Why is so much crap published?

[Lee Tasey]

Hello. Good to be back--my computer has been in the shop. I'm looking forward to catching up on what I've missed.

Okay, here's a question: why do so many crap novels get published? Sometimes, when I go to Barnes and Noble, I'll flip through the bookstacks, trying to find a hot book. But several of them are garbage. Now, I don't read these novels all the way through, so perhaps I'm not being fair. Still, a writer should tell us he has something to say in the first twenty pages, and several of these books don't make the cut.

So, why is so much garbage published? It's disconcerting to see these books for sale when you have written a better book--a book agents keep rejecting.

Best,

Lee

[HConn]

It's disconcerting to see these books for sale when you have written a better book--a book agents keep rejecting.

The most likely answer is that your book is not actually better.

[mr mistook]

Why does Ashlee Simpson get to perform on SNL, with no dancing or instrumental skills, lip-synching a song she didn't even write? I'm sure she didn't even pick her wardrobe, so what on Earth does she have to offer? Meanwhile thousands of brilliant musicians who can "do it all" go hungry. :)

Is the book industry also being swallowed alive by cheep pop? I don't think it's as bad as the music biz right now, but is the book biz going down the same road?

Will we one day have models to pose as authors while the books are written by a team of hacks, according to a predesigned set of formulas that have been hashed out by market analysts and approved by conservative politicians?

And yes, that nightmare scenario would make a good novel. I call dibs! :)

[preyer]

well, for starters, you probably have to define 'crap' to satisfy a lot of people before they answer that question. i assume you mean poorly written on every level. i mean, it doesn't take shakespeare to tell the good from the bad, does it? do i have to be stephen spielberg to know a good movie from an awful one? hardly.

i was going to point out the same problem in the music industry, but mm beat me to it, heh heh. it seems to me that, for an example, most writers i've seen who actually comment on 'the da vinci code' thinks it's a pretty bad book overall. so, why did those things that makes it bad get through the writer, agent, *and* editor? to top it all off, so many people bought the damn thing and read it.

why do so many bad movies get made? holy cow, you'd think if you plopped 80 mil into a movie, or more, it'd be a great movie all away around.

one possible reason a bad book may get made is because who wrote it. j.k. rowling could write about pro-nazi sympathies and it'd be a best seller. another reason is sometimes editors ruin books (i think it was piers anthony who complained about one of his books being so wrecked in the 'new' version of the original ms). i imagine contractual obligations account for some authors' less than best efforts (if i sign a two-book contract and the publishers make me take them to court to claim my royalties from the mega-best-seller, guess what? i may not be too hep on giving them my top-shelf material on the second part of the deal). i reckon it's possible for nepotism, favourtism and flat-out good ol' boy systems to happen, too. maybe it's just simply bad decision making.

i assume 99.9% of all books are published for a profit, so apparently someone thought highly enough of them to accomplish that end. how can there be fifty-seven different bridal magazines that come out each month? how can movies like 'daredevil' get made? who actually buys ashlee simpson cd's? beats me, too. :)

[Nateskate]

Obviosuly because people buy books that aren't up to snuff.

One of the things that encouraged me to finally attempt to publish was the fact that I found so many fantasies lacking. To me there's nothing like a really well thought out, which means "thought provoking" story, or even one that entertains well.

In a sense, seeing how bad some published people were had this reverse effect. It gave me confidence, that "If they can do it, I think I can do it." But deep down, I want to do it better.

[maestrowork]

It's very simple:

Life isn't fair.


By all means, write a better book. Market a better book. Perhaps one day your book will be in that bookstack and someone would say, "I can write better than this crap." Then, you'll have just inspired someone to write.

Congratulations!

[vstrauss]

When a lot of people say "crap", what they really mean is "a book I didn't like." Hey, I don't like Hemingway. Is he crap?

I'd agree that too many books get published nowadays, and that many of them are crappy. But that's not because publishers are tossing out the gems and rooting in the trash, it's because there aren't enough really good books to fill all the publishing slots available. I do NOT believe that the slush pile is awash in disregarded gems of literature, or that vast numbers of good writers are habitually overlooked by the shortsighted gatekeepers of the industry. Sure, it happens, but if your book is marketable and you are smart and persistent about submitting it (or if, having tapped out with that book, you sit down and write another, better one), your chances of publication are better than not. The hard truth is that most people's books are not marketable.

Besides, as long as there's been publishing, there've been people lamenting how much crap gets published. It's a persistent refrain.

- Victoria

[Nateskate]

Good point Victoria (by the way, do you prefer a nickname?)

I hated many classics. I'm the Martin Crane of the family. I like sophisticated that is written in a down to earth way. Perhaps it is my ADHD, in that I like to read quick paced novels, rather than very descriptive ones, so I wouldn't blame it on the author.

What I disliked was not that fantasies are overly descriptive, because that is a salt-to-taste kind of thing. I don't like them being overly formulaic, and trying to sound like this one or that one, which fails unless the reader is forgiving.

Doesn't anyone think of a novel approach anymore? Pun intended.

[Fillanzea]

We're writers, and we pay attention to things that most readers don't.

Is The DaVinci Code badly written? Many, many writers would say yes. Most readers don't notice. They're not reading for the prose; they're reading because they're fascinated in the faux-nonfiction conspiracy theory stuff.

Harry Potter is another example of a wildly successful book series that a lot of writers turn up their noses at. Again, passable prose, GREAT narrative force.

Editors don't buy stories because they are well-written (except perhaps books marketed as 'literary'). They buy stories because of the narrative force because, by and large, that's what readers notice.

I'd encourage you to do the analysis of the first two pages that's been happening in the Uncle Jim thread, with one of those books you flipped through and disliked, and try to figure out why it worked for enough people to get bought--an explanation that goes beyond "people are stupid." Maybe it's a perfectly good book that just doesn't push your buttons (as is the case with me and most epic fantasy). Maybe it's a poorly written book with a lot of narrative force. Readers in any genre have very specific requirements for the books they read that don't necessarily coincide with what you like...

[James D Macdonald]

After the publishers have bought all the good books, they still have rack-space to fill.

That should give all of us hope.

As others have mentioned, there are the Well-written-examples-of-stuff-I-don't-like.

Getting back to music: If you don't like bagpipe music, no matter how good the piper you're listening to is, you won't like it.

[rtilryarms]

$ales

[aka eraser]

Because a significant proportion of it sells.

[scullars]

I've noted in the case of Af-Am lit, there are sub-markets that haven't been explored, and there is a hungry readership hoping to find anything that will whet even a tenth of their appetite. At this point, the readers are not asking for a perfect steak; they're only asking for something on the plate that approximates. And gradually as the table is filled with more offerings, then their palates will become more discerning.

The publishing glut of Af-Am "girlfriend, he-done-me-wrong" books has just about sated the audience to the point of nausea. The readers that I know of are looking for something more nuanced, complexed, thought-provoking. Unfortunately, to follow the music analogy (or even television programming, e.g. reality tv), if a record has proven a success, the formula will be replicated to the nth degree and no thought is given to expansion until someone proves there is more to the market.

Just a rant on my part, who have been told I use $10 words where $1 words will do. But I write what I like.

[maestrowork]

$ales are right. Go to your local market and see how many crappy products are on the shelves. You'd wonder, why would anyone buy and feed these crap to children? But they do, and as long as people are buying, they're making them and selling them.

For everyone who thinks a book is crap, someone else is buying and enjoying it. As long as there are people who like to read that stuff, someone will publish it. We can either join the gang and make $$ doing it, too, or turn up our noses and say, hey, I don't have to make $12.99 dresses for Walmart. I can make $250 dresses for Sak's Fifth Avenue.

As long as people are buying.

[Lori Basiewicz]

Oh, wow, I read Maestro post and thought first thought, but yeah, there are more Wal-Mart's around selling more $12.99 dresses, so if I'm in this for the money, I'm likely to make more money from the crappy dress in the long run than I will make from the $250 dress.

And that reminded me of a brief economic lesson one of my uncles gave me years and years ago.

My maternal grandparents were owned a small farm whose principle crop was tobacco. One weekend when I was visiting, I wandered into the drying shed where my Uncle June (short for Junior) was pulling the dried leaves from the stalks and sorting them for later sell.

June wasn't much of a talker when all his siblings and their kids descended on the family farm each summer, but for some reason, he just started showing and explaining the different types of tobacco leaves to me. There are reds, lugs, and trash. Reds are the highest quality and fetch the best market price. Lugs are medium quality and trash were the worst quality, fetching the lowest price per leaf/bale. But, because their was more trash per tobacco plant than reds, the family would actually make more money from them.

Maybe that's why so much crap gets published?

[macalicious731]

You probably hit it, Lori.

[maestrowork]

That's why Wal-Mart is the US's BIGGEST company.

[Zane Curtis]

Hello all, This is my first post. :eek

I think a lot of writers miss the point here. It's not about writing prose that would make Shakespeare cry with jealousy -- most readers probably won't care about that, or even notice. It's about writing a story that captures people's imaginations, and it's about creating characters and settings that they can relate to. It's easy to dismiss The DaVinci Code as crap; perhaps, instead, we ought to look at it to try and discover why it's so popular? Wouldn't that be more useful than complaining about all the "crap" that gets published?

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't think a lot of crap is published. As one editor said not long ago, "If you think what I publish is bad, you should see what I reject."

I've seen what publishers reject, and that's the real crap. The best thing in the reject pile is usually a hundred times worse than the worst thing in the accept pile. Publishers simply publish the best of what is submitted, and reject the rest. There simply are not enough good novels written, is the real problem.

I don't think it's fair to say a writer should show us they have something to say in the first twenty pages. Why is this important? It's the novel as a whole that matters.

Truth is, a book that keeps getting rejected over and over probably isn't better than those aleady published. By and large, sooner or later good novels get published, bad ones get rejected forever.

[Jamesaritchie]

On a side note, it's true that markteing decisions can kill a good novel, but this rarely happens, and it really doesn't apply to the agent side of things. A novel that can't find an agent is either a very bad novel, or has a writer who can't write a query letter worth beans.

The world is not awash with good novels that can't get published, but the world is flooded with bad novels that shouldn't be published. I'm pretty sure every writer who submits a novel thinks it's a good novel, and better than most published novels, else they wouldn't bother submitting it, but it just ain't so.

Now, your novel may be very good, but I know from experience that at least 90% of what comes in is just horribly bad, and stands zero chance of being published. Much of the rest may be moderately well-written, but there's nothing new about it. But every one of those writers almost certainly believes they've written a good novel.

As bad as some published fiction may be, it's great literature compared with most of what gets rejected on a daily basis.

Even the crappiest of published novelists are doing something right, and usually more than one something. This just isn't true of most novels in the slush pile, especially an agent's slush pile where there really are no gatekeepers. I'd say you can reject 70% of everything that comes in based on the first five pages. Sometimes based on the first page.

But in the end, it's pretty much as James M says. As an agent or as an editor, you take the best that comes in, then you take the best of the worst to fill out the remaining slots. What's left really is slush, though "sludge" would be a better term for most of it. Agents and editors have nightmares about teh slush pile, and darned few really want to read through it at all, which is one reason "slush parties" are so common.

I also think many writers are unrealistic in believing their first novel is any good. A fourth or a fifth novel, maybe, but this is probably the only profession in the world wherein those who take it up assume a first effort is going to be good enough to hit the top 1% that stands a chance of finding an agent and a publisher, or will even be good enough to read.

Sometimes lightning does strike and a first effort is wonderful, but the norm is something else, and first efforts good enough to be published are about as common as politicians who never tell a lie.

[maestrowork]

Good books do slip through and get stuck in slush, don't you think?

Simply the right book at the wrong time at the wrong place.

Sure, eventually someone will want it. That's why perseverance is important. But sometimes, I think, a good ms. does get bumped around enough that it disappears eventually... but a good, persistent writer won't.

But "crap" is so subjective anyway. One person's crap is someone else's pudding (sorry about the visuals). We can argue about "what works." Well, if the market demands a formularic story with familiar, 2-D characters and cliched dialogue (don't tempt me -- I will find you a few), and if you can write one, that makes "it work."

[pepperlandgirl]

I interned at a publisher last summer and was assigned to the slush pile more than once. Trust me, if you're picking up books at the book-store, you are not picking up crap. I've seen stuff that'll make your brain ooze from your ears, stuff that will make you weep for humanity, stuff that is so bizarre you need a special code to figure out what's going on.

[maestrowork]

Yes, but many writers have to go through slush after slush (and rejection after rejection) before they finally land an agent/publisher. Doesn't that imply the same ms that would eventually get picked up would have spent its days in the slush and considered "reject" over and over already?


For example, I've heard that Tom Clancy got rejected once too many times. That would only mean his ms. had been in the slush for a long time before he finally got published...

Thus, the logic only leads to: Good mss. do appear and stay in slush, sometimes multiple slushes, and sometimes for an extended period of time when no one would give it a chance. That's inevitable.


[There's no argument that the 99% of slush is utterly unpublishable... I trust the experts here]

[Lee Tasey]

Thank you, everyone, for the insight. I'll keep on writing. And thanks to Maestrowork for the last reply--a fine point. Lee

[preyer]

i'm sure good mss. have been rejected, and by multiple editors, to boot. i mean beyond the urban legend and author's fuzzy recollections and/or embellishmentalizings, certainly in the annals of publishing history some great books have been overlooked. maybe timing has something to do with it: publishers only have so many slots to fill for their money, and i'm sure that when you're in competition with other houses, and the fact that it's a business which runs on schedules much the same as the next place, you're better off being lucky sometimes than talented.

[Crusader]

... It's not about writing prose that would make Shakespeare cry with jealousy -- most readers probably won't care about that, or even notice.

When training in the martial arts, a student is ill-advised to punch at a target. He or she would do best to punch through the target, to attain optimum impact force and reach peak conditioning.

Likewise... an author who aspires to write well, would be wise to aim beyond the work of other writers, as the very effort of chasing a high standard is excellent exercise toward better writing.

Or, in fortune cookie-speak: "The point of striving for perfection is not the perfection... it's the striving."

[mr mistook]

This is an enlightening thread.

Am I really to beleive that every manuscript on the slush pile is read? Come on! How many of those go straight into the circular file without so much as a glance. Seriously.

There's got to be a "pay your dues" mentality built into the system. It's true for every other industry. If they've never heard of you, it doesn't matter how good the MS is. You won't get read until you've begged so hard every agent on the coast is sick of seeing your name in their mailbox.

Isn't that how it works?

Isn't that why the bottom rung of published material is always crap? Because the most tenacious authors are not necessarily the best writers?

[Zane Curtis]

Likewise... an author who aspires to write well, would be wise to aim beyond the work of other writers, as the very effort of chasing a high standard is excellent exercise toward better writing.

Or, in fortune cookie-speak: "The point of striving for perfection is not the perfection... it's the striving."

Yes, true enough. But I guess what I'm asking is, what exactly are you striving for? Because doesn't something like The DaVinci Code or Harry Potter represent the perfect dream run for a book? An author thought it was a pretty good idea and wrote it. A publisher thought it was a pretty good manuscript and bought it. The reading public thought it was a pretty good book and turned it into a best seller.

There must be something about the uber-best-seller that captures people's imaginations and shifts units. Isn't that something worth studying and striving for?

[Crusader]

But I guess what I'm asking is, what exactly are you striving for?

i suppose writers could be broadly thrown into a few camps based on what their stated goals were; we'd have writers seeking profit... or fame... or critical acclaim... or a 'legacy'... and then writers seeking all four at once, or else some combination of the above.

However, i note that answering your question leads right back to the premise of striving for perfection, since that kind of effort suits itself to achieving ALL of the "writerly desires" without having to stress about or focus on any individual one.

Basically, if a writer dedicates themselves to their craft, pays attention to the audience, is willing to learn from what has and hasn't worked before, and [fill-in-the-blank with your example of "striving"], then i daresay the rest will take care of itself.

(Or: remember the order of operations in math? 'Powers and parentheses first', etc.? Just equate "becoming a good writer" and "writing a good novel" as the first order of operations.)


There must be something about the uber-best-seller that captures people's imaginations and shifts units. Isn't that something worth studying and striving for?

Capturing imaginations? Certainly. Moving units? Errm... "moving units" is the worry of accountants and executives, who are primarily interested in making a profit from filling the need for a commodity... not necessarily creating something beautiful or enduring. Yes, the two angles can clearly coincide, but they are not identical.

Besides, the very fact that something can sell is not an automatic gold stamp on its worth; people have been known to buy things of questionable value in bulk quantities (beanie babies, anyone?).

At any rate, your questions are ironic, since i was wrestling with them earlier in my last post on the "Learn Writing With Uncle Jim" thread. My basic guess, is that a novel should strive to meet certain "universal standards" that are determined by how well it sincerely appeals to the common denominators among a readership.

So, if it meets the standards, then an overwhelming majority of people will genuinely love it; and obviously if they love it, it will sell (as opposed to "it's selling, so they love it", which may or may not actually be true). i'm still fumbling around trying to pin down what those denominators might be, though...

[vstrauss]

>>Am I really to beleive that every manuscript on the slush pile is read?<<

Most slush is bad enough that you only have to read a few paragraphs.

>>There's got to be a "pay your dues" mentality built into the system.<<

Not really, since there's no way an agent or editor can tell whether this is your first submission or your 500th.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

Victoria brought up a good point: NEVER tell the agent or publisher that it is your very first book, even if it's true. In my query, I only say it's one of my novels and I'm working on my "next." I don't make it obvious that it is actually my first novel, ever.

BTW, I think there is a rainbow spectrum of writing and markets and qualities. Obviously you can't compare an off-the-rack romance novel with Toni Morrison's prize-winning masterpiece. And obviously Toni Morrison, as great as she is, doesn't sell books like J K Rowling. But there's a market for everything, and as long as the book meets the market expectations (yes, and that means it must meet a certain level of craft mastery -- be it the "genre" standards or Pulitzer standards). So, if you've written a good book, by all means find the right market for it. It's either Walmart, Saks, or somewhere in between. But find the match and your road to success would be so much more direct.

[allion]

Maestro, you hit the nail on the head with your last remark.

There is a great deal of work besides writing that we have to do to get a work published. For instance, research which agents handle the type of writing you do. In my case, I write fantasy, which not every agent will handle. I have to make sure I target agents who have the connections and know the expectations for this sort of writing. Otherwise, it would be a direct trip to the circular file, and that is just a waste of paper, ink, and everybody's time.

Somehow, though, all this gives me hope. Not sure it should, but it gives me some control over what seems to be a lot of the time a capricious business.

And yet, there is nothing I would rather do.

[katdad]

Why is so much crap published?
Fulton's First Law: "People are stupid."

[mistri]

Am I really to beleive that every manuscript on the slush pile is read? Come on! How many of those go straight into the circular file without so much as a glance. Seriously.

I would have thought that most of the time all slush gets at the very least a quick glance. Some times it is possible to tell within a paragraph that a story just isn't right.

When I read slush I was eager to find the next big thing, so I read everything I could, not wanting to miss out on a publishable book. Most of what I read were partial manuscripts (three chapters and a synopsis). Depending on how the plot grabbed me and the quality of writing I would read the whole thing, or as much as I needed to reject it.

And it's true that successful books have often been rejected by several publishers, but sometimes this is down to the book not being right for a particular publishing house rather than just a difference in opinion (of course differences in opinion happen too).

As someone else has said I think that (sometimes, some) writers are just too close to well, writing, to judge what is on the shelves. Story is frequently more important than writing quality when it comes to the bestseller lists, but writers in particular often fail to see that (me included sometimes).

[Zane Curtis]

Fulton's First Law: "People are stupid."

Am I really to beleive that every manuscript on the slush pile is read? Come on! How many of those go straight into the circular file without so much as a glance. Seriously.

_________

No offense, guys, but if I had to live with that level of cynicism I don't think I'd ever write anything.

In a perverse sort of way, I find it encouraging that so much of the slush pile is so bad. It makes my writerly ambitions seem much less Herculian. All I have to do is learn how to judge my writing more objectively, and put in that bit of extra effort to make it stand out from the rest of the slush.

[Crusader]

With thanks to detante...Site link removed per request of other site's Webmaster

[Zane Curtis]

So, if it meets the standards, then an overwhelming majority of people will genuinely love it; and obviously if they love it, it will sell (as opposed to "it's selling, so they love it", which may or may not actually be true). i'm still fumbling around trying to pin down what those denominators might be, though...

Yes, I did see your post over in the Learn Writing... thread. It's an interesting idea, and it might work. Unfortunately, I suspect some of those common denominators are things I won't necessarily want to do. For example, confirming popular prejudices seems to be one method of writing a best-seller (it's a strong feature of many persistent urban legends). But, you know, I think I would rather maintain at least a modicum of respect for my audience -- and for myself, if it comes to that.

I see my task somewhat differently. For me, writing is about achieving the perfect balance between popular appeal and art. Popular appeal gets you through the door -- it's what sells books. But art gives a book depth -- it's what makes a book worth rereading, extending its life beyond that initial burst of popularity. Tolkien is a good example here. Literary types hate The Lord of the Rings, but it endures because Tolkien spent so much effort creating the languages and the mythology of his Middle Earth. People keep voting LOTR as their favourite book, because it has a depth that no other book has. That's how I see it.

Of course, the art side of it doesn't have to be frivolous, as in Tolkien. It can include all sorts of literary ideas, like subtext, allusion, metaphor, rhythm, imagery, and so on. But I think literary writers err when they focus on the art to the exclusion of everything else. I feel that writing actually has to connect with other, real-life people, otherwise, what's the point of it? The balance is the thing.

[preyer]

also, slush piles consist of mss. that are all of three chapters and an outline, assuming the author is pretty damn clueless and sends the whole thing in to a publisher. it's my understanding that every large publishing house now requires submissions to come through agents, in effect using agents as a front-line quality control to reduce their slush piles. so, if you're submitting to random house, your book is theoretically better than most already as evidenced by your reputable agent's submission of it. right?

even so, knowing that it's those first three chapters that sells a book to an editor, to skimp on that doesn't speak well of the rest of the book. hypothetically, if a slush pile is greatly reduced and better quality work is coming through their doors via agents who believe in the book, more attention can be paid to those three chapters. that doesn't mean there's still not an overwhelming amount of mss. to read. too, i imagine that an editor takes the approach with unknown authors that the ms will be rejected, so maybe some are looking for more reasons to boot it than accept it?

[Crusader]

@Zane Curtis:

Invoking the sacred term "balance" will always win my attention. So i find the broad strokes of what you said, to be very reasonable.

[arkady]

I've seen this question come up with clockwork predictability on other writers' boards, too. Writers jeer that "Publishers and agents must be jerks to handle garbage like this and still turn down my novel." Those in the industry fire back with "Publishers and agents always know what they're doing, and writers are blind egotists who don't realize just how bad they really are. If your novel was any good, we'd have snapped it up it long ago, so it must be lousy."

Meanwhile, the more philosophically-minded will gnaw endlessly on the definition of "crap." Eventually, the thread fizzles out with absolutely nothing having been settled to either side's satisfaction.

That's why the question keeps coming up.

[James D Macdonald]

1) Write the very best you can.

2) Send it out to real markets until you run out of real markets.

3) Meanwhile, write something else, even better.

Repeat as necessary.

[Kate Nepveu]

I encourage mr. mistook to read Slushkiller (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html), particularly the list a few screens in about reasons for rejecting books out of the slush.

And yes, they get read, and bought--and then purchased by my household, even (booklog post by my spouse on _Bad Magic_ (http://www.steelypips.org/library/2004_11_01_libarchive.php#110185798189797937), which I haven't had time to read yet even though I'm looking forward to it a lot).

[James D Macdonald]

At any rate, your questions are ironic, since i was wrestling with them earlier in my last post on the "Learn Writing With Uncle Jim" thread. My basic guess, is that a novel should strive to meet certain "universal standards" that are determined by how well it sincerely appeals to the common denominators among a readership.

The basic thing to remember is: We're part of the entertainment industry. If you do nothing else, be entertaining.

[Zane Curtis]

The basic thing to remember is: We're part of the entertainment industry. If you do nothing else, be entertaining.

Hmm. You know, if I was in America, it probably would be as simple as that. :eek

[Crusader]

The basic thing to remember is: We're part of the entertainment industry. If you do nothing else, be entertaining.

Indeed. [writes that down as a common denominator]

* * *

[a few minutes later] Ok, here is what i have so far, in no particular order.


Universal Standards of a Damn Good Book:

It is entertaining.
The work invokes drama when drama is wanted, stirs comedy when comedy is wanted, etc. It stimulates the reader's curiosity and broadens the reader's mind without lecturing. It has good timing and pace and is a genuine page-turner.

It speaks to the common man, using common language.
The vocabulary doesn't require chaining oneself to a dictionary; the style is clear; the message gets across; the message appeals to the broad strokes of human nature.

It is sincere.
The work doesn't pander to reader's prejudices or beliefs, or try to manipulate readers just to keep them turning the pages, or abuse the reader's faith that their time will not be wasted.

It feels whole, and polished.
The plot still makes sense after multiple rereadings. The characters are self-consistent and vivid. The setting allows the reader to suspend disbelief because it makes sense when disbelief is suspended.

* * *

Hmm. i'm stuck on this one:

It can be part of any school's curriculum.
Children everywhere can have access to it, allowing them to grow up reading it; parents are enthusiastic about letting their children read it; grandparents read it to their grandchildren.

For adults-only books, like erotica or certain kinds of horror, this obviously couldn't apply...

[STORMTURNER]

I bought Grisham's latest, "The Last Juror" and it's getting off to a slow start. I'm on page 71 and am finding it's not the quick pageturner some of his others are.

Do you find it that seasoned writers get too comfortable after they've published numerous Sellers Lists and lose their edge?

[Stlight]

I'd like to add to Crusader's note

It feels whole, and polished.
The plot still makes sense after multiple rereadings. The characters are self-consistent and vivid. The setting allows the reader to suspend disbelief because it makes sense when disbelief is suspended.


The plot makes sense the first time the book is read. The sentences make sense without having to read them more than once.

Stlight

[Crusader]

[slaps forehead] Thank you, Stlight, for catching that.

Let's see... i took the liberty of mixing one of your suggestions into the section about speaking to the common man... man?.. argh, that's outdated, isn't it. [slaps forehead again]


Universal Standards of a Damn Good Book (revised):

It is entertaining.
The work invokes drama when drama is wanted, stirs comedy when comedy is wanted, etc. It stimulates the reader's curiosity and broadens the reader's mind without lecturing. It has good timing and pace and is a genuine page-turner.

It speaks to the common person, using common language.
The vocabulary doesn't require chaining oneself to a dictionary. The style is clear; the sentences make sense without having to read them more than once, and they get the message across. The message appeals to the broad strokes of human nature.

It is sincere.
The work doesn't pander to the reader's prejudices or beliefs, or try manipulation just to keep them turning the pages, or abuse their faith that their time will not be wasted.

It feels whole, and polished.
The plot makes sense the first time the book is read, and still makes sense after rereadings. The characters are self-consistent, vivid, and memorable. The setting allows the reader to suspend disbelief because it makes sense when disbelief is suspended.


Anybody else want to add to--or even tear apart--this WIP? =)

[maestrowork]

The $20 million question for writers is, of course: How do we make our characters vivid, our drama riveting, and our story entertaining?

Ponder that.

[mr mistook]

The $20 million question for writers is, of course: How do we make our characters vivid, our drama riveting, and our story entertaining?


I think the answer to all three questions has it's root in sincerity. You have to 'need' to tell the story - it has to mean something to you personally, and no matter what genre, you have to appeal to the reader's humanity with your own humanity.

You make a story work by caring about it, and all it's characters. You appeal to the reader's hunger for meaning and fullfilment by satiating your own, by whatever means, in a way that squares with reality.

[maestrowork]

They're all good in concept. But the craft of storytelling involves more than that. It involves organization of thoughts, clarity, styles (a nice style makes for an enjoyable read), presentation, suspense, etc. Good intentions can go to waste if one can't mastered the art of storytelling. I suppose that's why we are here to learn, and continue to learn in our writing careers.

[Jules Hall]

I bought Grisham's latest, "The Last Juror" and it's getting off to a slow start. I'm on page 71 and am finding it's not the quick pageturner some of his others are.

Really? I loved it. OK, so you could burn through the same plot in a book a quarter the length and still have it understandable and believable, but the characters are great, and the style is just about perfect. It's the first serious book I've laughed at in a long time.

[Zane Curtis]

The $20 million question for writers is, of course: How do we make our characters vivid, our drama riveting, and our story entertaining?

You know, you can talk about grammar, style, plot, mood, dramatic tension, methods of characterization, and the rest, but it's still possible to write a bad novel even if you get all of those mechanical aspects of it right. There's something about the way you put all of these elements together. It's not easy to describe, but if you write enough and read enough you can recognize when it happens.

When it's good, everything just sits together nicely -- all of the various elements join into a seamless whole, almost like it's been grown from seed rather than constructed from bits and pieces. When it's bad, you can see the joins.

[Vomaxx]

It's still possible to write a bad novel even if you get all the mechanical aspects...right.


Quite true! Alexander Pope noticed that too:

Survey the WHOLE, nor seek slight faults to find,
Where nature moves, and rapture warms the mind;
.....
But in such lays, as neither ebb, nor flow,
Correctly cold, and regularly low,
That shunning faults, one quiet tenor keep;
We cannot blame indeed--but we may sleep.

[Essay on Criticism]

[mr mistook]

You know, you can talk about grammar, style, plot, mood, dramatic tension, methods of characterization, and the rest, but it's still possible to write a bad novel even if you get all of those mechanical aspects of it right.


Compare it to a painting. You have shape, color, composition, line, balance, movement, and all sorts of fun talking points for criticizm and analysis. Any boring still-life of a fruit-bowl can master all these criteria, but it's still just a stupid bowl of meaningless fruit.


Good intentions can go to waste if one can't mastered the art of storytelling.

All the mastery in the world is worth nothing if the only thing you have to offer is another stark renduring of bannana's and oranges in a wooden bowl. Who cares?

Any art critic who matters asks one essential question - "Did the artist reveal him/herself to me? Do I know them?"

Don't make it your goal to satisfy a laundry list of clinical prescriptions. Don't recreate an experiment or follow the cryptic dictates of a magical spell. Don't turn your novel into the predictable science fair project of a baking soda volcano!

Understand the guidelines, but put yourself into it. Write a story that means something to you. Invest your emotions and your intellect. Give it a peice of your soul. That's the only way to truly connect with the reader.