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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

But, yes, this is slightly derailing the topic. Sorry.

*****

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.