My best personal example is Anne Rice in general and her Vampire Chrinicles in particular. The first 2 books were genius and I still love them. Unfortuantely this probably made her so famous that no sane or insane editor can say 'no' to her now. And there's a lot of $$$ pressure on her to keep milking the same stuff over and over...
What I learned from her is where to call it quits with description or a conversation between 2 characters that gets sidetracked by philosophy or whatever before it gets boring, mostly by her books especially the more recent ones, setting a bad example. I love lush descriptive text and in something with a romantic tone it has its place to a point, but when I find myself skipping over large passages of text to see what happens next, enough is enough...
If you can site examples and give reason why a certain author's bad work helped you without getting bogged down in arguing over what books and writers you dislike, I'd appreciate it.
They didn't do Farland any favors, and if I wish he would have given himself the time to really mold his books to fit the potential that was there. Now instead of having a series on a par with Robert Jordan, Runelords is just average.
I could mention others that found success with their first books and let all the subsequent ones get rushed through without taking the proper time for them. It's a lesson that a lot of the time, unless you find a true publisher, these companies see you as a golden goose and pump you for eggs. You have to decide if your work is as good as it can be.
Nate
There are two exceptions I can think of recently though.
The first was Stephen Lawhead's Song of Albion series (I should first qualify myself by saying it actually wasn't that bad). But, even when I found it tough going I slogged through and finished the series, as a friend had recommended them and I wanted to be able to finish it so we could discuss them. A couple of my problems with this series were:
1) All are first person, but Book 2 is told from a different character's PoV, without immediately making that clear, and then (spoiler alert) Book 3 ends with the main character starting to write Book 1. So not only does shifting 1st person PoV jar the reader in Book 2, it just makes no sense. Helped provide an example of how PoV can annoy a reader.
2) Book 1 starts off in modern Britain, and the language is suitably contemporary. Once the (first person narrator) main character enters the alternate fantasy universe, the language changes to become spectacularly flowery. At times this is okay (yes, it's just *that* much better than real life) but it often is done to excess, such as when he meets three young ladies and spends 3 pages describing their golden hair. I mean really - we know he's enraptured, but he's already showing this in other ways - and the book's not about the hair! So this helped provide a few concrete examples of the line where I perceive descriptive language jumps into purple prose.
The second book that annoyed me was, gasp, Neil Gaiman's American Gods. The big hint that it was going to do this was in the author's notes where he alludes to it being the 'big, rambling' novel he'd always wanted to write. And it is, interweaving occasionally promising scenes that advance the plot with big background substories that serve to pull the reader away from the main character and his dilemma, thereby also reducing their interest in that character and consequently the book. To me, this book was a great example of not adding material to the novel that doesn't advance the plot. By the time it finished I'd almost forgotten what it was about.
You didn't ask for books that we don't finish, but I'm going to include one anyway, because my lunch break is almost over and, well, just because. Maybe it'll prove you don't have to finish a book to learn something. Neil Stephenson's Anathem. I read a decent chunk of this book (25-30%) and almost enjoyed it, but it was just far too much trouble to stick with.
1) Invented language. On the one hand I see he's been quite clever in the way he's introduced a new language into the milieu. It's been carefully crafted to make it largely understandable to a reader who's never seen it before. On the other hand, it also makes for a lot of stumbling and frustration, as almost every paragraph has one or two words that the reader has never encountered before. When you're already stumbling regularly, frequent interjections by 'dictionary' snippets explaining the language causes the rate at which I read this book to slow to a frustrating crawl. My lesson? Being clever may well cost readers.
2) Length. The book is 900+ pages in trade paperback. At the pace I was able to read it I wasn't prepared to sit through it all - it just wasn't that gripping. I'm not sure exactly what I learned with 2, 3 & 4, but they left an impression, so I guess I learned something.
3) All the reviews on the back cover of the book were for other Neil Stephenson books. What this says about this book spoke volumes to my cynical mind.
4) I'm going to be bold. I was vaguely offended that this book is in bookstores at all. On the one hand, Neil Stephenson fans will probably love this book, and I can completely accept and understand it from that perspective. Go you. But it's also exactly the sort of book a debut author will never be able - even allowed- to have published. It's too long and too inaccessible for a new audience to accept. And for that same reason I feel books like this should be put in the bookstore on a high-up shelf with warning stickers on them so that well meaning mothers don't pick them up as gifts for their sons.
That's bad published work, as opposed to bad unpublished work. In my Internet Fan Fiction days, I read and critiqued a lot of work, a lot of which was bad. (The charm of it all, plus knowing that there would never be enough episodes of the series to satisfy me, carried me thorugh it all.) I think it's as close to reading slushpile as I'll ever get. And I learned a lot doing it.
Anyway, I am annoyed by some of the author's (David Guterson) gigantic paragraph sizes, sometimes more than an entire page, and am vowing to watch that in my own work. Overall, it's so far a pretty good book.
But at the same time I hesitate to label published works/writers as "bad". Some I like more, and some I like less, but they're all at a higher level of achievement than I am right now.
Whenever I read something I try to take mental note of things that stand out to me, either good or bad, and try to take it a level deeper and understand why I have the reaction I do. When I get a handle on the causes I try to employ the lesson learned. I mentioned huge paragraphs above. They are hard on the eyes and break the flow of the story, and are usually big blocks of description and backstory (in this particular novel). So the takeaway for me is to break things up and keep the story moving.
I look on two levels: the skill of the writing, and the skill of the storytelling. Strength in the latter can often carry the former, but not vice-versa (to my tastes), so most of my focus at this time is on the story rather than the prose. In the past I focused more on the language, which while valuable, was probably not the most efficient use of my attention at the time.
So a shorter answer is yes, although I wouldn't recommend seeking out less skilled writers and weaker stories--you'll find plenty of work doesn't click with you while pursuing "good" stuff.
I was bothered by the way nothing too bad ever happened. It seemed as though they were always clutching victory out of the jaws of defeat and they were always able to get healed and regain their ability to do magic in a matter of seconds. It made me wonder how Galbatorix could possibly be such a terrible villain when he doesn't really win a battle in over 1500 pages.
I never feel very emotionally engaged with his subcharacters. They are complex and real characters, but it's only after they die or have to leave that I realize they were supposed to be important emotionally to the main character. I'm not sure if there are just too many characters that are supposed to be important or if the story just doesn't deliver real bonding. Probably both.
Melanie
Having played the old D&D module on which the novel is based, I was really looking forward to it.
But it was horrible. The more I thought about it, the more I realized there were two reasons I didn't like it.
1. The action never stopped. The beautiful thing about Tolkien is that there's the constant movement from action to contemplation. After the Barrow Downs, they rest in Bree; after Moria, they rest in Lothlorian; etc. AGAINST THE GIANTS had none of that. All action. It was too much.
2. Emerson forgot all about the MacGuffin. Generally speaking, readers care about characters, not about the things the characters care about. We want to know what will happen to Ender, not whether the buggers will attack. In GIANTS, Emerson never gave made the reader care about her characters. None of them had any inner conflict.
In fact, I wrote a post about this very thing on my blog. If you're interested, here's the link:
http://www.jeffbaerveldt.com/salvation-damnation-and-dd-novels/
(Yes, that was a shameless plug!)
Unsatifsying endings, slow starts, low tension, unsympathetic protagonists, weak plots, chaotic causal flow, the roll call of flaws is legion. One of the more common flaws is a lack of setbacks for the protagonist, second is misplaced climaxes. An episodic plot, too much anecdote or vignette, not enough plotting. What I find worst is when a protagonist comes to a climax then resolves a predicament through no struggle and no effort on their part.
Also lately, there've been too many stories with pessimistic assumptions about the world. But I've seen a trend in the swinging pendulum of outlook, pessimism when times are good, optimism when things are roughest, with stories lagging behind the times by about two years.
1)Stupid heroes. Nothing irritates me more than a hero/heroine who ignores all obvious clues, or does things that no sane person would do
2)Unpronouncable names (where I suspect the writer just hit random keys on the keyboard to come up with a cool sounding name)
3)One-dimensional villans
4)Trilogies that should have just been made up of one or two books.
The first chapter was written in close third person, and at the end of it, MC died. That always annoys me, because I can't imagine how a dead narrator can tell us the sights and sensations of their final death throws.
Chapter two was an info dump. No action, just info.
In chapter three the story started. Love interest arrived, and did something really stupid to MC. Destroyed any basis for trust they might have had. Yet, instead of passing her by like any sane MC would, he invited her to join him on his private jet. Not because he was thinking with his manly bits, not because she found a way of recovering his trust, but for some contrived reason which was supposed to hide the fact that, really, their relationship -- rich, rugged techno-entrepeneur fancies beautiful intrepid journalist -- was necessary for the plot.
I think I learned that, as I learn more about writing, I become less tolerant of weak writing -- hopefully in my own as well as that of others. (I fear I also learned something sad about established name writers and their publishers.)
Things I find annoying still get published. Therefore, I should probably be a little more flexible and understanding in my critiquing of others' drafts.
quote:
Therefore, I should probably be a little more flexible and understanding in my critiquing of others' drafts.
You make an excellent point! One of my favorite stories about the man who wrote GRENDEL -- the late John Gardner -- is that turned away one writing student, telling the student that he, Gardner, didn't believe in the kind of fiction the student was writing (modernist and nihilistic) and therefore he, Gardner, would make a horrible teacher for the student.
That's humility.
I think this did have an influence on me. I like things right, though I don't necessarily go as sci-technic as some writers. I might make a subtle mistake, but not a gross mistake like that.
But, yes, this is slightly derailing the topic. Sorry.
[This message has been edited by C L Lynn (edited April 08, 2009).]
*****
Back on the bad novels influencing me theme---I've been influenced by the early work of John Varley---both the good and imaginative end, as well as the impossible behavior of characters and the bad plotting. Two of his award-winning stories turned on something "unknowable" that he doesn't deign to describe.
I thought Varley did the literary / SFy equivalent of getting away with murder. In the end, the bad in his work outweighed the good for me...you'll notice I said I was influenced by the early work...I haven't bothered to pick up the later stuff.
I read bad romance novels so that I can maybe someday write one and get it published then be able to say I published a book so someone will take me seriously as a writer. Gee, when I write that down it sounds really backwards and pathetc.
Seriously, I do read some books that to me are forced or bad cause it's published by a publisher I'm researching or by an author that is getting tons of public support. I read "Twilight" and loved it, but the subsequent books were less than steller, OMHO. Other people liked them, so who knows, someone thought it was good writing. Sometimes it's all a personal view as to the kind of writing you like or want to write.
You make such an interesting point, Pixy. I've recently read the Twilight books too, in part because I can't stand to be on the outside of such a huge trend. I was on vacation last week and literally every woman over the age of 14 that I saw had one Twilight book or another under her arm or spread on her blanket or on her lap or in her bag. Every one! That's a phenomenon. And, to digress for a moment, that's a phenomenon I want to be a part of. I don't want to write a book that gets critical acclaim and only 200 people read. I want to write the breakout novel, the runaway best seller. The book that's under everyone's arm and on everyone's mind. But that's me (sure, sure, I'm an egomaniac, that's OK, I can cope with that.)
I'd hazard a guess, though, that none of the women I saw with the Twilight books on vacation would say they're reading the book because it's "good writing." Rather, they're reading because it's a good book.
I read all four books and really enjoyed them. I found them to be really satisfying reads. I'm a writer, but I paid pretty much no attention to the writing (which IMHO is a sign of decent to good writing to *fail* to draw my attention to it.) There were things I noticed that on the whole started to bug me slightly (e.g., how many times can we use the word "marble" to describe skin?) but they didn't really impact my enjoyment of the books.
I recently read an Elizabeth Moon 5 book series (the Vatta War series that starts with Trading in Danger) that I enjoyed just as much, though the books/stories got under my skin a little less than the Twilight ones (I believe it's due to the romance angle in Twilight - that creates emotional tethers that are very strong...many remindings of my own teenage love affairs, etc.) but still I enjoyed very much. Very different books, very different subject matter, very enjoyable experiences.
But in neither was I paying any attention to the writing.
I'm saying all this because I think we all need a reminder from time to time that readers don't necessarily care about our *writing.* No, really. I don't think most readers care. What they care about is our stories. Or, to be more accurate--if we're successful, what they care about is our stories. If we're bad at it, all they care about is some *other* story they've read and not ours at all.
I devoured the first two Twilights but by the third I was feeling a little irritated at all mushy. Plus, I'm afraid I like Jacob better than Edward *gasp* I know, I'm a traitor. Evil pixy. But the whole agressive thing Jacob had going for him was way hotter to me. And Edward was so possesive. Tenticles off, my dear.
I bought the fourth and only read the first 20 pages before I gave up. I think I'm too much of a realist...lol. And the marble thing...lol...I was thinking the same thing. We get it, he was hard and shinny. But a hottie, none the less. Hehehe...
Anyway, I like your point. And I agree, I'd rather write a booked people will buy and love, not win awards. Though, both would be nice.
Silly guy read every single one. Apparently he's willing to try and enjoy everything he reads/watches (except for things I recommend to him >.<...!).
On the subject of David Farland, the divide between a good and bad book is certainly a matter of opinion. I assume that the poster who commented on an "over-enthusiastic agent" wasn't aware that Mr. "Farland" was already a successful writer under his real name of Wolverton when he started the Runelords series and among others that OSC is an enthusiastic fan.
Just goes to show that opinions vary.
Just as they do on Twilight. Most people are aware of Stephen King's disparaging remarks about Meyer's writing. I agree with King that her writing is beyond bad and find the theme of the books to be so negative that even the mention of them makes me sudder.
Obviously that opinion is very much my opinion (and partially King's) and not shared by her kazillion fans.
So one person's bad book is another person's treasure. That does make it bit hard to figure out how to please agents and publishers though.
I just tried reading The Shining, and couldn't even finish it. Sinking into inevitable insanity with a character--not pleasant. The part that really bugged me though, is that his snapping was inevitable with or without the hotel. He'd already lashed out violently even without alcohol. And his wife was just TSTL for choosing to stay in the hotel with him. When I saw the Steven Weber miniseries version I'd thought Jack's character was pretty relatable, but in the book it was very clear from the very beginning that Jack was violently unstable.
I couldn't believe it. It was like ... me in a garage with an $80 keyboard from Wal Mart. Very crappy.
What's more important than me sniping about your opinion, though, is the purpose of this thread. What did you learn from those books that you thought were bad?
Twilight, an innocent beauty tames a savage beast, a coming of age story, too, ideal resonance for a young adult female audience.
The Shining, a caretaker who is too damaged to take care of his family, in a resort that closes for the winter. Hah, sublime, a caretaker who can't provide care. Yet it's the damaged state of Jack's career and emotional health that makes him perfectly, logically plausible as the hotel's caretaker. But Jack is the story's false protagonist, Danny is the true protagonist. The possessed resort hotel is an analogous motif for the cruel pressures that a narrow environment inflicts upon everyday living. Hmm, setting as a character posing antagonism.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited April 28, 2009).]
quote:
Twilight, an innocent beauty tames a savage beast, a coming of age story, too, ideal resonance for a young adult female audience.
I don't know what Twilight I was reading then, because that wasn't my impression at all. You're describing Beauty and the Beast but, in Twilight, what really seems to happen is that a self-absorbed hundred year werewolf (who is surprisingly cultured and intelligent and cannot be described as savage except in the sense that he stalks women he likes and spies on them) becames obsessed with a self-doubting weakling and manipulates her into doing whatever he wants. He doesn't change.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited April 29, 2009).]
As far as bad books, I make no claim as to whether or not the writer is any good (he may have had plenty of other good books) but there is one paperback that I keep just as an awful reminder that I could be published one day. I generally always cringe when I read my own writing, but as I was starting this book, it is one of the first cases where I could say without exaggeration that my writing is better than this book -- and it got published. To be fair, the author has dozens of books out, so it could just be a laziness thing. Quite a few of the chapters I've read from fellow hattrackers are also better than this book... it's almost comical:
First description of a female character "...she had the kind of figure that men want to howl at..."
Same chapter, in the first two sentences I realized that at the end of the conversation (end of chapter, several pages later), she was going to tell him she was pregnant. Last sentence of the chapter: "I'm pregnant."
Anyhow, it's nice every now and then to think that I could make it someday (should I ever actually finish my book).
quote:
I don't know what Twilight I was reading then, because that wasn't my impression at all. You're describing Beauty and the Beast but, in Twilight, what really seems to happen is that a self-absorbed hundred year werewolf (who is surprisingly cultured and intelligent and cannot be described as savage except in the sense that he stalks women he likes and spies on them) becames obsessed with a self-doubting weakling and manipulates her into doing whatever he wants. He doesn't change.
Edward in Twilight is a vampire, among other focal and accessory characters. He's older than 100 years, but he's been 100 years without a love interest in his life. Changed by Bella? Slightly altered in that he's more charming and gallant, perhaps, and calmed in the peculiar way that being loved calms anyone. I didn't find the story itself especially memorable, either. It's the phenomena that it created in a narrow fan base that I find memorable and intrigues me. A core fanatical fan base reveres the novel and the series. Most anyone else finds it less than stellar almost to the point of revulsion and annoyance over Meyer's "unexplainable" success. Odd, a popular work that polarizes audiences rather than appealing broadly.
I didn't note a marked reversal of fortune for any character, per se. As far as immersion, the sexual suspense and forbidden, dangerous love, and barely checked potential for violence drive the plot forward to, for me, an unsatisfying ending.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited April 29, 2009).]
I too am fascinated by the market response for Twilight, and---from everything I can tell---its appeal is narrow being limited to women (especially young women) when compared to something like Harry Potter, but it seems "forbidden love" and the dream of being swept up by the rich, handsome, powerful boyfriend is almost universally appealing to women, and there are enough female readers in the world to give the series incredible steam.
So because it appeals to women of almost all varieties, I wouldn't describe its appeal as narrow from a marketing point of view. Which must be true because of its commercial success.
If you invent things between the lines you are inferring all kinds of stuff I did not say, and then using that new stuff---which you invented---as an excuse to disapprove, criticize, or be offended. None of which I intended. So I think asking someone to read what I actually wrote and not alter the words in their own head is a pretty reasonable request.
I don't like "arguing" (or discussing) with people who don't read what I actually write, falsely interpret what I say, and then become offended when I correct them. Is that really the way it has to be?
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited April 30, 2009).]
I know several girls and women who have eaten up the Twilight series and even a few men who have been able to read them, but I have not gotten more than part way through one of them. I did read 'The Host' and was entertained by it. While I didn't think it a bad book I haven't nominated it for an award. It bothered me only because I had outlined a plot, hoping to update RAH's 'The Puppet Masters' which was sufficiently similar to Meyer's book that I deleted the outline from my computer.
quote:
You've been riding my back since I came on here.
And somehow, I think if I had posted this about you:
quote:
I consider it dogging my heals with put downs. You've been riding my back since I came on here. I don't care for it. You have no right to correct my behavior or hassle me for your own ends and at my expense. I in no way condone or fall to your level of rudeness. You've no right to call me out for "reading between the lines," when that is what you rely upon for deriding my comments. Hypocrisy and arbitrarily applying double standards are even more offensive behaviors than ordering me around and telling me what my opinions mean. Get off my back and stay off.
You'd be up in arms. I'd like to see you find anything that I've ever said to you that's this belligerent.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited April 30, 2009).]
What is RAH?
I think I know what made you angry. When we debated about the economics of smoking. Me being the discompassionate non-smoker and you being the frustrated smoker. I'm sorry if that came across as personal, really when I said you sounded like a jaded smoker I didn't actually think you were a smoker. So, I apologize for the strong language. Diplomacy isn't my strong suit and I never intended to come across that way.
But even that blunder isn't anything close to "being on your back ever since you arrived".
So, was there something else I should be apologizing for?
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited April 30, 2009).]
The awesome thing to me about Twilight is that it is the first book she ever wrote.
Now when I think about my first crappy book, that impresses me.
She was able to write a good story that was a success on the first try. I've noticed an improvement in her novels as she becomes more experienced, and I have to say that now I am a fan.
I can't wait to read her tenth book. I bet it will be fabulous.
~Sheena
Interesting prose without an engaging story to me runs akin to poetry, which I've never had much of a passion for.
*****
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around an SF / fantasy reader / writer not realizing RAH was Robert A. Heinlein. He's always been the core of the field---I started with his "Space Cadet"---and it seems, well, odd to me that someone wouldn't be familiar with him. It's like speaking of JRRT and having someone not know who I'm talking about.
On the other hand, there have been a lot of SF / fantasy books since Heinlein's death and departure from the field...maybe more than published in the years before...so there's a lot of field to cover. I'm not familiar with the newer writers, really---I haven't read any of "Twilight," for example, and don't expect to---so this problem goes both ways.
Or maybe just sense of humor?
quote:
You've been riding my back since I came on here.
I also read, or tried to read, Farland's Runelords. The concepts presented (on Wiki) were interesting enough to get me to pick up the first book, but I couldn't get very far in. Even the fight at the very beginning was boring enough.
Another thing that comes to mind in terms of fantasy is Stan Nicholls' Orcs: First Blood series. It read as though it were a B action movie, and, while it was nice at times, it failed to hook me. I kept waiting for the good stuff to happen, and, whadaya know, the first book actually ended with a cliffhanger.
[This message has been edited by Kaz (edited May 19, 2009).]
Since I don't really see how my statement could be taken offensively, I don't really see your point.
But you're right, I meant my circles in person.
Kaz,
The interesting thing about Twilight that allows it to be successful without arousing much suspense is that it seems to satisfy a different kind of craving. I think most readers are girls who are excited about their vicarious relationship with this new powerful male and want to enjoy the experience on a day by day basis rather than get involved in any kind of ... plot.
I didn't connect with it either, but that's the best explanation I can come up with to explain awesome success with weak story.
On that note, isn't Romance the best selling genre of fiction? If so, to me, that implies a huge demographic of readers who want to have these escapist vicarious relationships with fictional dream characters rather than getting involved in something else with more plot.
Instead, I will ask you to ignore (as in no longer respond to in any way) extrinsic, as I hope he has decided to do with you.
Is it sad or simply ironic when even writers fail to communicate?
You've often said, Zero, that diplomacy isn't your strong point. One aspect of being diplomatic, in my experience, is this: when someone is offended, making jokes will more likely make it worse, for they believe you're not taking their complaint seriously.
The root of the problem was, I think, ' "Women of all varieties" isn't the same statement as "all women." '
Maybe not; but the phrase was misunderstood, apparently by extrinsic, and certainly by me. It would have been enough to clarify, but no, you assumed that extrinsic had deliberately warped your words and then attacked him for it. Two lessons for aspiring diplomats and writers: write so as not to be misunderstood, and only tell people what to do when you have the authority to do so.
A final thought: communicating involves listening, or reading with respect, not just writing.
quote:
The root of the problem was, I think, ' "Women of all varieties" isn't the same statement as "all women." '
This is inherently a silly thing to be arguing about. Had I been describing cars and said "In Brasil they have cars of all varieties" you wouldn't interpret to mean that all cars in the world are in Brasil.
All varieties means all types are represented. Not that every single member of every single type fits in the category. The words are plain English. I'm sorry if they were misunderstood, and no I do not see how that happened.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited May 20, 2009).]