Hopeless writers

hopeless

blacbird said:

Any others present, besides me? Just checking.

caw.

Click to expand...

If it's any consulation, I think Dan Brown is a hopeless write, and look how far he's gone. And Robert James Waller is a hopeless writer who stayed at the top of the bestseller list forever, and who wrote a horrible novel that made me cry.

James, was the book horrible because it made you cry or did it make you cry because it was horrible? Just checking.

book

nevada said:

James, was the book horrible because it made you cry or did it make you cry because it was horrible? Just checking.

Click to expand...

The book, "The Bridges of Madison County," was horrible because I've rarely seen a book that was written worse, and never one that had such bad dialogue. But it made me cry because the story and the characters really got to me.

Jamesaritchie said:

The book, "The Bridges of Madison County," was horrible because I've rarely seen a book that was written worse, and never one that had such bad dialogue. But it made me cry because the story and the characters really got to me.

Click to expand...

Interesting. If the writing was so bad, and the dialogue so atrocious, how did the story and characters get so good to have such an impact on you? For me, I wouldn't be able to get into the story or the characters at all if that's the case. It would have lost credibility for me. Or maybe Waller is a brilliant magician, then, if he could pull of a stunt like that despite poor writing skills and dialogue... (p.s. I have not read the book or seen the movie)

nevada said:

James, was the book horrible because it made you cry or did it make you cry because it was horrible? Just checking.

Click to expand...

Some people do resent books that are obviously manipulative, even though they cry through it. Some would call that a cheap trick and cliche or whatever. To me, all stories manipulate the readers' emotions -- some are just more blatant about it. Personally, I don't mind if the author tries to manipulate me to feel certain ways -- as long as I know what I'm getting into (oh, it's a love story about terminal illness -- okay, I am supposed to cry). In fact, if the author is really clever about it, I actually feel good to be manipulated.

What I resent is when the author tries to pull one over you and shamelessly, deliberately makes something happen so that you would cry/scream/etc. and do it in a not so clever way. For example, killing a great character out of nowhere to make the story tragic and for the only purpose of making the readers cry... there's no other reasons for it and the plot might not even make sense, but you feel that sucker-punch because the writer pulls the rug from under you and you know exactly what he's doing and why, and you can't help but cry, but at the same time you resent that. It happened to me once, and I threw the book across the room, and I refused to read other books by that author.

I'm not hopeless, at least not yet. Actually, I'm pretty optimistic right now.

I'm not completely hopeless. At least I don't think I am (anymore, at least). I'm confident that it will happen someday, if I continue working on my craft and writing better stories and novels.

Actually, we've all been hopeless since July 23, 2003. But we do what we must to get by.

I was hopeless, then I traded that emotion in for "hammered", which evolved into "hungover", then became "hungry", which in turn reverted back to "hopeless".

lather, rinse, repeat

There's no such thing as a hopeless writer. There is always hope. Sometimes that's all there is.

Why do you feel so hopeless? I've been writing novels for quite a while now, I haven't struck it rich, or found a good agent, or been published by a big house. Do I feel like giving up sometime? Abso-f-ing-lutely. But, you know what? Hope is the one thng that keeps me going. Maybe one day. Maybe. That's hope. It's always there if you look for it hard enough. Keep at it. Hone your craft. Get better and better. Keep trying. Keep submitting. Success goes to the persistent. Hard work brings good luck. Maybe one day...

You're not hopeless. You've just misplaced your hope. Look around for it, you'll find it. As J.M. Barrie said, "Anything is possible if you believe hard enough" (yeah, that's paraphrased actually). As Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan always said, "Where there is life, there is hope."

Actually, I became a hopeless writer just last week. Decided to give it up. But, after a few days, characters started nagging me. They're getting tired of hanging in limbo. They want some resolution. And the desire to create began to creep back.

Sometimes you just need some space and an adjustment of goals.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Actually, we've all been hopeless since July 23, 2003. But we do what we must to get by.

Click to expand...

A day that will live in infamy...

Diana is right.

I've felt hopeless in various ways at various times. As far as writing is concerned, I remember bursting into tears on th ephone to my very first agent, years and yeras ago, when yet another round or revisions and another round or publishers brought no results. But I stood up and moved forward, and the rest is history.

My way of dealing with it is that I put the idea of "getting results"... ie published ... out of my mind and simply wrote for the sake of writing, putting all I had into it, all my heart and soul. Whenever I started to wonder about a pubpisher, I'd simply reject the thought and get back to the story and the writing. It's a sort of living in the present, doing what you have to do to th ebest of your ability, and leaving the results up to fate, destiny, God, or whatever or whoever you think is responible for results. My part is only to make the best effort I can, and that is somehow its own reward.

I have tried to live by that rule since then, as it "worked" that time. I even try to get rid of the idea of it as a method, because then again I am attached to the result.

maestrowork said:

Interesting. If the writing was so bad, and the dialogue so atrocious, how did the story and characters get so good to have such an impact on you? For me, I wouldn't be able to get into the story or the characters at all if that's the case. It would have lost credibility for me. Or maybe Waller is a brilliant magician, then, if he could pull of a stunt like that despite poor writing skills and dialogue... (p.s. I have not read the book or seen the movie)

Click to expand...

Sometimes the writing just doesn't matter much, especially on a first read. I don't know if it's still true, but at the time, no bestseller in history had received more scathing reviews, but the book sold and sold and sold. Number one in hardcover, number one in paperback, and number one again after the movie came out. An editor of mine said the book had the perfect title, the perfect cover, and the perfect story.

It's a pure story of love and lost love, the kind of story that works even if your grandmother tells it. Critics hate sentimentality, reviewers hate sentimentality, sophisticates hate sentimentality, and writers all over the place say to avoid sentimentality.

But a huge percentage of the reading public eats sentimentality for every meal. Always have, always will. Waller used sentimenatlity about as well as it can be used. What he did right, he did very right.

I can't get more than two or three pages into "Briges" on a second read, but that first read was good, despite the poor writing and dialogue.

[SIZE=-1]Nicholas Sparks is another writer who uses sentimentality to sell novels. Many complain about his writing, as well, but not most of his readers. "The Notebook," one of Sparks' bestselling novels, has an awful lot in common with "Bridges," including technique, though I think it's better written.

And I think pretty much anyone can learn to write, but it always takes a magician to make a story and characters come alive. In this sense, Waller did perform a piece of magic.

As Stephen King pointed out, each of Waller's novels since "Bridges" has been better written that the last, and has sold worse. There's a valuable lesson in there somewhere.


[/SIZE]

emotion

maestrowork said:

Some people do resent books that are obviously manipulative, even though they cry through it. Some would call that a cheap trick and cliche or whatever. To me, all stories manipulate the readers' emotions -- some are just more blatant about it. Personally, I don't mind if the author tries to manipulate me to feel certain ways -- as long as I know what I'm getting into (oh, it's a love story about terminal illness -- okay, I am supposed to cry). In fact, if the author is really clever about it, I actually feel good to be manipulated.

What I resent is when the author tries to pull one over you and shamelessly, deliberately makes something happen so that you would cry/scream/etc. and do it in a not so clever way. For example, killing a great character out of nowhere to make the story tragic and for the only purpose of making the readers cry... there's no other reasons for it and the plot might not even make sense, but you feel that sucker-punch because the writer pulls the rug from under you and you know exactly what he's doing and why, and you can't help but cry, but at the same time you resent that. It happened to me once, and I threw the book across the room, and I refused to read other books by that author.

Click to expand...

I agree. In a real sense, all emotion in a novel is manipulation. It's how well, how cleverly, and how appropriately the writers pulls it off that counts.

Jamesaritchie said:

I agree. In a real sense, all emotion in a novel is manipulation. It's how well, how cleverly, and how appropriately the writers pulls it off that counts.

Click to expand...

I have noticed, though, that the criticism of manipulation is almost ONLY for books that evoke tears of empathy or sentimentality. You don't hear complaints of manipulation about a novel that is sexually titillating, or evokes horror, or is thrilling. It's almost as if crying because you are moved by a character's plight or at lost love is somehow less worthy.

Jamesaritchie said:

[SIZE=-1]Nicholas Sparks is another writer who uses sentimentality to sell novels. Many complain about his writing, as well, but not most of his readers. "The Notebook," one of Sparks' bestselling novels, has an awful lot in common with "Bridges," including technique, though I think it's better written.

[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

I agree about Sparks. He's not that "bad" a writer but he does depend on sentimentality and cliches a lot -- but there lies his recipe for success: he does it so well to jerk tears. The story of the "Notebook," for example, is bulletproof, especially when he adds the timely topic of Alzheimer's. He borrowed heavily from Bridges (unabashedly, I may say) because he knew what worked and why Bridges sold millions. Critics usually hate that kind of blatant emotional manipulations but the public (especially women) loves it. The Notebook quickly found a home and went on to be on the NYT list for over a year. He has yet to outsell Notebook with his later books.

I actually didn't mind the book that much because it was short, but I couldn't stand the movie. I thought it was so overdone despite the fact that Rachael McAdams and James Garner were very good in it. I suppose it's because they keep reminding us how we should be feeling, it's almost like a "scratch and sniff" of emotions. But they had the boy-meets-girl, boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl thing down pat.


So I agree to that point -- sometimes it's about finding the right story and the right characters and that TRUMPS the writing almost 100%.

aruna said:

I have noticed, though, that the criticism of manipulation is almost ONLY for books that evoke tears of empathy or sentimentality. You don't hear complaints of manipulation about a novel that is sexually titillating, or evokes horror, or is thrilling. It's almost as if crying because you are moved by a character's plight or at lost love is somehow less worthy.

Click to expand...

IMHO, it comes down to this: people want to be scared or thrilled. They want to be titillated. But most people (especially men) refuse to be reduced to a big mess of tears, unless those people really DO want a good cry. Sadness/devastation (and anger, by the way) seem to be the emotions to avoid. I have heard some people respond to one of my stories this way: "It makes me so angry that I don't want to read it." It does seem like it's okay if I thrill and scare them, but if I make them cry or angry, it ruffles their feathers and they feel "manipulated" because, quite simply, those are NOT desirable emotions for many people.

I think it comes down to people's experiences... I think most people have trouble with past experiences with sadness, loss or anger that they just don't want to deal with these emotions. And when they feel that a story manipulates them to feel those unwanted feelings, they resent the feelings and, thus, resent the story itself.

Personally, I love a good cry but only if the writer is clever about it. I don't like being angry, though. There are times when a character or situation makes me so frustrated and angry, I have to walk away and I won't pick up the book (or watch the movie) again. I also don't like to be scared or depressed -- I tend to stay away from books that are gory or depressing. So I can understand how some people feel that way about "tearjerkers."

Oh, I agree about Bridges of Madison County. My mother-in-law loaned it to me and told me I'd be crying by the end.

I picked it up and was in pain from the baaaad writing and purple prose from the git-go. But she was right, in the end. By the time I finished the book, I was blubbering like a baby, and yet angry that such a badly-written book could still do that to me!

aruna said:

I have noticed, though, that the criticism of manipulation is almost ONLY for books that evoke tears of empathy or sentimentality. You don't hear complaints of manipulation about a novel that is sexually titillating, or evokes horror, or is thrilling. It's almost as if crying because you are moved by a character's plight or at lost love is somehow less worthy.

Click to expand...

I get this impression, as well, and frankly, I think some people try to be way too sophisticated and worldly.

It also relates to the "pleasure/reward" our brains enjoy -- dopamine! Thrills, horror, comedy, etc. work on a visceral level and satisfy the brain's reward center. However, sadness/desperation/hopelessness/loss depletes and drains people. Some people enjoy a good cry, but many don't -- they don't find that enjoyable at all (especially men -- they are conditioned to NOT cry. Anything that makes them feel like crying -- they resent it). I have a friend (male) who said he wouldn't read my book because he resented being sad, and he knew he would get sad by reading my book. I took it as a compliment, actually.

Jamesaritchie said:

If it's any consulation, I think Dan Brown is a hopeless write, and look how far he's gone. And Robert James Waller is a hopeless writer who stayed at the top of the bestseller list forever, and who wrote a horrible novel that made me cry.

Click to expand...

This is why the movie version of that novel was so good. An excellent script, Clint Eastwood's direction and Meryl Streep's performance enabled Waller's wonderful story and characters to rise to a new level beyond Waller's novel.

I can honestly say to some extent I did like the novel, but I have to wonder if this wasn't partly because I came to it having seen the film first, rather than vice versa. I already knew I loved the film, so that may have had some influence on my reception of the novel. But there were still some passages that stood out to me. For instance, I loved the description of the first meal Robert and Francesca share, the reference to "quiet cooking" as she prepares a vegetarian stew, as opposed to the meat she usually has to prepare for her family--for some reason, odd passages like that stood out to me. And another thing I loved about the book is that it proved to me that quiet little stories about ordinary people in ordinary situations CAN have a huge impact.

I also enjoyed reading The Bridges of Madison County, but thought less of the movie. In my opinion, the casting was wrong and that spoiled a good story.

I didn't realize how much I disliked the writing style in the book, until I went back and read it the second time. Then I read another Waller book and as I was reading, all I could think of was the style, not the story. It was a difficult read.

I didn't much care for The Notebook, but my wife loved it.

Maybe there is hope for my novel. Like Bridges, it's a good story; it's too short; it's a tear jerker, and it's written poorly.