that must be unique to literary fiction and avoided or ignored in genre fiction because there are lots of examples of genre fiction novels that do have literary depth. I am simply saying it tends not to be that way.



Ok, I am starting to understand your meaning of "well written" in the OP to mean literary depth.  That makes it easier for me to understand the original question.



luckyscars said:


> So...I personally don't care much for opera and I like Taylor Swift just fine -- just like I like Dan Brown. But I also wonder what it would be like if the best of opera could be blended with the best of rock n roll, if the standards could be raised so that the 'most successful artists' always, or at least usually, incorporated both extremely high vocal prowess and extremely good songwriting and these were the people who made it onto radio.



I'm glad you brought up opera, because I think this is where we might have a meeting of the minds.  Opera is an acquired taste.  I was raised listening to opera as a young child, so I love it.  Gives me goosebumps.   But other than the few literary classics I read in high school, mostly because they were on the reading list, I have never really acquired a taste for "high-end writing."  I often lose patience if the writer is flexing their literary prowess. However, some day, I hope to take the time to learn how to savour the polished word.    

You are right about the blending of the two great musical genres.  Have you heard Ed Sheeran's _Perfect Symphony _recorded with Andrea Bocelli? GOOSIES EVERYTIME!!! Did it make it into the radio?  Sadly no. He re-recorded it with Beyonce and it became a number one hit. 

So perhaps it is just too much to expect people to acquire a taste just to enjoy music or literature.



luckyscars said:


> Not entirely relevant, but related...
> 
> Like, why do we even need genres anyway? Margaret Atwood proves we don't. So does Tolkien. So does Mary Shelley and dozens of others. I personally think the proliferation of genre is probably the worst thing to ever happen to the publishing industry. It's ultimately a tribal distinction, a marketing invention. It consigns certain stories to the scrapheap without a single look and raises others up undeservedly. From "Oh, it's YA Urban Fantasy with a queer protagonist? Is it readable? It is? Oh good, PUBLISH IT!" to "Ugh, a _western_!" The need to ascribe labels to things prevents us from judging them fairly and it's entirely unnecessary, it really is. Genres hardly existed before the twentieth century yet we had ghosts, monsters, love trysts, crimes and investigations, science fiction...absolutely everything we have now, except back then everything was mostly 'just a book' and we didn't have to play these silly games of "I'm a horror writer and horror fiction must be X". Makes me want to scream.



I am 100% in agreement with you here!   I know in another thread you helped me find a genre I could fit into with my current WIP. (Thanks again) As you say, that is a publishing must.  But I am trying to be very careful not to copy too closely the formula of others in the genre. Fortunately, I don't have to make a living writing fiction...so let's see what happens!


----------



## Gofa

This game started in centuries past with travelling story tellers

To me the objective is to tell, read or listen to good stories

well written words is a nice adjunct but not even a close second

those that can do
those that cant excuse poor story telling by mentioning it was well written


----------



## Llyralen

Taylor said:


> Ok, I am starting to understand your meaning of "well written" in the OP to mean literary depth.  That makes it easier for me to understand the original question.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you brought up opera, because I think this is where we might have a meeting of the minds.  Opera is an acquired taste.  I was raised listening to opera as a young child, so I love it.  Gives me goosebumps.   But other than the few literary classics I read in high school, mostly because they were on the reading list, I have never really acquired a taste for "high-end writing."  I often lose patience if the writer is flexing their literary prowess. However, some day, I hope to take the time to learn how to savour the polished word.
> 
> You are right about the blending of the two great musical genres.  Have you heard Ed Sheeran's _Perfect Symphony _recorded with Andrea Bocelli? GOOSIES EVERYTIME!!! Did it make it into the radio?  Sadly no. He re-recorded it with Beyonce and it became a number one hit.
> 
> So perhaps it is just too much to expect people to acquire a taste just to enjoy music or literature.
> 
> 
> 
> I am 100% in agreement with you here!   I know in another thread you helped me find a genre I could fit into with my current WIP. (Thanks again) As you say, that is a publishing must.  But I am trying to be very careful not to copy too closely the formula of others in the genre. Fortunately, I don't have to make a living writing fiction...so let's see what happens!



This is the question I’ve had all morning, especially after writing a blurb on here about a Beethoven piece.  Do higher forms of music and literature take teaching to appreciate?  Is it like with food where people who have grown up mostly eating fast food most meals whose list of food they’ll eat is shorter than a dozen are asked to eat lobster-truffle moose and pomegranate Brussels sprouts on forbidden black rice and arugula?  Or the flip?  A farm to table chef asked to eat a 7-11 hot dog with processed cheese?   We really are talking taste here.  How do most people get a sophisticated pallet?  Is it better?  (I’d say yes, but nutrition is my profession). 

Does this take teaching?  Is my real question. 
By the way, I’ve been taking opera voice training for the last 3 years.   I grew up with it as well... finally found a better than ordinary teacher in order to work on this as a hobby.    Great literature?  I grew up on some and I did have awesome English professors, but for some reason I pushed myself towards it.  Charlotte Bronte was my favorite before middle school.   It never seemed like enough.  It still doesn’t.  If someone seems like they are flexing literary muscles, then that doesn’t sound like the real thing, though.   And a fake lobster truffle moose doesn’t sound like anything I’d advocate for.

By the way, we were dirt poor growing up, looking back, well under the poverty line.  I don’t even know how my mom made ends meet.   Maybe it’s like the kid who has the French or Italian grandmother who cooks... they love what is considered high end food.   My dad read Shakespeare to me on Sundays.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Gofa said:


> This game started in centuries past with travelling story tellers


In the beginning is the story of the tribe, and it gets passed down and embellished as it goes. Oral traditions can run to thousands of words that the tellers had off by heart. The Anglo Saxons used to use alliteration at certain points in lines of fixed length before the Normans introduced rhyme, they are both basically ways to remember huge amounts of material.

I have a number of traditional stories I can tell, I came across one of them in a book the other day, probably where I originally got it, and it was almost unrecognizable, I have tweaked and embellished over the years, but there are certain fixed points that act as a sort of guide through it and are still there. Janni's dragon, there's a version on my YouTube, you can see I tell it rather than reading it, but I can tell it quite differently as well and make it last four times as long.


----------



## VRanger

Llyralen said:


> This is the question I’ve had all morning, especially after writing a blurb on here about a Beethoven piece.  Do higher forms of music and literature take teaching to appreciate?  Is it like with food where people who have grown up mostly eating fast food most meals whose list of food they’ll eat is shorter than a dozen are asked to eat lobster-truffle moose and pomegranate Brussels sprouts on forbidden black rice and arugula?  Or the flip?  A farm to table chef asked to eat a 7-11 hot dog with processed cheese?   We really are talking taste here.  How do most people get a sophisticated pallet?  Is it better?  (I’d say yes, but nutrition is my profession).
> 
> Does this take teaching?  Is my real question.
> By the way, I’ve been taking opera voice training for the last 3 years.   I grew up with it as well... finally found a better than ordinary teacher in order to work on this as a hobby.    Great literature?  I grew up on some and I did have awesome English professors, but for some reason I pushed myself towards it.  Charlotte Bronte was my favorite before middle school.   It never seemed like enough.  It still doesn’t.  If someone seems like they are flexing literary muscles, then that doesn’t sound like the real thing, though.   And a fake lobster truffle moose doesn’t sound like anything I’d advocate for.
> 
> By the way, we were dirt poor growing up, looking back, well under the poverty line.  I don’t even know how my mom made ends meet.   Maybe it’s like the kid who has the French or Italian grandmother who cooks... they love what is considered high end food.   My dad read Shakespeare to me on Sundays.



No, I don't believe teaching is any certain route to taste. Enough exposure may do it. Exploration will do it. 

I think we get into a gray area when we try to differentiate something as a "higher form". That's where people often get stuck believing that "traditional" or "previously popular" (which may or may not be another way to say "archaic") has some fundamental quality which no later form of expression can ever hope to meet. Not to say that the labels of "good stuff" and "trash" aren't valid. They are. But they're often misused in service of opinion rather than empirical analysis.

I like some opera, not all. I like VERY little opera as much as say, Simon and Garfunkel, or Rogers and Hammerstein ... as examples. And I'll be considered old fashioned for mentioning Rogers and Hammerstein. LOL

"Higher forms" of art tend to be defined along boundaries separated by generational and social stratifications. Certainly people can cross those boundaries in their individual taste, and often do. But does that mean that I'm experiencing some higher level of enjoyment when I listen to Beethoven than when I listen to Chet Atkins or Oscar Peterson? No, it doesn't. Am I somehow more enriched by reading James Joyce than Isaac Asimov? Hell, no. Someone else might be, and good for them. I'd only prove stubbornness, because I don't care for Joyce whatsoever. I'm not going to live long enough to read everything I like, so I don't waste my time on material I don't like.

Back to exposure. A lot of my taste in music comes squarely out of the types of music my parents owned and played when I was young. I'm fortunate they had "good taste."  I've spread out from there. They didn't own classical albums, and I started those early. They didn't own jazz. I branched into that in middle age.

PS. I read this to my wife (Masters in English). When I got to "Joyce than Asimov", she piped up with "Hell, no!", so I didn't have to read that short sentence. LOL Obviously we think alike, a prime reason we've had a happy marriage over the last 41 years.


----------



## Llyralen

I love James Joyce and find his work very nourishing.  Lol.  I’m still enjoying my metaphors. Can I look at you not liking James Joyce as kind of like saying you don’t like mushrooms?  You can enjoy pizza and also lobster risotto...but eating hot dogs more than once every 3 years is a stretch, personally.  I wonder what Gordon Ramsey’s kids would say about eating at some restaurants.   If a lot of the time they are just like “Something is wrong.  I thought I liked green beans... but maybe I don’t? I don’t know what it is but something is very wrong!” 

The reason I am saying this is because my dad had all the best recordings of classical music growing up...and none of the crappy ones... and he always put a great deal of time into finding them.  A few years ago I found the first friend of my life who also loves classical and I started to search out the best recordings again.  I talked to my sister about it and she said “I don’t even know if I like classical... every time I hear it it doesn’t sound like I remembered and it just sounds bad. .”  I said to her “It’s because dad had all of the best recordings.  I’m dealing with this too.  There are some good new ones I’m finding now.  I called dad the other night and he told me about a new recording of Rhapsody in Blue that blew his mind.  But yeah... we can’t just listen to any classical thats put out by any symphony. When I hear the mediocre stuff it just drives me crazy trying to figure out which recording is in my head that is so much better and made the recording that I just heard a disappointment.”  
Like watching a great actor once made some play your favorite play and later seeing a crummy actor in it and almost thinking “It doesn’t even seem like the same play!  I don’t even know if I like plays really.” 

 I don’t know... it’s about what you’ve really got a taste for.   I am the child of the Gordon Ramsey of Beethoven recordings. 

But how do you give that to someone else?   How do you explain your tastes with others?  Or you just have to find that one friend out there for who you can discuss music?   Or green beans?  Or Isaac Asimov?   Or James Joyce?  I guess this is why we are all on a forum with pizza, hot dogs, and lobster-truffle moose and pomegranate-reduction Brussels sprouts?  There are connoisseurs of hot dogs.

I think I didn’t get the right examples for high-end.  I think the best food is probably the most natural and nourishing.  Nothing overly-fancy.


----------



## VRanger

Llyralen said:


> I love James Joyce and find his work very nourishing.  Lol.  I’m still enjoying my metaphors. Can I look at you not liking James Joyce as kind of like saying you don’t like mushrooms?  You can enjoy pizza and also lobster risotto...but eating hot dogs more than once every 3 years is a stretch, personally.  I wonder what Gordon Ramsey’s kids would say about eating at some restaurants.   If a lot of the time they are just like “Something is wrong.  I thought I liked green beans... but maybe I don’t? I don’t know what it is but something is very wrong!”
> 
> The reason I am saying this is because my dad had all the best recordings of classical music growing up...and none of the crappy ones... and he always put a great deal of time into finding them.  A few years ago I found the first friend of my life who also loves classical and I started to search out the best recordings again.  I talked to my sister about it and she said “I don’t even know if I like classical... every time I hear it it doesn’t sound like I remembered and it just sounds bad. .”  I said to her “It’s because dad had all of the best recordings..



Love mushrooms.  They're a superfood. Almost no calories and LOTS of food value. Love hot dogs, but they have to be a good one. Beef, and dressed out with mustard, ketchup, chili, and kraut (sometimes cheese). Preferably grilled. Best on potato rolls. You want to consult a hot dog connoisseur? Pick me.

I know exactly what you mean regarding classical music. I'm also picky about which conductors and orchestras I collect.


----------



## Llyralen

vranger said:


> Love mushrooms.  They're a superfood. Almost no calories and LOTS of food value. Love hot dogs, but they have to be a good one. Beef, and dressed out with mustard, ketchup, chili, and kraut (sometimes cheese). Preferably grilled. Best on potato rolls. You want to consult a hot dog connoisseur? Pick me.
> 
> I know exactly what you mean regarding classical music. I'm also picky about which conductors and orchestras I collect.




We should love a variety, shouldn’t we?   Savor whatever the heck it is we love and be adventurous to try something new. 

I had forgotten the phrase “There is no accounting for taste”. I guess others have had the same question I have.  .


----------



## EmmaSohan

I don't think I have ever read anything about writing, music, art, or food, that increased my enjoyment.

Appreciation of technique is different. Sometimes I can realize what technique an author has used and be impressed by it. But I can't see how many readers (or listeners or lookers or eaters) could do that.

I don't know how much a reader needs to understand to appreciate modern writing. Clearly there are complicated rules about who is speaking, rules a beginning reader could not know.

btw, I compared Billie Eilish's Ocean Eyes to the starting part of Beethoven's Fifth. Eilish seemed a lot more complex. Obviously, the difference in rhythm was huge, but I think a voice is so much more complex than instruments, plus there was the interaction between words and sounds.


----------



## Taylor

vranger said:


> "Higher forms" of art tend to be defined along boundaries separated by generational and social stratifications. Certainly people can cross those boundaries in their individual taste, and often do. But does that mean that I'm experiencing some higher level of enjoyment when I listen to Beethoven than when I listen to Chet Atkins or Oscar Peterson? No, it doesn't. Am I somehow more enriched by reading James Joyce than Isaac Asimov? Hell, no. Someone else might be, and good for them. I'd only prove stubbornness, because I don't care for Joyce whatsoever. I'm not going to live long enough to read everything I like, so I don't waste my time on material I don't like.
> 
> Back to exposure. A lot of my taste in music comes squarely out of the types of music my parents owned and played when I was young. I'm fortunate they had "good taste."  I've spread out from there. They didn't own classical albums, and I started those early. They didn't own jazz. I branched into that in middle age.



I agree that when it comes to taste one can't make distinctions with respect to "higher" vs "lower" or "bad" vs "good". I like your definition of "individual taste."

However, I still stand by my original point, and that is that some tastes are "acquired". Like stinky cheese. It's unlikely that a baby would gobble up a large globule of Stilton. That being said, it is possible. Just like someone who has never been exposed to figurative literature, may already have a taste for it. But, IMO, there is usually some influence early in life that stimulates true appreciation or an "acquired taste."

At any rate, I do feel somewhat disadvantaged in a discussion, when people speak of certain authors and how brilliant their writing is, because I don't often see it with respect to the writing itself. For example, what specifically makes Virginia Woolf's use of the english language superior?  Is it diction?  Sentence structure?  Punctuation?  Or?


----------



## BrandonTheWriter

I can honestly look past the writing if the story is excellent. The story needs to be really good though. Writing is obviously very important in keeping the reader engaged.

I would probably choose a better storyteller over a better writer. You can have the classiest and best writing possible, but your storytelling skills could be not that engaging.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs

Full confession, I haven't read a single novel in years that I haven't analysed it constantly. I'm addicted to style over substance when reading other people's work. Substance is what I hope I bring to the table. Writing well is what I constantly strive for. So, for me, style.


----------



## Llyralen

Taylor said:


> I agree that when it comes to taste one can't make distinctions with respect to "higher" vs "lower" or "bad" vs "good". I like your definition of "individual taste."
> 
> However, I still stand by my original point, and that is that some tastes are "acquired". Like stinky cheese. It's unlikely that a baby would gobble up a large globule of Stilton. That being said, it is possible. Just like someone who has never been exposed to figurative literature, may already have a taste for it. But, IMO, there is usually some influence early in life that stimulates true appreciation or an "acquired taste."
> 
> At any rate, I do feel somewhat disadvantaged in a discussion, when people speak of certain authors and how brilliant their writing is, because I don't often see it with respect to the writing itself. For example, what specifically makes Virginia Woolf's use of the english language superior?  Is it diction?  Sentence structure?  Punctuation?  Or?



This is what I’ve been struggling with on the other side.  I’m not sure why people can’t immediately tell quality... in many things... like music.  And I know that makes me sound like a snob.   And I’m not sure how to give that to them or explain— but it would usually be the last thing they would want me to do.  But somehow I know that I know what is quality.  It is kind of like telling someone that the jicama apple salad with a bit of cinnamon is delicious and them saying to me that they only like food from McDonalds. 

 I’m actually a bit angry at Virginia Woolf or maybe at Virginia Woolf’s position during her time.  She seems to be the only woman’s voice of her time that was respected and I don’t always agree with her opinion.  I admire her writing, I think she is brilliant, but not as brilliant as some others of her time.  But here’s an example:  her voice was so loud and so trusted by men to be the voice of emerging feminism (that they were just learning to respect) that when she said that she was frustrated with John Galsworthy’s Forsyte books (which he won the Nobel Prize for) due to Irene having no voice and Galsworthy giving no voice to women, I hugely disagree.   I believe she made it so that Galsworthy’s books were no longer discussed as the amazing works that I think they are.    I think Galsworthy was giving a challenge to people to be able to put themselves into the shoes of someone who was silent about their obviously bad situation.  And since it was an analogy for British colonialism (especially the Bora wars) it was the correct challenge to be given.  And it is still a good challenge!  I think Galsworthy was asking for people to have compassion for those who they did not identify with.  Which I think goes a step further than just making a woman’s voice that is heard understood and respected.  I see her point, but I would have argued with her.   I think some male authors who in my opinion wrote great things had to beware of Virginia Woolf. 

But maybe without Virginia Woolf society would not have learned to respect a female voice at all.  Maybe I’m down-playing her contribution due to today’s privileges?  I’d have to know even more about the time than I do.  I am intrigued now and will likely read more on it. 

Okay and I just force fed you jicama and apple salad with cinnamon.  It was good, trust me.... lol. 

No, I don’t know what to do about it.     Of course most people are in between McDonalds and three Michelin stars and have spaghetti and broccoli for dinner and it’s not like I can’t eat that too.   But yeah... I’m not sure how to convey what I think I really do immediately perceive in the areas that I’m cultured in.  And no I don’t perceive myself as better... just hard to explain how I can perceive it...what about the quality of Virginia Wolfe is brilliant?  I feel like I’d only copy and paste a section  and say “See!”  Or something like “Well just try a bite of that salad and you’ll get it.”  Well, there are others like me and it’s fun to discuss when you find people who can perceive it and have also read the same things, which I guess is why I go ahead and talk about what I think is obviously fantastic because we will find each other and discuss.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Mum used to love Virginia Wolfe, she said there was a certain type of writing that goes with tuberculosis, I can't remember the other examples she gave. I always found her tedious and pointless (Virginia Wolfe, not my mother). I have had the TB experience, can't say it did much for my self expression. I started an 'A' Level English class once, 'To the lighthouse' was the final straw where I dropped out, Euchh. 
There are times when I don't like Dylan Thomas much either. 'Under Milkwood' I enjoyed no end, but some of his poetry, all that wren bone wall stuff, and 'do not go gentle', self indulgent piss artist showing off. Still more readable than bloody Woolfe though.


----------



## Matchu

What about Lawrence?  He is God++ surely?

[honestly, dropping out of A level English, rage, heinous crime, probably you studied Geography, super super rage]


----------



## Llyralen

Olly Buckle said:


> Mum used to love Virginia Wolfe, she said there was a certain type of writing that goes with tuberculosis, I can't remember the other examples she gave. I always found her tedious and pointless (Virginia Wolfe, not my mother). I have had the TB experience, can't say it did much for my self expression. I started an 'A' Level English class once, 'To the lighthouse' was the final straw where I dropped out, Euchh.
> There are times when I don't like Dylan Thomas much either. 'Under Milkwood' I enjoyed no end, but some of his poetry, all that wren bone wall stuff, and 'do not go gentle', self indulgent piss artist showing off. Still more readable than bloody Woolfe though.



I love Dylan Thomas in general.  There are certain things he says that just strike me as really beautiful.   He’a not very subtle in “Do not go gentle” so it does kind of hit you over the head...but his dad was dying... I will excuse the lack of subtlety this time.  I love “Christmas in Wales”.  For some unknown reason I am biased towards all things Welsh, though, and just writing the word Wales sends some kind of shiver up my spine and makes me grit my teeth a bit.  Seriously. Biased. 

Tell me more about tuberculosis and stories, please.   What do you mean?  Why do they go together?  Something to read while sick?    Man, I am so not confident about my spelling of Virginia Woolf that I edited after your post.  I looked it up, I’m going to go re-edit.  But my spelling is atrocious in general as well, so I’m right to not have confidence in that area.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Taylor said:


> For example, what specifically makes Virginia Woolf's use of the english language superior?  Is it diction?  Sentence structure?  Punctuation?  Or



I looked at one of her books.



> He was glad to find himself outside that drawing-room, breathing raw fog, and in contact with unpolished people who only wanted their share of the pavement allowed them.



I loved "raw fog." But I found no talent in her sentence structure. She uses long sentences. Note that this next sentence starts with "It is true", which pretty much goes without saying.



> It is true that there were several lamentable exceptions to this rule in the Alardyce group, which seems to indicate that the cadets of such houses go more rapidly to the bad than the children of ordinary fathers and mothers, as if it were somehow a relief to them.



I think the long sentences allowed her to create complicated thoughts. That in turn matches her content, which seemed very detailed as to people's thoughts and feelings. (And painfully slow.) I decided "it is true" actually had value for the sentence -- just not enough for normal writing.

So I think you would have to read her books for content, and see the sentence construction as either old or suited to the content but not particularly clever or careful.

Of course, with no long effort to replicate a style, it is impossible for one to fully be confident of an opinion as to the lack of talent an author may or may not be evincing, and, as in all things subjective, there is also the feeling of a slightly shifting ground that gives both confidence and yet warns of possible falls, but nevertheless, as I constructed sentences like Woolf's in my mind, I was never confronted with a sense of challenge.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Matchu said:


> What about Lawrence?  He is God++ surely?
> 
> [honestly, dropping out of A level English, rage, heinous crime, probably you studied Geography, super super rage]



Never read any Lawrence, I inherited a complete set of his works, but passed it on to the son of a friend who was doing lit at uni. It was a nightschool class after I had started work, I was probably about twenty, so no, I didn't do anything else. A few years later I went back to college and did Sociology and Psychology.


----------



## luckyscars

EmmaSohan said:


> *I found no talent in her sentence structure.* She uses long sentences.



This seems to slightly contradict...



> I think the long sentences allowed her to create complicated thoughts.* That in turn matches her content, which seemed very detailed as to people's thoughts and feelings.* (And painfully slow.) I decided "it is true" actually had value for the sentence -- just not enough for normal writing.



This. Which you then seem to waver on...



> Of course, with no long effort to replicate a style, *it is impossible for one to fully be confident of an opinion as to the lack of talent* an author may or may not be evincing, and, as in all things subjective, there is also the feeling of a slightly shifting ground that gives both confidence and yet warns of possible falls, but nevertheless, as I constructed sentences like Woolf's in my mind, I was never confronted with a sense of challenge.



So, do you think she has talent or not?

 It doesn't exactly matter, she is dead and these are old books and, quite frankly, the 'painful slowness' is true of almost every book pre-20th century, so it's kind of a question of whether we are willing to take that into consideration and overlook 'slowness' (I'm not totally sure what slowness means, but I assume you mean it doesn't have enough action/immediacy).

The thing is, it's futile comparing Virginia Woolf to modern books because the goals are different. I don't think anybody ever read Woolf for a _story  _but more for a voice. Specifically, she was one of the first really popular feminist writers and much of her work isn't really about storytelling but about capturing the inner life of women at her time. To that end, she pioneered stream of consciousness, and if you don't like stream of consciousness (which, by definition, is typically quite varying in pace as the brain may linger on certain topics or meander from one to the next) then it's a non-starter.


----------



## escorial

VW...is vorsprung durch technik in writing style


----------



## Olly Buckle

Llyralen said:


> I love Dylan Thomas in general.  There are certain things he says that just strike me as really beautiful.   He’a not very subtle in “Do not go gentle” so it does kind of hit you over the head...but his dad was dying... I will excuse the lack of subtlety this time.  I love “Christmas in Wales”.  For some unknown reason I am biased towards all things Welsh, though, and just writing the word Wales sends some kind of shiver up my spine and makes me grit my teeth a bit.  Seriously. Biased.
> 
> Tell me more about tuberculosis and stories, please.   What do you mean?  Why do they go together?  Something to read while sick?    Man, I am so not confident about my spelling of Virginia Woolf that I edited after your post.  I looked it up, I’m going to go re-edit.  But my spelling is atrocious in general as well, so I’m right to not have confidence in that area.



TB is not a kill you instantly disease, it is a chronic condition, I think Kafka had it for twenty years, but it is rather debilitating and leads to a certain languor. One is affected by cold and damp, they make it worse, so sufferers tended to spend a lot of time indoors by the fire and not socialise. Pre antibiotics it was also very socially unacceptable anyway, people hid it from those around them a bit like they might an STD. Put together those factors make for a rather inward looking view on life which supposedly reflects in the writing. Some people find it to their taste, not me.

As for 'Do not go gentle', yes, his father was dying, but he is seeing that from his point of view, not his father's, I wrote this years ago.

Doubting Thomas

Am not a prince, nor yet was meant to be
Someone's father was enough for me
I grow old, I grow old, his intrusions are too bold.
Do not go gentle, he screams like someone mental
Denying the sunset that will end all.

A voice of youth whose time has not yet come
Awaits the wren bone introduction to  his son.
Bodies old and worn leave willingly
They are not torn from you and me
Wild old men, tamed and rocked by moonlight slip
Into the sloe black darkness, and goodnight,

I loved using all those references, 'I grow old, I shall wear the bottom of my trousers rolled' and 'The sloe black, slow black fishing boat bobbing sea' for example.

Sorry about my mis-spelling, the other one that always catches me is "Jane Austin", she is not a car!


----------



## Olly Buckle

luckyscars said:


> This seems to slightly contradict...
> 
> 
> 
> This. Which you then seem to waver on...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you think she has talent or not?
> 
> It doesn't exactly matter, she is dead and these are old books and, quite frankly, the 'painful slowness' is true of almost every book pre-20th century, so it's kind of a question of whether we are willing to take that into consideration and overlook 'slowness' (I'm not totally sure what slowness means, but I assume you mean it doesn't have enough action/immediacy).
> 
> The thing is, it's futile comparing Virginia Woolf to modern books because the goals are different. I don't think anybody ever read Woolf for a _story  _but more for a voice. Specifically, she was one of the first really popular feminist writers and much of her work isn't really about storytelling but about capturing the inner life of women at her time. To that end, she pioneered stream of consciousness, and if you don't like stream of consciousness (which, by definition, is typically quite varying in pace as the brain may linger on certain topics or meander from one to the next) then it's a non-starter.



She is hardly pre twentieth century, 1882 to 1941, she can't have written much in the nineteenth century, and Jane Austen writing late 1700's early 1800's says much about the position of women in society, and says it in a way that is witty and readable to this day. Stream of consciousness is always a bit dubious in my eyes, 'On the Road' was supposed to be, I have heard some accounts which say it was well edited, not saying she 'cheated', but it wouldn't surprise me, how tempting must it be? "I could add a bit there, that's rather mundane and unnecessary, that sounds a bit too much like I thought carefully about it." If I was trying to establish a new style I am pretty sure I would, it is not really cheating, but establishing the thing you want to get over. Now Enid Blyton and AA Fair/Errol Stanley Gardener, they are real stream of consciousness, a couple of dozen books a year every year, and it shows.


----------



## VRanger

Olly Buckle said:


> Now Enid Blyton and AA Fair/Errol Stanley Gardener, they are real stream of consciousness, a couple of dozen books a year every year, and it shows.



You might be interested to read the book about Gardner's career. His work was very tightly plotted. His volume was so prodigious, he worked on systems to come up with new and varied plots. He both used and expanded on the Edgar Wallace plot wheel.

He didn't produce a dozen novels a year, though. His 82 Perry Mason books were written from 1933 to 1969. He wrote 30 "Cool and Lamm" detective stories as A. A. Fair, and 18 novels individually and in other series. He also produced (apparently) about 600 short stories over 40 years from the late 20s to the mid 60s. So it's about 15 short stories and three and a half novels per year, on the average.

Gardner eventually built a compound where he housed the support staff for his writing, and his organization was built around making everyone's job efficient. He turned himself into a fiction factory.

I read one of the A. A. Fair books in the late 70s, and even then it didn't age well. However, if you forgive a pay phone here or there, the Perry Mason books do, and they are very far from the formula presented in the TV series.

Even knowing about the TV series is interesting. Gardner was opposed to a Perry Mason TV series, because he'd been underwhelmed by the few films based on his character. His literary agent's wife, Gail Patrick Jackson, thought it could be done to his satisfaction, and kept promoting the idea to him. If you ever pay attention to the credits on the show, she's listed as Executive Producer on all 271. Gardner wound up with script approval, and acted as a technical consultant for the legal issues raised in each episode. He was a lawyer who gave up his practice to become a writer, so he had the chops. Providing an interesting bit of trivia, he appeared as the judge on the last show filmed.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> I looked at one of her books.
> 
> 
> 
> I loved "raw fog." But I found no talent in her sentence structure. She uses long sentences. Note that this next sentence starts with "It is true", which pretty much goes without saying.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the long sentences allowed her to create complicated thoughts. That in turn matches her content, which seemed very detailed as to people's thoughts and feelings. (And painfully slow.) I decided "it is true" actually had value for the sentence -- just not enough for normal writing.
> 
> So I think you would have to read her books for content, and see the sentence construction as either old or suited to the content but not particularly clever or careful.
> 
> Of course, with no long effort to replicate a style, it is impossible for one to fully be confident of an opinion as to the lack of talent an author may or may not be evincing, and, as in all things subjective, there is also the feeling of a slightly shifting ground that gives both confidence and yet warns of possible falls, but nevertheless, as I constructed sentences like Woolf's in my mind, I was never confronted with a sense of challenge.



Do you look for beauty or originality in the structure apart from the actual meaning or content?   I’m looking for beauty, complexity and meaning in the ideas themselves.   I don’t usually see sentence structure— the actual structure— as too separated from content unless it is problematic or gets in the way of understanding the thought.  The way you describe how you read makes me wonder if you would like sentences that were structured very satisfyingly to you but whose content was unimportant or boring? Basically, if the subject matter was about doorknobs and the structure beautiful would it hold your interest and seem challenging?  And is each sentence kind of on its own?  If a thought is complex and new, how is it not interesting, meaningful or challenging?  What kind of writing do you feel challenges you in the way that you want to be challenged?  What is an example of structure that you think is interesting? 

You read so differently than I do!  I’ve got to understand it better.  Please help.


----------



## Llyralen

Matchu said:


> What about Lawrence?  He is God++ surely?
> 
> [honestly, dropping out of A level English, rage, heinous crime, probably you studied Geography, super super rage]



A few of us did bring up Lawrence, or I did anyway somewhere in the history of this thread.  I don’t want to spend time looking for it, so to sum up I think he has never been surpassed for erotic writing except for maybe being rivaled by e.e. cummings in poems   Your thoughts?  Boy, did I ever have to fight auto-correct for those lower case letters.  Auto-correct and I have a very turbulent relationship. Lawrence would have been inspired by it.


----------



## Matchu

I think Lawrence is my favourite.  Just to immerse in something like the ‘Coal Miner’s Bath’ transports my imagination.  Reading Lawrence I squeal like a squealer even over a scene as simple as an introduction at a provincial ball encounter.  I like the ‘longing’ and the despair.  [big apols for writing like a big girl here].

The only other writer that presses my buttons - with the crafting/language ‘thing’ - and me like a fat cat with chocolate - might be GG Marquez, but not really a super fan of 100 Years Of...

apols for not finding your comment back there. 

...oh Hardy...Jack London


----------



## Olly Buckle

Llyralen said:


> Man, I am so not confident about my spelling of Virginia Woolf that I edited after your post.  I looked it up, I’m going to go re-edit.  But my spelling is atrocious in general as well, so I’m right to not have confidence in that area.



You should worry, looking back I spelled it two different ways in the same post, both wrong it seems


----------



## Llyralen

Olly Buckle said:


> TB is not a kill you instantly disease, it is a chronic condition, I think Kafka had it for twenty years, but it is rather debilitating and leads to a certain languor. One is affected by cold and damp, they make it worse, so sufferers tended to spend a lot of time indoors by the fire and not socialise. Pre antibiotics it was also very socially unacceptable anyway, people hid it from those around them a bit like they might an STD. Put together those factors make for a rather inward looking view on life which supposedly reflects in the writing. Some people find it to their taste, not me.
> 
> As for 'Do not go gentle', yes, his father was dying, but he is seeing that from his point of view, not his father's, I wrote this years ago.
> 
> Doubting Thomas
> 
> Am not a prince, nor yet was meant to be
> Someone's father was enough for me
> I grow old, I grow old, his intrusions are too bold.
> Do not go gentle, he screams like someone mental
> Denying the sunset that will end all.
> 
> A voice of youth whose time has not yet come
> Awaits the wren bone introduction to  his son.
> Bodies old and worn leave willingly
> They are not torn from you and me
> Wild old men, tamed and rocked by moonlight slip
> Into the sloe black darkness, and goodnight,
> 
> I loved using all those references, 'I grow old, I shall wear the bottom of my trousers rolled' and 'The sloe black, slow black fishing boat bobbing sea' for example.
> 
> Sorry about my mis-spelling, the other one that always catches me is "Jane Austin", she is not a car!



I just wanted you to know that besides the like and the thank that I really appreciate you finding a poem of yours to go along with this wonderful and interesting conversation (thread).   There was something so neat and also comforting about that. Loved it.


----------



## Olly Buckle

vranger said:


> You might be interested to read the book about Gardner's career. His work was very tightly plotted. His volume was so prodigious, he worked on systems to come up with new and varied plots. He both used and expanded on the Edgar Wallace plot wheel.
> 
> He didn't produce a dozen novels a year, though. His 82 Perry Mason books were written from 1933 to 1969. He wrote 30 "Cool and Lamm" detective stories as A. A. Fair, and 18 novels individually and in other series. He also produced (apparently) about 600 short stories over 40 years from the late 20s to the mid 60s. So it's about 15 short stories and three and a half novels per year, on the average.
> 
> Gardner eventually built a compound where he housed the support staff for his writing, and his organization was built around making everyone's job efficient. He turned himself into a fiction factory.
> 
> I read one of the A. A. Fair books in the late 70s, and even then it didn't age well. However, if you forgive a pay phone here or there, the Perry Mason books do, and they are very far from the formula presented in the TV series.
> 
> Even knowing about the TV series is interesting. Gardner was opposed to a Perry Mason TV series, because he'd been underwhelmed by the few films based on his character. His literary agent's wife, Gail Patrick Jackson, thought it could be done to his satisfaction, and kept promoting the idea to him. If you ever pay attention to the credits on the show, she's listed as Executive Producer on all 271. Gardner wound up with script approval, and acted as a technical consultant for the legal issues raised in each episode. He was a lawyer who gave up his practice to become a writer, so he had the chops. Providing an interesting bit of trivia, he appeared as the judge on the last show filmed.



Hands up, you got me, I picked a number out of the air. That was how it seemed when I was a junior library assistant in the early sixties, some people hardly read anything else, maybe an Agatha Christie or two.


----------



## MistWolf

I think this article will shed some light on what we're scrapping about-
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/05/pulps-big-moment


----------



## EmmaSohan

Llyralen said:


> Do you look for beauty or originality in the structure apart from the actual meaning or content?.



Boring answer from me. I usually read for content. But I was trying to answer Taylor's question about writing ability independent of content.

The sentence I should have mentioned was this:



> It may be said, indeed, that English society being what it is, no very great merit is required, once you bear a well-known name, to put you into a position where it is easier on the whole to be eminent than obscure.



There's two _it_s with no referent, and two _you_s meant to be general, with a nearly informationless and overly cautious _It may be said_. 5 commas makes reading difficult, as does 42 words. When you read a sentence like that in your editing, you're supposed to say to yourself, _Ugh_. When I tried to rewrite it I got



> In English society, bearing a well-known name makes eminence easier than obscurity.



12 words. The thing is, it was was _work _to rewrite that in a way that was easier to understand. I didn't see the work in writing the sentence her way; that seemed simple to me -- write a sentence with twice as many clauses. Her 42 words seemed more nuanced than my 12, so I gave her credit for that, though it probably resulted from using the style of her day.

And I still have 30 words to work with, though I don't know what she meant to say. Being blunt:



> It may appear, to the superficial eye, than men achieve their prominence in society through skill and contribution. But often they are lifted to lofty positions of importance by their well-known name.


----------



## VRanger

Olly Buckle said:


> Hands up, you got me, I picked a number out of the air. That was how it seemed when I was a junior library assistant in the early sixties, some people hardly read anything else, maybe an Agatha Christie or two.



Bad luck. LOL You just happened across the one guy in this forum (or probably any number of forums) who read the book about his writing career. I don't know if the world of writing has ever seen anything like his operation before or since.


----------



## Pallandozi

I think of the story as the parts which could survive being translated by Google Translate, turned into a different medium (eg film or manga or a stage play), or even being re-told by a different author.    The plot, the characters, etc.

I think of the writing as the bits which would get lost in such transfers.    Whether you can read it without your attention being drawn to the act of reading.   Whether you feel empathy and emotions.    

Damon Runyon's writing is distinctive.

Ursula K. Le Guin's stories are distinctive.

When does lack of story quality detract from appreciating the quality of the writing, or lack of writing quality detract from appreciating the quality of the story?    I don't think there's a hard and fast rule - the trade off varies with reader, depending on what they're looking for.


----------



## Taylor

Pallandozi said:


> I think of the story as the parts which could survive being translated by Google Translate, turned into a different medium (eg film or manga or a stage play), or even being re-told by a different author.    The plot, the characters, etc.
> 
> I think of the writing as the bits which would get lost in such transfers.    Whether you can read it without your attention being drawn to the act of reading.   Whether you feel empathy and emotions.



Excellent way to separate the two, story and writing.  And leads me to believe, that it's well-written, if I'm reading it, and forget that I am reading.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Pallandozi said:


> I think of the story as the parts which could survive being translated by Google Translate, turned into a different medium (eg film or manga or a stage play), or even being re-told by a different author. The plot, the characters, etc.



I translated a joke of the day from English to French to Japanese and then back to English. The original and translated punchlines:



> Original: "Just take two," Brenda replied, "The rest are for your father."
> 
> Translated: "Take two, the rest is for your dad," Brenda replied.



It survived well. But, as far as I know, it's wrong to end a joke with a dialogue tag. And that isn't something a joke-teller has a choice about if the joke is supposed to be funny.


----------



## Gofa

@ Taylor  if I'm reading it, and forget that I am reading.

yes the story grabs me
the writing is just a delivery vehicle 
and i want to hear the authors thoughts in my head
sometimes the writing gets in the way of this process
as does thick blocks of text that are deemed long paragraphs 
i would rather have text in bite sized lots 
again the author is painting a picture in my consciousnesses 
give me rhythm and cadence and not a relentless sausage of words to be chewed and swallowed

Pulp Fiction rules


----------



## Taylor

Gofa said:


> @ Taylor  if I'm reading it, and forget that I am reading.
> 
> yes the story grabs me
> the writing is just a delivery vehicle
> and i want to hear the authors thoughts in my head
> sometimes the writing gets in the way of this process
> as does thick blocks of text that are deemed long paragraphs
> i would rather have text in bite sized lots
> again the author is painting a picture in my consciousnesses
> give me rhythm and cadence and not a relentless sausage of words to be chewed and swallowed
> 
> Pulp Fiction rules



Brilliant!!


----------



## Olly Buckle

> It doesn't exactly matter, she is dead and these are old books and, quite frankly, the 'painful slowness' is true of almost every book pre-20th century, so it's kind of a question of whether we are willing to take that into consideration and overlook 'slowness' (I'm not totally sure what slowness means, but I assume you mean it doesn't have enough action/immediacy).



I keep thinking of this with some indignation, so I have been looking through some of my favourite bits from Jane Austen, the snappy, witty character studies,

"A woman of mean understanding, , little information, and uncertain temper."

"A person and face of strong, sterling natural insignificance"

"Not a woman of many words; for, unlike people in general, , she proportioned them to the number of her ideas."

"One of those well meaning people who are always doing mistaken and very disagreeable things"

"Blessed with such happy manners as may ensure his making many friends: whether he may be equally capable of retaining them is another matter"

Not a woman one would want to get on the wrong side of I feel. In her private letters she gets even more caustic at times. I will admit there are some authors I don't care tuppence for, but to confine your reading to post 1950 or so means yo are missing out on a lot, Lucky. As Colonel Brandon says in S&S "Where so many hours have been spent convincing myself that I am right, is there not some reason to fear I may be wrong?"


----------



## EmmaSohan

> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. (Pride & Prejudice, Austen, first line)



You can probably see where I am going. The commas in that sentence can't be right. The first one breaks the rule for using _that_; the second one is between the noun and verb, which is so obviously wrong that the rule is rarely mentioned.

My impression is that this truth is not know by most men. I think that usage of "want" is old-fashioned. _Single man_ is actually ambiguous -- wouldn't _unmarried man_ be better?

To appreciate this story, don't we somehow have to understand the culture of mid-19th century London? To say his fortune is four or five thousand a year, in pounds I assume, really does not give us any information about how rich he is. (It lacks the usual correction for inflation.) But it's deeper than that –we do not nowadays measure a fortune in amount per year.

Actually, Austen's narration seemed a little clumsy compared to her deft dialogue. And she does some punctuation things we wouldn't do now, like put an exclamation mark in the middle of a sentence.


Well. To be honest, for the short amount I read, I was stunned by her writing skill. And P&P has the best romance ending I have read. But I think there's an element of "good for its time."


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> You can probably see where I am going. The commas in that sentence can't be right. The first one breaks the rule for using _that_; the second one is between the noun and verb, which is so obviously wrong that the rule is rarely mentioned.
> 
> My impression is that this truth is not know by most men. I think that usage of "want" is old-fashioned. _Single man_ is actually ambiguous -- wouldn't _unmarried man_ be better?
> 
> To appreciate this story, don't we somehow have to understand the culture of mid-19th century London? To say his fortune is four or five thousand a year, in pounds I assume, really does not give us any information about how rich he is. (It lacks the usual correction for inflation.) But it's deeper than that –we do not nowadays measure a fortune in amount per year.
> 
> Actually, Austen's narration seemed a little clumsy compared to her deft dialogue. And she does some punctuation things we wouldn't do now, like put an exclamation mark in the middle of a sentence.
> 
> 
> Well. To be honest, for the short amount I read, I was stunned by her writing skill. And P&P has the best romance ending I have read. But I think there's an element of "good for its time."


 
You’ll see where she was more modern compared to the style of Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence.  It was the style to give layers of preamble and to set the stage for what you were really going to say.  That was just considered the elegant style of the time, all set off with commas, it has a feel and rhythm to it that is particular to that time that is like unveiling something.  Each phrase in each comma grounds what will be said and also reveals more.  Modern is not usually better, just different.  And it isn’t like you can be good for a far distant time.  You can only be good for the time that you are at.  But Austen has stood the test of time.  By the way, your and Austen’s personalities and brains work similarly from what I can tell of you.  You’re both INFJs from what I can tell. (MBTI... it’s about personality and cognitive functions based on the work of Carl Jung— ask me about it if you’re interested). 

Anyway, hear how Thomas Jefferson did it and the similarities to the opening of Pride and Prejudice: 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impell them to the separation.  
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.....”

See those arches of thought that basically set you up for the zinger?   So it’s a different style and it’s very elegant.   At any rate, I don’t think newer or modern is better.  But your second cognitive function is also in tune with what people think is good or want NOW if you are an INFJ.   Anyway... let me know if you’re interested in that. 


I think you weren’t quite sure what Virginia Woolf meant about men being prominent since they were already known?  Well, my neighbor was telling me about organizing for women’s rights and she said, “ Do you know that before the 70’s I wouldn’t have even been known as my own name on letters.  I would be Mrs. Michael White (I changed her name).  Anyway, women were not known for themselves but for being a man’s wife.  You might have seen Hidden Figures the movie?  Men were putting their names on the work of women and there wasn’t even a question that that was wrong.  So women had a very tough time getting recognition for their own work.... and we are not talking about too long ago at all.


----------



## EternalGreen

Politicians are not known for concise, clear language. Jefferson was no exception.


----------



## Olly Buckle

Austen was not mid 1800's, but late 17's early 18's, and mid eighteen hundreds is really when grammar rules were formulated, they were mad about order systems. The other thing is that a lot of the punctuation in her books was decided by typesetters, comparison of her books and original MS shows this, also editions of the late eighteen hundreds were 'corrected' by 'experts', in fact with the ones we don't have original ms for it is difficult to say exactly what she wrote.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Olly Buckle said:


> ... The other thing is that a lot of the punctuation in her books was decided by typesetters, comparison of her books and original MS shows this, also editions of the late eighteen hundreds were 'corrected' by 'experts', in fact with the ones we don't have original ms for it is difficult to say exactly what she wrote.



This is a somewhat serious problem for me. When I claim King is a master of punctuation and grammar -- how much is that King and how much is it his editor? Or when I criticize a sentence by Camus, I am really criticizing the translation. In this thread we talked about the metaphor of a fish on the ground, which is clearly in one translation but not so clearly in the original German or a different translation. In those, it might be like a fish moving over the ground, a metaphor I liked. But I gave up.

The second comma, which cannot be right, is not always present.  I would punctuate the sentence:



> It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.



But, if we claim that Austen was good at telling her story, we can't mean her original version before any editing or publication, right? But if we are talking about a published book, don't we have to say which edition we meant?


----------



## Llyralen

Punctuation changes as does style.  What is “correct” now will not be “correct” in another 50 years.   Spelling used to also be much more of a moving target.   Punctuation is there to make the meaning of the sentence easier to understand, so of course it needs to change with style.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Llyralen said:


> Punctuation changes as does style.  What is “correct” now will not be “correct” in another 50 years.   Spelling used to also be much more of a moving target.   Punctuation is there to make the meaning of the sentence easier to understand, so of course it needs to change with style.



If you go back 60 years to James Bond, the punctuation looks correct. Same for Sherlock Holmes (100 years ago), though you might start to notice a change in style. Hawthorne (160 years ago) might do an odd thing with _which _and _that_ (using a style that practically no one uses today).

And if you go all the way back to Austen (200+ years), they put exclamation marks in the middle of their sentences. That's about the only thing I know of that she could do that we cannot.

So, 50 years from now, our books will probably look correct, though perhaps a little primitive.

Part of this is that things stop being used, but they never completely drop out of the language. For example, my guess is that most authors have never used _for _as a coordinating conjunction. But it still does get used. (I was surprised to see it last week.) And it's hard not to be exposed to it. (For God so loved the world...).

What we have done is added tools that hundred years ago were never used. So people from the past would think our writing is wrong.

I'm guessing it's the same for vocabulary. You might have modest difficulties with the vocabulary from a hundred years ago. But they would have no idea what we mean by coronavirus, DNA, CIA, wind-chill factor, World War II, etc.


----------



## Llyralen

EmmaSohan said:


> If you go back 60 years to James Bond, the punctuation looks correct. Same for Sherlock Holmes (100 years ago), though you might start to notice a change in style. Hawthorne (160 years ago) might do an odd thing with _which _and _that_ (using a style that practically no one uses today).
> 
> And if you go all the way back to Austen (200+ years), they put exclamation marks in the middle of their sentences. That's about the only thing I know of that she could do that we cannot.
> 
> So, 50 years from now, our books will probably look correct, though perhaps a little primitive.
> 
> Part of this is that things stop being used, but they never completely drop out of the language. For example, my guess is that most authors have never used _for _as a coordinating conjunction. But it still does get used. (I was surprised to see it last week.) And it's hard not to be exposed to it. (For God so loved the world...).
> 
> What we have done is added tools that hundred years ago were never used. So people from the past would think our writing is wrong.
> 
> I'm guessing it's the same for vocabulary. You might have modest difficulties with the vocabulary from a hundred years ago. But they would have no idea what we mean by coronavirus, DNA, CIA, wind-chill factor, World War II, etc.



After I wrote 50, I also considered going back and changing it, but I decided to keep it there because very small changes do happen.  I wish I could think of an example from the last 50 years.   I can for grammar.  Starting a sentence or even a paragraph with a conjunction is much more accepted.  If I was a grammastician (they mention that profession in a song in My Fair Lady, aren’t there grammasticians? Lol) I might have more small examples, but there has to have been small changes made in that time and also debates about certain things to do among experts.  I’m just not at that level with grammar.   I’m hoping an expert on punctuation will step in here.  .   My main point is that language evolves just like you know it does too, but I think it changes a lot quicker than people realize. 

My husband and I have been laughing about something.  I swear I have used this word this way before but he says he has never heard it.   I asked if anyone was spelling him for rests at a job where he had to be really attentive.  He said “spell me?”  I said “Yeah... spell you... to get a rest.”  He said “Swap me?  What language are you using? “.  I said “Come on!  We grew up kind of in the same place.  Swap would denote that the exchange was permanent.  Spell means that you get a rest.”   He keeps saying “That is NOT English!”  I said “Maybe it’s a little old... it’s certainly got to be in the dictionary.  Like ‘Sit a spell’”.  He has been having so much fun this week throwing the word spell into things where it makes no sense just to tease me.  I guess when I first said it to him it really made no sense to him.  He says “You keep trying to get me to buy into this like it’s common English”. I say, “It is!  Are people just not doing jobs where you have to tend things?”   “Tend things???”  

Okay... it wasn’t archaic usage in my town growing up anyway... 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-history-spell


----------



## Olly Buckle

I don't know why, but my first association with 'spell' like that would be with rowing a boat, "Let me spell you for a bit", but I would certainly understand it in other contexts.

I remember reading somewhere that some huge amount, (maybe half?), of proper nouns changed over a twenty five year period among people who didn't have a written language, writing certainly slows change down. Reading Chaucer needs a translation, Shakespeare is quite easy, about two hundred years between them, but another four hundred to us, what happened?


----------

