I like book reviewer John Williams's perspective:

"I'm wondering if the explanation is that such books aren't really bad, it's just that they don't conform to certain standards. I know that for me, the plot might be weak, the characters cardboard caricatures and the style distinctly unimpressive, and yet I might thoroughly enjoy the book -- might even read it over and over."

He also brings up a point that's been niggling me: reading as a reader vs. a writer. Things that bothers writers (i.e. adverbs, adjectives, saidisms) might not bother readers, and "bad writing" is in the eye of the beholder.

All of which makes me rethink the purpose of critiquing. And the method of incorporating critiques. I think the most valuable aspect of the process is simply to observe what effects your words have. I get the feeling too many writers, myself included, try to incorporate every change, every style suggestion, in search of some more elite form of writing when in fact, it's inside us all along; we only need the confidence to execute it.

Btw, that's an excellent newsgroup to check in on periodically. EM posts many pearls of wisdom, as do the many other professional writers who post regularly.

Many times, the writing itself my not meet any public standard but the story itself is so good as to carry it along.

Based on some of my story ideas, I present some fantastic stories, but based on my serioius writing, the writing is not presentable enough for publication. In other words, I am closer to a story teller than a writer.

There are others who write pieces that the writing itself is so full one can almost eat it, but if one set the book down, one might never pick it up again because the story itself is lacking.

That being said, most of the books I've read are pretty solid, there have been a few stinkers on my nightstand, I just don't have the time to figure out why, although I'd have to say, for my current one, it's got to be a character problem, at least for me. Others regard this author as exceptional, so it is just my opinion, going along with your "eye of the beholder," kinda thing.

Regarding crits, it has taken at least five years for me to get my head around them, both in giving and receiving. One rule I adhere to, is that if three crits come back essentially saying the same thing, that's a consensus.

It depends on how one defines "bad", I think.

When DVC became the hit that it was I read several reviews which said it was "bad." I reread the book, not once but twice, in an effort to understand why it was "bad." I learned that "bad" meant, "I've been writing fine literature for years and not made as much as Dan Brown." Or worse, "I've been a literary critic for years and not made as much as ..."

Or it meant, for example, that DVC includes infodumps and that since one of the "rules" for writing fiction is to avoid infodumps the book is therefore bad. I think most definitions of "bad" are based on a literal, mechanical interpretation of "rules" of writing that are merely guidelines. They should be ignored when, as in DVC, the plot demands a lot of information to be imparted and the reader will probably tolerate it because of a desire to know who dunnit, and why--a desire that has been built in part with careful use of cliff-hangers, of a kind and frequency that turn the book into a, er, page-turner.

Over the last few months, knowing now a little more about writing than before, I've enjoyed re-reading favourite authors to analyse and understand how they use the standards we're taught. None of them stick to them slavishly; often I think I can see an author using them, but intelligently. For example all the authors I like are sparing with adverbs, but none are entirely abstinent. They mostly use "said", but sometimes "shouted", or "squealed", or "yelled".

The thing of it is, they understand the "rules" they're breaking, and why in this case it's okay to do so.

Cheers,
Pat

Umbero Eco's -Foucault's Pendulum-, a book with a similar scope, is considered 'Good' yet most readers couldnt get through the first 3 chapters. I think good and bad are too subjective to quantify; if a writer has made me care enough to continue despite their writing defficiencies then perhaps there is some good there. I have enjoyed and admired most everything written by John Irving, but even as a fan I was unable to finish one of his books.

quote:

---

He also brings up a point that's been niggling me: reading as a reader vs. a writer. Things that bothers writers (i.e. adverbs, adjectives, saidisms) might not bother readers, and "bad writing" is in the eye of the beholder. ... we only need the confidence ...

---

I think that's it, Anne. I think they bother aspiring writers. Confident, established writers have incorporated the guidance--that some regard as rules--into their style. They deliberate over strong verbs and nouns, but invest no more time in the phrase than its place in the story demands; if a strong word doesn't come to mind, they use an adjective or adverb, but sparingly. I bet that on the rewrite they search for ad-things and try once more to find a stronger word, but without losing too much sleep over it.

"Saidisms" are beginning to annoy me--not saidisms per se, but the strict insistence on using "said." There's a wonderful scene in Perdido Street Station set in a loud, boisterous pub. Nobody "said" anything, they variously yelled, screamed, shouted and balled, and the whole scene was much more energetic as a result.

And I prefer
" 'Would you like fries with that?' she asked,"
over
" 'Would you like fries with that?' she said."

In my stylistic world, people don't say questions, they ask them--said the aspiring writer with emerging confidence.

Much as I value crits from Hatrackers, I think there's a danger of pushing each other into an almost uniform style through overly-simplistic interpretation of common writerly guidance. These days, when a crit picks me up on one of the "rules" I take account of it if the reader seems to understand where the story is going and makes allowance for personal style. If it's just "I spotted an adverb and adverbs are bad" I'll be unlikely to change it--unless a stronger verb occurs to me.

On the other hand I've noticed that as I learn to write my reading tastes are changing a little--although that is partly driven too by the current taste in SF for dystopian realism which pushes me towards fantasy and novels of steam-age history. These days I'm more likely to enjoy the writing style itself, and to demand more character development. Simple old-fashioned, plot-driven space opera is becoming less satisfying.

Cheers,
Pat

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited April 19, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited April 19, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited April 19, 2008).]

quote:

---

"Look, look," Isaac gabbled suddenly, and tugged a piece of paper from his pocket.

[Description of paper, which is in fact a poster, deleted.]

"See that?" Isaac barked, and stabbed the poster with his thumb. "They've got a garuda! I've been sending requests all over the city for dubious bits and bobs, probably going to end up with loads of horrible disease-riddled jackdaws, and there's a f**king garuda on the doorstep!"

Are you going to go down? signed Lin.

"Damn right," snorted Isaac. "Straight after this! I thought we should all go. The others," he said, his voice dropping, "don't have to know what it is I'm doing there. I mean, a fair's always fun anyway. Right?"

Derkhan grinned and nodded.

"So are you going to spirit the garuda away, or what?" she whispered.

---

Mieville uses verbs other than "said" to express Isaac's larger-than-life excitement, and the contrasts between conversation meant for everyone and the more private moment with Lin and Derkhan.

Mieveille does use "said" often, so it's not like he doesn't understand saidisms. I think he uses other verbs sometimes, to add colour. For example, it could have been, "Damn right," said Isaac. The "snorted" adds the nuance that for Isaac, there's no question but that he will surely go.

Here's an extract from an earlier part of the same scene:

quote:

---

"How's the show going, Cornfed?" said Isaac.

"Oh, splendid, splendid!" shouted Cornfed ...

---

The use of "shouted" reinforces Cornfed's character, which has been established as coarse--he doesn't need to shout.

Yes, the reader can often tell how the speaker is speaking from what's in the quotation marks, but not necessarily always. If the word other than "said" adds something, and isn't prose for the heck of it, I think it's okay.

Mieville understands saidisms, but refuses to be a slave to a "rule". This is one of many techniques he uses that make his writing energetically vivid.

Cheers,
Pat

What we are talking about here is often new writers who over-apply or don't totally understand rules rather than "rules" themselves.

If you can't see the difference in saying "Come here," he ejaculated and "Come here," he shouted, I just don't know what to tell you.

Nowhere does Moon say or imply that there is no "good" or "bad" writing and I can't figure out how anyone could get that from that thread. There certainly is--but on some level a poorly written book such as Di Vinci Code (and sorry but it is very truly poorly written) may work on another level--which it does.

annepin, thanks for the link. I don't read SFF as often as I should because it is such a pain to navigate but it has some fascinating conversations.

quote:

---

Nowhere does Moon say or imply that there is no "good" or "bad" writing and I can't figure out how anyone could get that from that thread.

---

But that's the beauty of a thread, right? It can starting point for a variety of ideas. That is the take I got from reading the majority of the conversation combined with my experiences and observations here. I did not mean to imply that was EM's opinion. Nor do I think I did.

John Williams gives a more thorough perspective on "bad" writing, including some thoughts on saidisms, essentially saying that what bothers many writers, ie which they might qualify as "bad" writing, doesn't bother him at all--therefore, he might consider it "good" writing, or at least neutral. He says:

"So for me, this is not a problem that needs to be overcome. Indeed, it seems strange to me that some readers say they can't enjoy books with this kind of writing -- even though they admit that they never even noticed it before they were told it was bad writing!"

This to me implies he considers bad writing subjective. Maybe I should have linked directly to him, since that's what caught my eye the most, but I figured EM started the thread, I should link to her first post.

And Cheyne, I agree with you--good and bad books are entirely subjective. Look at Eragon. Or DVC, or HP, Bonfire of the Vanities, Gravity's Rainbow, Kite Runner... I could name hundreds of "good" and "bad" books, knowing some people loved them, some hated them.

quote:

---

Much as I value crits from Hatrackers, I think there's a danger of pushing each other into an almost uniform style through overly-simplistic interpretation of common writerly guidance. These days, when a crit picks me up on one of the "rules" I take account of it if the reader seems to understand where the story is going and makes allowance for personal style. If it's just "I spotted an adverb and adverbs are bad" I'll be unlikely to change it--unless a stronger verb occurs to me.

---

Edit: As far as critiques, I get them from three people I trust and no more. I trust my own judgement about what is good and what is bad. I simply look to critiques for what I may have over-looked, and the fact is I do overlook things in my own writing.

And what makes a book good or bad isn't likely to be as simple as saidisms. They are, however, often the hallmark of a bad book, although not likely to be the real problem or at most an annoyance.

Honestly, saidisms aren't what makes a book good or bad. Or even (more annoying to me) an overuse of adverbs and headhopping. All of those have to do with whether something is done WELL. If the adverbs add to the work or the head hopping is done in such a way that it ADDS to the work then it's good. The fact that most writers detract rather than add to their work with those techniques is what makes them "bad".

Let's take a look at the Twilight series--a TRULY abhorrent series of books with minimal--nearly non-existant--plot, characterization beyond shallow, full of florid over-writting, a MC who is at best a cardboard cutout, and then add to that social values that are harmful to put it mildly. And I didn't even notice whether she used saidisms or not. It was so bad otherwise, who cares?

However thousands upon thousands of teenage girls snap those books up off the shelves. Unlike some teen books that I would say --well, at least they're reading what these books say is so bad and so devaluing to girls, I can't even say that.

But there is SOMETHING in these books that speaks to teen girls. So it might well be worth taking a look at them--which I think was EM's point--to see what that is. It MIGHT be something that can be used to write something actually worth reading that girls might read.

Here original comment on the subject before it went off in a tangent.

quote:

---

It's not the same thing in every bad book, but it's something in each one, something "good" enough to overcome the badness that is so clear to us. Finding that good thing or things, figuring out how it overcame the badness so obvious elsewhere, is a useful exercise.

---

Further edit: But I think if we think we can ignore issues such as saidism, head hopping, and florid over-writing and usually still get published we're deceiving ourselves. Sure it happens--but it's hard enough to be a good work published. Don't kid yourself.

quote:

---

When DVC became the hit that it was I read several reviews which said it was "bad." I reread the book, not once but twice, in an effort to understand why it was "bad." I learned that "bad" meant, "I've been writing fine literature for years and not made as much as Dan Brown." Or worse, "I've been a literary critic for years and not made as much as ..."

Or it meant, for example, that DVC includes infodumps and that since one of the "rules" for writing fiction is to avoid infodumps the book is therefore bad. I think most definitions of "bad" are based on a literal, mechanical interpretation of "rules" of writing that are merely guidelines. They should be ignored when, as in DVC, the plot demands a lot of information to be imparted and the reader will probably tolerate it because of a desire to know who dunnit, and why--a desire that has been built in part with careful use of cliff-hangers, of a kind and frequency that turn the book into a, er, page-turner.

---

I agree with all this so much its almost painful. Some time ago, on a totally different forum I had a couple discussions about the concept of "bad" books...many seemed to adhere to what you mention...the idea that a book is "bad" if it breaks to many of the "rules" that are really just guidlines.

quote:

---

And Cheyne, I agree with you--good and bad books are entirely subjective. Look at Eragon

---

Its funny you say that, as the discussion I mentioned above began with my annoyance at people going on about what a horrible, valueless piece of trash Eragon is. I enjoyed it, and the movie, but I cant see the name anymore without having flashbacks...it was a pretty heated "discussion" :-)

quote:

---

Yes, I'm beginning to agree, and to understand what one does with the critique is all important. I've also consciously stopped trying to make too many style suggestions or critiques--that, I leave up to the writer. If I don't like their style I simply won't bother to read. If I like it but one thing feels off but I feel as if I "got" what they are going for, I'll offer a suggestion. As a critiquee, I'm more interested in getting structural/ ideological comments than stylistic ones, since I feel pretty comfortable with my style (unless I'm trying out a whole different voice). I think most of the folks who offer to read "get" my style, though, so in a way, the first 13 posting is preselecting.

---

This is the big trouble I have when. trying to critique. Its so hard to know, without knowing the whole story, what bits may be intentional for stylistic reasons, and whether or not they are improved by that fact.

I also feel much the same as you, as far as recieving critiques....I'd rather have comments on the idea and structure, arrangement and the like, since I already know how I want it to "feel".

http://www.floggingthequill.com/flogging_the_quill/2004/12/an_executive_ed.html

http://www.floggingthequill.com/flogging_the_quill/2004/10/round_two_on_po.html

Interstingly, Ray offers a "Flogometer" at http://www.floggingthequill.com/flogging_the_quill/

It's like Hatrack's first 13 except you get 16 lines, any genre, and Ray comments in what he calls a "public flogging."

quote:

---

"So for me, this is not a problem that needs to be overcome. Indeed, it seems strange to me that some readers say they can't enjoy books with this kind of writing -- even though they admit that they never even noticed it before they were told it was bad writing!"

---