Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » What makes - or breaks - a story for you?

   
Author Topic: What makes - or breaks - a story for you?
lindsay
Member
Member # 1741

 - posted      Profile for lindsay   Email lindsay         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm curious. What makes - or breaks - a story for you? I'm reading a book by Terry Brooks, and while I don't exactly like the world(s) he's created, I love the characters, and I like how he jumps from one character to another in telling his tale. Usually it's the setting of a book that first interests me. Any thoughts?
Posts: 87 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
GZ
Member
Member # 1374

 - posted      Profile for GZ   Email GZ         Edit/Delete Post 
Character’s doing idiotic things given the circumstances will make me put a book down fast. Case in point, Terry Goodkind’s novella in the first Legends anthology. The main character has completely unrealistic expectations of what the wizard she goes to visit will do for her. And it appeared from what I gathered from blurbs (I couldn’t finish the story) that the wizard did the stupid thing in the end! Arrgh!

A strange prose style will put me off as well, although not always. That deal-breaker is more of a "know it when I see it" sort of thing, because I’ll be fine with (even love) some sorts of quirks, and immediately put down others after a paragraph or two.

Engaging characters and interesting situations probably come first in making a story really work for me. I also always love encountering something that feels fresh in some way or another.


Posts: 652 | Registered: Feb 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Good question...very difficult ot answer!

I agree with GZ, if a character is doing something I think is ridiculous I'll drop the book fast. Thi is a particular problem in the fantasy genre because authors tend to give people these great magical powers but then the characters don't use them to their fullest capacity.

Overly descriptive books bore me, I don't necessarily put them down, but I'm likely to skim past portions, and thus likely to miss something important. But the fact that I keep doing so tells you how much I care.

Unlikable characters! This should have been at the top. If I can't sympathize with one or more of your characters you can forget it. This is why I don't like a lot of cyberpunk or criminal as the hero stories.

Oh, I could come up with a whole lot more but I don't want to hog the topic...on to good stuff!

I love intelligent, or at least clever characters. I also like nice characters but genuine nice, not the sugary sweetness that makes you want to barf and seems forced. I like realistic people with realistic problems.

I love books that make you feel emotions. It doesn't matter if I'm yelling at the booik, if it can get me riled up like that the nit must be good.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't point to any one factor and say it "makes" a book for me. For me to really like a book, the author has to do pretty much everything right.

But I will tell you what completely breaks a book for me. When the author raises the expectation that certain dramatic tensions will be resolved, or that certain plot elements have some critical role in the story, and then turns around and drops them. I will put down a book when I'm three quarters of the way through if that happens.

It happens for a number of reasons, I suppose. Stupid characters--as described above--are usually acting so as to violate an expectation raised earlier by the author about how they could resolve their situations. Stupid world creation often does the same thing. Usually the kind of author that will pull the trick of failing to fufill the necessary points of dramatic action (whether deliberately or accidentally) is just a bad enough writer all around that I don't much regret putting the book down, but the more of the book I've read when they do it the more I detest them. I don't necessarily remember their names, but I remember. If I put down your book after reading the first ten pages, then probably I'll give you another chance later, but if you strung me along with the promise of an intersting plot for a hundred pages and failed to deliver...the fact that I'll never read any of your books ever again is not the worst thing that can happen to you.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
glogpro
Member
Member # 1745

 - posted      Profile for glogpro           Edit/Delete Post 
One factor I have not yet seen mentioned is the quality of the prose. I get a huge amount of pleasure out of language used in subtle ways, with nuances and reverberations of meaning. I also like variations in meaning or sound or rhythm, sort of like the pleasure of sampling an exotic cuisine. In his early books, Zelazny's use of metaphor was, at times, simply delicious. Ursula LeGuin's writing has always struck me as lyrical and elegant.

On the other hand, prose that strikes me as ordinary, melodramatic, overdone tends to put me off. I think I could stay with a story that was not all that exciting if the prose quality was sufficiently moving. Likewise, I would likely stay with a rippin good yarn, even if the writing was hackneyed. But ordinary writing and a hohum plot will have a hard time holding my interest.

[This message has been edited by glogpro (edited September 21, 2003).]


Posts: 550 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
revmachine21
Member
Member # 1732

 - posted      Profile for revmachine21   Email revmachine21         Edit/Delete Post 
The story must engaging enough to suspend my disbelief and not have irritating qualities to it. This applies equally to film.

Things that irritate me:
- holes in plot. Example The Matrix. Why did Agent Smith and cronies have to bug Neo's stomach when he was plugged into the matrix and they could read his entire mind?
- Bad editing. Example, Tom Clancy in one of his novels kept mentioning a character looked good except she needed to loose 10 pounds. This occurred 2-3 times, once would have been enough. Then he killed her off with the Ebola virus.
- Cheezy writing. Again with Tom Clancy... he keeps calling the wife of Jack Ryan "Doc". "She is a good doc". Variant "She is a good eye doc". Second variant "Really sexy eye doc." Barf....

What really appeals to me:
- Postive strong female characters. Crystal Singer from Anne McCaffrey and Broken Time from Maggie Thomas
- Unique plots and story lines that don't sound rehashed. Grisham is example of the opposite.
- Clever but clear writing that doesn't cross the magic line into the world of literary crap. Where the line resides is up for much debate :-)


Posts: 32 | Registered: Aug 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
In the Matrix, symbolism is key. Just as Neo had to ingest the red pill (to establish the carrier wave disruption program), so the Agents had to introduce a symbolic tracking device. Things in the Matrix work the way they do because people think they work. Besides, the only way an Agent could directly read Neo's mind would be to take over his "body", which wouldn't be very covert

I don't know to which Clancy novel you're referring, but I suspect it is one that I haven't read. Somewhere in the lead up to Rainbow Six I noticed that Clancy isn't writing as well as formerly, and stopped reading his books. The way he used "Doc" as a term of affection and respect in the prior books worked well, but perhaps that went downhill along with other things (I don't know).

Killashandra (or whatever her name is) from Crystal Singer is your idea of a positive, "strong female character"? She was my idea of...well best not say...she was female, I guess.

Never read any Grisham, but the movies were stupid (the acting and direction were fine, just the plots were stupid--which could have been because of the books).

Clear, economical writing is inherently clever, and never "literary crap." I think of the division between them as being more of a vast gulf than a line.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
As I was reading your comments I realized that my make or break rules are not hard or fast, not even one of them.

For example, plots holes are terrible, but I love Harry Potter along with the rest of the world, and no one can deny the plot holes in those books.

I like a good, solid writing style but it doesn't always work, and certainly not alone. I put down the only Ursula K. LeGuin book I ever started to read because her prose was too flowery, difficult to follow, and I cou ld not follow her point of view for the life of me.

I just remembered something I heard OSC say and it's so true. You can break any rule you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. So, for example, if you have a hole in your plot as big as the one in the fourth Harry Potter book where "Mad Eye" could have given Harry a port key at any point and never needed to marionette him through the tri-wizard tournament, then you'd better have a fun book with lovable characters.

Poor writing (not attrocious, but poor) can be made up for by a good story. I don't find this works the other way around though. A bad story can not be made up for by good writing.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
punahougirl84
Member
Member # 1731

 - posted      Profile for punahougirl84   Email punahougirl84         Edit/Delete Post 
I have trouble with anything that rips me out of the story. A glaring inconsistency, a plot device that seems too contrived and does not fit in smoothly, when the obvious answer does not come to the character's mind... I don't like stupid characters - I know in storytelling there is a situation, then the characters' actions often lead to more problems which they finally resolve - all that rising action stuff. However, they can't take a stupid action that anyone with half a brain would know or realize would be bad. Now, if they have good reason, based on what they know, to try something, even though I, the reader, know it is going to be the wrong choice, I can live with it. It's the "duh" factor! I really hated that Harry in Book 5 did not tell about the whole "cutting" thing - yes, he is a teenager and I understood why he did not, but I still hated it. The whole whiney teenager thing turned me off, but the book still went in the right direction, introduced some great new lines, and I still enjoyed it by the end.

Added - Oh yeah, I also tend to give up on a book when the writer is trying to impress us with how much s/he knows (big words that don't work, complicated sentences) that does nothing for the story - I guess it is a style thing. Fiction trying to look like a college paper... Also, an author who is being difficult just to prove a point - eliminate obfuscation! Some Heinlein bugs me, some does not. I don't like being patronized either. SF audiences are pretty smart - don't mess with us

I loved Killashandra - I have reread "Crystal Singer" many times. I also really love to reread "Friday" by Heinlein. Books that are so vivid they run like movies in my head as I read them, that move so well from one part to the next it all makes sense (good transitions!!!!!), that are really clever (elements that will matter are discretely laid along the way - you don't realize it until it starts to come together) and well-planned such that things tie together, creating that increasing sense of excitement or expectation up to the climax - those work for me!

[This message has been edited by punahougirl84 (edited September 22, 2003).]


Posts: 465 | Registered: Aug 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Balthasar
Member
Member # 5399

 - posted      Profile for Balthasar   Email Balthasar         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a good question for a writer to ask him or herself as well as others. In no particular order, here’s what kills a story for me.

1. Bad writing. Great writing is a bonus to any work, but I require clear writing. I whole-heartedly agree with Somerset Maugham: “Anything is better than not to write clearly. There is nothing to be said against lucidity, and against simplicity only the possibility of dryness. This is a risk well worth taking when you reflect how much better it is to be bald than to wear a curly wig.” In terms of style, I think Orson Scott Card is a rather dull writer; I’d also clump Isaac Asimov in this group. But both of their prose is clear and lucid, thereby making room for their incredible stories.

In fact, the best stylists are the ones whose writing you can admire, but whose writing doesn’t take over the story. In his short story, “The Dead,” James Joyce achieves this kind of perfection; unfortunately, his “style” takes over his later works and his story suffers. This fault is certainly a problem among literary writers. Hemingway and Faulkner both allow their styles to take over some of their work. And what makes contemporary literature so disgusting is that it’s all about “style.” It’s always sad when artistic form takes precedence over substance.

2. Bad story telling. I’m not sure I can expand on what Survivor has already said. What I really hate is when the author makes the characters do something unintelligible for the sake of the story. This is different from a plot driven story--such as The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars--in which the characters are responding to the actions of another character. Another kind of “good” plot-driven story is the action story--Indiana Jones, for example--in which the main character is a modern-day hero, a modern-day Achilles or Hektor, taking risks that the Common Man would never take.

A good example of this kind of mistake is the movie, Attack of the Clones. I don’t understand why the sagacious Jedi would allow Anakin to be Padme’s personal bodyguard. Surely, they have enough acumen to understand that he’s very attracted to her, and they have enough foresight to see what might happen should he be her bodyguard. It seems to me that Lucas made them blind because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have the story he wanted to tell.

If the curse of the literary author is putting emphasis on “style,” the curse of the commercial author is manipulating characters--or creating cardboard characters--for the sake of the story.

3. Bad dialogue. This one drives me batty, and it usually goes hand-in-hand with bad storytelling. Why? Because the author hasn’t taken the time to create or understand his or her characters. I admit, convincing dialogue is hard, mostly because it’s hard for an author to get away from his or her own ways of speaking when he or she is writing dialogue. This is why it’s so important to not only listen to what people say, but how they say it.

4. Blatant Themes or Propaganda of Ideology. Personally, I don’t believe a story can be any good without a theme, or a meaning, or whatever you want to call it. On some level, a good story compels the reader to reflect on his understanding of life and reality and possibly amend it. I don’t care what religious, political, or philosophical viewpoints an author is coming from. I believe we can and should try to learn from all. But what I despise is when an author’s philosophy becomes the reason for the story, or when the theme starts dripping off of every page.

An extremely meaningful book is Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. About halfway through it, you begin to see that the theme of her book is prejudice. But you never get the sense that she’s manipulating the story for the sake of her theme. That can’t be said of John Steinbeck, who seems to pose complicated good against unbelievable evil. The result is melodramatic propaganda.

5. Unnecessary description. This is the hardest to explain. One of my favorite novels is The Lord of the Rings, which has been accused of being cumbersome with description. I don’t see it like that at all; I think one of the greatest assets of Tolkien is the description. Middle Earth is alive because of it.

I find Stephen King to have a lot of unnecessary description; I still enjoy reading his stories, but he wears me out with the bits and bits of details. Conversely, I often wish OSC would include more description in his stories—although I can’t say that I don’t have vivid scenes from his stories engraved in my mind.

* * * * *

Looking back over this list, I’d have to say that I’ll put down a novel because of bad storytelling, bad dialogue, or bad writing. Usually, these three things go hand-in-hand. Even though Steinbeck’s blatant ideology is a turn-off, I enjoy reading him because he tells a good story and he’s a good writer. Excessive or non-existence description has never destroyed a story for me, but both the excess or the defect of description can take a reader out of the dream an author is trying to create.

[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 22, 2003).]


Posts: 130 | Registered: Apr 2007  | Report this post to a Moderator
Jules
Member
Member # 1658

 - posted      Profile for Jules   Email Jules         Edit/Delete Post 
I suspect I'm a little bit weird.

I very rarely put a book down once I've started reading it. So there are two things that stand out in my memory once I've finished reading the book:

- How strongly I empathized with the characters.
- How good the outcome is.

I like mystery in my stories. For instance, one favourite is Niven/Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye". I wouldn't say the characters in it stand out (I can't remember a lot about them, despite it being less than a year since I read it last), but when you finally learn what it is that has driven the evolution and culture of the aliens to the point they have reached... and all the consequences that go with it. That just makes the story spectacular.

There's nothing more satisfying, I think, than an ending which is both unexpected and obvious at the same time, like that one was.


Posts: 626 | Registered: Jun 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Doc Brown
Member
Member # 1118

 - posted      Profile for Doc Brown   Email Doc Brown         Edit/Delete Post 
If you want to keep me reading, then keep the tension building. When you go off on a tangent explaining a charcter's history or how something works or the color of the sky you risk losing me.

Of course I love stories that explain each character's history, and how everything works, and gives great descriptions. The trick is to keep the tension building while giving me those details. That will keep me reading.


Posts: 976 | Registered: May 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Goober
Member
Member # 506

 - posted      Profile for Goober   Email Goober         Edit/Delete Post 
To put it in simpliest terms, a story is ruined for me when the character does somethign that just seems unrealistic in his/her situation. If the character is waiting the whole novel to kill the bad guy, and at the last second he decides to be empathetic with no real reasoning, and decides to let the bad guy live, as an example, then I have to just go "well, what the heck is that about!?"

I am sure there are much more specific reason I would hate stories, but when a character is developed a certain way, or not enough, and goes and does something against what the writer has set up for him, it kills it for me. Making choices at random. I like to see characters sticking to their own morality, not the morals of the author. Etc.

Maybe not the best reasoning, but I think you understand what I am getting at.

EDIT: Oh, and I must heartily agree with Balthazar here. Propgandizing or overly thematic elements really kill anything for me, be it a book, music, movies, or even commericials for insurance that take themselves far too seriously, showing "patriotic" or idealized versions of America or the world, or trying to hard to cater to minorities or other groups. I dont like being beaten over the head with anything, and I wont let myself have something stacked on me so heavily while reading either. Why a book/movie whatever that has NO theme that I can see (And I often find my own) also turns me away, as I beleive there should be a purpose (even if I must find it myself), its worse when its so obvious that you cannot enjoy the characters for sake of their representations etc.

[This message has been edited by Goober (edited September 22, 2003).]


Posts: 614 | Registered: May 2000  | Report this post to a Moderator
glogpro
Member
Member # 1745

 - posted      Profile for glogpro           Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder whether the opinions expressed in this discussion are representative of the larger population of readers. Presumably, everyone who posts here is a writer, or at least, wants to be a writer. Does that mean they (we) look at this issue differently from other readers? For example, if you have worked hard with some aspect of writing style, does that make you more sensitive to that when you are reading? In particular, are you quicker to condemn writing that does not meet your standards in this reqard, or quicker to praise work that does it well? Even if this group reaches agreement (generally) on some things that are important to do or avoid, how can we be sure that this agreement is valid for the vast reading public?

Posts: 550 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
lindsay
Member
Member # 1741

 - posted      Profile for lindsay   Email lindsay         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow – what amazing and wonderfully insightful comments everyone has shared! Makes me realize how very much energy and thought we writers must put forth when crafting a story.

It also brings into focus the need to thoroughly flesh out one’s characters, the plot elements, and how everything our characters say and do *must* propel the story forward.

In fact, reading through everyone’s comments has made me realize that the most crucial part of writing a book isn’t the writing at all, really, but the “architecting” of the story – deciding how and when each layer of each character and each plot element will be revealed – and we must do this long before we type “Chapter One” onto a blank screen.

Too often I’ve sat down at the keyboard with just the thread of a story idea in my head, and I forge ahead with great enthusiasm...only to hit a roadblock after a few chapters. Writing isn’t the hard part; it’s knowing *what* to write and *how* to write it that is the challenge, yes? And from what everyone has posted here, I believe that the best stories held a unique voice because of the amount of thought the writer put into that story before writing it. The cadence of the words, the rhythm of the action – all was harvested from the characters and the plot elements that only these characters, in this particular setting, would have known.

I’m probably not making as much sense as all of you have made in your postings, but, oh my, have you lit a light in my head with your comments! Thanks much for this feedback!

P.S. As I was writing this, another member logged on with the above post. I like these questions...and can honestly say that when I made the choice to be a writer, it hit me fast that I could no longer “just read a book,” but was suddenly (and forever more, I guess!) reading as a writer, and not “just” a reader. I don’t know that doing so makes me quicker to condemn writing that doesn’t meet my standards. It does, though, make me think, “@#&!, I could’ve done that!!!” : ) I do think that the more we read, the better we’ll write – and we’ll also know better *what* to write and what *not* to write.

As for how we can be sure that our opinions of good or bad writing reflect that of the vast reading public...hmm, that’s a great question. And as I’m writing this I think the answer lies in all the comments above. A good book lingers in the mind of a reader, and it’s good because all the elements have been dovetailed. All the characters remained true to who and what they are, all the plot pieces were directly related to these characters, to their wants and their dreams and their strengths and their weaknesses...and because of all this great story architecture, the writer’s unique voice shined through. No other writer could have written this story in this exact way, and no other characters could have inhabited this story. Everything fit.

But did I answer the question of what will satisfy the vast reading public? I guess this should be it’s own thread – What Do Readers Really Want? There are so many genres and different writers with wildly different styles. Any thoughts, anyone?


Posts: 87 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Curidain
Member
Member # 1746

 - posted      Profile for Curidain   Email Curidain         Edit/Delete Post 
Cryptonomica****

ERGH!

Its one of the only non-textbooks I've put down and not gone back to. I swear the author must be getting paid by the word. I went through half the book before getting to what appeared to be a major plot device/forshadow what have you.

You could kill off 2 major characters and three sub plots and have a better book.

To many characters/too many plots/ all bein mixed togethre an thrown on the cookie sheet to bake rarely makes something tastey.

Harry Turtledoves alt history was interesting at first. But after the second book I started flipping ahead and only following the threads I still found interesting.


Posts: 9 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
For whatever it may be worth, I never was able to like Killashandra Ree. She reminded me too much of Scarlet O'Hara whom I also could never really care very much about.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  | Report this post to a Moderator
punahougirl84
Member
Member # 1731

 - posted      Profile for punahougirl84   Email punahougirl84         Edit/Delete Post 
It's worth a lot (re: KDW post) - it strengthen's Lindsay's point about wondering what the reader wants. But perhaps the only reader's opinion we can count on all the time is our own.

I read about Gone With the Wind, and a chapter, and some long summaries, but have never read the book. Based on that, I did not like the description of Scarlet - she sounded too self-absorbed, selfish, to the detriment of those around her. She uses men and hurts them and others by doing so. She is apparently a good business woman (or becomes so), was driven in achieving certain goals, and did have other positive characteristics. I initially bridled at a comparison between her and Killa, then realized that they do share characteristics.

I think it is just how they are used to create a character in a particular story that makes me like Killa and not Scarlet. I think Killa was designed to be liked for her strengths - she chose professions that required a strong ego, superior abilities, and result in driving ambition to achieve a goal. Scarlet creates situations to hurt others, while Killa is hurt by others' jealousy over her success and luck, yet continues in spite of it. She doesn't hurt Rimbol on purpose, but Scarlet hurts Rhett on purpose. And in the end, Scarlet learns too late what she lost and wants, while Killa learns and changes and gets the guy (ok, a different guy, but Rimbol wasn't treating her very well!). She changes over the next two books into a more mature personality, a good partner, a fascinating character with whom I sympathize. I had trouble sympathizing with Scarlet. As a reader, this is how I feel. If I was the writer, I would hope to understand that not all readers will perceive a character in the same way, thus not all will like what I write. Obviously there must be others out there who like Scarlet (and won't like Killa!).

It is difficult to please everyone, so we need to write what we like and hope to please some readers. We know what SOME readers want, because we are also readers and know what we like. Our opinion matters - the exercise of explaining to ourselves and others what we like and don't like in books is meant to help us write better. However, it is no guarantee that everyone, much less some people, will like what we've written.

The unfortunate truth is that we discovered what we already know - we want well-written stories with good characters and plots, etc., etc., but actually doing it is something else. We think we know it when we see it, but someone else might disagree. Crystal Singer won't be universally loved, but I'm sure Anne McCaffrey isn't worried about that. I think Heinlein knew his work would not be popular with everyone, but that did not keep him from writing in his own unique fashion and finding an audience. Even on this site some people have expressed a dislike of some of OSC's work, yet I imagine many of us like it (or some of it) since we are here.

Perhaps we need to accept the fact that there is no magic ink/style/writing trick that will make our writing loved or liked by all. We know what makes a book good to us, and we'll use those lessons to help us write. Getting it out on the computer screen is a great exercise in thinking about what we are doing, and can help us remember what to focus on.

Then we can stop procrastinating by posting, and go back to the story we were working on!!!


Posts: 465 | Registered: Aug 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Jules
Member
Member # 1658

 - posted      Profile for Jules   Email Jules         Edit/Delete Post 
Re: writers having different requirements to readers

This is probably true. I know that I while back I used to like reading Grisham's stories. But lately when I read his work I just see things in it that distract me from the story, that I would consider errors. Jumping around in viewpoint, revealing facts from outside of any viewpoint whatsoever, things like that. Either he's got worse at it, or as a naive reader I had little problem with these things but now I know that one shouldn't generally write in that style it stands out to me.


Posts: 626 | Registered: Jun 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
srhowen
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for srhowen   Email srhowen         Edit/Delete Post 
Too true--thus the reason why the rejection process is easier to take--you just have to find the agent or publisher that sees your story the same way you do.

But it also has to be well written!!!

Shawn


Posts: 1019 | Registered: Apr 2000  | Report this post to a Moderator
Hildy9595
Member
Member # 1489

 - posted      Profile for Hildy9595   Email Hildy9595         Edit/Delete Post 
My needs as a writer are simple...don't bore me!

Different things bore different people, of course, but for me, excessive description and exposition make my eyes glaze over. Get me into the action as soon as possible, make me care about the characters by weaving necessary descriptors/backstory into the narrative, and pace your plot well.

An example of a book that dragged for me at first was The Diamond Age. I stuck with it and it picked up, but only after umpteen pages about a primary character's father that (IMO) had no bearing on the overall plot! That book would have benefited from some serious paring down, but I suppose editors quake in fear at the thought of editing Stephenson.


Posts: 338 | Registered: Aug 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Doc Brown
Member
Member # 1118

 - posted      Profile for Doc Brown   Email Doc Brown         Edit/Delete Post 
Curidain and Hildy, I'm surprised to see so much criticism of Neal Stephenson. He's the greatest!

Cryptonomicon and The Diamond Age are both masterpieces, oozing with almost enough math and technical jargon to satisfy even me. And that's not sarcasm, either. Give me a book like those any day!


Posts: 976 | Registered: May 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
punahougirl84
Member
Member # 1731

 - posted      Profile for punahougirl84   Email punahougirl84         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not surprised that people have trouble liking the writing of Gibson or Stephenson - their subgenre and the style that seems to go with it could be hard to take. I read Stephenson's "Snow Crash" and very much liked it, his "The Big U" and enjoyed it, and am reading Gibson's "Neuromancer" - they are all very odd to my mind, but true to themselves which makes them readable - yet they are a far cry from my usual reading. My husband even hesitated to recommend them, not thinking they would be "my cup of tea." I would say I bet they appeal more to men (I'm female!), but then many women would post and say they like them!
Posts: 465 | Registered: Aug 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
momcitrus
New Member
Member # 1780

 - posted      Profile for momcitrus   Email momcitrus         Edit/Delete Post 
What makes a story for me?

When a writer is so able to catch me up into his fictional world, that it actually takes a few moments for me to re-orient myself to reality- well that's a great writer!!

Some fiction writers are a turn off because it's obvious they are writing for "intellectuals" and they have something to prove, rather than something to relate.


Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2